Global Cooling getting worse - IPCC is also on the run over it

[SUBMAN1]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate alarmism


THE IPCC: ON THE RUN AT LAST

By OnTheWeb: Bob Carter Tuesday, March 25, 2008

UN climate body in panic mode as satellite temperatures turn down and a hard winter lashes both hemispheres
A soprano thrillingly hits her top-A, sighs with relief at achieving the desired effect, and moves on. But not the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) whose climate alarmism started to crescendo in 2001 in the Third Assessment Report (3AR) with the statement that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely (>66% probable) to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”.

Recently, in their Fourth Assessment Report (4AR), and faced with their failure to convince the public that the sky is falling, the IPCC delivers even more preposterous advice in ever shriller tones, saying that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90% probable) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”. The wobble around top-A is clearly discernible.

The press, most of whom have firmly identified with the alarmist cause, continues to appease the Green gods by faithfully running IPCC’s now unrealistic scientific propaganda, thereby stoking public alarm; the science is a done deal, they say, and the time has come to stop talking. According to UK journalist, Geoffrey Lean, all that is lacking to solve the global warming “crisis” is political will from governments.

Well, thank the Lord for that lack. For the IPCC’s 2007 final Summary for Policymakers shows that the climate alarmists are at last on the run. Their evidence for dangerous, human-caused global warming, always slim, now lies exposed in tatters for all to see.
In contrast, the alternative, persuasive and non-alarmist view of climate change is well summarized in two recently issued and readily available documents. The first is a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations, which was released at the UN’s Bali conference last December, supported by the signatures of 103 eminent professional persons. The second is the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, the release of which coincided with the launch of the International Climate Science Coalition at a major climate rationalist conference in New York in early March.

The evidence for dangerous global warming adduced by the IPCC has never been strong on empirical science. Endless circumstantial scare campaigns have been run about melting glaciers, more droughts and storms and floods, sea-level rise and polar bears, but all founder on one inescapable problem – as does Mr. Al Gore’s over-hyped science fiction film. And that is that we live on a naturally variable planet. Change is what planet Earth does on all scales, and so far not one of the alleged effects of human-caused global warming has been shown to lie outside normal planetary variation. Sea-level rising? Sure, it happens. And the appropriate response is adaptation, as the Dutch have known for centuries.

Stuck with the absence of empirical evidence for dangerous warming or abnormal change, in 2001 the IPCC turned to graphmanship, giving prominence in its 3AR to the so-called “hockey-stick” record of temperature over the last 1000 years. The hockey-stick graphic, which appeared to show dramatic increases of temperature during the 20th century compared with earlier times, has now been exposed as statistical chicanery and, thankfully, is nowhere to be seen in the 4AR.

No hockey-stick and no empirical evidence, what is a man to do? Well, obviously, turn to virtual reality rather than real reality: PlayStation 4 here we come.

The IPCC’s expensive and complex computer models can be programmed to produce any desired result, and it is therefore not surprising that they uniformly predict warming since 1990. Meanwhile, the real-world global average temperature has stubbornly refused to obey this stricture. It exhibits no significant increase since 1998, and the preliminary 2007 year-end temperature confirms the continuation of a temperature plateau since 1998 to which is now appended a cooling trend over the last 3 years.
Is global cooling next?

“Best fit” of yearly average temperature

Lower atmosphere global temperature differences (0C) from 1979 – 1998 average
http://canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/0325bob-carter.jpeg

“Global warming theory indicates that temperature rise due to increasing carbon dioxide emissions should be most prominent at heights of 5-10 km in the lower atmosphere; instead, more warming is occurring at the surface. For the lower atmosphere, the satellite data indicate that, since the 1998 El Nino when temperatures spiked 10C due to a rise in water vapour emissions (the principal “greenhouse gas”), global temperatures dropped sharply, then stabilized and now show signs of continuing down - is global cooling next? (data courtesy of Professors John Christy and Roy Spencer, University of Alabama, Huntsville; a best-fitted spline curve represents longer term temperature trends).”
That there is a mismatch between model prediction and 2007 climate reality is again unsurprising. For as IPCC senior scientist Kevin Trenberth noted recently: “. . . there are no (climate) predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been”; instead there are only “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. Trenberth continues, “None of the models used by IPCC is initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate”.

Knowing that their models are non-predictive and that despite their exhortations world temperature isn’t currently increasing, the IPCC has the effrontery to argue in 4AR that a decline in the sun’s activity and increased eruptions from volcanoes would “likely have produced cooling” of the planet were it not for offsetting human-caused warming. And this when there have been no recent volcanic eruptions of global import, and after 15 years during which the warming alarmists have consistently denied that solar activity is a significant cause of recent climate change. The self-serving nature of these arguments is breathtaking, and transparently the alarmists are now positioning themselves to explain away any continuation of the downturn in temperature that is now underway short-term.

