Sooooo Global warming doesnt exist?

[Life_Long_Dem!]

PARIS - A massive ice shelf anchored to the Antarctic coast by a narrow and quickly deteriorating ice bridge could break away soon, the European Space Agency warned Friday.

[A NASA and US Geological Survey image of Antartica. A Jamaica-sized ice shelf is close to wrenching itself away from Antarctica, following dramatic weakening of an ice "bridge" linking it to the continent, the European Space Agency (ESA) reported (AFP/NASA/USGS/File)]A NASA and US Geological Survey image of Antartica. A Jamaica-sized ice shelf is close to wrenching itself away from Antarctica, following dramatic weakening of an ice "bridge" linking it to the continent, the European Space Agency (ESA) reported (AFP/NASA/USGS/File)
The Paris-based agency said satellite images show the bridge that connects the Wilkins Ice Shelf to Charcot and Latady Islands "looks set to collapse."

"The beginning of what appears to be the demise of the ice bridge began this week when new rifts" appeared and a large block of ice broke away, it said.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf - which like the rest of Antarctic's ice sheet "was formed by thousands of years of accumulated and compacted snow" - had been stable for most of the last century before it began retreating in the 1990s, the statement said.

The shelf, which was originally of Jamaica or the U.S. state of Connecticut, is located on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula, which thrusts up from the continent toward the southern tip of South America.

Originally covering about 5,000 square miles, the ice shelf lost 14 percent of its mass last year alone, the statement quotes a scientist Angelika Humbert of Germany's Munster University as saying.

In two 2008 incidents, large chunks of the ice bridge fell away, shaving it down to just 985 yards across at its narrowest, the statement said.

As a result, "in the past months, we have observed the ice bridge deforming and its narrowest location acting as a kind of hinge," Humbert is quoted as saying.

Scientist are examining whether global warming is behind the shelf's breakup, the statement said. Average temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula have risen by 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the past half century, the statement said - higher than the average global rise.
© 2009 Associated Press
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/04/04-4

[The_Limit]

I don't think anyone questions whether AGW exists or not.

The evidence is overwhelming.

[Smurf-Herder]

Tell it to the current blizzard out west.

[Life_Long_Dem!]

I know what you mean, the title of the post was meant in sarcastic jest to those that don't believe it happens.

[Smurf-Herder]

There is warming, but it's mostly a natural cycle. Right now we're going into a cooling trend. Look it up in Google.

[Reality4u]

Global warming may, or may not be taking place and I could care less. It's nature and we are helpless to do anything about it.

Those who think that man is having any kind of significant effect on global temperatures, are nothing more to me than con artists with an agenda. An agenda that I'm not buying into.

Have a nice day :)

[MintJulep]

I know what you mean, the title of the post was meant in sarcastic jest to those that don't believe it happens.I doubt many ppl don't "believe it happens". It is fact. What is wide open for debate is whether or not it is "man-made", which there is no scientific consensus on.

[Binky]

Global warming may, or may not be taking place and I could care less. It's nature and we are helpless to do anything about it.

Those who think that man is having any kind of significant effect on global temperatures, are nothing more to me than con artists with an agenda. An agenda that I'm not buying into.

Have a nice day :)



Halleluhuh. Thank you. Someone else believes the same as I do. However, you are wasting your time telling people. I've been there, done that and most are sheep and will follow what Gore, the bore, spiels to them. But you're absolutely correct. It's a natural occurance and we are helpless to do anything about it. That surely must annoy the powers that be because that is one thing they have no control over. They could limit the use of chemicals, but they will never stop global warming or global cooling. Only our maker is able to do that.

[mwillman]

Global warming may, or may not be taking place and I could care less. It's nature and we are helpless to do anything about it.

Those who think that man is having any kind of significant effect on global temperatures, are nothing more to me than con artists with an agenda. An agenda that I'm not buying into.

Have a nice day :)

Sorry but that's just ignorance. If you bothered to learn anything about chemistry, astronomy, physics, probability you would know that we have huge effects on the Climate and the life on this planet and just not caring or believing is a dangerous and foolish mind set.

[ROdger Right]

Ok so we will have a messed up summer, fall and winter most likely because of a volcano. That will naturally fuck up the weather this year.

Just as huge Russian wildfires did some damage last year.

[Hog Trash]

Sooooo Global warming doesnt exist? No one denies global warming, einstein!...Most people are aware that global climate change has been a natural occurence since the earth was formed billions of years ago...What time yesterday were you born?

[ROdger Right]

Because if you were not aware the earth has suffered through a few ice ages.

Closing down coal plants that dont say they use clean coal wont help.
I put that due to because weve lost 50% of the worlds forests or atleast rain forests.

Al gores 2nd invention isnt gettign as much support as the internet did.

[The_Limit]

Tell it to the current blizzard out west.

Weather and climate are not the same thing.

Needless to say, your comment above is preposterous.

[The_Limit]

I doubt many ppl don't "believe it happens". It is fact. What is wide open for debate is whether or not it is "man-made", which there is no scientific consensus on.

Actually yes there is scientific consensus.

[The_Limit]

It's a natural occurance and we are helpless to do anything about it.

AGW is not a natural occurrence.

[Smurf-Herder]

Weather and climate are not the same thing.

Needless to say, your comment above is preposterous.

Weather is a result of climatic conditions.

You need to check the trends over the past three years.

We're in a 30+ year cooling trend.

Check out my thread on the other forum:

Sun going quiet
http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=8627

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/images/deepsolarminimum/ssn_predict_l_strip.gif

Limit, it's the Sun. It has overall control over all local factors.

[Hog Trash]

Actually yes there is scientific consensus.AGW is not a natural occurrence.For every piece of evidence I have seen to legitimize manmade Global Warming, I have seen 10 that refute it.

For some reason people want to believe that man has caused GW but I tend to go where the evidence takes me instead of what is popular.

[mwillman]

Hog all you do is make shit up.

The vast majority of the scientific community believe based on the huge amounts of evidence that man effected global warming is a fact.

We are of course not the only thing effecting the climate but your ignorant belief that we are not a large part of it is nothing more then the wishful thinking of an ignorant stubborn man.

[The_Limit]

For every piece of evidence I have seen to legitimize manmade Global Warming, I have seen 10 that refute it.

For some reason people want to believe that man has caused GW but I tend to go where the evidence takes me instead of what is popular.

No you have not.

[The_Limit]

Weather is a result of climatic conditions.

You need to check the trends over the past three years.

We're in a 30+ year cooling trend.

Check out my thread on the other forum:

Sun going quiet
http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=8627

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/images/deepsolarminimum/ssn_predict_l_strip.gif

Limit, it's the Sun. It has overall control over all local factors.

No it is not the sun which causes AGW. In fact, nowhere in the article you offered from NASA does it make that claim. So am I perplexed as to why you would post an article that has nothing to do with debunking AGW, especially one from such an institution like NASA which firmly maintains the validity of AGW.

On a side note, the sunspot claim is old debunked garbage. Right up there with the water vapour charge, and the "Mars" claim.

Either way, to get back to the original claim, weather and climate are not the same thing. No way, now how. Naturally a blizzard in April has nothing to do with AGW.

You are making the same mistake millions of laymen make: wrongly assume climate and weather are the same thing.

They are not. I repeat they are not the same thing. Your claim that "weather is a result of climatic conditions" is also wrong, in fact its absurd and its frankly irrelevant as tot he opic today: AGW.

Weather is whats going on currently in a particular region.

Climate is whats going on in a particular region over a long period of time.

[The_Limit]

For every piece of evidence I have seen to legitimize manmade Global Warming, I have seen 10 that refute it.



No you have not, because that kind of evidence does not exist for myriad reasons.

One, there are no peer-reviewed articles that appear in scientific journals which debunk AGW. I know because there was a study done not too long ago which studies how many peer-reviewed studies exist that discredit AGW.

What you probably saw was junk science masquerading as prestigious academic work whose authors are not climate scientists, or have refused to submit their work to the peer-review process, which often happens with authors who claim to have discredited the overwhelming evidence supporting AGW.

It happens all the time.

Secondly, there never will be a 'smoking gun' article that discredits AGW. Mainly because AGW is derived from dozens of lines of evidence, not a singular line.

[Smurf-Herder]

No it is not the sun which causes AGW. In fact, nowhere in the article you offered from NASA does it make that claim. So am I perplexed as to why you would post an article that has nothing to do with the debunking AGW.

Either way, to get back to the original claim, weather and climate are not the same thing.

Weather and climate aren't the same thing - I didn't say they were.

Climate dictates parameters for the average weather. How more specific do I have to be.

And the sun affects all the weather on every goddamned planet in the solar system.

This is so basic ................

I posted many detailed threads back in 2007 - when I wanted to waste my time on this.

Look it up in Google - everything was heating up on all the planets.

Now we're in a cooling trend. It's out there - read it.

[Hog Trash]

Hog all you do is make shit up.

The vast majority of the scientific community believe based on the huge amounts of evidence that man effected global warming is a fact.

We are of course not the only thing effecting the climate but your ignorant belief that we are not a large part of it is nothing more then the wishful thinking of an ignorant stubborn man.You mean like the debate they had at the Al Gore Global Warming Summit?

Oh, wait a minute, that was closed to all dissenters because they had already decided debate is no longer necessary.

Al Gore, the father of GW, is the best evidence there is that it's a scam.

If he really believed MGW was true, don't you think he would be the first to lower the enormous and unnecessary carbon footprint he creates?

Use your fucking heads people!

[mwillman]

Yes, yes in your ignorance you have created some giant conspiracy theory but sorry all your misrepresentations and disconnected tidbits are not proof of anything other then you need to get out of your house a little more.

You might want to take off the hundreds of magazine clips and newspaper articles on your walls Im pretty sure there's no secret code.

[Smurf-Herder]

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=5984

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=3980

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=5253

[The_Limit]

Weather and climate aren't the same thing - I didn't say they were.

Climate dictates parameters for the average weather. How more specific do I have to be.

And the sun affects all the weather on every goddamned planet in the solar system.



No one made the argument that the sun doesn't have far reaching impacts on weather.

But you hastily made another claim: that the sun is responsible for AGW (so therefore it is not man-made), which is not true, nor does any evidence support this claim.

[Hog Trash]

No you have not, because that kind of evidence does not exist for myriad reasons.
Yes I have, and the only reason you will never see it is because you blindly follow the Al Gore croud like a faithful trusting puppy....Kinda like you do Obama.

Climb out of your box, break the chains of ignorance, open your mind and spread your wings young man....There's a big beautiful world out here in the wide open spaces.

[The_Limit]

Climate dictates parameters for the average weather. How more specific do I have to be.



No it does not "dictate parameters for the average weather." In fact, I have no idea what that even means, its mangled nonsense.

Climate is concerned with "weather" in a region over a long period of time.

[The_Limit]

Yes I have, and the only reason you will never see it is because you blindly follow the Al Gore croud like a faithful loving puppy....Kinda like you do Obama.

Climb out of your box, break the chains of ignorance, open your mind and spread your wings young man....There's a big beautiful world out here.

If such peer-reviewed evidence existed, I would know about it. It does not exist, no matter how hard you wish it to be. If pressed, I will link you to an academic study which examines how many peer-reviewed articles debunking AGW exist.

I've read the paper. And the conclusions do not buttress your claims.

[mwillman]

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=5984

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=3980

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=5253

Do you think im interested in biased pseudo science.

Sorry but I get my science from educated world renown scientists not from political hacks who are more interested in keeping polluters polluting then they are in the health of the world they live on.

