Monday September 15, 2008, 5:37 pm
Skeptic Arguments

This is a list of every skeptic argument encountered online (53 total) as well as how often each argument is used.

1 It's the sun
2 Climate's changed before
3 There is no consensus
4 It's cooling
5 Models are unreliable
6 Surface temp is unreliable
7 Ice age predicted in the 70s
8 We're heading into an ice age
9 Al Gore got it wrong
10 CO2 lags temperature
11 It hasn't warmed since 1998
12 Global warming is good
13 Antarctica is cooling/gaining ice
14 Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
15 Mars is warming
16 1934 - hottest year on record
17 It's freaking cold!
18 It's cosmic rays
19 Urban Heat Island effect exaggerates warming
20 Other planets are warming
21 Greenland was green
22 Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
23 Hockey stick was debunked
24 Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
25 We're coming out of an ice age
26 Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
27 It cooled mid-century
28 It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
29 Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use
30 Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
31 Oceans are cooling
32 There's no empirical evidence
33 Climate sensitivity is low
34 Glaciers are growing
35 If scientists can't predict weather, how can they predict long term climate?
36 Greenland is cooler/gaining ice
37 Neptune is warming
38 Jupiter is warming
39 Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
40 It's the ocean
41 It's aerosols
42 CO2 measurements are suspect
43 Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
44 It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
45 It's volcanoes (or lack thereof)
46 It's methane
47 It's Solar Cycle Length
48 Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed
49 Water levels correlate with sunspots
50 Solar cycles cause global warming
51 The sun is getting hotter
52 It's the ozone layer
53 It's satellite microwave transmissions

Each topic is discussin detail - links to topics can be found here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Monday September 15, 2008, 6:07 pm
Thank you, Chris! It's really worth visiting the site...

Monday September 15, 2008, 6:50 pm
There is a fantastic documentary series on BBC at the moment,which unlike Channel 4,actually sets the facts out coldly.The skeptics are basically a bunch of self interested capitalists,who are influencing a section of the population whose education has not equipt them, do understand how science works.
The conclusion of the documentary..its obvious ,climate change is real..and its manmade..the evidence for it is so vast,as to be beyond doubt,except that science can never say that it is 100% certain..cos thats how science works.This fact,has been twisted to infinity by oil giants,and republican big wigs.

Monday September 15, 2008, 7:24 pm
Sorry, I'm an old lady with no investments an 1 going on 2 grandchildren. Your premise is ridiculous since British Petroleum is one of the main pushers of the false paradigm invented by the Club of Rome many years ago. Big Oil profits from ENERGY no matter what its source.. If you block coal from being used, you will get nuclear.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…The real enemy, then, is humanity itself….Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one INVENTED for the purpose…”

- The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of Rome

Globalists Love Global Warming
Trilateral Commission, chairman of British Petroleum, CFR, Club of Rome fan hysteria to achieve world government.
A common charge leveled against those who question the official orthodoxy of the global warming religion is that they are acting as stooges for the western establishment and big business interests. If this is the case, then why do the high priests of the elite and kingpin oil men continue to fan the flames of global warming hysteria?

The Trilateral Commission, one of the three pillars of the New World Order in alliance with Bilderberg and the CFR, met last week in near secrecy to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how westerners live their lives.

At the confab, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger and chairman of British Petroleum Peter Sutherland (pictured top), gave a speech to his elitist cohorts in which he issued a "Universal battle cry arose for the world to address “global warming” with a single voice."

Echoing this sentiment was General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defense Staff in London, who urged the Trilateral power-brokers to "Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide."

Allegations that skeptics of the man-made explanation behind global warming are somehow doing the bidding of the elite are laughable in the face of the fact that Rothschild operatives and the very chairman of British Petroleum are the ones orchestrating an elitist plan to push global warming fears in order to achieve political objectives.

We have a similar situation to the Peak Oil scam, which was created by the oil industry as a profit boon to promote artificial scarcity, and yet is parroted by environmentalists who grandstand as if they are in opposition to the oil companies.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/140307hysteria.htm
In his excellent article, Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government, Daniel Taylor outlines how the exploitation of the natural phenomenon of "global warming" was a pet project of the Club of Rome and the CFR.

"In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

"Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."

Taylor also points out future British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's admonishment that only a "new world order" (world government) can help fight global warming.

Other attendees at the recent Trilateral meeting raised the specter of climate change as a tool to force through tax hikes.