Such stunts deny scientific method, because they fly in the face of Occam’s Razor, or the principle of parsimony. Of course volcanic dust or other aerosols might have affected the global temperature over the last few years. But only persons who are searching desperately to save a favourite hypothesis make such assertions in the absence of reliable evidence.

To avoid acknowledging the recent flat-lining of global temperature, IPCC alarmists have another favourite pea and thimble - or is it elephant and circus tent – trick, which is to assert some variation on the statement that “eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record”. Given the cyclicity of the climate record, and that the planet is probably now poised near the peak of an ascending temperature cycle, this statement is no more useful than observing that over an annual cycle the hottest days each year cluster around midsummer’s day.

Having failed to convince the world that human-caused warming of the atmosphere is dangerous, IPCC has been casting around for new causes to espouse. A Royal Society of London report in 2005 on “Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide” has proved to be good feedstock, because of its claim that the average pH of the oceans will fall by 0.5 units by 2100 if global emissions keep rising at their current rate. That this estimate is known to be exaggerated by a factor of about 3 has not prevented the IPCC and others from recently publicizing the ocean acidification legend. Clearly, they now seek to move the epicentre of the climate scare from the atmosphere, which stubbornly refuses to warm, to the ocean, whose depths doubtless still contain many scientific surprises.

The roughly 50 computer experts and scientists who form the core advisory group for the IPCC’s stance must have realized for several years now that the game was up. There is indeed copious evidence that climate is changing, as it always has; and that natural biological and physico-chemical systems - again as always - are changing in response. But as to human causation – the evidential cupboard is bare.
For the last three years, satellite-measured average global temperature has been declining. Given the occurrence also of record low winter temperatures and massive snowfalls across both hemispheres this year, IPCC members have now entered panic mode, the whites of their eyes being clearly visible as they seek to defend their now unsustainable hypothesis of dangerous, human-caused global warming.
To try to top “The Ring of the Niebelung”, composers after Wagner abandoned classical key structures and turned to the apparent aural chaos of atonalism. Similarly, to pursue the higher cause of saving the planet, the IPCC has now largely abandoned classical (empirical) science and adopted the sophistry of deterministic computer modelling. The result is neither melodious nor meaningful, let alone useful for sensible environmental planning. The time has surely arrived for the New Zealand government to commission an independent reassessment of the UN’s hysterical global warming scare.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Dr. Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia, who studies ancient environments and climate, and whose website is at http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm (http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eglrmc/new_page_1.htm)


http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2352 (http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eglrmc/new_page_1.htm)

(http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eglrmc/new_page_1.htm)

[STEED]

I believe we have now hit the 12 year sun cycle and things are cooling down a little until the next 12 year high. Global warming is total BS and just another BS excuse to tax us more, it's all BS.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A OUTRIGHT LIE.

[SUBMAN1]

I believe we have now hit the 12 year sun cycle and things are cooling down a little until the next 12 year high. Global warming is total BS and just another BS excuse to tax us more, it's all BS.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A OUTRIGHT LIE.Add no more sun spots - try Ice Age is coming.

[STEED]

I believe we have now hit the 12 year sun cycle and things are cooling down a little until the next 12 year high. Global warming is total BS and just another BS excuse to tax us more, it's all BS.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A OUTRIGHT LIE.Add no more sun spots - try Ice Age is coming.

I believe we are still in one and slowly coming out of it, 10,000 years ago there was no North Pole full of ice.

[sonar732]

IIRC, a while back we talked about how the earth goes in temperature cycles. Looks like the data supports it.

[Q3ark]

Global warming is all hystarical bs. When people finaly wake up and see the truth heads will roll :rotfl: .

I heard a theory that Margo Thatcher commisioned i.e. threw a lot of money at bunch of (i use the tearm loosely) "scientists" to examine a link between global warming and CO2 because she wanted a way to make nuclear power seem more attractive and less scary to the voting public. The aim was to meke us less dependant on the middle east for oil. Isn't that what Tony Blair was up to just before he threw in the towel:hmm: ?

[bradclark1]

Oh wait!
Let me go get my charts and graphs.:roll:

[Tchocky]

Gotta love that balanced, journalistic tone. The copious referencing and fact-checking inspires belief.

EDIT - This Dr. Bob Carter chap interests me. At first glance, this piece reads like Noel SHeppard's usual line of gloopy misinformatio. But this guy's a Doctor! Let's find out what we can.

