Saturday September 6, 2008, 6:14 pm
Thanks,Tom there are a few good points! We sure do have some skeptics here!

Saturday September 6, 2008, 6:46 pm
Thanks for getting the word out Tom :)

Some other valuable guides:

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

TEN POPULAR MYTHS
About Global Climate Change
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html#cc10t

Climate change myths
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

Global Warming Myths and Facts
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011

Here are som Myths and their rebuttals. Detailed explainations can be found on the site:

http://green.yahoo.com/global-warming/ed-14/global-warming-myths-and-facts.html

Saturday September 6, 2008, 6:55 pm
A great post, Chris! If I have trouble circulating please send in pm.

Saturday September 6, 2008, 6:59 pm
It's a Tom M. post - I am just spreading it around a bit... :) LOL

Saturday September 6, 2008, 7:25 pm
I think I would say they were denialists rather than skeptics, judging by the mounting evidence. Taking into consideration the constantly increasing population on this tired, exploited planet,...well,...it's pretty hard to ignore, wouldn't ya say...? Great post, Tom...and may I say, great profile. :::grins:::

Saturday September 6, 2008, 8:37 pm
What none of you seem to comprehend is that all of this pieces, obfuscat,e spin and sometimes lie.

Providing Insight
Into Climate Change
Myths / Facts

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.



MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.



MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.



MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".

Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.


MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption - that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.


MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.


MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.


MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.


MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
More FACTS and MYTHS? See what Professor deFreitas has to say. Click here.

Saturday September 6, 2008, 8:42 pm
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere really dangerous?
C. R. DE FREITAS
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland,
PB 92019, Auckland
New Zealand

ABSTRACT
Statements made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been used to put
pressure on governments to formulate policies in response to the perceived threat of the climate change resulting from
a build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Kyoto Protocol proposed by the United Nations calls for industrialized
countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by five percent from 1990 levels by the year 2012. The enormity of the
perceived economic consequences of this has led to intense arguments between governments over the appropriateness of
reduction targets. But the real reason behind the failure to agree on a global climate treaty is disagreement on tradeoffs
between the economic and environmental risks involved.
Contrary to the IPCC predictions, global temperature has not risen appreciably in the last 20 years. Most surface
temperature data free from the influence of surrounding buildings and roads show no warming. Data from satellites
support this. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age, long before industrialization, but historical records
show no acceleration in sea level rise in the twentieth century. Increases in carbon dioxide appear to pose no immediate
danger to the planet. The gas is not a pollutant.
An understanding of global warming hinges on the answers to certain key questions. Is global climate warming? If
so, what part of that warming is due to human activities? How good is the evidence? What are the risks? The task of
answering these questions is hindered by widespread confusion regarding key facets of global warming science. The
confusion has given rise to several fallacies or misconceptions. These myths and misconceptions, and how they relate to
the above questions, are explained. Although the future state of global climate is uncertain, there is no reason to believe
that catastrophic change is underway. The atmosphere may warm due to human activity, but if it does, the expected change
is unlikely to be much more than 1 degree Celsius in the next 100 years. Even the climate models promoted by the IPCC
do not suggest that catastrophic change is occurring. They suggest that increases in greenhouse gases are likely to give rise
to a warmer and wetter climate in most places; in particular, warmer nights and warmer winters. Generally, higher latitudes
would warm more than lower latitudes. This means milder winters and, coupled with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide,
it means a more robust biosphere with greater availability of forest, crops and vegetative ground cover. This is hardly
a major threat. Amore likely threat is policies that endanger economic progress. The negative effect of such policies would
be far greater than any change caused by global warming. Rather than try to reduce innocuous carbon dioxide emissions,
we would do better to focus on air pollution, especially those aspects that are known to damage human health.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/deFreitas.pdf

Saturday September 6, 2008, 8:49 pm
What is it that the governments are 'not' telling us? Obviously planet Earth is melting, and it will probably swing-around into an Ice Age. Just wait until the huge methane eruptions occur from beneath the oceans, and escape from the permafrost layers as well (along with any dormant infectious 'old-world' pandemic diseases)! So I don't think I would waste my time talking to a skeptic concerning climate-change, because he or she is obviously an idiot and blind too!!!

Saturday September 6, 2008, 9:00 pm
Why no citation for the Myth list you produced Judy - ah ya, it come from Tim Ball and the Friends of Science - funded by the oil companies LMAO!!!

Oil Companies Funding Friends of Science, Tim Ball takes the brunt

http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-companies-funding-friends-of-science

Then of course there is the usual rant about the IPCC - with the failure to recognise that there are Many individuals and organizations that support human caused climate change - but the IPCC jousting continues repeatedly as if that is the "whole matter"...