[doctordog]

If such peer-reviewed evidence existed, I would know about it. It does not exist, no matter how hard you wish it to be. If pressed, I will link you to an academic study which examines how many peer-reviewed articles debunking AGW exist.

I've read the paper. And the conclusions do not buttress your claims.

Refusing to acknowledge other points of view and theory shows you are no where near mature enough to be an ambassador.

[Hog Trash]

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=5984

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=3980

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=5253I too have posted much evidence against this MGW theory and the fact that the sheep still wallow in ignorence is evidence that we're wasting our time Smurf...Hog out!

[mwillman]

Refusing to acknowledge other points of view and theory shows you are no where near mature enough to be an ambassador.

Hell why don't we just call the astrologers in then since you seem to think every view and theory has validity when it comes to modeling reality.

When the model is created from the answer to the evidence it is not scientific it is fantasy.

[Smurf-Herder]

I too have posted much evidence against this MGW theory and the fact that the sheep still wallow in ignorence is evidence that we're wasting our time Smurf...Hog out!

That's why I try to avoid thw GW nonsense lately.

Unfortunately it'll have to be an issue I'll be sucked back into, when they start using it to tax us to death and control every aspect of our lives with it.

[doctordog]

Hell why don't we just call the astrologers in then since you seem to think every view and theory has validity when it comes to modeling reality.

When the model is created from the answer to the evidence it is not scientific it is fantasy.

There is just as much out there that says the earth is in a natural cycle versus the evidence you are sold on that is it is man made. It is just another scheme to rape the tax payers of this country.

[mwillman]

Yea, I'll just ignore all the scientists and educated researchers and listen to you because you really really just don't believe it.

HAHAHAHA

[doctordog]

Yea, I'll just ignore all the scientists and educated researchers and listen to you because you really really just don't believe it.

HAHAHAHA


And I will listen to all the educated scientist that aren't competing for Government grants instead of listening to your biased bullshit.


:lmao2:

[The_Limit]

I too have posted much evidence against this AGW theory

Try posting credible evidence from prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals.

[The_Limit]

Refusing to acknowledge other points of view and theory shows you are no where near mature enough to be an ambassador.

This is not a political argument. In fact AGW, has nothing to do with politics. It is a scientific issue.

I do not care nor am I interested in uninformed "points of view," in science. I am only interested in credible claims from prestigious scientific sources, not trash from authors who claim to have 'debunked' AGW and refuse to provide their findings to an academic peer-review process.

[doctordog]

This is not a political argument. In fact AGW, has nothing to do with politics.

I do not care nor am I interested in uninformed points of view. Especially ones based off of junk science.

What you have posted here so far says different.

[The_Limit]

What you have posted here so far says different.

Wrong again.

What I've seen so far from the skeptics is fundamental errors in basic science. It remains a daunting task to debate with contrarians who do not even understand not the difference between climate and weather.

[The_Limit]

Anyone who cares to discuss global warming, please feel free to comment. I am willing to engage anyone in an honest debate about substance.

So consider this an open challenge to anyone - anyone - on DC Junkies.

I'll even start the discussion by making three claims supported by overwhelming evidence, from various lines of independent data procured from peer-reviewed scientific academic journals.

1. The Earth is warming

2. The reason is fossil fuel combustion etc human emissions

3. The cause is humans.

[Cat slave]

PARIS - A massive ice shelf anchored to the Antarctic coast by a narrow and quickly deteriorating ice bridge could break away soon, the European Space Agency warned Friday.

[A NASA and US Geological Survey image of Antartica. A Jamaica-sized ice shelf is close to wrenching itself away from Antarctica, following dramatic weakening of an ice "bridge" linking it to the continent, the European Space Agency (ESA) reported (AFP/NASA/USGS/File)]A NASA and US Geological Survey image of Antartica. A Jamaica-sized ice shelf is close to wrenching itself away from Antarctica, following dramatic weakening of an ice "bridge" linking it to the continent, the European Space Agency (ESA) reported (AFP/NASA/USGS/File)
The Paris-based agency said satellite images show the bridge that connects the Wilkins Ice Shelf to Charcot and Latady Islands "looks set to collapse."

"The beginning of what appears to be the demise of the ice bridge began this week when new rifts" appeared and a large block of ice broke away, it said.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf - which like the rest of Antarctic's ice sheet "was formed by thousands of years of accumulated and compacted snow" - had been stable for most of the last century before it began retreating in the 1990s, the statement said.

The shelf, which was originally of Jamaica or the U.S. state of Connecticut, is located on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula, which thrusts up from the continent toward the southern tip of South America.

Originally covering about 5,000 square miles, the ice shelf lost 14 percent of its mass last year alone, the statement quotes a scientist Angelika Humbert of Germany's Munster University as saying.

In two 2008 incidents, large chunks of the ice bridge fell away, shaving it down to just 985 yards across at its narrowest, the statement said.

As a result, "in the past months, we have observed the ice bridge deforming and its narrowest location acting as a kind of hinge," Humbert is quoted as saying.

Scientist are examining whether global warming is behind the shelf's breakup, the statement said. Average temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula have risen by 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the past half century, the statement said - higher than the average global rise.
© 2009 Associated Press
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/04/04-4


Its climate change not man made global warming. Thats what the climate
does....it changes and its up to us to adapt or perish.

[Cat slave]

Anyone who cares to discuss global warming, please feel free to comment. I am willing to engage anyone in an honest debate about substance.

So consider this an open challenge to anyone - anyone - on DC Junkies.

I'll even start the discussion by making three claims supported by overwhelming evidence, from various lines of independent data procured from peer-reviewed scientific academic journals.

1. The Earth is warming

2. The reason is fossil fuel combustion etc human emissions

3. The cause is humans.


How can you account for all the previous and catastrophic climate changes
through the billions of years...with out our all powerful influence???? We
are insignificant in the great scheme of things and we are not immune to
the effects of warming or another ice age.

Hey, I hope to see the climate continue to warm as long as I live....Id sure
hate to see another ice age coming. Recent history exhibits what a little
"chill" does to the plants then ultimately us! Wonder why Greenland was
named that? I doubt seriously it was a sheet of ice and snow but look at
it now and it is not our doing!

[Smurf-Herder]

How can you account for all the previous and catastrophic climate changes
through the billions of years...with out our all powerful influence???? We
are insignificant in the great scheme of things and we are not immune to
the effects of warming or another ice age.

Hey, I hope to see the climate continue to warm as long as I live....Id sure
hate to see another ice age coming. Recent history exhibits what a little
"chill" does to the plants then ultimately us! Wonder why Greenland was
named that? I doubt seriously it was a sheet of ice and snow but look at
it now and it is not our doing!


It all comes down to people who are so out of it, that they can't admit the sun has anything to do with warmth on Earth.

That's how bad people are brainwashed.

[Hog Trash]

Anyone who cares to discuss global warming, please feel free to comment. I am willing to engage anyone in an honest debate about substance.

So consider this an open challenge to anyone - anyone - on DC Junkies.

I'll even start the discussion by making three claims supported by overwhelming evidence, from various lines of independent data procured from peer-reviewed scientific academic journals.

1. The Earth is warming

2. The reason is fossil fuel combustion etc human emissions

3. The cause is humans.I feel I must confess!....I could possibly be a major contributer to the polution problem and global warming crisis that we now face.

Because of all the beer and boiled eggs I consume, I'm afraid I may be responsible for alot of the methane released into the atmosphere.

There!.....I finally said it.....Do with me what you will. :melodramatic:

[Smurf-Herder]

I feel I must confess!....I could possibly be a major contributer to the polution problem and global warming crisis that we now face.

Because of all the beer and boiled eggs I consume, I'm afraid I may be responsible for alot of the methane released into the atmosphere.

There!.....I finally said it.....Do with me what you will. :melodramatic:

They'll tax your farts ... :lmao2:

[mwillman]

How can you account for all the previous and catastrophic climate changes
through the billions of years...with out our all powerful influence???? We
are insignificant in the great scheme of things and we are not immune to
the effects of warming or another ice age.

Hey, I hope to see the climate continue to warm as long as I live....Id sure
hate to see another ice age coming. Recent history exhibits what a little
"chill" does to the plants then ultimately us! Wonder why Greenland was
named that? I doubt seriously it was a sheet of ice and snow but look at
it now and it is not our doing!

Your question is not proof of anything Cat, just because the climate has changed many times in the past that doesn't imply that we are not the ones effecting it now.

There were various reasons for many of the past climate changes. Everything from comets hitting the earth to changes in the magnetic polls and many other causes over the last 4 billion years.

Again just because the earth has had climate changes in the past has no relevance to whether or not we are effecting the climate now.

It was named Greenland by the Viking because they didn't want people trying to move in on them at Iceland. The thinking being that if Greenland is this bad then Iceland must be hell. It was just a way for Icelanders to keep their land secret. The natives did not call it Greenland.

Really if that's the best arguments you can come up with you might as well just admit you don't believe it for no other reason then you don't believe it since you obviously know very little about the facts.

[The Professor]

the only ice cap NORMAL americans care about today is the one that's got our markets frozen up and chilled into complete inactivity

as paralyzed as the tin man before dorothy came along

hey, i'll debate anyone on dcj---anyone

on MY turf---LOL!

i'll even lay out the PRE-suppositions

1. obama is a big dumb socialist

2. obama doesn't have a clue how to be president even in good times

3. obama doesn't even know these aren't normal times

4. obama is gonna get us all killed

5. which is why no one cares about global (LOLOL!) warming (LOLOLOLOL!!!)

6. cuz none of us is even gonna be here when california is submerged

7. california isn't even gonna be here by then, either, cuzza the earthquake

8. the only people in california at that time will be illegals

9. and a couple families of vietnamese fingernail polishers to do the dainty digits of the senoras and senoritas

10. and maybe sean penn, but i doubt it, he'll go to new york

here i am, debate ME

LOLOLOL!!!

[Binky]

Because if you were not aware the earth has suffered through a few ice ages.

Closing down coal plants that dont say they use clean coal wont help.
I put that due to because weve lost 50% of the worlds forests or atleast rain forests.

Al gores 2nd invention isnt gettign as much support as the internet did.


And by not getting the attention he hoped for, is prob'ly why we haven't heard him spieling global this and that for awhile now. He's been keeping quiet about it and hasn't even mentioned that carbon tax for some time now.

[Binky]

AGW is not a natural occurrence.


It's been warming and cooling periodically for millions of years. Chemicals may have altered it but there is no way to stop it from going from one cycle to the other and back again, no matter how much they try.

[GetAClue]

Hog all you do is make shit up.

The vast majority of the scientific community believe based on the huge amounts of evidence that man effected global warming is a fact.

We are of course not the only thing effecting the climate but your ignorant belief that we are not a large part of it is nothing more then the wishful thinking of an ignorant stubborn man.

Care to show us any facts to support your assertion? I have seen plenty to support Hog's claim. Here are a couple.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9406
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/03/023144.php

That is just like when Obama said that ALL economists agree that Federal Spending is the only way to pull us out of the Recession. The next day in an open letter to the Pres in the NY Times, more than 200 leading economists voiced their opposing view.

http://www.openmarket.org/2009/01/27/fiscal-reality-check/

[GetAClue]

This is not a political argument. In fact AGW, has nothing to do with politics. It is a scientific issue.

I do not care nor am I interested in uninformed "points of view," in science. I am only interested in credible claims from prestigious scientific sources, not trash from authors who claim to have 'debunked' AGW and refuse to provide their findings to an academic peer-review process.

IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS!! You don't get it. It's about giving the government one more tool to use in an attempt to take away even more freedoms from us. You people that buy into this are so blinded by ideology that you cannot see the forest for the trees.