Calling on the United States government to adopt a "carbon monoxide control policy," former CIA boss and long term champion of creating a domestic intelligence agency to spy on Americans John Deutch, argued that America should impose a $1-pergallon increase in the gasoline tax under the pretext of fighting pollution.

The lapdog media have proven adept in the past at taking their orders from the elitists in pushing higher taxes in the name of saving the environment.

"When the TC called on the United States to increase gas taxes by 10 cents at a meeting in Tokyo in 1991, The Washington Post, which is always represented at TC and Bilderberg meetings, called for such an increase in an editorial the following day," reports Jim Tucker.

Tucker writes that an essential means of achieving global government by consent over conquest, as has long been the ultimate goal of the elite, is by "fanning public hysteria" over climate change, encouraging further integration by forcing countries to adhere to international law on global warming. Such restrictions have prevented the development of third world nations and directly contributed to poverty, disease and squalor by essentially keeping them at a stone age level of progress, as is documented in The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.

People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life, cough up more tax money, and get on board with the global warming religion save being linked with Holocaust denial, are as deluded and enslaved as the tribes of Mesoamerica who, unaware of the natural phenomenon of a solar eclipse, thought their high priests could make the sky snake eat the Sun, and therefore obeyed their every demand.

Globalists love global warming! Oil industry kingpins, Bilderbergers and Rothschild minions have all put their weight behind it. This is a fraud conceived, nurtured and promulgated by elite, and to castigate individuals for merely questioning the motives behind climate change fearmongering by accusing them of being mouthpieces for the establishment is a complete reversal of the truth.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/280307globalistslove.htm

Monday September 15, 2008, 7:26 pm
More MEANINGLESS fearmiongering - none of which address the SCIENCE of the matter...spin and hype, nothing more...and this is by PRISION PLANET for heavens sake (a highly biased - prapaganda site)...

Monday September 15, 2008, 7:31 pm
I really don't think there are to many un-paid skeptics left. Of course fear does keep alot of heads firmly embedded in the ground, dis advantageous to our environmental cause but a fact we must deal with nonetheless. I'm done trying to argue sense into these folks, i have found that it is better to just allow them there opinion and move on. funny thing is alot of the deniers have come to grips with the facts later on down the road and even thanked me for giving them info back when. Good feeling , my life is more at peace since i just started planting the seeds and letting them grow on their own. Every seed is part of the whole plant. Thx Chris!

Monday September 15, 2008, 7:39 pm
Great attitude, Serge!
Thanks again, Chris - the list is hilarious! :-)

Monday September 15, 2008, 9:56 pm
# 54- (from Judy Cross) Its BP not EXXON

Tuesday September 16, 2008, 1:19 am
IT IS AMAZING THE EXCUSES PEOPLE WILL COME UP WITH.

Tuesday September 16, 2008, 6:53 am
What is amazing is how plausable many of these seem to be - and if given a slect few bits of information, many can be well supported. That is why it is so importnat to look at MANY sources of information and weigh ALL the facts before making a decision. Also, I will be the first to admit there are several unanswered questions around climate - it is a very complex science. Of course, there is even the possibility that the science could eventually prove human caused climate change as being incorrect...but the vast majority of the current information supports this concept (though there is some valid counter evidence too - but also a lot of "not so valid" counter evidence as well LOL). As the link suggests, SKEPTICISM is healthy and part of science...the problem arises when this skepticism turns into DENIALISM (the blind belief that human caused climate change does not exist)...So I encourage everyone to continue to educate themselves on the subject...But, given the current state of our knowlage of the situation, I would also encourage everyone to be taking ACTION while learning more - I think we have sufficient evidence to act upon at this point...

Tuesday September 16, 2008, 9:03 am
Yes, we must have free speech even if flamers rise and fall.
Louise B.

Tuesday September 16, 2008, 9:13 am
Sure! I just want to add that shifting to clean, safe, renewable sources of energy (and that's why anti-global warming activists are struggling) and supporting nuclear energy is not the same thing! I cannot believe that somebody have come to such a conclusion...

Tuesday September 16, 2008, 10:21 am
"the problem arises when this skepticism turns into DENIALISM", great point Chris, noted and thank you.

Tuesday September 16, 2008, 10:30 am
Q Some suggest that Roger Revelle, Gore's scientific mentor, would not have agreed with the movie?

A Well, he's dead.

Q Yes. So that makes it harder for him to speak out.