Saturday September 6, 2008, 9:19 pm
Holy Cow. It is going to go back and forth til something drastic happens. Then they will say it is normal evolution. Til all the air, water, surface soil, insects are gone and destroyed and we have food shortages, no one is gonna listen. This is honestly the Republican trickle down effect. It starts upward and trickles down til everything is gone or dead. Let's look at it in another way. The glaciers are melting, even in Glacier National Park. Weather there would get down to 60 below on the east side with snow, not any more. The air is filthy, the water polluted, man made chemicals are showing up even in isolated areas poisoning people of small communities, cancer is on the rise in these areas, the insects we need to pollinate are disappearing at an astounding rate (major food shortage), areas are getting dryer and dustier, other areas are having worse tornados and hurricanes, earthquake activities are becoming more common all over and in places not normally shakin and quakin, Well could spend all day on this but the point is we have to start fixing what we can and NOW. If you see or hear a train coming, you get out of the way or die. It is going to be left up to people to save others from their own ignorance. The move has started even though the warnings were there years ago and others were clanging the warning bell years ago and called kooks....at least more are listening. I guess we learn from hindsight. You are not going to convince those that are afraid to admit there is problem. Ignore it and it will go away. Well they thought it went away years ago when the bells started ringing. Every area on this earth is being effected one way or another,,,too wet, too dry. If they can't realize the weather is so screwed up, it will be their lives effected the most.We are all working on so many problems there has to be some kind of change in the near future if we get the right people into offices that can have some power to force people to change.

Saturday September 6, 2008, 10:22 pm
Thank you Chris for sending this to me ,Thank you Tom for the post. Much appreciated .

Saturday September 6, 2008, 10:27 pm
noted Thanks Tom & Chris

Saturday September 6, 2008, 10:27 pm
Oh I love the bear picture

Saturday September 6, 2008, 10:59 pm
http://www.nrsp.com/
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a renowned environmental consultant and former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball has served on many local and national committees and as Chair of Provincial boards on water management, environmental issues and sustainable development. Dr. Ball has given over 600 public talks over the last decade on science and the environment. He is the co-author of the book Eighteenth Century Naturalists of Hudson Bay (2004 - McGill/Queens University Press) with Dr. Stuart Houston, one of the World's leading authorities on arctic birds.

Dr. Ball’s extensive science background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition, make him the ideal head of NRSP as we move into our first campaign, Understanding Climate Change. His extensive public speaking experience and presentations to professional societies, business conferences, public forums and a wide variety of public, private and non-profit organizations make him the ideal spokesperson for NRSP as well.

His other work in such areas as water resources, sustainable development, pollution prevention, environmental regulations, the impact of government policy on business and economics will be invaluable as NRSP tackles other issues starting later in 2007.

Throughout his career, Dr. Ball has been heavily involved in local and national committees related to climate, water and river management and hazardous waste. He is regular contributing writer for Country Guide and has appeared as a guest opinion writer in all of Canada’s major newspapers. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

Sunday September 7, 2008, 1:07 am
A lot of good answers to skeptics on global warming thanks for the post,

Sunday September 7, 2008, 6:15 am
The thing that I find that concerns me is this; humans are SLOW to change.. Even if a change is good for them, and will help them, humans tend to ignore, deny and refuse to change. This manifests in addictions of all kinds, alcohol, drugs, shopping, religion, etc.... ad nauseum.

When we combine this effect with hundreds of BILLIONS of people, I am wondering how we get the FAST change that we need, without putting an absolute dictator in power, who will legislate the change needed and force everyone to do the right things, and switch to wind or solar power, like a Jesus Christ?

Just kidding of course, because no spiritual master or leader can force anyone to do the right thing..

Another curiosity; I am finding that the hardest people to convince to switch to green wind power are greens, who say they are living a green lifestyle, but their homes are powered by coal and nuclear. They have the wind energy available, but refuse to switch... If greens have a hard time doing this, what hope do we have for 'normal' people to do this?

Sunday September 7, 2008, 6:21 am
What has been much more common and normal is that people in the US vote based on fear, fear of terror, fear of running out of oil, fear of change, fear of ANYTHING different.

So they put someone in power who lies, cheats, steals, hates, and puts out propoganda, all fear based..The end result of that will be an absolute dictator, but not the good kind. We are very close to that right now, and have given up most of our freedoms and rights just due to fear. That has been the essence of the last two elections...

Where and how do we get beyond that? The truth does not seem to matter.. We have a good example of that above... despite all of the evidence, people refuse to change.

Sunday September 7, 2008, 6:28 am
I keep coming around to the conclusion that our only hope, is to go inside and meditate.. Since the outer world is a reflection of the inner world, we can only advance and change if our inner world changes, and that usually happens most easily if we go inside and find out what really matters.

Just changing the outside window dressing does not matter.. it is what is in our hearts that really matters. If our hearts are full of fear, anger, jealousy, etc...then the outer world will reflect that as well, and our leaders will also be in that same vein, and then who cares if we have a clean world?

What we all really need and want is a PURE HEART, right? That gives us hope of having a pure and clean world, free of outer pollution as well, because the outer will be a reflection of the inner, as above, so below. At least that is how it seems to me...

Sunday September 7, 2008, 6:29 am
good post good info-thanx chris

Sunday September 7, 2008, 7:18 am
I read and I got a lot of good info. Thanks for the post, too, Chris!

Sunday September 7, 2008, 8:12 am
"What none of you seem to comprehend is that all of this pieces, obfuscat,e spin and sometimes lie."

And you're the sole bringer of thruth and light?

"All truth goes through three stages. First, it violently opposed. Then, it is ridiculed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."

We've accepted the (unfortunate) fact while you're still in the ridicule stage. Please come UP to our level!

Sunday September 7, 2008, 9:40 am
RB...how do you explain this:

"It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 "

The truth is Arctic warming happens every 65-80 years. The main reason Dr. Tim Ball has to be discredited is that he has been studying the vast archive of Hudson's Bay Company records in which their factors recorded every detail of life in the Arctic for 200+ years..

Pretend all you like..the reality of climate cycles with the attendant cooling will eventually wake people up from the warmist nightmare.