Has man done things that are detrimental to the health of the planet? Yes, they have but no more that the planet has done itself. How much CO2 do you think has been spewed from Volcanoes in the last 200 years? More than man has EVER put into the atmosphere. Maybe we can tax Volcanoes?

[The_Limit]

Care to show us any facts to support your assertion? I have seen plenty to support Hog's claim. Here are a couple.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9406


http://www.openmarket.org/2009/01/27/fiscal-reality-check/

I'm going to stick with one source at a time. We will start with the article "Global Warming Myth" by Patrick Michael which he wrote for the political CATO institute.

In it, he cites a study published by Noah Keenlyside of Germany's Leipzig Institute of Marine Science.

In this article, Keenlyside makes the claim in the scientific journal "Nature" that Keenlyside forecasts no additional global warming over the next decade."

Well, lets examine this claim.

First, the obvious. Keenlyside's paper does not attempt to debunk AGW. The paper does not in the slightest attempt to tackle that claim. What it does do, is put forward the charge that there may not be an additional warming in the next ten years, "but it will accelerate after that."

I got that quote after corresponding with Keenlyside through email in which he directed me to an article written in the Telegraph where he said I could find relevant quotes, as his paper has been repeatedly misused by skeptics, his words not mine.

In Keenlysdie's own words ""The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/charlesclover/3341068/Global-warming-may-stop-scientists-predict.html

One thing I can tell you from our exchange of emails is that Kennlyside remains horrified his work is being used to advance a a claim he does not adhere to; mainly that AGW is a myth.

So I find it ironic you and Patrick Michael would use an author's work who firmly believes in AGW, to make a case against AGW.

Here is another quote from Keenlyside. "He stressed that the results were just the initial findings from a new computer model of how the oceans behave over decades and it would be wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone away. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/charlesclover/3341068/Global-warming-may-stop-scientists-predict.html)

===============================================

Next time check your sources, do your homework.

Because the first source you provided -Keenlyside's paper - does nothing to advance your claim that AGW is a myth, and thats not according to me, thats according to the paper, and Keenlyside himself.

By the way Patrick Michael is not an expert. Not a climate scientist, and not someone who is to be taken seriously in the AGW debate.

What he is, is a hyper-partisan.

[The_Limit]

Care to show us any facts to support your assertion? I have seen plenty to support Hog's claim. Here are a couple.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/03/023144.php



I have to go for now, but sometime tonight or tomorrow, I will comment on the above source.

[The_Limit]

It's been warming and cooling periodically for millions of years. Chemicals may have altered it but there is no way to stop it from going from one cycle to the other and back again, no matter how much they try.

No credible climate scientist is claiming warming and cooling is not natural.

This is a straw man argument.

So there is no need to comment on claims never made in the first place.

[Independent Harry]

I'm going to stick with one source at a time. We will start with the article "Global Warming Myth" by Patrick Michael which he wrote for the political CATO institute.

In it, he cites a study published by Noah Keenlyside of Germany's Leipzig Institute of Marine Science.

In this article, Keenlyside makes the claim in the scientific journal "Nature" that Keenlyside forecasts no additional global warming over the next decade."

Well, lets examine this claim.

First, the obvious. Keenlyside's paper does not attempt to debunk AGW. The paper does not in the slightest attempt to tackle that claim. What it does do, is put forward the charge that there may not be an additional warming in the next ten years, "but it will accelerate after that."

I got that quote after corresponding with Keenlyside through email in which he directed me to an article written in the Telegraph where he said I could find relevant quotes, as his paper has been repeatedly misused by skeptics, his words not mine.

In Keenlysdie's own words ""The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/charlesclover/3341068/Global-warming-may-stop-scientists-predict.html

One thing I can tell you from our exchange of emails is that Kennlyside remains horrified his work is being used to advance a a claim he does not adhere to; mainly that AGW is a myth.

So I find it ironic you and Patrick Michael would use an author's work who firmly believes in AGW, to make a case against AGW.

Here is another quote from Keenlyside. "He stressed that the results were just the initial findings from a new computer model of how the oceans behave over decades and it would be wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone away. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/charlesclover/3341068/Global-warming-may-stop-scientists-predict.html)

===============================================

Next time check your sources, do your homework.

Because the first source you provided -Keenlyside's paper - does nothing to advance your claim that AGW is a myth, and thats not according to me, thats according to the paper, and Keenlyside himself.

By the way Patrick Michael is not an expert. Not a climate scientist, and not someone who is to be taken seriously in the AGW debate.

What he is, is a hyper-partisan.

lol, nice...it wn't matter though, his belief is firmly rooted in emotion. He will only believe what he has been emotionally programmed to believe.

[The_Limit]

Care to show us any facts to support your assertion? I have seen plenty to support Hog's claim. Here are a couple.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/03/023144.php



I had to laugh when I clicked on the above link. The first thing I read was the 'panel' was organized by the Heartland Institute. For anyone that doesn't know, these are the same bozos who think second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, among a list of many notable lobby efforts.

But forgetting about their absurd claims about tobacco and cancer, readers should take note of another controversy involving the heartland institute. Last April, they released a list which was called "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares."

Apparently dozens of climate scientists who appeared on that list were horrified their names had been used without their consent. The story is below with quotes. If this was just one or two scientists, then o.k, maybe. But dozens of prestigious scientists have made serious charges against this 'institute.'

What the Heartland institute does is engage in various academic frauds.

They are not to be taken seriously because they are not a serious organization.

They are anything but "scientific."

================================================== =======

So far - in less than 24 hours - three dozen of those scientists had responded in outrage, denying that their research supports Avery's conclusions and demanding that their names be removed.

I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."

Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."

Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article."

Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!"

Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University

http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute

================================================== =======================================

[The_Limit]

Here's some more quotes:

I am very shocked to see my name in the list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares". Because none of my research publications has ever indicated that the global warming is not as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, I view that the inclusion of my name in such list without my permission or consensus has damaged my professional reputation as an atmospheric scientist."

Dr. Ming Cai, Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Florida State University.

Just because you document natural climate variability doesn't mean anthropogenic global warming is not a threat. In fact I would venture that most on that list believe a natural cycle and anthropogenic change combined represent a greater threat."

Peter F. Almasi, PhD Candidate in Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Columbia University

Why can't people spend their time trying to identify and evaluate the facts concerning climate change rather than trying to obscure them?"

Dr. James P. Berry, Senior Scientist, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

They have taken our ice core research in Wyoming and twisted it to meet their own agenda. This is not science."

Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Hydrologist, US Geological Survey
Please remove my name IMMEDIATELY from the following article and from the list which misrepresents my research."

Dr. Mary Alice Coffroth, Department of Geology, State University of New York at Buffalo

http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute

[Binky]

No credible climate scientist is claiming warming and cooling is not natural.

This is a straw man argument.

So there is no need to comment on claims never made in the first place.


So shut up.

[The_Limit]

So shut up.

It is cheating. It is trickery, and I won't tolerate it.

[Binky]

It is cheating. It is trickery, and I won't tolerate it.


Aww....what are you going to do about it? :confused:

[mwillman]

I think he has already done it by showing the facts rather then lies and bullshit.

Of course it wont matter to most deniers because your just to ignorant to make a informed decision about global warming.

[Binky]

I think he has already done it by showing the facts rather then lies and bullshit.

Of course it wont matter to most deniers because your just to ignorant to make a informed decision about global warming.


Thank you very much for your non-input.

[Hog Trash]

Al Gore, for some strange reason, is the loudest Doom-Shouter of man-made global warming. :rant:

Judging by his personal carbon footprint, does it appear that he even believes it himself????? :read:

Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, I rest my case... :reading:

[Binky]

Al Gore, for some strange reason, is the loudest Doom-Shouter of man-made global warming. :rant:

Judging by his personal carbon footprint, does it appear that he even believes it himself????? :read:

Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, I rest my case... :reading:



My God, Hog. You sure as heck know how to make a girl laugh. :lmao2: Keep up the good work as you are sure entertaining if nothing else.

[doctordog]

So shut up.

the motion has a second

[Mauitime]

It is my belief that the Earth has a natural cycle. Look at the ice age.... What I will agree with is that as an industrialized world we do in fact contribute but that the amount is fairly minute. 3.8 degrees average change in Antarctica over 50 years? And that is the most extreme diff on the planet. How weather cycles are affected is what we really need to study. Can you imagine if a scientist could actually PROVE that our effects cause Hurricanes the lawsuits that would be brought to the courts and feebily fought???

[mwillman]

Thank you very much for your non-input.

Tell me binky what have added other then denial.

[mwillman]

It is my belief that the Earth has a natural cycle. Look at the ice age.... What I will agree with is that as an industrialized world we do in fact contribute but that the amount is fairly minute. 3.8 degrees average change in Antarctica over 50 years? And that is the most extreme diff on the planet. How weather cycles are affected is what we really need to study. Can you imagine if a scientist could actually PROVE that our effects cause Hurricanes the lawsuits that would be brought to the courts and feebily fought???


Tell me how many years have to studies meteorology or even natural sciences like geology or climatology. If the answer to any of those is less then a doctorate then why the hell do you think any one cares what your knowledge less opinion is on any of those topics.

[Binky]

[QUOTE=mwillman]Tell me binky what have added other then denial.[/QUOTE


Do you mean what I've added other than denial? I've already, months ago, long before you started coming in here, posted info on global warming that stated the weather goes in cycles. And over millions of years, it changes over and over again. You'll have to go back and find what I've posted.

I'm not in denial about it warming. Quite the contrary, in fact. It is warming. I believe man has something to do with it in that it's warming faster. The chemicals that we've used have something to do with it. However, man is only a moot reason for it. The warming and cooling have been going on long before man came on the scene.

And boring Gore touting it is only for the carbon tax he wants to suck out of us. Gee, go figure.

[doctordog]

[QUOTE=mwillman]Tell me binky what have added other then denial.[/QUOTE


Do you mean what I've added other than denial? I've already, months ago, long before you started coming in here, posted info on global warming that stated the weather goes in cycles. And over millions of years, it changes over and over again. You'll have to go back and find what I've posted.

I'm not in denial about it warming. Quite the contrary, in fact. It is warming. I believe man has something to do with it in that it's warming faster. The chemicals that we've used have something to do with it. However, man is only a moot reason for it. The warming and cooling have been going on long before man came on the scene.

And boring Gore touting it is only for the carbon tax he wants to suck out of us. Gee, go figure.

that is how democrat poltiicans survive without actually working. They make it off the America slaves, I mean people, no, I meant slaves!:D

[mwillman]

Wayers do you ever get out of bed.
I dont see why you should you live a fucking dream anyways.

[Mauitime]

Tell me how many years have to studies meteorology or even natural sciences like geology or climatology. If the answer to any of those is less then a doctorate then why the hell do you think any one cares what your knowledge less opinion is on any of those topics.

1st- Should of spent a year less of Nat Science and Climatology and a year more of Grammar BTW.:thumbsup:

If everyone in here had to pocket a PHD to post it would be crickets in here except 1 or 2 of you jackholes arguing the difference of a degree or two incessantly..... There are PHD's on both sides of this subject arguing for and against. My point is simply that at one point a LARGE portion of this big blue planet was covered in GLACIERS.... and they MELTED..... forming LAKES..... are those words to simple for you? Unfortunately, mankind at the time wasn't jotting down notes daily on the state of the earth.