He's a marine geologist. The perfect discpline for a discussion on climate change, I think. He's a member of the Public Affairs Institute, an Australian think tank.
They must be an independent, unbiased group to publish articles of this quality, right? Well....
The IPA has heavily relied on funding from a small number of conservative corporations. Those funders disclosed by the IPA to journalists and media organisations include:
Major mining companies - BHP-Billiton (http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=BHP-Billiton&action=edit) and Western Mining Corporation (http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Mining_Corporation);
Pesticides/Genetically modified organisms: Monsanto (http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto); and
A range of other companies including communications company Telstra, Clough Engineering, Visy (http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Visy&action=edit), and News Limited (http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=News_Limited);
Tobacco companies - Philip Morris (http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_Morris) (Nahan) and British American Tobacco (http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=British_American_Tobacco) [6] (http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2003/08/11/1060588322537.htm)
Oil and gas companies: Caltex, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of Exxon) and Shell [www.ips.org] and Woodside Petroleum; and fifteen major companies in the electricity industry; (Nahan 2)Well, that's OK. I'm sure that the fossil fuel guys are giving them money out of the goodness of their hearts. I mean. They've got nothing to gain from reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, nothing at all. God bless our heroic oil companies.

One author of the critique was the retired James Cook University professor Bob Carter. Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector. I love the internet, so very much. my language might be as bad as Carter's, but here are my sources.

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/minchin-denies-climate-change-manmade/2007/03/14/1173722560417.html

[SUBMAN1]

Gotta love that balanced, journalistic tone. The copious referencing and fact-checking inspires belief.I guess you are entitled to your wrong opinion. :D

-S

[Tchocky]

So is Carter, post edited.

[SUBMAN1]

Tchocky - I love your sources - they are so respectable with statements like this:

Of Senator Minchin's letter, he said: "I am worried that a federal minister would believe this crap."

And the other is an editable wiki page! Nice! :D

-S

[Tchocky]

Tchocky - I love your sources - they are so respectable with statements like this:

Of Senator Minchin's letter, he said: "I am worried that a federal minister would believe this crap."
It's a newspaper. Quoting somebody...

And the other is an editable wiki page! Nice! :D
Yup, SourceWatch is great.

[SUBMAN1]

It's a newspaper. Quoting somebody...Whatever. Not a respectable one, that is for sure.

Yup, SourceWatch is great.Considering that a wiki page is not even allowed on a college campus due to anyone being able to write anything they want, I give its credibility about 1% to 10% on 100. Not worth more than a glance.

And lets see here - you are arguing against a scientist in the field, with evidence from a non scientist flim-flam man Al Gore? Give me a break! :down: Pretty sad. It shows where you put your credibility.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Also interesting:

http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eglrmc/2008%2003-18%20RMC%20Aus%20letter%20on%20Blair.jpg

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/on_the_contrary_mr_blair_climate_science_is_not_se ttled/

Let me see if I can find this Senators website.

-S

[bradclark1]

I'll wait till the acid test happens. Thats when FOX news says there is no global warming because if it happens they'll toot a big horn and hopefully have the data to back it up.

The first paragraph of the introduction of 4th report for 07

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is
now evident from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting
of snow and ice and rising global average sea level

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

[bradclark1]

And lets see here - you are arguing against a scientist in the field, with evidence from a non scientist flim-flam man Al Gore? Give me a break! :down: Pretty sad. It shows where you put your credibility.

-S
Oh look! SUBMAN1 is taking lessons from Sea Demon! How inspiring is that? Is that information Tchocky put on that scientist wrong or you just don't like what it says?

[Tchocky]

It's a newspaper. Quoting somebody...Whatever. Not a respectable one, that is for sure. What's your basis for this? Sounds to me like you're rubbishing the newspaper because it disagress with something you've posted. I hope this isn't the case. If you've got information, or are a long-standing reader of the Sydney Morning Herald, please enlighten me.
Or maybe you're very interested in domestic Australian politics, and this article is totally misrepresenting what actually happened. Again, please tell.

Yup, SourceWatch is great.Considering that a wiki page is not even allowed on a college campus due to anyone being able to write anything they want, I give its credibility about 1% to 10% on 100. Not worth more than a glance.
if you don't believe what's up there, fair enough. Then follow the references quoted on the page. Or use the "whatever" treatment.
And lets see here - you are arguing against a scientist in the field, with evidence from a non scientist flim-flam man Al Gore? What are you talking about? I never mentioned Al Gore or his film. The only mention of Al Gore in this thread came from Carter's article, which you posted. Where are you getting this from?