A It's a horrible story. Before he died, Roger Revelle co-authored a popular paper saying, 'We know too little to take any action based on global warming. If we take any action it should be an action that we can justify completely without global warming.' And Gore's staffers tried to have his name posthumously removed from that paper claiming he had been senile. And one of the other authors took it to court and won. It's funny how little coverage that got.

Q How cynical do you think Gore is?

A It's hard for me to tell. I think he's either cynical or crazy. But he has certainly cashed in on something. And 'cash in' is the word. The movie has cleared $50-million. He charges $100,000-$150,000 a lecture. He's co-founder of Global Investment Management, which invests in solar and wind and so on. So he is literally shilling for his own companies. And he's on the on the board of Lehman Brothers who want to be the primary brokerage for emission permits.

Q That sounds more cynical, less crazy.

A I think his aim is not to be president. It's to be a billionaire.

From last year
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=ebd65ed3-80c2-441b-98ca-c4fbc7233e96&p=2

Tuesday September 16, 2008, 1:35 pm
I think the Greenhouse Effect is not serious until people do something about it. So far, this year sales of sport utility vehicles began plummeting several months ago, and Americans have begun using public transportation.

People continue to eat meat three meals a day - look at how many people are obese - and do not care about the connection between eating meat and consumption of petroleum.

Growth and development our out of control - liberals rant about allowing as many people in the United States legal or otherwise regardless of the consequence of an exploding population.

Question: in 2000, the last year of his term in the executive branch, gasoline was selling for a dollar a gallon, the cheapest price in seventy years. Why was Al Gore silent about global warming when oil was so cheap?

Tuesday September 16, 2008, 3:54 pm
Global Warming is real all right. All you have to do is watch the glaciers or if you prefer, Greenland, or the Artic, melting. But if you prefer to disregard the evidence, then just be assured that whatever is happening, is going to happen because humans can not be talked into taking action for the "good" of their own kind in time anyway. We have already waited too long to make a significant difference, and what happens will happen. As if we can actually keep this planet from headlong plunging into an ice age if that is indeed what is going to happen - since when have we actually prevented the death of a species instead of hurrying the death of one. IT's what we do best. Sad but true. We are more interested in the argument than in the outcome. Noted.

Tuesday September 16, 2008, 5:06 pm
thank you, Chris
for putting this out

Tuesday September 16, 2008, 7:51 pm
Instead of examining the problem which has been here for more than 10 years (I think) why don't they accept it & do an act to stop it.. Bush don't think we have a problem & I think the second Bush & his VP don't either.. are they gonna wait like the critters that are low in there state before they see its real but now its too late.. Nah .. I don't think the Government will stop anything.. sadly they probably feel that the Earth will remain to take our punishment for another million years... tho I have seen on TV that Dec 12 2012 after that date ( I think its it)everything STOPS... wonder why ??? have any of you heard or seen this.. even the Native Americans have been told this .. theres no history it seems to say what will be next.. like Cayce & Nostradamus or so on.. that gives this President coming that year it should Stop... You know why People are obese ??? its becuz too many are at the pc or tv or playing videos.. not too many are active any more.. & thats a shame.. my grandson all he does is play on the pc or watch tv or play videos thats what his parents taught him & his brothers & sisters when they will very young... no activity now a days... but one sure thing something will happen one day soon to the Earth & everyone that shold have done something will say.... no one told us this was urgent... another lie...

Tuesday September 16, 2008, 8:30 pm
As someone very interested in Global Climate Change, I think it is very unfortunate how much name-calling and polarization occurs within this movement of ours we loosely refer to as the "left". Although there are a lot of ridiculous arguments that deny the science of Global Warming, there are some interesting points that get swept under by disregarding people as all "having their head in the sand."

I think it is very important that we examine the, at times, elitist attitude to which anyone who raises legitimate questions about the general public's lockstep thought on this complex, nuanced issue that we are continually learning more about, is met.

This doesnt need to be another issue which merely placates some of us into feeling superior over our friends, family, and neighbors.