Sunday September 7, 2008, 10:12 am
It's always good to hear from you Judy. It let's me know that skeptics and denialists are still around. However, DON"T FEED TROLLS!
Louise B.

Sunday September 7, 2008, 11:28 am
Thanks Tom for this article and the information. I'll have to read through it at length some time. I constently have people when I'm out and about say it's all a big hoax. I once even came across a enviormental engineer-who told me "well are climate goes thorugh cycles from time to time, and even called me one of those green hippie types." It is sad to think there are thousands out there who can not see the writting on the wall so to speak. Thanks for the article.

Sunday September 7, 2008, 12:01 pm
Eric and Rooibos...excellent comments! Until we let go of our fears, we cannot see the truth to move beyond our current circumstances. It amazes me that many people send their children to college to become engineers and scientists. Yet, some of these same people deny the overwhelming, scientific proof of climate change. Well, there are some people who actually saw planes flying in the sky when the Wright Brothers finally got the plane up in the air, yet denied that planes could fly. Makes you wonder if these skeptics have a vested interest in denying the facts. Hmmm...

Thank you, Tom. Some good talking points to use.

Sunday September 7, 2008, 12:40 pm
A telling graph from Tom's link that shows from 0 BC until the early 1900s (Industrial Age), man's footprint began to show its effect on the climate. In the late 1900s there was a shocking spike in warming, and now in the 2000s, the needle is going straight up.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/global-warming-is-nothing-new.php

As a former educator, parent and citizen concerned for the welfare of humanity and all life, I would rather err on the side of these scientists who claim global warming is real...than to risk denying it and contribute to the collapse of this planet. Besides, my well-informed, logical mind tells me these scientists know what they are talking about.

___________
“It's not denial. I'm just selective about the reality I accept.”

"Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning."

"Delay is the deadliest form of denial."

Sunday September 7, 2008, 1:02 pm
Spare me the platitudes about "erring on the side of caution" If we followed Kyoto, we'd spend TRILLIONS and maybe get less than a degree change in 100 years.

"Since coming into effect February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world about while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is
(to get activity on the clock we had to go to billionths part of one degree, which obviously cannot be measured as a global mean) and yes, that really does represent about $100K per billionth of one degree allegedly "saved." Guess that means for the bargain price of just $100 trillion we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1 �C."
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html


Do you understand how much wealth would be drained to Globalist coffers with NOTHING to show for it.

That comes out of our pockets and means we won't have anything left to tackle real problems, like the state of the world's oceans.

Sunday September 7, 2008, 1:17 pm
Yes, that comes from Junk Science - that really does say it all :)

For a counter to that, interested folks may want to look at the Stern Review:

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

This is a long, detailed report, so interested folks may want to start with one of the summaries.

Here is a summary article:

At-a-glance: The Stern Review

The world has to act now on climate change or face devastating economic consequences, according to a report compiled by Sir Nicholas Stern for the UK government.
Here are the key points of the review written by the former chief economist of the World Bank.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6098362.stm

Other reports of interest:

Impacts of Climate Change on Washington's Economy

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/economic_impacts.htm


The US Economic Impacts of Climate Change and the Costs of Inaction

http://dl.klima2008.net/ccsl/us_economic.pdf


Also, one can simply do a search on: "economic impact of climate change" and look for themselves...

Sunday September 7, 2008, 2:06 pm
People don't care about the 'environment' or the 'Greenhouse effect'. Our streets still have large SUVs with single drivers, people still have large families, restaurant menus still have meat, meat, meat three meals a day. Celebrities still travel by private jet and nobody bats an eye.

Sunday September 7, 2008, 2:15 pm
Daniel, why aren't you on a street corner wearing sack cloth and ashes?

You are the most life DIS-affirming person I have ever encountered.

As for Stern, like most alarmist studies he exaggerates and lies by omission.

"The Stern warning could join Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb and the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth in the pantheon of big banana scares that proved to be unfounded"

NICHOLAS Stern is a distinguished economist.(note: for the World Bank Globalists) Climate change is a complex, uncertain and contentious scientific issue. Have you spotted the problem with the Stern review yet?
An accomplished cost-benefit analysis of climate change would require two things: a clear, quantitative understanding of the natural climate system and a dispassionate, accurate consideration of all the costs and benefits of warming as well as cooling.

Unfortunately, the Stern review is not a cost-benefit but a risk analysis, and of warming only.

This adroit shuffle of the pea under the thimble perhaps explains why Stern's flawed and partial account of our possible climate future stresses costs, ignores benefits, and fails to consider the all too likely eventuality of future cooling.

Even more unfortunate for Stern than his restricted brief is that there is no established theory of climate. Stern therefore has to rely on the advice of others in providing the summary of climate science that occupies the first 21 pages of his review. Though he cites a range of scientific literature, his summary strongly reflects the unsatisfactory consensus view of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The advice to policy-makers that governments periodically receive from the IPCC contains political rather than scientific advice. In concert with this, over the past 10 years the IPCC has moved from being primarily a reviewer of the science evidence to being an advocate for the alarmist case for global warming.

Perhaps the most important scientific point made in the Stern review is the statement that "the accuracy of climate predictions is limited by computer power".

Nonetheless, the review's risk analysis assumes that the computer models used are able to predict the future path of global climate for policy purposes. They cannot.

Worse, even if the models did have global predictive skill, that would only be a tiny first step towards policy advice, because the global average temperature or sea-level rise that the models calculate are conceptual statistics, not physical realities.