Carter is not a scientist in the field, I addressed this in my first post. He is a marine geologist.
Give me a break! :down: Pretty sad. It shows where you put your credibility. It doesn't show anything, because I didn't say that. You are inventing things I've said, then responding to them. Will you be alright in this thread from now on? - because it looks like my involvement is entirely tertiary.

Would you not agree that a scientist writing about climate change is normal, whereas a scientist writing about climate change, funded by the fossil fuel industry muddies the waters?

[SUBMAN1]

I like this guy. He calls it like it is.

-S

Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge To

Journalists Who Cover Global Warming


I am going to speak today about the most media-hyped environmental issue of all time, global warming. I have spoken more about global warming than any other politician in Washington today. My speech will be a bit different from the previous seven floor speeches, as I focus not only on the science, but on the media's coverage of climate change.



Global Warming -- just that term evokes many members in this chamber, the media, Hollywood elites and our pop culture to nod their heads and fret about an impending climate disaster. As the senator who has spent more time educating about the actual facts about global warming, I want to address some of the recent media coverage of global warming and Hollywood's involvement in the issue. And of course I will also discuss former Vice President Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth."
Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media pedaled a coming ice age.



From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.



Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try to convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation. Just last week, the vice president of London's Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism. During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry, which link every possible weather event to global warming. The year 2006 saw many major organs of the media dismiss any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely into global warming advocacy.



SUMMARY OF LATEST DEVELOPMENTS OF MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING HOCKEY STICK

First, I would like to summarize some of the recent developments in the controversy over whether or not humans have created a climate catastrophe. One of the key aspects that the United Nations, environmental groups and the media have promoted as the "smoking gun" of proof of catastrophic global warming is the so-called 'hockey stick' temperature graph by climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues.
This graph purported to show that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century presumably due to human activity. Mann, who also co-publishes a global warming propaganda blog reportedly set up with the help of an environmental group, had his "Hockey Stick" come under severe scrutiny.


The "hockey stick" was completely and thoroughly broken once and for all in 2006. Several years ago, two Canadian researchers tore apart the statistical foundation for the hockey stick. In 2006, both the National Academy of Sciences and an independent researcher further refuted the foundation of the "hockey stick." http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697


The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.


Climate alarmists have been attempting to erase the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period from the Earth's climate history for at least a decade. David Deming, an assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma's College of Geosciences, can testify first hand about this effort.


Dr. Deming was welcomed into the close-knit group of global warming believers after he published a paper in 1995 that noted some warming in the 20th century. Deming says he was subsequently contacted by a prominent global warming alarmist and told point blank "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." When the "Hockey Stick" first appeared in 1998, it did just that.


END OF LITTLE ICE AGE MEANS WARMING


The media have missed the big pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the Earth's temperatures and mankind's carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend.

Second, what the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.


In addition, something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age. Let me repeat, temperatures got colder after C02 emissions exploded. If C02 is the driving force of global climate change, why do so many in the media ignore the many skeptical scientists who cite these rather obvious inconvenient truths?


SIXTY SCIENTISTS


My skeptical views on man-made catastrophic global warming have only strengthened as new science comes in. There have been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing and a new study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun was responsible for 50% of 20th century warming. Recently, many scientists, including a leading member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun's output.

A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6 of this year by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming.

The 60 scientists wrote: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

The letter also noted:
"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"

COMPUTER MODELS THREATEN EARTH
One of the ways alarmists have pounded this mantra of "consensus" on global warming into our pop culture is through the use of computer models which project future calamity. But the science is simply not there to place so much faith in scary computer model scenarios which extrapolate the current and projected buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and conclude that the planet faces certain doom.


Dr. Vincent Gray, a research scientist and a 2001 reviewer with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has noted, "The effects of aerosols, and their uncertainties, are such as to nullify completely the reliability of any of the climate models."

Earlier this year, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than "science fiction."

In fact, after years of hearing about the computer generated scary scenarios about the future of our planet, I now believe that the greatest climate threat we face may be coming from alarmist computer models.

This threat is originating from the software installed on the hard drives of the publicity seeking climate modelers.

It is long past the time for us to separate climate change fact from hysteria.


KYOTO: ECONOMIC PAIN FOR NO CLIMATE GAIN
One final point on the science of climate change: I am approached by many in the media and others who ask, "What if you are wrong to doubt the dire global warming predictions? Will you be able to live with yourself for opposing the Kyoto Protocol?" My answer is blunt. The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future.