Cut and Pastes- You don't need to be a Rocket Surgeon to do this BTW

The general term "ice age" or, more precisely, "glacial age" denotes a geological period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in an expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of extra cold climate are termed "glaciations". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres;[1] by this definition we are still in an ice age (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist).[2]

More colloquially, when speaking of the last few million years, "the" ice age refers to the most recent colder period (or freezing period) with extensive ice sheets over the North American and Eurasian continents: in this sense, the most recent ice age peaked, in its Last Glacial Maximum about 20,000 years ago. This article will use the term ice age in the former, glaciological, sense: glacials for colder periods during ice ages and interglacials for the warmer periods.

HOW cold does it have to be to MAINTAIN a glacial field???? I would say if you average the temp year round With extreme winters Buildiing the glaciers, you are looking at Averages in the 10 degree range. The average temp in my Hometown in Middle Of Minn is 53.1 so if you take 10 degrees to 53 and do the math. That would be 1/10th of a degree or 1/2 a degree every 50. But like I said.... spikes in the Earths natural cycle are gonna occur.... What happens if the trend changes and in 50 years the cyle is growing the opposite? Are we gonna be clamoring about another ice age????


Clear historical records are available for one of the most severe recent cooling periods, a period now known as the Little Ice Age. This period ran from about the fifteenth to the nineteenth century and caused widespread crop failure and loss of human life throughout Europe. Since the end of the Little Ice Age, temperatures have continued to move up and down. No one is quite certain whether the last ice age has ended or whether we are still living in it.

[mwillman]

Quoting web sites doesn't mean you have an education.

Just like not being a good speller has no relation to ones ability to be rational.

What I would like to see is one of you just once admit you don't know shit about the climate and you wish with all your heart that you are right because otherwise you are supporting the destruction of the world you live on.

[Mauitime]

Quoting web sites doesn't mean you have an education.

Just like not being a good speller has no relation to ones ability to be rational.

What I would like to see is one of you just once admit you don't know shit about the climate and you wish with all your heart that you are right because otherwise you are supporting the destruction of the world you live on.


You go ahead and let me know which Journal your theories and data have been printed in so I can read your PERSONAL findings first.

Data and Facts can be twisted and formed to support whichever theory you want to prove. The fact I am willing to try and educate myself on a topic matter before posting shows intelligence on it own behalf. I am not on here RAMBLING like some blithering idiot.

For all I know, your opinion is based SOLELY on what you have been taught to believe by someone on the Gore Side of the theory of Global Warming just hoping to get recognized..... No more than those arguing VS GW are trying to get the same attention.

My opinion is my own and I will post it as I want.


As far as the Emboldened statement here is your answer.


We will admit we don't know shit when you liberal environmentalist tree hugging hippies stop throwing hard earned tax dollars at a problem that doesn't exist. Just for 4 years. THEN we will see..... and figure out a solution.....

[mwillman]

I guess you dont get it do you.
Since you don't know shit, you have no way of knowing what is a problem and what isn't.

The truth is you support ignoring the problems because you dont care about anything except your pocket book.

Im not going to play web site posting games. If you want to know more about it then you should read scientific journals not political ones.

[Binky]

[QUOTE=Binky]

that is how democrat poltiicans survive without actually working. They make it off the America slaves, I mean people, no, I meant slaves!:D


:lmao2: Actually, that's how both dems and repugs do. They each have their own sneaky little ways of worming money out of Americans. :talktothehand:

For the most part, they are a bunch of weasels. :D

[mwillman]

man is only a moot reason for it. The warming and cooling have been going on long before man came on the scene.

This is were you loss it. The vast majority of the real scientific community disagrees with your simplistic analysis. This is just you wishing for the best, it has nothing to back it up other then rhetoric. I'm sorry but science doesn't work that way.

Hey If you can come up with a better way to fix the problem other then Gores tax idea then let us know what it is. I am not locked into one solution. Ignoring a very real problem is not a solution.

[Cat slave]

1st- Should of spent a year less of Nat Science and Climatology and a year more of Grammar BTW.:thumbsup:

If everyone in here had to pocket a PHD to post it would be crickets in here except 1 or 2 of you jackholes arguing the difference of a degree or two incessantly..... There are PHD's on both sides of this subject arguing for and against. My point is simply that at one point a LARGE portion of this big blue planet was covered in GLACIERS.... and they MELTED..... forming LAKES..... are those words to simple for you? Unfortunately, mankind at the time wasn't jotting down notes daily on the state of the earth.

Cut and Pastes- You don't need to be a Rocket Surgeon to do this BTW

The general term "ice age" or, more precisely, "glacial age" denotes a geological period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in an expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of extra cold climate are termed "glaciations". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres;[1] by this definition we are still in an ice age (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist).[2]

More colloquially, when speaking of the last few million years, "the" ice age refers to the most recent colder period (or freezing period) with extensive ice sheets over the North American and Eurasian continents: in this sense, the most recent ice age peaked, in its Last Glacial Maximum about 20,000 years ago. This article will use the term ice age in the former, glaciological, sense: glacials for colder periods during ice ages and interglacials for the warmer periods.

HOW cold does it have to be to MAINTAIN a glacial field???? I would say if you average the temp year round With extreme winters Buildiing the glaciers, you are looking at Averages in the 10 degree range. The average temp in my Hometown in Middle Of Minn is 53.1 so if you take 10 degrees to 53 and do the math. That would be 1/10th of a degree or 1/2 a degree every 50. But like I said.... spikes in the Earths natural cycle are gonna occur.... What happens if the trend changes and in 50 years the cyle is growing the opposite? Are we gonna be clamoring about another ice age????


Clear historical records are available for one of the most severe recent cooling periods, a period now known as the Little Ice Age. This period ran from about the fifteenth to the nineteenth century and caused widespread crop failure and loss of human life throughout Europe. Since the end of the Little Ice Age, temperatures have continued to move up and down. No one is quite certain whether the last ice age has ended or whether we are still living in it.


Wow! We have a sane, free thinking and educated poster in here. How
refreshing. Hope you stick around a while!

Listen up MW, you just got your hat handed to you on this subject!!
See what class I have, I could have put it less tactfully.:taunt:

[Cat slave]

I guess you dont get it do you.
Since you don't know shit, you have no way of knowing what is a problem and what isn't.

The truth is you support ignoring the problems because you dont care about anything except your pocket book.

Im not going to play web site posting games. If you want to know more about it then you should read scientific journals not political ones.

Your insistence to cling to an agenda in light of the facts that show the contrary only makes you look worse. Id quit if I were you. Youre in over
your head with our friend from the islands.

[Cat slave]

[QUOTE=Binky]

that is how democrat poltiicans survive without actually working. They make it off the America slaves, I mean people, no, I meant slaves!:D

Thats their plan and its playing out something awful!!!

[mwillman]

You are such a simplaton Cat Slave. I'm sure a shinny string gives you hours of pleasure.

You thinking his quoting a few web pages simplistic definitions is a valid argument just shows you don't have a clue about the subject or even what a valid argument is so please go back to your string.

[doctordog]

You are such a simplaton Cat Slave. I'm sure a shinny string gives you hours of pleasure.

You thinking his quoting a few web pages simplistic definitions is a valid argument just shows you don't have a clue about the subject or even what a valid argument is so please go back to your string.

Don't you have a gay pride parade to attend?:lmao2:

[mwillman]

Don't you have a gay pride parade to attend?:lmao2:

That's it, really that's the best you can do.

Wow , I live in San Francisco it takes so much brain power to come up with the Gay jokes.
Really come on now.

At least try for a little originality. I know its hard when you have to keep repeating the right wing mantra.

[doctordog]

That's it, really that's the best you can do.

Wow , I live in San Francisco it takes so much brain power to come up with the Gay jokes.
Really come on now.

At least try for a little originality. I know its hard when you have to keep repeating the right wing mantra.

And you the California Left mantra.

[Cat slave]

ROTFL.....I never noticed he/she/it was from CA.....that accounts for a lot!:lmao2:

[Mauitime]

You are such a simpleton Cat Slave. I'm sure a shiny string gives you hours of pleasure.

You thinking his quoting a few web pages of simplistic definitions is a valid argument just shows you don't have a clue about the subject or even what a valid argument is so please go back to your string.


Went ahead and fixed it for ya! It is really hard to understand how someone who spouts of being Intelligentsia (Intellectually Elite) can't figure out how to use the spell check function..... You are one of those people with 3 PHD's who couldn't tie his own shoes aren't you????

[Cat slave]

Night all. Its chilly and raining and a good night to sleep....in spite of all this
global warming.:D Later!

[Binky]

[QUOTE=wayers57]

Thats their plan and its playing out something awful!!!


Seems to be working well for them. :banghead:

[mwillman]

Went ahead and fixed it for ya! It is really hard to understand how someone who spouts of being Intelligentsia (Intellectually Elite) can't figure out how to use the spell check function..... You are one of those people with 3 PHD's who couldn't tie his own shoes aren't you????


Thanks for the fix, I tend to have others edit for me since I have better things to do.

I have also never claimed to be the intelligentsia but I am smart enough to know the difference between those with an educated opinion and those that are without one.

I talk to a doctor when I need medical advice and I listen to scientists when I want to know about the climate. My degree is in Computer engineering so I get my information from the people that have dedicated their lives to understanding the climate not from political web sites and radio talk jocks.

[Binky]

You are such a simplaton Cat Slave. I'm sure a shinny string gives you hours of pleasure.

You thinking his quoting a few web pages simplistic definitions is a valid argument just shows you don't have a clue about the subject or even what a valid argument is so please go back to your string.



Now that wasn't nice. :(

[Binky]

Don't you have a gay pride parade to attend?:lmao2:


Now there's an ouchie! :lmao2:

[The_Limit]

It is my belief that the Earth has a natural cycle.

Straw man argument.

[Binky]

ROTFL.....I never noticed he/she/it was from CA.....that accounts for a lot!:lmao2:


:lmao2: :lmao2: Go figure!

[Binky]

Went ahead and fixed it for ya! It is really hard to understand how someone who spouts of being Intelligentsia (Intellectually Elite) can't figure out how to use the spell check function..... You are one of those people with 3 PHD's who couldn't tie his own shoes aren't you????



And here, folks, we have another ouchie! :lmao2:

[Smurf-Herder]

Went ahead and fixed it for ya! It is really hard to understand how someone who spouts of being Intelligentsia (Intellectually Elite) can't figure out how to use the spell check function..... You are one of those people with 3 PHD's who couldn't tie his own shoes aren't you????

Just to let you know, I got down on someone recently for altering someone else's quotes in their "Quote code", in their reply. I didn't want it to start a trend that could turn into a slippery slope of people being accused of saying something they hadn't said.

A better way to do this, if you're correcting someone, would be to copy and paste a "corrected" copy outside of the "quote code" in a reply, italicized with quotation marks and maybe changed color.

I don't want people to get used to altering quoted replies. Some people may take it too far.

[The_Limit]

There are PHD's on both sides of this subject arguing for and against.


Wrong.

In fact a peer-reviewed study was published examining this very issue. The conclusions were certain: There is a scientific consensus.

The study also found virtually no peer-reviewed scientific articles debunking AGW exist. None.

If pressed, I can provide for you, a link to the article.

What you are peddling is a lie. A narrative that is not true, wholly misleading and outright false. There is no great debate occurring in the Ivory tower, no matter how hard you wish it to be.

The rest of your post is clearly a copy and paste effort with no reference. It will be treated as garbage because thats what it remains until you provide a source.

[Smurf-Herder]

Straw man argument.

Tell it to all the scientists and climatologists who aren't part of "the consensus".

[The_Limit]

Tell it to all the scientists and climatologists who aren't part of "the consensus".