Estimating accurate costs and benefits for future environmental change requires not just knowledge of changing global averages but accurate, site-specific predictions for all parts of the planet.

For example, from 1965 to 1998, measured sea level rose slightly in Townsville and fell slightly in Cairns. Presuming that these trends continue, there is obviously the need for different coastal management plans for the two regions. Now repeat that thought exercise for future changes in temperature, precipitation and sea level worldwide. To make actual and accurate predictions for this is, of course, impossible.

Stern has surely accepted his IPPC-centric science advice in good faith, yet that turns out to be his fatal mistake. Because there is copious evidence that the advice is untrustworthy. For instance, participants at a recent international climate conference in Stockholm were told that the hockey-stick depiction of temperature over the last 1000 years, an IPCC favourite, has been discredited; that pre-industrial atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were higher, and fluctuated more, than is indicated by the averaged ice core measurements; that global temperature has not increased since 1998, despite continuing increases in carbon dioxide; that the Arctic region is no warmer now than it was in the 1930s; and that climate models are too uncertain to be used as predictive policy tools.

These considerations undercut the core IPCC arguments for dangerous human-caused warming, as contained in its 2001 assessment report. Yet early drafts of the forthcoming fourth assessment report reveal that IPCC thinking does not consider these deep uncertainties, and neither does Stern.

The opinion of Bjorn Lomborg, writing in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, suggests that it is not just Stern's science that is flawed. Lomborg accuses Stern of cherry-picking statistics to fit the argument, such as massaging future warming cost estimates from the generally accepted 0per cent of gross domestic product now to 3 per cent in 2100 to figures as high as "20 per cent now and forever".

It seems that the economics of the Stern review is as shaky as the science, given that Lomborg concludes that "its fear-mongering arguments have been sensationalised, which is ultimately only likely to make the world worse off".

The Stern review has been presented as a rigorous treatment of climate change and its economic effects. In reality, however, the review is a political document whose relation to the truth is about the same as that of the notorious British report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Stern agenda in Britain is to enable Labour to compete for eco-votes with an increasingly green-oriented Tory party. A wider agenda is the imposition of carbon levies for goods and services provided from outside Europe, thereby penalising more efficient competitors elsewhere. The European Union has form on this, and has previously tried to use DDT and genetic engineering of food as bogies to justify trade barriers.

Among a range of possible carbon morality taxes, Stern considers the application of a food-miles levy on produce subjected to lengthy air transport. Subsequent media coverage has concentrated on earlier estimates that flying 1kg of kiwifruit from New Zealand to Europe generates 5kg of carbon dioxide. With delicious irony, it turns out that virtually all NZ kiwifruit are transported by ship, yet arrive in Britain at a price that undercuts local supplies. No wonder a levy is needed.

Australian grape growers are doubtless already resigned to having an extra "noble carbon" levy imposed on their products, to the advantage of their French competitors. For that matter, why not a ballet miles surcharge on tickets at Covent Garden when the Australian Ballet next visits London? And given that most British dildos probably come from overseas, perhaps UK citizens will soon have dildo miles, too.

The Stern review is not about climate change but about economic, technological and trade advantage. Its perpetrators seek power through climate scaremongering. The review's release was carefully timed to closely precede this month's US congressional elections and the Nairobi climate conference. Beyond these events, we can expect another burst of alarmist hallelujahs to accompany the launch of IPCC's assessment report in February.

Though it will be lionised for a while yet, the Stern review is destined to join Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb and think tank the Club of Rome's manifesto, Limits to Growth, in the pantheon of big banana scares that proved to be unfounded. It is part of the last hurrah for those warmaholics who inhabit a world of virtual climate reality that exists only inside flawed computer models.

Meanwhile, the empirical data stressed by climate rationalists will ultimately prevail over the predictions of the unvalidated computer models. Perhaps then we will be able to attend to the real climate policy problem, which is to prepare response plans for extreme weather events, and for climate warmings as well as coolings, in the same way we prepare to cope with all other natural hazards.

Bob Carter is a geologist and founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20690289-7583,00.html

Sunday September 7, 2008, 2:34 pm
Oh, come on! You cannot seriously believe that the monet that could be saved if we don't tackle the climate change issue will be used to invest in the oceans! Can't you see that the most polluting countries/economies were the ones that opposed to Tokyo's agreement?

Sunday September 7, 2008, 3:39 pm
I didn't say that...but the money spent on "climate change" doesn't do anything useful and does divert the stream of money that might be used to clean up real problems into a sewer called Carbon Trading.
And the people who plotted and planned the scam will be the big benefactors, like Maurice Strong and his sidekick Al Gore, both of whom are involved in carbon trading companies.

Sunday September 7, 2008, 3:47 pm
Daniel...Very soon most of us won't be able to eat or drive vehicles because of the economy. Only the rich 2% in society will have those luxuries. That will solve the global warming issue.

Sunday September 7, 2008, 3:50 pm
I am sure that the folks in Florda right now would like to hear that climate studies are a waste of money...

Here are some other "worthless" things money spend on climate change does

1. moves us away from a dependence on oil (and away from oil wars)

2. moves us towards clean energy (reducing pollutents such as mercury)

3. makes us more energy efficient (saving us money)

4. reduces deforestation (trees are a good thing :) )

5 promotion of of reforestation (trees are still a good thing ;) )

Dang - look at all that "usless" stuff!!!!

