Saturday May 24, 2008, 9:14 am
Well, they don't seem to allow reality to ever intrude on the Doomsday scenario. The warming peaked in 1998 and a cooling trend started in 2001 which is to continue until 2015-2023.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/archibald_prize/

"John Connor of The Climate Institute says that my boat, my car and I are destroying the environment. My work says the opposite. The more carbon dioxide you put into the atmosphere, the more you are helping all plants on the planet to grow, and of course that makes you a better person. Virtue is in direct proportion to your carbon dioxide output. What of the temperature, you ask? Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but the effect is strongly logarithmic. The first 20 ppm achieves 1.5 degrees of heating, but it takes more than another 400 ppm to equal that. By the time we get to the current level of 384 ppm, carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. From here, every 100 ppm extra may be worth 0.1 of a degree.

So how does the IPCC achieve 5 degrees of heating from a doubling of the pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide to 560 ppm? They do it by cheating. Their computer models are written so that a little bit of carbon dioxide-caused heating puts more water vapour in the air. Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas, so they have the heating compounding away until they get a number that will melt icecaps, kill polar bears and all the other effects of their apocalyptic visions. Their view of the Earth’s climate is that it is tremendously unstable, prone to thermal runaway at the slightest provocation. In fact it is the opposite, a buffered system that dampens disturbances. Tropical seas can’t get warmer than 31 degrees because they start evaporating too rapidly to get any hotter. Similarly, high level tropical clouds part to vent radiation to space. The Earth is just about perfect for sustaining equable living conditions over a good proportion of its surface

What is strange is that the wailing of the global warming proponents is in the face of a temperature record that does not support their theory. Peak global temperature was in 1998 and we have had ten years of cooling since. The satellite record shows that the temperature of the Southern Hemisphere has been flat for the last 30 years. The Earth’s failure to warm has become quite annoying to the global warmers, and signs of cognitive dissonance are appearing in their camp. Surely a few more years of cooling will leave only the true believers in their misanthropic ideology, and the truly idiotic. Or is that moment with us now?

Can cooling continue, or is climate just a random walk? Not only will it continue, substantial cooling next decade is in the bag based on current solar behaviour. There is a good correlation between solar cycle length and the temperature over the following solar cycle. Long solar cycles cause l
ower temperatures. The classic case is the Dalton Minimum between 1796 and 1820. This was a time of crop failures in Europe and the US, and of the Thames freezing over in winter, caused by the weak amplitude of Solar Cycles 5 and 6. Solar cycles are normally 11 years long. Solar Cycle 4 which preceded the Dalton Minimum was a long one at 13.6 years. We are currently near the end of Solar Cycle 23, which is already 12 years long and showing no signs of finishing this year. It is already two and a half years longer than the one that preceded it. With 0.7 degrees of cooling for every extra year of solar cycle length, we already have 1.7 degrees of cooling in the bag for the mid-latitudes. The next decade will not be a good time to be a Canadian wheat farmer. In fact the current high grain prices caused by the mandated levels of ethanol in US petrol are just a warm up to the main event: a big reduction in mid-latitude grain production due to shorter growing seasons and unseasonal frosts. The global warmers do not have a monopoly on apocalyptic visions. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will help agricultural production a little. A 300 ppm increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase wheat yields by 50%. Australia is a dry continent and we will benefit more than most others.

The next question is how to get more of that beneficial carbon dioxide up in the atmosphere where we need it. Non-OPEC oil production peaked in 2002, with flow on effects to the prices of coal and LNG. It won’t be cheap to do good from here. The good news for Australia is that coal-to-diesel plants are profitable at US$40 per barrel. At the current oil price, they are extremely profitable, and Australia has plenty of coal. The conversion process produces abundant carbon dioxide, so it is win-win all round."

(David Archibald is a Perth-based scientist working in the fields of climate and cancer research. He also explores for oil in northern Western Australia.)

Saturday May 24, 2008, 10:14 am
LOL! Cancer research? Like some of those tobacco denialists who asserted for many years that tobacco does NOT cause cancer to protect the big tobacco companies from lawsuits? And this guy explores for oil as well? That's all I need to know about David Archibald's motives. He's a sell out, like most global warming denialists tend to be.

Thanks for the laugh, Judy!

Saturday May 24, 2008, 9:54 pm
Sell out...do you know how much money Gore has made on this hoax...or how about James Hansen and all those "prizes" and "awards" like Teresa Kerry awarding him $250,000 for his performance in 1992.