Show me an article written one by one first. Because I guarantee you it is not credible, or you have misunderstood its meaning. Here is a challenge for you.

Provide an example of such a study which you claim debunks AGW. Because I can guarantee you, it is not credible.

So I'm going to repeat this over and over again. There is a study which examines this very issue -the number of peer-reviewed literature -debunking AGW.

And the results of that study is not good for the skeptics, no matter how you want to slice it.

The point is I know of almost every peer-reviewed study out there on AGW. Last time I checked, there was close to 900 in total. I may be off by a few.

I will bet a million dollars if you take up my challenge and provide an example of your best skeptic study, it will not be an academically credible report because credible skeptic papers debunking AGW simply do not exist.

[ROdger Right]

So in order to reverse man made global warming who do we send the profits to?

[Mauitime]

Just to let you know, I got down on someone recently for altering someone else's quotes in their "Quote code", in their reply. I didn't want it to start a trend that could turn into a slippery slope of people being accused of saying something they hadn't said.

A better way to do this, if you're correcting someone, would be to copy and paste a "corrected" copy outside of the "quote code" in a reply, italicized with quotation marks and maybe changed color.

I don't want people to get used to altering quoted replies. Some people may take it too far.


With all the vulgarity that is allowed I can't believe I am getting warned about correcting someones grammar!:D :D :D

Will Do on the Cut and paste.....;)

[Smurf-Herder]

Show me an article written one by one first. Because I guarantee you it is not credible, or you have misunderstood its meaning. Here is a challenge for you.

Provide an example of such a study which you claim debunks AGW. Because I can guarantee you, it is not credible.

So I'm going to repeat this over and over again. There is a study which examines this very issue -the number of peer-reviewed literature -debunking AGW.

And the results of that study is not good for the skeptics, no matter how you want to slice it.

The point is I know of almost every peer-reviewed study out there on AGW. Last time I checked, there was close to 900 in total. I may be off by a few.

I will bet a million dollars if you take up my challenge and provide an example of your best skeptic study, it will not be an academically credible report because credible skeptic papers debunking AGW simply do not exist.

Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change

I'm appealing to your common sense. There's big money in fixing "manmade" climate change - none in natural climate change.

Boston (MA) - Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon tells us that Earth has seen a reduced level of sunspot activity for the past 18 months, and is currently at the lowest levels seen in almost a century. Dr. Soon says "The sun is just slightly dimmer and has been for about the last 18 months. And that is because there are very few sunspots." He says when the sun has less sunspots, it gives off less energy, and the Earth tends to cool. He notes 2008 was a cold year for this very reason, and that 2009 may be cold for the same.


As of today, there have been 15 days in a row without any sunspots. In 2008 there were 266 days scattered throughout the year without sunspots, and in 2007 there were 163 days without sunspots. These are the #2 and #9 fewest sunspots years seen since 1911.

Dr. Soon's field of specialty is the sun. He explains that sunspots are planet-sized pockets of magnetism with much greater energy output and matter expulsion, some of which strikes the Earth's atmosphere as extra energy from the sun. He says when sunspots are present, the temperature goes up, when they are not present the temperature goes down. He also told a reporter at WBZ, CBS TV 38 (in Boston, MA) that beginning in 1645 and continuing through 1715, there were no observed sunspots. This is the period known as the Little Ice Age.

He also explains that sunspots go in cycles, which are around 11 years. There are periods of maximum activity (called the Solar Max) and periods of minimal or no activity (called the Solar Min).

Around the year 2000, the current cycle had reached its maximum. As of right now in 2009, it is at a period of zero sunspot activity. Still, he explains that no one knows for sure how long the cycles will last, and there are precedents that sunspots can persist for long periods of time, or there can be few or none for long periods of time (as happened between 1645 and 1715 during the Little Ice Age).

So far in 2009, the sun has had no sunspots for 88 out of the 99 days so far this year. Dr. Soon calls what we are seeing "the first deep solar minimum of the space age", and "In fact, this is the quietest [fewest sunspots] Sun we have had in almost a century".

In a separate video interview, he explains some possible scenarios which align with global temperature changes relating to sunspot activity, as the increased or decreased energy output from the sun affects the Earth's climate.

He explains in that interview:

"When the energy input to the Earth from the sun is lower, you can easily imagine then what the first effect would be -- heating less of the ocean's surface. This promotes less evaporation of water vapor from the ocean, reducing what we all know to be the major green house gas, water vapor, in contrast to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Then, you would say that if the sun provides less energy to warm the ocean's surface, and there is less of this water vapor and less of the water vapor greenhouse effect, then the Earth begins warming less so than you would normally have during the normal sunspot activity maximum when the sun gives off more light-energy to the planetary system.

"The second way to think about this is if the sun is giving less light to the ocean's surface, then you will also give less energy to transfer the heat, or even the material itself, from the surface to the upper atmosphere. The connection between the surface and the upper atmosphere is less than it would be, including the circulation patterns of the weather and the oceans.

"And then one can think about it another way, if you give less energy to transfer energy from the surface to higher up in the atmosphere, as high as 5 or 8 kilometers, then the chance for the system to produce these so-called thin high-cirrus clouds is less. These are the clouds that are very, very effective as a greenhouse blocker, these thin high-cirrus clouds. This is the idea that Professor Dickenson from MIT has suggested, that the Earth system may act like an iris. If it's too warm, then the iris opens, if it's too cold it closes, so that this fixture can trap heat, providing a very efficient way to warm or cool the Earth system.

"During a solar activity minimum, imagine that you produce less of these high-cirrus clouds, then the ability of the Earth to shed heat itself is a lot easier, therefore the system cools. And then continuing, when you don't have enough energy to bring all of this water vapor and the currents more than a few kilometers up, then it all accumulates at the bottom of the system, producing more of the low clouds. And on low clouds we know that they are very effective at reflecting sunlight. So again, it's another way that the Earth system can cool.

"And even another way to think about it is less energy intercepted in the tropical region, from say 20 or 30 degrees north and south latitudes, then you are able to transfer less heat energy to the polar regions, resulting in the arctic regions getting slightly cooler in that sense as well.

"So these are some of the possible scenarios that we've reached which in sort of a low-sunlight scenario would affect the Earth's weather."


Dr. Soon is an astrophysicist whose field of expertise is the sun for Harvard and the Smithsonian. He said, "The Sun is the all encompassing energy giver to life on planet Earth." And presently it's getting a lot of attention from scientists. He expects that if 2009 is another cold year which correlates to the decreased sunspot activity, that the global warming theories which attribute temperature fluctuations to increases in the levels of atmospheric CO2 will need to take notice.

He says, "If this deep solar minimum continues and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very telling time and it's very, very useful in terms of science and society in my opinion".

http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-42006-181.html

[Smurf-Herder]

Brightening Sun is Warming Earth
May account for major part of global warming

By William J. Cromie

Gazette Staff

There is a better explanation for global warming than air pollution, two Harvard researchers say: the Sun is increasing in brightness and radiance.

"Changes in the Sun can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming," claims Sallie Baliunas, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA).

"We're not saying that variations in solar activity account for all of the global rise in temperature that we are experiencing," cautions her CfA colleague, astrophysicist Willie Soon. "But we believe these variations are the major driving force. Heat-trapping gases emitted by smokestacks and vehicles -- the so-called greenhouse effect -- appear to be secondary."

If that conclusion proves true, it promises a huge economic and political impact on the "third rock from the Sun." The Clinton Administration is trying to negotiate an international treaty to gradually reduce greenhouse pollutants without bringing economic havoc to industries that satisfy our enormous appetite for the energy that comes from burning oil, coal, and gas.

Other world leaders and environmentalists are pushing for immediate action, but Baliunas thinks there is time to carefully consider what action to take. "The best models of global warming call for a very slow temperature rise of less than two degrees in the next 100 years," she has told various congressional committees and briefings. "There is time for more research and a measured response because the penalty you pay in increased temperatures from greenhouse warming is small."

Anything that's cost-effective to cut emissions can be done right away, Baliunas says. Dramatic cuts with high economic penalties might be postponed in the expectation that more effective and affordable technologies will become available in the next 25 years or so.

To ease the economic burdens, President Clinton has proposed various incentives. These include offering $5 billion in tax breaks for businesses to conserve energy and to develop new technologies, such as efficient electric cars and fuel cells that burn clean hydrogen. Vice President Al Gore described these incentives last Friday in a talk at the Kennedy School of Government.

A Bright Connection

Baliunas and Soon base their ideas about the cause of global warming on irrefutable evidence that sunlight is getting stronger. Since the late 1970s, three Sun-watching satellites recorded surprising changes in heat, ultraviolet radiation, and solar wind. The radiation alters the paths of winter storms; solar winds affect cloudiness and rainfall.

The increased activity, everyone agrees, is tied to a cycle that sees the Sun dimming, then brightening, every 11 years or so. From the late 1970s to mid-1980s, activity on Earth's star declined. Since then it has risen, declined, then risen again. The satellites measured an increase in brightness of as much as 0.14 percent on the latest rise.

Two unknowns, however, prevent Sun-watchers from making any useable forecasts about the next five years. No one knows why the Sun cycles like it does, or when it will reach its next maximum. The best guess is the year 2000.

Also, a 0.14 percent jump in brightness is not enough to account for the approximately 1 degree F rise in temperature on Earth in the past 100 years. What's more, various observations show that our planet is almost 2 degrees F warmer than it was around the year 1700.

Baliunas quickly points out that the satellite measurements apply to only one cycle, and evidence exists that the estimated jump in brightness over several previous cycles was almost four times as much -- 0.5 percent.

Also, looking elsewhere in the Milky Way reveals larger shifts in brightness of other Sunlike stars. Twenty years ago, when still a Harvard graduate student, Baliunas took over a project that has been recording brightness changes in such stars of between 0.1 and 0.7 percent.

"A change of 0.5 percent in brightness sustained over several past cycles could account for the 2 degree change in climate we have experienced since the beginning of the 18th century," Baliunas maintains. "We don't know if this actually happened, but it indicates that the Sun is a major driver of climate change. We cannot ignore its variations when accounting for the present global warming."

Sun Spots and Storms

What is more, these Baliunas-Soon assumptions consider only brightness changes. Also increasing during the maximum part of solar cycles are invisible but potent ultraviolet rays which heat up Earth's atmosphere and change the paths of winter storms.

This radiation hits oxygen molecules in the upper stratosphere and converts them to ozone. Some 25 miles above our heads, the ozone layer is best known for screening out ultraviolet radiation implicated in skin cancer, cataracts, and crop damage. However, researchers at Harvard's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences have found that increased amounts of ozone interfere with movement of heat from the equator to the poles. That, in turn, shifts the pattern of jet streams that steer the storms around the planet.

Exactly how this contributes to warming Earth during maximum solar activity, and to cooling it during minimums, remains a mystery. "Our uncertainty is enormous," Soon admits, "but we can't omit ultraviolet forcing as a factor in global warming."

The most striking markers of the Sun's waxings and wanings are the coming and going of black spots on its face. Sunspots mark areas where strong magnetic fields exit and enter the surface of the Sun. They are about a thousand degrees cooler than the bright areas that surround them, but are still incandescently hot.

These spots not only follow an 11-year cycle; they also cycle through longer periods of high and low magnetic activity. When the Sun boasts a maximum of spots, cycle after cycle, Earth tends to be warmer than when its face is clear.

During the years from 1640 to 1720, for example, observers counted abnormally few sunspots and Earth's climate entered a period of unusually cold weather. Since the mid-1960s, solar magnetism has been increasing along with global temperatures.