Sunday September 7, 2008, 6:57 pm
It's not just about Stern, it's not just about Strong and Gore... you can find a lot of researchers that agree with the climate change theory who are oppossed to carbon trading as a solution to this issue, Mrs. Cross. The evidence they found is that human industrial activity, as well as deforestation, is affecting our climate nowadays, and we can and should implement different strategies to cope with this. You are also choosing the information when you argue, reducing everything to a dark conspiracy. You will always find people who support a cause to profit from it, but this does not invalidate the scientific evidence. I'm sorry but I do not believe in "plots" if I don't see the evidence. Bush's administration and his anti-environmental measures are enough evidence for me.

Sunday September 7, 2008, 7:26 pm
All I have to do is look where I live in the desert southwest to see with my own eyes that the climate is changing. The droughts are more severe and when it finally does rain it is with an intensity that is frightening and damaging. It almost never snows here anymore. Birds are migrating north sooner. And we're getting species we never used to get.
Yes the climate has oscillated in the past, but never in geologic history has it changed so much so fast. Humans have a vested interest in it not changing and we ignore these changes at our peril. Think the Chaco Canyon culture...
Getting off of oil, which we don't have enough of no matter how much we drill, will leave money for other things for everyone. I would love to have a way to harness the sun or wind to power my house and car. Imagine no utility or gas bill! Doesn't sound like a bad plan to me.

Sunday September 7, 2008, 7:48 pm
MK...I live in the desert southwest too and have noticed the same things. Some of the migrating birds act like they don't know which way to go. We are also getting insects I've never seen here, and some insects are leaving. The sooner we all get off "the grid" the better.

Sunday September 7, 2008, 7:59 pm
I work with endangered species here in southern California - I see the changes going on too. I think most of us can if we really observe what is going on around us. I also work on evaluating the environmental impacts of large solar and wind projects - so I have personal experience on that side of the equsaion too...

Sunday September 7, 2008, 9:26 pm
Nice try, Judy, but your beloved Tim Ball is a conspiracy theorist and a tool of the oil industry...
"[The IPCC] report is the end product of a political agenda, and it is the political agenda of both the extreme environmentalists who of course think we are destroying the world. But it's also the political agenda of a group of people ... who believe that industrialization and development and capitalism and the Western way is a terrible system and they want to bring it down."
Really Tim? So the terrorists want to attack us AND stop global warming?
Here's the wikipedia entry on Tim Ball....
Dispute over qualifications to comment on global warming
Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, wrote in an April 23, 2006 letter to the editor of the The Calgary Herald in reply to an editorial by Dr. Ball: "... he does not have the academic background and qualifications to make serious comments on global warming". The newspaper had credited Ball as "the first climatology PhD in Canada and worked as a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years."[11]. His biography for the George C. Marshall Institute also cites his being "a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years".[12], and he has repeated "the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology" [13]
Ball could not have been a professor before receiving his PhD in 1983, only 23 years before the article.
Ball has also stated that "for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg."[13]
Ball's resume shows that at the University of Winnipeg he was Associate Professor from 1984 to 1988, then Professor from 1988 to 1996, a total of 8 years.[14]
Ball was not "the first climatology PhD in Canada", but was in fact preceded by many well known Canadian PhD climatologists: e.g. Dr. Kenneth Hare, PhD in arctic climatology, 1950 [15], Dr. André Robert, PhD, 1965, [16], or Dr. Timothy Oke, PhD 1967 [17].
In September, 2006, Ball filed suit against Johnson and four editors at the Calgary Herald newspaper for $325,000 for, among other things, “damages to his income earning capacity as a sought after speaker with respect to global warming”.[18]. In its response (point 50(d), p12), the Calgary Herald stated that “The Plaintiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”(Original statement of claim, Defendant Johnson's answer, Defendant Calgary Herald's answer). In June 2007, Ball abandoned the suit.

As per Chris' comment, Judy...
Even if there were no global warming, even if there were no climate changes taking place, even if that giant sheet of arctic ice didn't disappear last week, even if sea levels aren't rising as recently reported on the news, Chris is right. The benefits of the same actions that are being proposed to curtail climate change would save us money and benefit us in numerous ways. Believe what you want, but save yourself some money and conserve, help the work for clean air and water so you don't poison yourself and cost us all more money on cleaning up what we didn't need to pollute in the first place.

Sunday September 7, 2008, 10:09 pm
Here we go again...what "endangered species" do you personally work with Chris.

and I restate that Tim Ballwas smeared by inuendo and he tried to fight fought back. He dropped the suit because libel by inuendo is very hard to prove in court and that should have been the end of it. the infamous Desmogblog (financed by a convicted felon) had a field day.

Ball's legal problems have little bearing on his scholarship on climate in the Arctic as seen through the records of the iconic Hudson's Bay company.

There are NO BENEFITS from limiting CO2....none of you seem capable of grasping that very significant fact.

We have already seen the devastation wrought by clearing rain forest for biofuels, the rise in food prices with attendant malnutrition and how about $2000 cleaning bills to clean up the mercury released from a CFC bulb.

None of this would have happened without the BIG LIE that CO2 can change climate....an entirely separate issue from pollution and waste. The Big Geen Machine wants to keep the confusion in place, which is why the chorus of Amen Charlies show up to decry man's sinfulness at the drop of a skeptical note.

The Warmist movement will have a great deal to answer for when this scam collapses.