Tuesday September 16, 2008, 10:56 pm
COOKING THE BOOKS: How to write a contrarian polemic on climate change
http://climatedenial.org/2008/09/16/cooking-the-books-how-to-write-a-contrarian-polemic-on-climate-change/

Wednesday September 17, 2008, 6:53 am
Global warming is a consequence of stripping away the vegetation from the soil and turning it into deserts. Deserts radiate more heat back to the atmosphere which in turn transfers it to the air and the oceans. We don’t have to go to the Sahara to find deserts. Every strip of concrete, tarmac, brickwork, paving, runway, cobble road, tin roof, tiled roof, asbestos roof is in fact a man made desert capable of radiating tremendous heat back to the atmosphere. Emissions pale into insignificance when you compare them to the heat radiated from the ever expanding global deserts. Address this issue by banning clear cut logging. Improve soil management and transform the deserts into tropical rainforests like they were a few thousand years ago and we won’t have to worry about global warming, starvation, floods, drought, rising ocean levels and ocean sterility.

A Pocket Full Of Acorns is a good start!

Wednesday September 17, 2008, 8:15 am
There is no point arguing with a wall. A climate skeptic is someone who, faced with a enraged bear, tries to make it go away by pretending the bear isn't there, and shouts at anyone who dares point out that the bear is real and about to rip their head off. Global warming has been known fact is the scientific community for dozens of years. There is no use pointing this out to a skeptic because they already KNOW this, they just prefer to close their eyes to it rather than look reality in the face. It's an understandble reaction that is common in human, when faced with a reality that is too harsh, some simply refuse to accept it.

Human activity is not the only factor, but it is not helping. Sure you can fidn research that shows that human factor is neglectible. Guess what, you can also find research that shows the human factor is humongous and can not be ignored one second longer. You can find research or statistic to back up any ludicrous point of view. Because statistics & research are always worded to give the impression the author wants to give.

Example :
- Statistic 1 : 99% of hard drug users started with cannabis
-> Joe Average thinks : OMG cannabis leads to hard drugs ban cannabis NOW!!!111
- Statistic 2 : only 1% of cannabis users move on to hard drugs
-> Joe Average realises : Whoops, my mistake

Climates skeptics would be comical if they weren't so tragic. Hey, you are free to close your eyes & pretend the bus isn't going to run you over. If you beleive you have no chance to succeed at dodging it, that may even be the wisest course, as it saves unnecessary panic. But pretty please, don't blame those who prefer to attempt dodging it anyway.

Wednesday September 17, 2008, 9:41 am
It looks like the "climate change deniers" are the ones who insist that it's still warming.Sep 17, 2008
Is This The Beginning of Global Cooling

By Allan MacRae

Many scary stories have been written about the dangers of catastrophic global warming, allegedly due to increased atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from the combustion of fossil fuels. But is the world really catastrophically warming? NO. And is the warming primarily caused by humans? NO.

Since just January 2007, the world has cooled so much that ALL the global warming over the past three decades has disappeared! This is confirmed by a plot of actual global average temperatures from the best available source, weather satellite data that shows there has been NO net global warming since the satellites were first launched in 1979.
Since there was global cooling from ~1940 to ~1979, this means there has been no net warming since ~1940, is spite of an ~800% increase in human emissions of carbon dioxide. This indicates that the recent warming trend was natural, and CO2 is an insignificant driver of global warming.

Furthermore, the best fit polynomial shows a strong declining trend. Are we seeing the beginning of a natural cooling cycle? YES. Further cooling, with upward and downward variability, is expected because the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has returned to its cool phase, as announced by NASA this year.

Global warming and cooling have closely followed the phases of the PDO. The most significant pattern of PDO behavior is a shift between “warm” and “cool” phases that last 20 to 30 years. In 1905, the PDO shifted to its “warm” phase. In 1946, the PDO changed to its “cool” phase. In 1977, the PDO returned to its “warm” phase and produced the current warming. In 2007-8, the PDO turned cold again, so we can expect several decades of naturally-caused global cooling.

Some scientists are predicting that this cooling will be severe, and is a greater threat to humanity than global warming ever was. Meanwhile, politicians are still obsessing about global warming. http://www.icecap.us/

Wednesday September 17, 2008, 11:33 am
Do you ever wonder what our critics think we Global Warming believers get out of even being right?
There isn't any money on being right. And we bring on major suffering upon ourselves just by trying to help turn this Global Warming.
I know I have not seen any global warming parades have you?
If our critics would kindly ask us are we happy there is global warming.
Would even one of us be please that we are right about it. We would most likely say we wish we were wrong.
So many of our anti global warming critics everyday except some new unproven gismo or technology as great even if there were only a few papers and tests on them.
Yet ,look how they howl and scream about Global Warming (That it isn't Human cause)
IF anything we are doing there future generations a favor standing up as they throw anything and everything at us. Imagine say 100 years from now ? The doubters future descendents suffering because of those forfathers.

and last even if we believers are completely wrong? Why should we stay with yesterday's energy sources? We should strive forward to find new sources .
Does anyone ever hear those doubters even asking for new energy technolgy?
I haven't.