At such maximums, the wind of magnetic fields and charged particles that normally wafts across the 93 million miles from Sun to Earth blows harder. These gusts can trigger colorful displays of auroral lights during long polar nights. The strongest winds may also disrupt long-range radio communications, cause power outages, and disturb the operation of satellites.

Solar winds also produce radioactive carbon atoms in the atmosphere that eventually rain down and become assimilated into tree rings. High solar winds lead to rings with fewer radioactive atoms and vice versa. Changing levels of radiocarbon provide a natural record of magnetic changes on the Sun that can be matched with weather records of coldings and warmings.

"There have been 19 cold periods in the past 10,000 years and a decrease in solar magnetic activity can be linked to 17 of them," Baliunas notes.

Exactly how this happens remains unknown. It probably involves both changes in energy and variations in electrical charges on drops of water in the atmosphere. The drops provide seeds for the formation of clouds which add to natural and greenhouse warmings.

Neither Baliunas nor Soon ties these changes to El Niño, the periodic warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that brings mostly unwanted weather changes from India to Indiana. "There is no solar cycle with the same 4-to-7-year period and no known direct connection with changes on the Sun," Baliunas says.

"Over longer periods, both the ultraviolet radiation and the particles in solar winds alter the balance of energy in the atmosphere, affecting the movement of winds," Soon points out. "Together with changes in brightness, these mechanisms must affect longer-term changes in climate. All the records we have of climate tie it to variations in the Sun. It is reasonable to assume that that effect persists at the present time."

No one doubts this; but the magnitude of its influence on global warming remains in question. However, a significant number of researchers insist that solar changes are not great enough to produce the warming we are experiencing. They maintain that human activity is the main cause of rising temperatures that threaten widespread flooding, increased storminess, and potentially disruptive shifts in croplands. It is this group that wants to take immediate action to reduce heat-trapping air pollutants.

Baliunas and Soon maintain that interest in and understanding of solar effects will increase faster than rising temperatures, allowing time to study the Sun-climate relationships.

"But," Baliunas admits, "I am addressing scientific issues. Economic, political, and environmental considerations are quite another story."

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html

[Smurf-Herder]

So in order to reverse man made global warming who do we send the profits to?

Al Gore of course, in care of Generation Investment Management
http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html

The Media Ignore Al Gore's Planned Global Warming Profiteering

By now you've probably read about how Al Gore and his Alliance for Climate Protection plan to drop $300 million on hard-hitting affective propaganda aimed at convincing the American viewing public to embrace the drastically reduced standard of living that carbon emission controls guarantee.

The first ad from the campaign, narrated by Oscar-nominated actor William H. Macy, shows footage of Americans taking action by storming the beaches at Normandy during World War II, marching for civil rights, and landing on the moon. Americans didn't wait to take action at these critical points in the nation's history, so "we can't wait for someone else to solve the global climate crisis. We need to act and we need to act now. Join us. Together we can solve the climate crisis..."

Setting aside the fact that "we" couldn't actually solve the imagined climate crisis even if stringent carbon controls were imposed on "us," why isn't the media taking a hard look at how much money Al Gore stands to personally take in as a result of the climate of mass hysteria he’s been been helping to foment with his no-holds-barred campaign of misinformation aimed at marginalizing and ostracizing all those who dare to question his take on global warming? Why is the media giving Saint Albert of Carthage, Tennessee, a pass, treating him as a selfless truth-teller on a crusade to save the world, instead of as a masterful market manipulator? (NewsBusters' Dan Riehl hit the bullseye on his personal blog last year, "If Gore's motivation in pushing Global Warming is so altruistic, was it really necessarily for the already wealthy Gore to establish a multi-million dollar corporation in England to cash in?")

It's well-documented that the media treats Gore like a rock star. Fast Company hailed Gore as a comeback kid, describing him as "an epic loser [who] engineered what may be the greatest brand makeover of our time." Business Week said he "seems now to be tapped into the American zeitgeist." ClimateBiz cited one source calling Gore a "truly committed and courageous leader," another source in the same article described Gore's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize as "a huge intellectual milestone." And there have been a few puff pieces here and there on Gore's global warming-related business investments, but none that this writer was to find go beyond the superficial.

How is Gore trying to be a climate change profiteer? Essentially, he wants to make a fortune by creating a new market for a product that he is attempting to create by legislative fiat. If he succeeds and carbon emissions trading comes to the United States, Al Gore will be uniquely positioned to cash in. He's made sure of that.

Gore himself is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). He says the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are becoming environmentally-friendly, to use green parlance. GIM appears to have considerable influence over major carbon credit trading firms: the U.S.-based Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the U.K.-based Carbon Neutral Company (CNC). CCX appears to be the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.
As a politician, Gore speaks warmly of transparency. But as GIM chairman, Gore has not been forthcoming. Little is known about his shadowy firm’s finances, where it gets funding and what projects it supports.

As reported in the August 2007 issue of Foundation Watch ("Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It," by Deborah Corey Barnes), with help from friends at Goldman Sachs, including Hank Paulson, the investment bank’s former CEO who is now the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Gore has created a web of organizations to promote the so-called climate crisis.
Meanwhile, Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection is pushing for tougher environmental regulations on the private sector. It wants “cap-and-trade” legislation enacted so that companies will be forced to lower their greenhouse gas emissions and buy carbon credits. Untold billions of dollars could be generated in a brand new U.S. carbon market.

When Gore's potential for immense profits is factored in, the $300 million outlay for ads (some of which is likely to come from donations to the Alliance's "We Campaign") seems like a drop in the bucket.

If Gore can keep up the pressure for carbon emissions restrictions, he could end up a very wealthy man.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-vadum/2008/04/01/media-ignores-al-gores-planned-global-warming-profiteering

[Binky]

With all the vulgarity that is allowed I can't believe I am getting warned about correcting someones grammar!:D :D :D

Will Do on the Cut and paste.....;)


As Prof. is finding out, correcting someones grammar is a never ending process.

[Cat slave]

Well, if grammar and sentence structure are requirements for this forum Im
toast!:D

[Cat slave]

Al Gore of course, in care of Generation Investment Management
http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html

The Media Ignore Al Gore's Planned Global Warming Profiteering

By now you've probably read about how Al Gore and his Alliance for Climate Protection plan to drop $300 million on hard-hitting affective propaganda aimed at convincing the American viewing public to embrace the drastically reduced standard of living that carbon emission controls guarantee.

The first ad from the campaign, narrated by Oscar-nominated actor William H. Macy, shows footage of Americans taking action by storming the beaches at Normandy during World War II, marching for civil rights, and landing on the moon. Americans didn't wait to take action at these critical points in the nation's history, so "we can't wait for someone else to solve the global climate crisis. We need to act and we need to act now. Join us. Together we can solve the climate crisis..."

Setting aside the fact that "we" couldn't actually solve the imagined climate crisis even if stringent carbon controls were imposed on "us," why isn't the media taking a hard look at how much money Al Gore stands to personally take in as a result of the climate of mass hysteria he’s been been helping to foment with his no-holds-barred campaign of misinformation aimed at marginalizing and ostracizing all those who dare to question his take on global warming? Why is the media giving Saint Albert of Carthage, Tennessee, a pass, treating him as a selfless truth-teller on a crusade to save the world, instead of as a masterful market manipulator? (NewsBusters' Dan Riehl hit the bullseye on his personal blog last year, "If Gore's motivation in pushing Global Warming is so altruistic, was it really necessarily for the already wealthy Gore to establish a multi-million dollar corporation in England to cash in?")

It's well-documented that the media treats Gore like a rock star. Fast Company hailed Gore as a comeback kid, describing him as "an epic loser [who] engineered what may be the greatest brand makeover of our time." Business Week said he "seems now to be tapped into the American zeitgeist." ClimateBiz cited one source calling Gore a "truly committed and courageous leader," another source in the same article described Gore's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize as "a huge intellectual milestone." And there have been a few puff pieces here and there on Gore's global warming-related business investments, but none that this writer was to find go beyond the superficial.

How is Gore trying to be a climate change profiteer? Essentially, he wants to make a fortune by creating a new market for a product that he is attempting to create by legislative fiat. If he succeeds and carbon emissions trading comes to the United States, Al Gore will be uniquely positioned to cash in. He's made sure of that.

Gore himself is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). He says the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are becoming environmentally-friendly, to use green parlance. GIM appears to have considerable influence over major carbon credit trading firms: the U.S.-based Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the U.K.-based Carbon Neutral Company (CNC). CCX appears to be the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.
As a politician, Gore speaks warmly of transparency. But as GIM chairman, Gore has not been forthcoming. Little is known about his shadowy firm’s finances, where it gets funding and what projects it supports.

As reported in the August 2007 issue of Foundation Watch ("Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It," by Deborah Corey Barnes), with help from friends at Goldman Sachs, including Hank Paulson, the investment bank’s former CEO who is now the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Gore has created a web of organizations to promote the so-called climate crisis.
Meanwhile, Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection is pushing for tougher environmental regulations on the private sector. It wants “cap-and-trade” legislation enacted so that companies will be forced to lower their greenhouse gas emissions and buy carbon credits. Untold billions of dollars could be generated in a brand new U.S. carbon market.

When Gore's potential for immense profits is factored in, the $300 million outlay for ads (some of which is likely to come from donations to the Alliance's "We Campaign") seems like a drop in the bucket.

If Gore can keep up the pressure for carbon emissions restrictions, he could end up a very wealthy man.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-vadum/2008/04/01/media-ignores-al-gores-planned-global-warming-profiteering


OMG!!!!! You mean the big bright ball in the sky is ....... hot???
Imagine that! You just never know! ROTFL:lmao2:

You two brains (Mauitime and you) should have some great discussions.
Youre both over my head but I can learn from your posts and enjoy them
immensely.

Being that I can think for myself, walk and chew gum at the same time and
am able to reason I can sort of keep up with you guys!

Too bad some others cant learn from these posts/threads. I also know
a brain dead librul when I see one, they will go unnamed.

[Binky]

Well, if grammar and sentence structure are requirements for this forum Im
toast!:D


You and many others, my dear Cat. :lmao2: :lmao2:

[Binky]

OMG!!!!! You mean the big bright ball in the sky is ....... hot???
Imagine that! You just never know! ROTFL:lmao2:

You two brains (Mauitime and you) should have some great discussions.
Youre both over my head but I can learn from your posts and enjoy them
immensely.

Being that I can think for myself, walk and chew gum at the same time and
am able to reason I can sort of keep up with you guys!

Too bad some others cant learn from these posts/threads. I also know
a brain dead librul when I see one, they will go unnamed.


Way to go, Cat. How dare you be able to think for yourself. Shame on you! :lmao2: :lmao2:

[Mauitime]

Where is our little buddy at???? Probably writing another thesis on Underwater Basket Weaving for that fourth Doctorate.....:thumbsup:

Or out buying some Velcro Shoes........

[Smurf-Herder]

What really kills me about these Global Warming worshippers is that they missed the boat on what's actually happening in real time. The CO2 is still rising, yet the temperature is going down.

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

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 in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. 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.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm

Global cooling is here

Winter officially arrives with Sunday's solstice. But for many Americans, autumn 2008's final days already feel like deepest, coldest January.

New Englanders still lack electricity after a Dec. 11 ice storm snapped power lines. Up to eight inches of snow struck New Orleans and southern Louisiana that day and didn't melt for 48 hours in some neighborhoods.

In southern California Wednesday, a half-inch of snow brightened Malibu's hills while a half-foot barricaded highways and marooned commuters in desert towns east of Los Angeles. Three inches of the white stuff shuttered Las Vegas' McCarren Airport that day and dusted the Strip's hotels and casinos.