Sunday September 7, 2008, 10:17 pm
"how about $2000 cleaning bills to clean up the mercury released from a CFC bulb" Pure BS!!!!

The current clearing of forests for biofuels is due to a misguided attempt to move away from fossil fuels NOT climate change - palm oil and food crop biofuels produce MORE CO2 than they save - they are NOT a solution to climate change - and is actually being fought by the "warmists" as you call us...

Sunday September 7, 2008, 10:19 pm
Thank You Chris and Louise I concur with your statements Especially the one about denial and the not feeding the TROLLS!

Sunday September 7, 2008, 10:23 pm
"There are NO BENEFITS from limiting CO2....none of you seem capable of grasping that very significant fact."

Simple repeated dogma...not supported by the vast majority of the scientific evidence...it is amazing that you keep saying this, when there is so much evidence RIGHT here...that alone destroys ANY credibility of yours :)

Sunday September 7, 2008, 11:45 pm
There is no evidence of CO2 changing climate or you would not be so coy about producing it. As I remember, all there is, is the supposed 90% surety declared by the IPCC with nothing to back it up.
What fraud.

It's CO2, Because We Can't Think of Anything Else it Could Be

For a while, I have written about the bizarre assumption made by climate scientists. They cannot prove or show any good link historically between CO2 and warming. What they instead do is show that they can't explain some of the warming by understood processes, so they assume that any warming they cannot explain is from CO2. Don't believe me?

Researchers are trying to understand how much of the melting is due to the extreme natural variability in the northern polar climate system and how much is due to global warming caused by humans. The Arctic Oscillation climate pattern, which plays a big part in the weather patterns in the northern hemisphere, has been in "positive" mode in recent decades bringing higher temperatures to the Arctic.

Dr Igor Polyakov, an oceanographer from the International Arctic Research Centre in Fairbanks, Alaska, explained that natural variability as well as global warming is crucial to understanding the ice melt. "A combination of these two forces led to what we observe now and we should not ignore either forces" he said.

The consensus among scientists is that while the natural variability in the Arctic is an important contributor to climate change there, the climate models cannot explain the rapid loss of sea ice without including "human-induced" global warming. This means human activity such as burning fossil fuels and land clearing which are releasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"There have been numerous models run that have looked at that and basically they can't reproduce the ice loss we've had with natural variability," said Dr Perovich. "You have to add a carbon dioxide warming component to it."

In other words, any warming scientists can't explain is chalked up to, without proof mind you, CO2. Why? Well, perhaps because it is CO2 that gets the funding, so CO2 it is. To show you how dangerous this assumption is, I note that this study apparently did not consider the effect of man-made soot from inefficient coal and oil combustion (e.g. from China). Soot lands on the ice, lowers its albedo, and causes it to melt a lot faster. Several recent studies have hypothesized that this alternate anthropogenic effect (with a very different solution set from Co2 abatement) may explain much of recent Arctic ice loss.

Here is a big fat clue for climate scientists: It is not part of the scientific method to confidently ascribe your pet theory (and source of funding) to every phenomenon you cannot explain. Or, maybe climate scientists are on to something. Why does gravity seem to work instantaneously at long distances? Co2! What causes cancer cells to turn on and grow out of control? CO2! Hey, its easy. All of our scientific dilemmas are instantly solved.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/08/its-co2-because.html

Monday September 8, 2008, 12:06 am
"There is no evidence of CO2 changing climate or you would not be so coy about producing it."

Please do read the materials Tom and I provided above - its there :)

Monday September 8, 2008, 12:27 am
From your article:

"They cannot prove or show any good link historically between CO2 and warming."

This is an incorrect statement, as outlined in the materials Tom and I provided - really do read them :)

Monday September 8, 2008, 3:51 am
Wouldn't it be wonderful to find just one climate change story that hadn't been polluted by the resident troll.
Thanks Tom, great article.

Monday September 8, 2008, 6:34 am
I don't know how to answer sceptics except laugh at them. Global warming is a fact that's been know for many, many years in the scientific community. Heck, I learned about it in school twenty years ago! The planet is getting warmer, anyone with eyes & ears can see that for themselves . Human activity is not the only cause, but it is NOT helping. As for Judy's troll, it's so disconnected from reality it's almost comical. CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect, and therefore to global warming. This has been known fact for over fifty years. Perhaps it's just about time you admitted it? ^^

Monday September 8, 2008, 9:32 am
Whenever I ask you to cough up proof that CO2 can change climate, you dance around, say you did and never do.

All I need is a link...let's see it.

Let's see the proof that CO2...all by itself...can change climate.

WHERE IS IT?

Monday September 8, 2008, 9:51 am
WZ M.

* member since May. 2002
* 1 friends
* 1 petitions sign
Speaking of trolls........

Monday September 8, 2008, 10:17 am
Let me remember, Mrs.Cross, that people that warn us about global warming are the same people who warn us about deforestation. Obviously, there are exceptions: the ones who profit from oil-related industries and, of course, are not interested in developing clean and renewable energy sources. for instance, President Hugo Chávez, who had a project to install oil pipelines through the forests of South America (included the Amazon), to distribute and sell his oil... that crazy project had to be stopped when it found strong opposition among rainforest defenders...

Monday September 8, 2008, 12:25 pm
Oh, by the way, Mrs. Cross...I do not know much of WZ M, but in my case, I had no friends in Care2 for a year or so... That was because I didn't have Internet service at home... Moreover, one of the most committed activist who is also a member of Care2 do not have any time for replying e-mails and decided not to add friends to the Care2's friends'group...