Saturday May 24, 2008, 10:03 pm
Yes, and he is spending millions to spread the truth (and counter the oil companies lies) what a great man - guess that is why he won the Nobel Prize :) Gee did not the Exxon CEO (for get his name) get $140 MILLION as a single retirement package - Gore and Hanson kind of pale in light of that LOL

Saturday May 24, 2008, 10:06 pm
and sorry - the we are in a cooling trend rant (repeated over and over and over again) is still dogma...


New GW denialists’ deceptive lie on global temperatures

http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/new-gw-denialists-deceptive-lie-on-global-temperatures/

Saturday May 24, 2008, 10:25 pm
Sorry to wake you up Chris O. but that is called promotional advertising. If you have a product or idea and you want to sell it, you advertise and the more you spend on advertising the more you make in profits and Pope Gore is certainly raking in the profits just like the oil companies do.

Saturday May 24, 2008, 10:28 pm
thanks for the clairification POPE SUTTON - I will blindly follow you - NOT LOL

Saturday May 24, 2008, 11:03 pm
What is so funny, Dale? Are you saying that carbon is a carcinogen and can cause cancer? Remember we humans are carbon based life forms along with just about every other living organism on this planet. You might want to broaden your research on smoking as well because the cancer rate may be high from smoking in the U.S. but it is not nearly as high in Japan and their consumption of cigarettes is a lot higher per capita than in the U.S. I’m not saying smoking doesn’t cause cancer; I’m saying other factors also play a role in the high rate of cancer from smoking in the U.S., diet being one of them. And what is wrong with making money from something you see as a benefit to the world? Archibald does cancer research which is a benefit to humankind. He also believes carbon is a benefit to humankind in that it does aid plant growth so there again he is pursuing something he believes is worthwhile.

Saturday May 24, 2008, 11:10 pm
Fron the byline above:

David Archibald is a Perth-based scientist working in the fields of climate and cancer research. He also explores for oil in northern Western Australia.

He not only "explores" oil in Australia but he OWNS oil land there - but there would be no biase there righ Pope Sutton :)

Sunday May 25, 2008, 1:00 pm
Oh, Chris....Occidental Petroleum has been part of the Gore Family portfolio since the very shady Armand Hammer made the acquaintance of the late senator, dear Alberts father.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/Columbia/Gore+Oxy.html

"This mutually beneficial relationship between a politician and his patrons is seldom acknowledged or discussed publicly. Indeed, none of the current presidential candidates would agree to be interviewed for The Buying of the President 2000. Yet these relationships between candidates and their sponsors can reveal a more accurate picture of the practical logistics and accommodations of achieving power in today's electoral process. It is a vision that extends beyond common political rhetoric.

For example, in the Democratic Party, Vice President Al Gore has a long-time relationship with Occidental Petroleum that has been enormously beneficial to the company. Occidental's late chairman, the controversial Armand Hammer, liked to say that he had Gore's father, Senator Albert Gore, Senior, quote, "in my back pocket", unquote. When the elder Gore left the Senate in 1970, Hammer hired him for $500,000 a year. Personally and professionally the vice president has profited from Occidental largess. To this day he still draws $20,000 a year from a land deal in Tennessee brokered between his father and Hammer. The total amount is more than $300,000. The personal relationship between young Gore and Hammer was very close throughout the 1980's, including trips on Hammer's private jet and constant campaign contributions.

For most of the 20th century, oil companies have tried unsuccessfully to obtain control of two oil fields owned and operated by the federal government: the Teapot Dome field in Casper, Wyoming, and the Elk Hills field in Bakersfield, California. Despite his public reputation as a staunch environmentalist, Gore recommended that the president approve giving oil companies access to this publicly owned land. It is land that the U.S. Navy has held as emergency reserves since 1912. In October, 1997, the Energy Department announced that the government would sell 47,000 acres of the Elk Hills reserve to Occidental."

Sunday May 25, 2008, 1:10 pm
So what?????

Sunday May 25, 2008, 1:17 pm
We were discussing the biases of your articles author - and you take an unrelated stab at Gore??? Sounds like someone trying to change the subject yet again :)

Sunday May 25, 2008, 1:21 pm
BTW, attacking the messanger Gore, does nothing to change the fact that human caused climate change is happening - right now!

Sunday May 25, 2008, 1:58 pm
Wait just a minute....you attacked the scientist David Archibald first.

That's called an Ad Hominem.

So I countered with some little known, but entirely relevant information about the High Priest of the Big Green Machine.

If it shows nothing else it shows his total hypocrisy and his willingness to sell out a public trust for private gain.