What are the odds of that?

Actually, the odds are rising that snow, ice, and cold will grow increasingly common. As serious scientists repeatedly explain, global cooling is here. It is chilling temperatures and so-called "global-warming."

According to the National Climatic Data Center, 2008 will be America's coldest year since 1997, thanks to La Niña and precipitation in the central and eastern states. Solar quietude also may underlie global cooling. This year's sunspots and solar radiation approach the minimum in the Sun's cycle, corresponding with lower Earth temperatures. This echoes Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Dr. Sallie Baliunas' belief that solar variability, much more than CO2, sways global temperatures.

Meanwhile, the National Weather Service reports that last summer was Anchorage's third coldest on record. "Not since 1980 has there been a summer less reflective of global warming," Craig Medred wrote in the Anchorage Daily News. Consequently, Alaska's glaciers are thickening in the middle. "It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance," U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia told Medred Oct. 13. Similarly, the National Snow and Ice Data Center found that Arctic sea ice expanded 13.2 percent this year, or a Texas-sized 270,000 square miles.

Across the equator, Brazil endured an especially cold September. Snow graced its southern provinces that month.

"Global Warming is over, and Global Warming Theory has failed. There is no evidence that CO2 drives world temperatures or any consequent climate change," Imperial College London astrophysicist and long-range forecaster Piers Corbyn wrote British Members of Parliament on Oct. 28. "According to official data in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been colder than that year, yet CO2 has been rising rapidly." That evening, as the House of Commons debated legislation on so-called "global-warming," October snow fell in London for the first time since 1922.

These observations parallel those of five German researchers led by Professor Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences. "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade," they concluded in last May's "Nature," "as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic (man-made) warming."

This "lull" should doom the 0.54 degree Fahrenheit average global temperature rise predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Vatican of so-called "global warming." Incidentally, the IPCC's computer models factor in neither El Niño nor the Gulf Stream. Excluding such major climate variables would be like ESPN ignoring baseball and basketball.

So, is this all just propaganda concocted by Chevron-funded, right-wing, flat-Earthers? Ask Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a physical chemist and retired Navy meteorologist.

"As a scientist and lifelong liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming to be a disservice to science," Hertzberg wrote in Sept. 26's USA Today. "From the El Niño year of 1998 until Jan., 2007, the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere near its surface decreased some 0.25 C (0.45 F). From Jan., 2007 until the spring of 2008, it dropped a whopping 0.75 C (1.35 F)."

As global cooling becomes more widely recognized, Americans from Maine to Malibu should feel comfortable dreaming of a white Christmas.

http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/392789_murdockonline19.html

Old Farmer's Almanac predicts global cooling

CHICAGO, Sept 18 (Reuters) - The world is set for a "big chill," possibly a mini-ice age, according to the venerable and whimsical Old Farmer's Almanac, first published in 1792 and the United States' oldest continuously published periodical.

The 2009 edition, published earlier this month, predicts that the earth already has entered a sustained period of global cooling.

True to form, the almanac also includes tips on gardening and how to stay warm all winter with just one log.

"The next 20 years, it's going to be colder," said Sarah Perreault, assistant editor of the Old Farmer's Almanac. "We do recognize that (global cooling) could be offset by greenhouse gasses and other human effects on the earth, but we're trending toward the cool period now."

The almanac is predicting a period of global cooling partly due to the lack of sunspots, a situation which some scientists believe causes cooling on the sun and, subsequently, the earth.

Perreault said the staff still uses the weather prediction method devised by almanac founder Robert B. Thomas, using a combination of solar sciences, meteorology and climatology.

"Obviously we have more technology now," she said. "We have the benefit of having more information than he had, but it's basically the same."

She said the method is not exact. Since the almanac is published so far in advance, it cannot take into account the most up-to-date information on Pacific Ocean oscillations El Nino or La Nina, for instance.

Still, the almanac has an 80 percent success rate for its weather predictions, Perreault said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/mediaNews/idUSN1830188420080918

[Hog Trash]

So in order to reverse man made global warming who do we send the profits to?The #1 profiteer of global warming will be government through ever increasing carbon and energy taxes.

Corrupt politicians will be scraping over their share of the booty...Of course Al Gore will be hocking his Carbon Credits.

[Cat slave]

There is a breaking point and when we hit that there wont be any taxes or
income for the ALBore fat***!

Its so funny everytime they have to convene a meeting on GWarming, they
are pelted with snowstorms. ROTFL! Only the Kool Aide drinkers can twist
that to be man made global warming.

We could well go the way of many species if we dont wake up and stop
the political crap and the outright lying.

[Cat slave]

Way to go, Cat. How dare you be able to think for yourself. Shame on you! :lmao2: :lmao2:


How politically incorrect I am!:thumbsup:

[Binky]

May we please can the topic of global warming? It's as old as the weather. And boring as heck. It's all been said, numerous times over and still the sheep believe that we can stop it from changing. :lmao2: :lmao2:

[Cat slave]

Where is our little buddy at???? Probably writing another thesis on Underwater Basket Weaving for that fourth Doctorate.....:thumbsup:

Or out buying some Velcro Shoes........

Its Easter Sunday...hes probably trying to figure out which bonnet to wear
today in the parade.....whichever parade that would be.:D
This is the day for frills and frocks....I can just see it.:lmao2:

[Cat slave]

May we please can the topic of global warming? It's as old as the weather. And boring as heck. It's all been said, numerous times over and still the sheep believe that we can stop it from changing. :lmao2: :lmao2:

Aw....but its so much fun watching the libruls recite their scripts and stumble
blindly on behind their messiah(s).;)

[The_Limit]

Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change

I'm appealing to your common sense. There's big money in fixing "manmade" climate change - none in natural climate change.

Boston (MA) - Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon tells us that Earth has seen a reduced level of sunspot activity for the past 18 months, and is currently at the lowest levels seen in almost a century. Dr. Soon says "The sun is just slightly dimmer and has been for about the last 18 months. And that is because there are very few sunspots." He says when the sun has less sunspots, it gives off less energy, and the Earth tends to cool. He notes 2008 was a cold year for this very reason, and that 2009 may be cold for the same.


As of today, there have been 15 days in a row without any sunspots. In 2008 there were 266 days scattered throughout the year without sunspots, and in 2007 there were 163 days without sunspots. These are the #2 and #9 fewest sunspots years seen since 1911.

Dr. Soon's field of specialty is the sun. He explains that sunspots are planet-sized pockets of magnetism with much greater energy output and matter expulsion, some of which strikes the Earth's atmosphere as extra energy from the sun. He says when sunspots are present, the temperature goes up, when they are not present the temperature goes down. He also told a reporter at WBZ, CBS TV 38 (in Boston, MA) that beginning in 1645 and continuing through 1715, there were no observed sunspots. This is the period known as the Little Ice Age.

He also explains that sunspots go in cycles, which are around 11 years. There are periods of maximum activity (called the Solar Max) and periods of minimal or no activity (called the Solar Min).

Around the year 2000, the current cycle had reached its maximum. As of right now in 2009, it is at a period of zero sunspot activity. Still, he explains that no one knows for sure how long the cycles will last, and there are precedents that sunspots can persist for long periods of time, or there can be few or none for long periods of time (as happened between 1645 and 1715 during the Little Ice Age).

So far in 2009, the sun has had no sunspots for 88 out of the 99 days so far this year. Dr. Soon calls what we are seeing "the first deep solar minimum of the space age", and "In fact, this is the quietest [fewest sunspots] Sun we have had in almost a century".

In a separate video interview, he explains some possible scenarios which align with global temperature changes relating to sunspot activity, as the increased or decreased energy output from the sun affects the Earth's climate.

He explains in that interview:

"When the energy input to the Earth from the sun is lower, you can easily imagine then what the first effect would be -- heating less of the ocean's surface. This promotes less evaporation of water vapor from the ocean, reducing what we all know to be the major green house gas, water vapor, in contrast to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Then, you would say that if the sun provides less energy to warm the ocean's surface, and there is less of this water vapor and less of the water vapor greenhouse effect, then the Earth begins warming less so than you would normally have during the normal sunspot activity maximum when the sun gives off more light-energy to the planetary system.

"The second way to think about this is if the sun is giving less light to the ocean's surface, then you will also give less energy to transfer the heat, or even the material itself, from the surface to the upper atmosphere. The connection between the surface and the upper atmosphere is less than it would be, including the circulation patterns of the weather and the oceans.

"And then one can think about it another way, if you give less energy to transfer energy from the surface to higher up in the atmosphere, as high as 5 or 8 kilometers, then the chance for the system to produce these so-called thin high-cirrus clouds is less. These are the clouds that are very, very effective as a greenhouse blocker, these thin high-cirrus clouds. This is the idea that Professor Dickenson from MIT has suggested, that the Earth system may act like an iris. If it's too warm, then the iris opens, if it's too cold it closes, so that this fixture can trap heat, providing a very efficient way to warm or cool the Earth system.

"During a solar activity minimum, imagine that you produce less of these high-cirrus clouds, then the ability of the Earth to shed heat itself is a lot easier, therefore the system cools. And then continuing, when you don't have enough energy to bring all of this water vapor and the currents more than a few kilometers up, then it all accumulates at the bottom of the system, producing more of the low clouds. And on low clouds we know that they are very effective at reflecting sunlight. So again, it's another way that the Earth system can cool.

"And even another way to think about it is less energy intercepted in the tropical region, from say 20 or 30 degrees north and south latitudes, then you are able to transfer less heat energy to the polar regions, resulting in the arctic regions getting slightly cooler in that sense as well.

"So these are some of the possible scenarios that we've reached which in sort of a low-sunlight scenario would affect the Earth's weather."


Dr. Soon is an astrophysicist whose field of expertise is the sun for Harvard and the Smithsonian. He said, "The Sun is the all encompassing energy giver to life on planet Earth." And presently it's getting a lot of attention from scientists. He expects that if 2009 is another cold year which correlates to the decreased sunspot activity, that the global warming theories which attribute temperature fluctuations to increases in the levels of atmospheric CO2 will need to take notice.

He says, "If this deep solar minimum continues and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very telling time and it's very, very useful in terms of science and society in my opinion".

http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-42006-181.html

I've read this article and it has nothing to do with debunking AGW or advancing skeptic claims.

In fact, it does not even try unless you count the very last sentence, which if anything seems like support of AGW. "He expects that if 2009 is another cold year which correlates to the decreased sunspot activity, that the global warming theories which attribute temperature fluctuations to increases in the levels of atmospheric CO2 will need to take notice."

So I am confused as to why you would post such an irrelevant piece.

[The_Limit]

Brightening Sun is Warming Earth
May account for major part of global warming

There is a better explanation for global warming than air pollution, two Harvard researchers say: the Sun is increasing in brightness and radiance.

"Changes in the Sun can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming," claims Sallie Baliunas, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA).

"We're not saying that variations in solar activity account for all of the global rise in temperature that we are experiencing," cautions her CfA colleague, astrophysicist Willie Soon. "But we believe these variations are the major driving force. Heat-trapping gases emitted by smokestacks and vehicles -- the so-called greenhouse effect -- appear to be secondary."

If that conclusion proves true, it promises a huge economic and political impact on the "third rock from the Sun." The Clinton Administration is trying to negotiate an international treaty to gradually reduce greenhouse pollutants without bringing economic havoc to industries that satisfy our enormous appetite for the energy that comes from burning oil, coal, and gas.