Monday September 8, 2008, 1:05 pm
LOLLLLLLLLL.............LMAO & THANKS CHRIS, ITS A GOOD ONE......

Monday September 8, 2008, 1:06 pm
OUPS,...HOW CAN I ADD ANYTHING...LOLL & THANKS TOM..

Monday September 8, 2008, 2:36 pm
What I find funny is that while pointing to evil oil companies, no one notices that the biggest winner in the phony demonization of CO2 is the NUCLEAR INDUSTRY jointly run by OIL COMPANY and MILITARY interests.

I can't believe how naive you all are. "There's a sucker born every minute" still works.

Monday September 8, 2008, 10:32 pm
Well, you would not want to talk to anyone from Minnesota because it is getting colder here! We had a low of 27 degrees in Embarrass MN in AUGUST.
This April Lutsen ski area was able to stay open a week later than normal for the first time in 50 years!
This global warming thing has turned into a religion! and you don't seem to be looking at the facts anymore!
REPEAT IT IS GETTING COLDER IN MINNESOTA the facts have been in the newspaper and you need to keep monitoring the facts so you don't look stupid!!!

Tuesday September 9, 2008, 12:27 am
You seem a bit confused, Mrs. Cross. Anyway, I didn't expect you to read, understand or reply my messages, but I did expect not to be insulted. Perhaps because I am a sucker I can't believe that an old lady could behave the way you do.
I find you rather authoritarian, what is very strange for somebody who joined an anti-fascist group. I don't understand how this group admitted you as a member. Obviously, they didn't read your last posting.

Mr. Kilbourne, don't be afraid, you should prepare to talk... to Argentines! I think we will be moving to Minnesota before our next summer. Our last summer was so hot that the temptation is really big!!!

Tuesday September 9, 2008, 6:22 am
Local WEATHER comes and goes - we had ONE year of cooler weather - when you look at the earth as a whole...WEATHER (local, short-term events) is different from CLIMATE (long-term, extensive or world wind events). The data just do not support the "it is getting cooler" claims...Here is a summation of FIVE independently derived temp records - ALL showing a temp increase over the last 29 years...there are records going bact to 1900 (which I can show you if you are interested) showing even longer-term warming trends:


Temprature Trends 1979-2008

Tuesday September 9, 2008, 9:29 am
The former editor of one of your favorite publications thinks differently.

OPINION: Man-made global warming? Worry about the sun

LAST week Environment Minister Sammy WIlson caused anger among some environmentalists by questioning whether global warming was caused by man. The Green Party has already hit back - now NIGEL CALDER, former editor of the New Scientist defends Mr Wilson's position.
There are warnings of gales in Shannon, Rockall, Malin ... .' When shipping forecasts like that occur repeatedly in summertime, you have to wonder if the global cooling feared by the best-informed climate experts has already begun to bite. The UK's rotten summer weather of 2007 and 2008 is a good reason to reopen the debate about global warming, as Northern Ireland's Environment Minister Sammy Wilson proposes.

CLICK HERE TO AIR YOUR VIEWS ON THE BIG DEBATE

Unseasonable storms plagued the Spanish Armada too. After the fights in the English Channel, it escaped homeward around Scotland and Ireland. But high winds, in the late summer of 1588, wrecked two dozen ships on the north and west coasts of Ireland. As Queen Elizabeth's Armada medal put it 'God blew and they were scattered'.

Why is that 420-year-old weather bulletin relevant today? Because a worldwide cooling event, the Little Ice Age, was just then becoming serious. A local symptom was summer storms tracking across the British Isles, rather than passing to the north as in warmer medieval times. The gloomy and wet weather brought misery to farmers, and between 1550 and 1600 the price of wheat in England went up by 200 per cent. With occasional intermissions, and a maximum chill around 1700, the Little Ice Age continued until about 1850.

A lazy sun explains it. The solar magnetic shield was weak, and the Earth suffered a larger influx of swift atomic particles coming from exploded stars.

Those cosmic rays helped to make more low clouds, which cooled the world during the Little Ice Age. But in the 20th century the sun doubled its magnetic strength and cut the influx of cosmic rays. That meant fewer clouds and a warmer world.

This is no crackpot theory. A string of discoveries by the physicist Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Institute backs it up. He and his small team have even traced the chemical action of cosmic rays involved in cloud-making. Evidence for the cosmic-ray theory is now far stronger than for the politically fashionable notion that carbon dioxide drives global warming. Dr Svensmark and I explain it all in plain language in our book The Chilling Stars, published by Icon Books in 2007.

So what's the problem? Precisely the lack of debate that Mr Wilson complains about. A group of scientists who make fanciful computer models of the climate for the United Nations have allied themselves with politicians in many Western countries, with environmental lobbyists, and with journalists who have forgotten to take official pronouncements with plenty of salt. The science of man-made global warming is settled, they chorus, and there's nothing to discuss except how to avoid the climatic apocalypse.

Future historians will laugh about how climate science went crazy, but meanwhile life is not so funny for my friend Henrik. For 12 years, I've watched scientists who take the official line bad-mouthing him, starving him of funds and making it hard for him to publish his reports. Other physicists who think that the Sun rules the climate, or merely criticise the man-made warming theory, report similar experiences. They've certainly not had the open discussion of the evidence that scientists are accustomed to expect.