He is selling out a public trust for private gain on the climate issue by being partners in a company that will benefit hugely from the carbon trading game....at everyone else's expense.

By the way, I've noticed a pattern of short multiple postings by both you and Dale. Is that a new technique for getting people to forget what others post?

Sunday May 25, 2008, 2:09 pm
By the way, I've noticed a pattern of short multiple postings by both you and Dale. Is that a new technique for getting people to forget what others post?

that is an Ad Hominem BTW since you are being so imformative here LOL!!!

Sunday May 25, 2008, 2:39 pm
No, it's not an attack, its a question based on an observation. Why the short multiple postings...it is a great time waster for sure.

So, we ignore Gore's Occidental Petroleum connection. I'm sure you noticed the story about those native people in Columbia who threatened mass suicide if Occidental drilled on their land.

Here's the rest of the story about Gore's helpfulness to Occidental.

"It was the largest privatization of federal property in U.S. history, one that tripled Occidental's U.S. oil reserves overnight. Although the Energy Department was required to assess the likely environmental consequences of the proposed sale, it didn't. Instead it hired a private company, ICF Kaiser International, Incorporated, to complete the assessment. The general chairman of Gore's presidential campaign, Tony Coelho, sat on the board of directors.

The very same day the Elk Hills sale was announced, Gore delivered a speech to the White House Conference on Climate Change on the "terrifying prospect" of global warming, a problem he blamed on the unchecked use of fossil fuels such as oil. He said, quoting, "If we ignore the scientific warnings and continue stubbornly on our current course, we better begin to prepare what we would like to say to our children and grandchildren. They might fairly ask, if you knew all that, why didn't you do something about it?"

Texas Governor George W. Bush, as we all know, has shattered all previous fund raising standards for presidential candidates. In the first four months of his campaign, he took in $37 million, or $310,748 a day. He was able to accomplish this, in part, by inheriting his father's national network of financial supporters, going back more than a quarter century."

Sunday May 25, 2008, 2:43 pm
Yes, very long "copy and paste" posts, repeated over and over again, is much more effecient :) Again attacking Gore does nothing to dispel the fact that we are creating great havoc on this earth through our activities as the original article well illustrates...

Sunday May 25, 2008, 3:31 pm
Here's this guy who while Vice President betrays a public trust for an OIL COMPANY and personally benefits from it,and still owns stock in the same OIL COMPANT.

He then goes on the road with a faked film SELLING the idea that "the planet is burning up" and then goes into business SELLING CARBON CREDITS which is an idea thought up by ENRON...and you have the nerve to try to dismiss it as irrelevent!

Then you try to change the focus back on average folks being at fault.

THE HYPOCRISY IS OVERWHELMING1

Sunday May 25, 2008, 4:21 pm
The big problem is growth and development. We are running out of water, we are destroying rain forests for crops for food and fuel, we are destroying habitat to make room for all the people.

I have made the personal commitment to family planning. I have no children, and plan on having one child and adoption.

Al Gore had a connection to Kerr-McGee - remember Silkwood, the movie with Meryl Streep? I don't know if his son had any connection to the nuclear cmopany or it was only Al Gore senior.

If Gore is making money from oil, he has every right to promote global warming - he can tell people to stop using it and he will go out of business and become poor.

I applaud Care2 for leading the way, eating vegetarian, using rail for transport inlcuding Amtrak, promoting altrnative transportation.

It is obvious we will be fossil free within twenty years.

Sunday May 25, 2008, 5:03 pm
"Of course Al Gore has been a shil for nuclear power ever since he came of age as a political harlot for the Oakridge nuclear laboratory in his home state of Tennessee. The practical beneficiary of the baseless hysteria over "anthropogenic global warming" is the nuclear power industry. This very fall, as Peter Montague describes at length in our current CounterPunch newsletter, this industry is reaping the fruits of Al Gore's campaigning. Congress has finally knocked aside the regulatory licensing processes that have somewhat protected the public across recent decades. The starting gun has sounded, and just about the moment Gore and his co-conspirators at the IPCC collect their prizes, the bulldozers will be breaking ground for the new nuclear plants soon to spring like Amanita phalloides--just as deadly--across the American landscape."
It's As Ridiculous As If They'd Given Goebbels One in 1938
Al Gore's Peace Prize

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10132007.html

Sunday May 25, 2008, 5:10 pm
Boy, Gore must be making lots of progress considering the (irrelevant) Ad Hominem attacks he receives form Judy - fear does that to a person :)

Sunday May 25, 2008, 5:23 pm
This takes the cake for rationalization:

"If Gore is making money from oil, he has every right to promote global warming - he can tell people to stop using it and he will go out of business and become poor."