The more the eco-doomsayers' predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict. These failed predictions are just one reason I respect the serious scientists out there today debunking the latest scaremongering on climate change. Scientists like MIT's Richard Lindzen, former Colorado State climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr., the University of Alabama's Roy Spencer and John Christy, Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels, Colorado State University's William Gray, atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Oregon State climatologist George Taylor and astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, to name a few.
But more importantly, it is the global warming alarmists who should be asked the question -- "What if they are correct about man-made catastrophic global warming?" -- because they have come up with no meaningful solution to their supposed climate crisis in the two decades that they have been hyping this issue.


If the alarmists truly believe that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are dooming the planet, then they must face up to the fact that symbolism does not solve a supposed climate crisis.

The alarmists freely concede that the Kyoto Protocol, even if fully ratified and complied with, would not have any meaningful impact on global temperatures. And keep in mind that Kyoto is not even close to being complied with by many of the nations that ratified it, including 13 of the EU-15 nations that are not going to meet their emission reduction promises.

Many of the nations that ratified Kyoto are now realizing what I have been saying all along:

The Kyoto Protocol is a lot of economic pain for no climate gain.

Legislation that has been proposed in this chamber would have even less of a temperature effect than Kyoto's undetectable impact. And more recently, global warming alarmists and the media have been praising California for taking action to limit C02. But here again: This costly feel-good California measure, which is actually far less severe than Kyoto, will have no impact on the climate -- only the economy. Symbolism does not solve a climate crisis.

In addition, we now have many environmentalists and Hollywood celebrities, like Laurie David, who have been advocating measures like changing standard light bulbs in your home to fluorescents to help avert global warming. Changing to more energy-efficient light bulbs is a fine thing to do, but to somehow imply we can avert a climate disaster by these actions is absurd.


Once again, symbolism does not solve a climate crisis.


But this symbolism may be hiding a dark side. While greenhouse gas limiting proposals may cost the industrialized West trillions of dollars, it is the effect on the developing world's poor that is being lost in this debate.


The Kyoto Protocol's post 2012 agenda which mandates that the developing world be subjected to restrictions on greenhouse gases could have the potential to severely restrict development in regions of the world like Africa, Asia and South America -- where some of the Earth's most energy-deprived people currently reside.


Expanding basic necessities like running water and electricity in the developing world are seen by many in the green movement as a threat to the planet's health that must be avoided.


Energy poverty equals a life of back-breaking poverty and premature death.


If we allow scientifically unfounded fears of global warming to influence policy makers to restrict future energy production and the creation of basic infrastructure in the developing world -- billions of people will continue to suffer. Last week my committee heard testimony from Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, who was once a committed left-wing environmentalist until he realized that so much of what that movement preached was based on bad science. Lomborg wrote a book called "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and has organized some of the world's top Nobel Laureates to form the 2004 "Copenhagen Consensus" which ranked the world's most pressing problems. http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=158 And guess what? They placed global warming at the bottom of the list in terms of our planet's priorities. The "Copenhagen Consensus" found that the most important priorities of our planet included: combating disease, stopping malaria, securing clean water, and building infrastructure to help lift the developing nations out of poverty. I have made many trips to Africa, and once you see the devastating poverty that has a grip on that continent, you quickly realize that fears about global warming are severely misguided.

I firmly believe that when the history of our era is written, future generations will look back with puzzlement and wonder why we spent so much time and effort on global warming fears and pointless solutions like the Kyoto Protocol.

French President Jacques Chirac provided the key clue as to why so many in the international community still revere the Kyoto Protocol, who in 2000 said Kyoto represents "the first component of an authentic global governance."


Furthermore, if your goal is to limit C02 emissions, the only effective way to go about it is the use of cleaner, more efficient technologies that will meet the energy demands of this century and beyond.


The Bush administration and my Environment and Public Works Committee have been engaged in these efforts as we work to expand nuclear power and promote the Asia-Pacific Partnership. This partnership stresses the sharing of new technology among member nations including three of the world's top 10 emitters -- China, India and North Korea -- all of whom are exempt from Kyoto.

MEDIA COVERAGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE:
Many in the media, as I noted earlier, have taken it upon themselves to drop all pretense of balance on global warming and instead become committed advocates for the issue.


Here is a quote from Newsweek magazine:


"There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth." A headline in the New York Times reads: "Climate Changes Endanger World's Food Output."

Here is a quote from Time Magazine:

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval."

All of this sounds very ominous. That is, until you realize that the three quotes I just read were from articles in 1975 editions of Newsweek Magazine and The New York Times, and Time Magazine in 1974. http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

They weren't referring to global warming; they were warning of a coming ice age. Let me repeat, all three of those quotes were published in the 1970's and warned of a coming ice age.