I'm afraid that the issue will now be resolved, not by rational argument, but by unmistakable global cooling, which will be bad news for farmers and everyone else.In the 1990s the sun ended its spurt of increasing activity, and as result there has been no rise in temperature since 1997, despite the continuing increase in carbon dioxide in the air. The global warmers explain away the ‘pause’ by changes in the oceans. Isn’t it quaint that any mid-term cooling effect can be just a quirk of nature, while any mid-term warming is obviously our fault?

In an updated edition of The Chilling Stars, published earlier this year, Dr Svensmark and I remarked that we were advising friends to enjoy the global warming while it lasted. Since we wrote that, portents of a solar downturn, and possibly even a new little ice age, have become more sinister. The sun ought to be freckled with sunspots now, as a symptom of magnetic vigour, but instead we’ve had more than a year with very few spots. Global temperatures are down on last year and Australia and South America are just emerging from a bitter winter.

Not convinced? Well back in April the UK Met Office, one of the shrillest of global warming outfits, issued a forecast for summer 2008. It declared, ‘the risk of exceptional rainfall, as seen last summer, is assessed as very low’. These are the folk who claim to tell you what the climate will be like 100 years from now.

As I finish writing, amid torrential rain in Sussex, I notice that my roof is starting to leak.
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/3425/OPINION-Manmade-global-warming-Worry.4467252.jp?articlepage=1

Tuesday September 9, 2008, 9:46 am
Thank you, Chris. I appreciate your links and factual information. You really know this stuff. We are fortunate to have you here at Care2. You attack the issue, not the person, and truly are an educator. You are a professional and it shows in your postings.

Tuesday September 9, 2008, 12:56 pm
The weather records in Minnesota go back to the 1800s and we have set several record lows this year. That is not an easy thing to do.
This has been going on for several years. We have only had a few days over 90 degrees this year, also very unusual.
I am for wind, solar, planting trees and LED lighting, just because it is a good idea.
But weather science is just not even able to tell you if it going to rain tomorrow!!!!!!!
But if your are going to raise my utility bills or the price of gas you have got a long way to go to prove anything.
If you want to talk about global warming, I want you to come to Minnesota in December or January and we will talk outside at night without jackets until you come to your senses or freeze to death, which ever comes first!!!!
In short a little global warming would be a GOOD thing.

Tuesday September 9, 2008, 1:17 pm
Byron - Unfortunately you are still not getting the difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE. Record highs and lows (especially in localized areas) are not that important to the discussions on climate change - long-term trends are what we need to look at. Also, to say that it is cold in your area, therefore, warming would be a good thing, really is missing the mark in understanding the implications of climate change on the planet...

Wednesday September 10, 2008, 11:27 am
I think Byron is correct.

When the whole CO2 scam has been blown open by Mother Nature herself, why would we limit CO2 since it's effects can be easily over-ridden by natural cycles?

It's even happening in Brazil
Rare Late Winter Snowfall in Southern Brazil

Alexandre Aguiar, MetSul Weather Center

This day will go in our climatic history of the southernmost state of Rio Grande do Sul as one of the coldest ever witnessed in September. It was an amazing day. Temperatures below 5 degrees Celsius during afternoon hours are quite rare even in the coldest months of calendar from June to August, but today temperature dropped to 2 degrees in several cities after midday with the lows occurring during the afternoon. What began in the morning as granular snow and sleet quickly became moderate to heavy snow in the afternoon. The city of Pinheiro Machado (450 meters) never could expect to be whitened, despite the snow forecast from MetSul Weather Center, the only public or private weather institution in Brazil to warn on the snow.

See pictures and the rest of the article:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/RarelatewintersnowfallinBrazil.pdf

Wednesday September 10, 2008, 11:29 am
When will you EVER get the difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE???

Wednesday September 10, 2008, 2:43 pm
Chris, You say that global warming is caused by more co2 in the atmosphere. One would assume that this co2 can not stay in one place for very long and would evenly mix over the entire earth. So, for you to be right, the whole earth would have to be getting warmer and no place on earth could be getting colder. Well Minnesota has been getting colder. That does not fit with your theory. Instead of saying it is impossible for anywhere to be getting cooler, lets try to map it. We have people from around the world on here. Who says it is getting colder? who says it is getting warmer? This is not a vote, it could be different for different people. we want to map it. The ice caps have moved before and they may be moving again. There defiantly is a connection between weather and climate and you can not run around like chicken little saying the sky is falling unless it is falling everywhere which it is not! Climate has to fit inside of weather or something is wrong with your data.
Southern California is a special case, yes it is warming and yes it is caused by Californians. You can not move a large population of people into a desert and suck all the water from several states around you and not expect the climate to change, but some Californians are just like that you know!

Wednesday September 10, 2008, 2:52 pm
"So, for you to be right, the whole earth would have to be getting warmer and no place on earth could be getting colder."

Actually, that is a false assumption, as you would know IF you actually read the linked materials that Tom and I provided...

Wednesday September 10, 2008, 4:00 pm
How to talk to Chris
Don't, it is a waste of time, Chris belives what he wants to belive and just will not listen to anyone else, just like a religion.

Wednesday September 10, 2008, 4:49 pm
No I base my decisions on the science of the matter - and I provide support for my contentions. You may not agree - but don't pass it off as a "religion" :) If you have a counter argument - please feel free to express it - but if what you are not saying is not correct (or not supported), don't be supprised to get challenged one the claim...