No notice taken of his selling off public lands for oil drilling and personally profiting from it.

Surely, you must understand about the concept of CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

Surely, you can not excuse the present CONFLICT OF INTEREST Al Gore engages in by taking $175,000 and expenses for appearances to talk about a non-existant problem from which he will profit by selling "carbon credits".

And also using tax free money from a charitable foundation, the Alliance For Climate Protection, to generate publicity for a fake crisis from which he stand to gain.

Surely, you are not that naive.

Sunday May 25, 2008, 5:25 pm
I never made the quote above - Gore = conflict of interest
Exxon = unbiased information ... you are a hoot Judy!

And your ad hominen attact on Gore has NO BERING on the topic of the article - just a rant :)

Sunday May 25, 2008, 9:26 pm
Oh, but it does have a bearing Chris O. because it shows how two faced Gore is and that he is totally motivated by profit and remember Gore is the most visible spokesperson for the Global Warming Religion. He is also the one that proposed the new commodities market of carbon credits from which he will make millions as he continues to support big oil from the background insuring there will be a market for his carbon credits. When the messenger is also the source of the disinformation message then the messenger is fair game. The difference between Archibald and Gore is that Archibald is not trying to hide his connection to and support of oil. Also, if as you say the article is nothing more than a rant, and I agree, then there is no topic other than global warming and all of the postings on this submission are rants on global warming. Attacks on Gore’s integrity and honesty in relation to the global warming issue are well within the subject matter.

Sunday May 25, 2008, 9:47 pm
Please show me where Gore is mentioned in the original article - Judy (and you) are just using this as a platform to promote your political views - and attacking Gore in no way changes the fact that human caused warming exists...

And where was Archibald being less dishonest - did he devoluge his connections with oil - NO, it only came out when I dug further - no dirrerent than Gore!!!

Is Gore the best spokesman for global warming - maybe not - but that in no way changes the fact that it is happening...

And calling it a religion is simply silly :) Pope Sutton...

Monday May 26, 2008, 7:04 am
Now, to get back to the topic...another good source of information regarding the economic impacts of climate change is the Stern Review final report. It is very long and detailed, so you might want to start with some of the summaries first. Full report here:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

hope you can cut and paste that ..otherwise do a search on:

stern review

Monday May 26, 2008, 9:15 am
Yawn! I still think if Gore was motivated by "profit" and not principles at the present time, he'd be RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AGAIN! There's no greater profit than being President of the most powerful nation on the planet. Bush Jr proved that for sure! Oh, Bush was also involved in the oil business, but Judy and Ralph don't seem to care about that, because he has never addressed the global warming problem, except to deny its importance. It's all about bashing Gore for the denialists and it's hilarious to me and Chris to watch them in action!

Uh, did you notice what Ralph said earlier? "And what is wrong with making money from something you see as a benefit to the world? Archibald does cancer research which is a benefit to humankind. He also believes carbon is a benefit to humankind in that it does aid plant growth so there again he is pursuing something he believes is worthwhile."

Based PURELY on their known characters, you can raise reasonable doubts about both Gore and Archibald. But when ALL the various factors are put into consideration, Gore wins, hands down. BTW, even cancer research can result in HUGE profits....for the big drug companies and the medical establishments. Why not go after them too?

Conclusion: Judy and Ralph are biased and compulsive cherry-pickers, far worse than me and Chris. I think they need to find another fruit to go after.

Face it: As long as we live in a capitalist economic system, making money to promote a worthy cause will be part of the game. Got a problem with that? Go live in a society without money at all!

Monday May 26, 2008, 9:50 am
Now, for Judy and Ralph, here's a new challenge to prove Al Gore a hypocrite: Show us all where Gore, acting as an advocate for the global warming cause, specifically told people not to do a certain thing....and then did it himself. So far, he has said NOTHING that I'm aware of regarding doing favors for an oil company (although he has attacked Exxon), living in a mansion, or flying in a private jet as necessarily bad things for the environment. Perhaps they are, and so you can make a case to Gore himself that he made less than ideal judgements and thus can improve his environmental performance. But that's not hypocrisy or being two faced. Just don't expect him to ride a horse instead of a car, live in a cave instead of a house, or commit suicide to eliminate his own "carbon footprint". Seriously, as fanatical as denialists tend to be, I suspect that only those things would satisfy them....and then they'd be rid of Gore's influence for good!