In addition to global cooling fears, Time Magazine has also reported on global warming. Here is an example:

"[Those] who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weathermen have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

Before you think that this is just another example of the media promoting Vice President Gore's movie, you need to know that the quote I just read you from Time Magazine was not a recent quote; it was from January 2, 1939.

Yes, in 1939. Nine years before Vice President Gore was born and over three decades before Time Magazine began hyping a coming ice age and almost five decades before they returned to hyping global warming.

Time Magazine in 1951 pointed to receding permafrost in Russia as proof that the planet was warming.

In 1952, the New York Times noted that the "trump card" of global warming "has been the melting glaciers."

BUT MEDIA COULD NOT DECIDE BETWEEN WARMING OR COOLING SCARES There are many more examples of the media and scientists flip-flopping between warming and cooling scares.

Here is a quote form the New York Times reporting on fears of an approaching ice age.

"Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again."

That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times. Let me repeat. 1895, not 1995.

A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age."

The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold."


An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here." By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming:

"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.

The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles.

An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: "Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada."

The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."

A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade."


The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable."


These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring, don't they? They sound strikingly similar to our modern media promotion of former Vice president's brand of climate alarmism.


After more than a century of alternating between global cooling and warming, one would think that this media history would serve a cautionary tale for today's voices in the media and scientific community who are promoting yet another round of eco-doom.


Much of the 100-year media history on climate change that I have documented here today can be found in a publication titled "Fire and Ice" from the Business and Media Institute. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_timeswarns.asp

MEDIA COVERAGE IN 2006 Which raises the question: Has this embarrassing 100-year documented legacy of coverage on what turned out to be trendy climate science theories made the media more skeptical of today's sensational promoters of global warming? You be the judge.


On February 19th of this year, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water.


"60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.


On March 19th of this year "60 Minutes" profiled NASA scientist and alarmist James Hansen, who was once again making allegations of being censored by the Bush administration.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml In this segment, objectivity and balance were again tossed aside in favor of a one-sided glowing profile of Hansen.


The "60 Minutes" segment made no mention of Hansen's partisan ties to former Democrat Vice President Al Gore or Hansen's receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the left-wing Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. There was also no mention of Hansen's subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for President in 2004.


Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen's huge grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation.


The foundation's money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. So it appears that the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money. "60 Minutes" also did not inform viewers that Hansen appeared to concede in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of "extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change "may have been appropriate at one time" to drive the public's attention to the issue. http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html

Why would "60 Minutes" ignore the basic tenets of journalism, which call for objectivity and balance in sourcing, and do such one-sided segments?


The answer was provided by correspondent Scott Pelley. Pelley told the CBS News website that he justified excluding scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism from his segments because he considers skeptics to be the equivalent of "Holocaust deniers."


http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry1431768.shtml


This year also saw a New York Times reporter write a children's book entitled" The North Pole Was Here." The author of the book, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin, wrote that it may someday be "easier to sail to than stand on" the North Pole in summer. So here we have a very prominent environmental reporter for the New York Times who is promoting aspects of global warming alarmism in a book aimed at children.

[SUBMAN1]

This part is funny:

...So it appears that the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money....
That sounds like some arguments above! :D

-S

PS.. For Tchocky - in case you didn't know, a marine biologist is a 'scientist'. Hahahaha! File that one away for future reference.

[Tchocky]

PS.. For Tchocky - in case you didn't know, a marine biologist is a 'scientist'. Hahahaha! File that one away for future reference.
I said he's not a scientist in the field.

[SUBMAN1]

Who has more interest in lying about global warming, the ketchup boys or the oil guys ?Doesn't matter if it is going to an independant source. I'd look at it as to who has more interest in finding the truth?

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I said he's not a scientist in the field.You can't be more wrong on that subject. That is his major interest at this point since it will kill the very subject he is studying.

-S

[Tchocky]

I said he's not a scientist in the field.You can't be more wrong on that subject. He's a retired marine geologist. That's not climatology.
That is his major interest at this point since it will kill the very subject he is studying. What?

EDIT - reading that latest article, jesus, this guy's a parody.
He goes on about the MWP, grapes growing in Greenland, and golly! No SUV's!
Claiming that the Earth was warmer then..sorry dude.
What records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century.

Mikhayl = Naturally, the fossil fuels industry has more interest in it, it devalues their brand.

[SUBMAN1]

I said he's not a scientist in the field.You can't be more wrong on that subject. He's a retired marine geologist. That's not climatology.
That is his major interest at this point since it will kill the very subject he is studying. What?Whoaaa! I thought he was a biologist. Seems he is even more qualified as a geologist! Thanks for pointing that out. So he deals with plate techtonics and volcanic activity and environmental impacts! Right on! Even asteroid impacts! That makes him 10x more qualified on the environment than the biologist!