Other world leaders and environmentalists are pushing for immediate action, but Baliunas thinks there is time to carefully consider what action to take. "The best models of global warming call for a very slow temperature rise of less than two degrees in the next 100 years," she has told various congressional committees and briefings. "There is time for more research and a measured response because the penalty you pay in increased temperatures from greenhouse warming is small."

Anything that's cost-effective to cut emissions can be done right away, Baliunas says. Dramatic cuts with high economic penalties might be postponed in the expectation that more effective and affordable technologies will become available in the next 25 years or so.

To ease the economic burdens, President Clinton has proposed various incentives. These include offering $5 billion in tax breaks for businesses to conserve energy and to develop new technologies, such as efficient electric cars and fuel cells that burn clean hydrogen. Vice President Al Gore described these incentives last Friday in a talk at the Kennedy School of Government.

A Bright Connection

Baliunas and Soon base their ideas about the cause of global warming on irrefutable evidence that sunlight is getting stronger. Since the late 1970s, three Sun-watching satellites recorded surprising changes in heat, ultraviolet radiation, and solar wind. The radiation alters the paths of winter storms; solar winds affect cloudiness and rainfall.

The increased activity, everyone agrees, is tied to a cycle that sees the Sun dimming, then brightening, every 11 years or so. From the late 1970s to mid-1980s, activity on Earth's star declined. Since then it has risen, declined, then risen again. The satellites measured an increase in brightness of as much as 0.14 percent on the latest rise.

Two unknowns, however, prevent Sun-watchers from making any useable forecasts about the next five years. No one knows why the Sun cycles like it does, or when it will reach its next maximum. The best guess is the year 2000.

Also, a 0.14 percent jump in brightness is not enough to account for the approximately 1 degree F rise in temperature on Earth in the past 100 years. What's more, various observations show that our planet is almost 2 degrees F warmer than it was around the year 1700.

Baliunas quickly points out that the satellite measurements apply to only one cycle, and evidence exists that the estimated jump in brightness over several previous cycles was almost four times as much -- 0.5 percent.


Sun Spots and Storms

What is more, these Baliunas-Soon assumptions consider only brightness changes. Also increasing during the maximum part of solar cycles are invisible but potent ultraviolet rays which heat up Earth's atmosphere and change the paths of winter storms.

This radiation hits oxygen molecules in the upper stratosphere and converts them to ozone. Some 25 miles above our heads, the ozone layer is best known for screening out ultraviolet radiation implicated in skin cancer, cataracts, and crop damage. However, researchers at Harvard's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences have found that increased amounts of ozone interfere with movement of heat from the equator to the poles. That, in turn, shifts the pattern of jet streams that steer the storms around the planet.



Neither Baliunas nor Soon ties these changes to El Niño, the periodic warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that brings mostly unwanted weather changes from India to Indiana. "There is no solar cycle with the same 4-to-7-year period and no known direct connection with changes on the Sun," Baliunas says.

Baliunas and Soon maintain that interest in and understanding of solar effects will increase faster than rising temperatures, allowing time to study the Sun-climate relationships.

"But," Baliunas admits, "I am addressing scientific issues. Economic, political, and environmental considerations are quite another story."

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html
It is mandatory to note Balinus and Soon are not climate scientists, no matter how hard you wish them to be. Needless to say, their creditability is in question as they are not experts in the field of climate science.

Baliunas and Soon happen to remain two of the most discredited skeptics AGW out there. Its funny you would post an article - from 1997 - to make a point.

Especially since it was Baliunas' and Soon's later papers (2003), not the 1997 piece, that you should have posted. But of course, how could you, since you are too lazy do the required research.

Either way, it does not matter. Because the paper was discredited long ago. And I'm going to tell you why.

The answer is because the initial claim by Balinus in her paper that the "atmospheric data showed no warming trend" was incorrect. In fact the sateillite and balloon data did she show a warming trend.

How do I know this?

Because Balinus herself admitted it, in a piece she wrote for Capitalism magazine. "Both satellites and balloons have carried instruments aloft to sense the temperature changes of those layers. In the case of the satellite record, which begins in 1979, there is a globally-averaged warming trend of only 0.04 C per decade, which projects to 0.4 C per century. But that exceedingly small positive trend is probably not the result of human activities. " (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1494)

================================================== =================================

Either way, Balinus' paper was so bad, so faulty that 13 of the authors that she cited in her 2003 paper came out and attacked her for wholly misrepresenting their findings.

The Eos article is a response to two recent and nearly identical papers by Drs. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard‑Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, published in Climate Research and Energy & Environment (the latter paper with additional co-authors). These authors challenge the generally accepted view that natural factors cannot fully explain recent warming and must have been supplemented by significant human activity, and their papers have received attention in the media and in the U.S. Senate. Requests from reporters to top scientists in the field, seeking comment on the Soon and Baliunas position, lead to memoranda that were later expanded into the current Eos article, which was itself peer reviewed.

First, in using proxy records to draw inferences about past climate, it is essential to assess their actual sensitivity to temperature variability. In particular, the authors say, Soon and Baliunas misuse proxy data reflective of changes in moisture or drought, rather than temperature, in their analysis.

Second, it is essential to distinguish between regional temperature anomalies and hemispheric mean temperature, which must represent an average of estimates over a sufficiently large number of distinct regions. For example, Mann and his co- authors say, the concepts of a "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" arose from the Eurocentric origins of historic climatology. The specific periods of coldness and warmth differed from region to region and as compared with data for the northern hemisphere as a whole.

Third, according to Mann and his colleagues, it is essential to define carefully the modern base period with which past climate is to be compared and to identify and quantify uncertainties. For example, they say, the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) carefully compares data for recent decades with reconstructions of past temperatures, taking into account the uncertainties in those reconstructions. IPCC concluded that late 20th century warmth in the northern hemisphere likely exceeded that of any time in the past millennium. The method used by Soon and Baliunas, they say, considers mean conditions for the entire 20th century as the base period and determines past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving trends on a decadal basis. It is therefore, they say, of limited value in determining whether recent warming in anomalous in a long term and large scale context.

Michael Mann, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia;
Caspar Ammann and Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado;
Raymond Bradley, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts;
Keith Briffa, Philip Jones, and Tim Osborn, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom;
Tom Crowley, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina;
Malcolm Hughes, Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona;
Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey;
Jonathan Overpeck, Department of Geosciences and Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona;
Scott Rutherford, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island;
Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado.

(http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0319.html)

[The_Limit]

What really kills me about these Global Warming worshippers is that they missed the boat on what's actually happening in real time. The CO2 is still rising, yet the temperature is going down.

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

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 in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. 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.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm

Global cooling is here

Winter officially arrives with Sunday's solstice. But for many Americans, autumn 2008's final days already feel like deepest, coldest January.

New Englanders still lack electricity after a Dec. 11 ice storm snapped power lines. Up to eight inches of snow struck New Orleans and southern Louisiana that day and didn't melt for 48 hours in some neighborhoods.

In southern California Wednesday, a half-inch of snow brightened Malibu's hills while a half-foot barricaded highways and marooned commuters in desert towns east of Los Angeles. Three inches of the white stuff shuttered Las Vegas' McCarren Airport that day and dusted the Strip's hotels and casinos.

What are the odds of that?

Actually, the odds are rising that snow, ice, and cold will grow increasingly common. As serious scientists repeatedly explain, global cooling is here. It is chilling temperatures and so-called "global-warming."

According to the National Climatic Data Center, 2008 will be America's coldest year since 1997, thanks to La Niña and precipitation in the central and eastern states. Solar quietude also may underlie global cooling. This year's sunspots and solar radiation approach the minimum in the Sun's cycle, corresponding with lower Earth temperatures. This echoes Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Dr. Sallie Baliunas' belief that solar variability, much more than CO2, sways global temperatures.

Meanwhile, the National Weather Service reports that last summer was Anchorage's third coldest on record. "Not since 1980 has there been a summer less reflective of global warming," Craig Medred wrote in the Anchorage Daily News. Consequently, Alaska's glaciers are thickening in the middle. "It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance," U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia told Medred Oct. 13. Similarly, the National Snow and Ice Data Center found that Arctic sea ice expanded 13.2 percent this year, or a Texas-sized 270,000 square miles.

Across the equator, Brazil endured an especially cold September. Snow graced its southern provinces that month.

"Global Warming is over, and Global Warming Theory has failed. There is no evidence that CO2 drives world temperatures or any consequent climate change," Imperial College London astrophysicist and long-range forecaster Piers Corbyn wrote British Members of Parliament on Oct. 28. "According to official data in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been colder than that year, yet CO2 has been rising rapidly." That evening, as the House of Commons debated legislation on so-called "global-warming," October snow fell in London for the first time since 1922.

These observations parallel those of five German researchers led by Professor Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences. "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade," they concluded in last May's "Nature," "as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic (man-made) warming."

This "lull" should doom the 0.54 degree Fahrenheit average global temperature rise predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Vatican of so-called "global warming." Incidentally, the IPCC's computer models factor in neither El Niño nor the Gulf Stream. Excluding such major climate variables would be like ESPN ignoring baseball and basketball.

So, is this all just propaganda concocted by Chevron-funded, right-wing, flat-Earthers? Ask Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a physical chemist and retired Navy meteorologist.

"As a scientist and lifelong liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming to be a disservice to science," Hertzberg wrote in Sept. 26's USA Today. "From the El Niño year of 1998 until Jan., 2007, the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere near its surface decreased some 0.25 C (0.45 F). From Jan., 2007 until the spring of 2008, it dropped a whopping 0.75 C (1.35 F)."

As global cooling becomes more widely recognized, Americans from Maine to Malibu should feel comfortable dreaming of a white Christmas.

http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/392789_murdockonline19.html

Old Farmer's Almanac predicts global cooling

CHICAGO, Sept 18 (Reuters) - The world is set for a "big chill," possibly a mini-ice age, according to the venerable and whimsical Old Farmer's Almanac, first published in 1792 and the United States' oldest continuously published periodical.

The 2009 edition, published earlier this month, predicts that the earth already has entered a sustained period of global cooling.

True to form, the almanac also includes tips on gardening and how to stay warm all winter with just one log.

"The next 20 years, it's going to be colder," said Sarah Perreault, assistant editor of the Old Farmer's Almanac. "We do recognize that (global cooling) could be offset by greenhouse gasses and other human effects on the earth, but we're trending toward the cool period now."

The almanac is predicting a period of global cooling partly due to the lack of sunspots, a situation which some scientists believe causes cooling on the sun and, subsequently, the earth.

Perreault said the staff still uses the weather prediction method devised by almanac founder Robert B. Thomas, using a combination of solar sciences, meteorology and climatology.

"Obviously we have more technology now," she said. "We have the benefit of having more information than he had, but it's basically the same."

She said the method is not exact. Since the almanac is published so far in advance, it cannot take into account the most up-to-date information on Pacific Ocean oscillations El Nino or La Nina, for instance.

Still, the almanac has an 80 percent success rate for its weather predictions, Perreault said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/mediaNews/idUSN1830188420080918

There is no need to comment on the above articles because it is not peer-reviewed literature nor do the articles attempt to debunk AGW.

Still waiting for you to post one serious peer-reviewed article which appeared in a scientific journal debunking AGW Smurf.

*hint*

You will never find it because it does not exist.

[Smurf-Herder]

I'm not going to waste time on this.

Maybe this site will help you out.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

[Smurf-Herder]

Maybe you could go down the lists here:

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

Or here:

Peer-Review Papers Skeptical of "Man-Made" Global Warming
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

Or here:

Peer Reviewed Studies and/or Major Scientific Journal Articles Disputing Man-made Causes for Global Warming
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/page.php?8