I think you better listen now since that puts him in line to study environmental impacts directly.

-S

PS.
Mikhayl = Naturally, the fossil fuels industry has more interest in it, it devalues their brand. By the way - considering all of them have environmentally green technologies now, that is not an accurate statement.

[Tchocky]

It's difficult to take him seriously. He fills his paragraphs with various shrill cliches and rubbished claims, all while taking in money from oil & gas companies.
He's on record as saying it doesn't matter that fossil fuel companies are funding his research, I disagree, especially when his results run counter to what almost everyone else in the field is saying.

By the way - considering all of them have environmentally green technologies now, that is not an accurate statement.
Bull****.
All of them? Tell that to China. Tell me that cars, buses and trains aren't pumping out CO2. Tell me that the exhaust from a coal-fired power plant will freshen my breath and shine my car. Tell me that thousands of airliners aren't dumping CO2 and nittrous oxide into the atmosphere.
"Enviromentlaly green" != Zero-impact.

[SUBMAN1]

Whoaa once again! Are you guys advocating going back to a pre-industrial society? That is what you are saying. Re-Read your comments if you don't understand what I am saying.

-S

PS. And Thocky - all that data is from one source. That is the problem. All the data that tells us we are warming up that is.

[SUBMAN1]

Now this is funny. You open a thread about climate and wether or not there is a global warming, you being on the "rather not" side. And with this reply you're saying that without oil & coal energy, we're "going back to pre-industrial society". Are you also funded by oil companies ? :hmm:What part in Thocky's post did you miss?

Let me quote it for you:

Tell that to China. Tell me that cars, buses and trains aren't pumping out CO2. Tell me that the exhaust from a coal-fired power plant will freshen my breath and shine my car. Tell me that thousands of airliners aren't dumping CO2 and nittrous oxide into the atmosphere.
"Enviromentlaly green" != Zero-impact.

[Tchocky]

I'm not advocating anything at the moment, I'm pointing out logic gaps, incorrect conclusions, and every so often a steaming pile of oil-funded "research".

The part of my post that you're pointing Mikhayl at was intended to illustrate how very wrong your understanding of atmospheric pollution appears to be.

[mrbeast]

By the way - considering all of them have environmentally green technologies now, that is not an accurate statement.

Nope, not a hint of irony detected here.

I think Subman really thinks the oil industry is green! :o

[SUBMAN1]

I'm not advocating anything at the moment, I'm pointing out logic gaps, incorrect conclusions, and every so often a steaming pile of oil-funded "research".

The part of my post that you're pointing Mikhayl at was intended to illustrate how very wrong your understanding of atmospheric pollution appears to be.Oh, so now we are on atmospheric pollution when it is supposed to be about global cooling? No wonder I am not following you.

Global warming/cooling are not so much a function of actual human produced gases as it is ocean currents, volcanic activity, and solar activity. Just a heads up. Actual human produced pollutions accounts for probably less than 2% change vs what the environment is doing. No one has been able to prove even that much, so 2% may even be high.

Let me also remind you that during this harsh La nina, we have had some of the coldest winters on record for many areas of the globe, and this is coupled with no sun spots, which will further send us into an Ice Age - read here - http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm

Let me point out some highlights for you since none of you seem to get it:

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U3RFHO0&show_article=1) in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years (http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289), with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UO7SJ00&show_article=1), Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140), Iran, Greece (http://www.ana.gr/anaweb/user/showplain?maindoc=6157497&maindocimg=6154941&service=6), South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on....
I'm getting sick of opinions. We all have our opinions. Problem is, you are not providing enough data to support one shred of claim. This is getting boring fast.

And where are these logic gaps and incorrect conclusions you say I have coming from? Seems to me, the only one with both of those problems is you! Every time you make a new post, it is some completely different angle than what we are talking about. Then you accuse me of not keeping up? Are you for real? Sad.

How many articles do I have to post? Are we not comprehending what is happening here? Read my lips - it is getting 'colder'. Hint hint.

-S

PS. Step outside - you might notice that things are a little chilly compared to normal Seems to me, you guys must have your heads buried.

[Hylander_1314]

A good read, Glenn Beck, title of book, An Inconvenient Book. Chapter 1, Global Warming Storming and Conforming.

[Tchocky]

I'm not advocating anything at the moment, I'm pointing out logic gaps, incorrect conclusions, and every so often a steaming pile of oil-funded "research".

The part of my post that you're pointing Mikhayl at was intended to illustrate how very wrong your understanding of atmospheric pollution appears to be.Oh, so now we are on atmospheric pollution when it is supposed to be about global cooling? No wonder I am not following you. You said that oil & gas funding makes no difference, seeing as how they are "enviromentally green". This is incorrect, and I listed examples (albeit in a rather facetious manner, I believe the outrageous nature of your claim balances this out). You referenced this part of my post to Mikhayl as a call to return to pre-industrial stage. This, again, was incorrect. my intent was to to illustrate how little you seem to understand of what comes out of power stations, trains, and cars. As Mikhayl said, you are not reading. I fail to see how I could make the intent of my post clearer.

Global warming/cooling are not so much a function of actual human produced gases as it is ocean currents, volcanic activity, and solar activity. Just a heads up. Actual human produced pollutions accounts for probably less than 2% change vs what the environment is doing. No one has been able to prove even that much, so 2% may even be high. Can you back this up, please? Even the most conservative estimates put CO2 and others at 40%.
Solar activity is not, to the best of current knowledge, forcing climate change. It is a factor, certainly, seeing as the Sun is the source of our continued existence. However, the Earth has never warmed so much in such a short time before, so an extraneous factor such as greenhouse gases must be considered.

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming I'd immediately challenge this premise. Asher (he's been quoted before on other threads) is quite prone to the "it was cold today, how can the Earth be warming?" fallacy.
Your selective quoting helps, too. Here's another bit.
While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it. Are greenhouse gases the sole agent? Hell no. What makes them important is the relative novelty of carbon pollution.

And where are these logic gaps and incorrect conclusions you say I have coming from? Seems to me, the only one with both of those problems is you! Every time you make a new post, it is some completely different angle than what we are talking about. Then you accuse me of not keeping up? Are you for real? Sad. Am I for real? Most likely. I'm not sure if you are. Let's have a quote
And lets see here - you are arguing against a scientist in the field, with evidence from a non scientist flim-flam man Al Gore? Give me a break! :down: Pretty sad. It shows where you put your credibility.
A character judgement on something that you've made up, invented. Are you for real (two can play this game, and it's bloody boring)

You rubbished a newspaper because it disagreed with you, and ignored Bob Carter's funding. If you post bull****, you will be called on it. Simple as.

Logic gaps - the first that comes to mind is posting articles from a man funded by the fossil fuel industry as objective commentary on climate change. I'll repeat my question from a previous post.
Would you not agree that a scientist writing about climate change is normal, whereas a scientist writing about climate change, funded by the fossil fuel industry muddies the waters?
Incorrect conclusions - that myself and Mikhayl (although I can't speak for him) are arguing for a return to pre-1850 lifestyles.
You say that I have a problem with logic and conclusions, please show me where, I don't doubt I do.

How many articles do I have to post? Are we not comprehending what is happening here? Read my lips - it is getting 'colder'. Hint hint. If you could avoid biased sources, that would be nice. Something not funded by fossil fuel, if that's not too far a stretch.
A grounded, non-hysterical piece that explains the general trend of Earth's average temperature is downwards.

[Blacklight]

I've been following this thread since it started and Tchocky has my full support. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I have read recently about how the current innactive phase the sun is going through may be pushing us into a "Little Ice Age" like the one that happened in the 1700's. This by no means that global warming isn't going on. Will it affect global warming ? Yes, until the sun starts to get more active again. Then, you will probably see the climate begin to rise to reccord levels again. The issue with the sun may postpone global warming for a few years, but garunteed, it will rear it's ugly head again and continue.

The pro-oil industry and other groups with anything to lose with absolute proof of global warming are spin doctoring this short term cooling into meaning that global warming is not going on. This is absolutely not the case. It's happening and there have been so many findings and studies from independant agencies that find that it IS happening.

I have a huge problem that this guy is funded by the very industries that will lose most of their assets if global warming prevention legislation goes through. :nope:

[mrbeast]

All that you have posted Subman amounts to show that in general we have had a cold winter. All that proves is we had a cold winter. Climate change theory doesn't prohibit having a cold winter once in a whilea, and infact some parts of the globe may well get cooler due to interuption of global sea currents.

If the evidence proved that there was a downward trend over a number of years then that would overturn the conclusion that in general the earth was warming but this does not seem to show this despite the wishful thinking of oil backed scientists.

[Skybird]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/03/25/antarctic.ice/index.html

Not more comment this thread is worth: too much ideology, too little reason and science.

[August]

...the very industries that will lose most of their assets if global warming prevention legislation goes through. :nope:

How exactly do you see the oil and energy companies loosing assets? I mean with a world population of 6 billion and growing and increasing numbers of them becoming dependant on modern conveniences I see all forms of energy staying in high demand regardless of what legislation is passed.