Wednesday September 17, 2008, 12:08 pm
Global cooling xD Get a grip.

Wednesday September 17, 2008, 6:07 pm
Thanks Chris! This is great.
You left out skeptic argument 54 Lalala, I can’t hear you!

Wednesday September 17, 2008, 6:14 pm
Judy, yet AGAIN, proves she has no concept of WEATHER (short-term events) and CLIMATE (long-term trends). It is well documented that we have gonne through a year or so of a cool period (mainly due to a strong La Ninia event, which is a natural cooling event - which is masking the human warming signature).

So, I will simply repeat the reply to Judy's post (and we all will see it posted yet agin)

Here are FIVE INDEPENDENTLY derived temprature records between 1979 and the present - note that ALL FIVE show a warming trend over that period of time (the legend notes the extent) despite the supposed "cooling trend". You can see that temps go up and down over the short time frame (WAETHER), but the overall long-term trend (CLIMATE) is up...

Also note even the "climate skeptics" say that "cooling trend" is an inappropriate interpretation of the "cool weather" we have been having.

Climate Skeptics Undoly Seize on Cold Spell

According to a host of climate experts, including some who question the extent and risks of global warming, it is mostly good old-fashioned weather, along with a cold kick from the tropical Pacific Ocean, which is in its La Niña phase...

http://www.care2.com/news/member/537645068/656962

Wednesday September 17, 2008, 6:15 pm
Also, see the discussion under #4 in the site I reference...

Wednesday September 17, 2008, 6:42 pm
The Climate Change Scam collapses. Not only is it cooling but as the article said...those who wanted you to bet on warming 100 years from now couldn't even forcast the collapse of their own company. I hear Goldman Saks, which had plans to be the biggest carbon trader in New York, is in trouble too. Gore's daughter's in-laws own it. My, he's well connected.

Lehman Brothers Close Ties to Gore, Hansen and Carbon Trading

Al Gore’s carbon trading business GIM was banked with Lehman Bros. It will be interesting to see how this will play in the future but I suspect that this increases the risk of participating in Carbon trading. Merrill Lynch was also deeply involved in this business.

Last year Lehman Brothers released a long and highly publicized report about climate change in which they preached about decarbonization, trying to make their investors keep getting high profits from the Kyoto carbon trade scheme and the support of huge public subventions. All that, of course, with the applause of the usual choir of politicians, the entire media and the Greens.

Last year Lehman Brothers released a long and highly publicized report about climate change in which they preached about decarbonization, trying to make their investors keep getting high profits from the Kyoto carbon trade scheme and the support of huge public subventions. All that, of course, with the applause of the usual choir of politicians, the entire media and the Greens.

A year ago they couldn’t predict their bankruptcy but were predicting the climate 100 years ahead. Thousands of green militants have been using the Lehman report as a proof of global warming and impending chaos. Lehman Bros said it! sacred words! Its scientific advisor is James Hansen! The report is the basis for policies on climate change in Spain, Argentina and several other countries playing the progress game; it is used by economy professors playing the climatologists; by newspapers editorials, and even by a State Secretary: Lehman Bros, said it!

Lehman Brothers spoke in his report about the climate in 2100 and its economic and financial projections, about climate change costs several decades away. They dared to recommend their investors what they considered a central value of the carbon ton in 50 years from now. Their sources and support references were taken from the IPCC AR4, AR3, and so on. Really impressive.

But even with their high ability to peek into the future, they couldn’t predict their demise one year ahead though there were many people that had been warning about this present crash for years. But Lehman Bros were recommending investments 30, 50, 100 years ahead. Some days, reality imitates fiction. Who was Lehman Bros’ ‘scientific’ adviser on climate? You guessed it, James Hansen, the same guy that wants to drive the world to bankruptcy as he did with Lehman’s Bros.

But the story has some connections with Hansen being the ‘scientific’ adviser to Al Gore, who’s the Chairman of the Board of the Alliance for Climate Protection. As seen in Alliance’s website, the managing Director is none less than: Theodore Roosevelt IV. Managing Director, Lehman Brothers, Chair of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change.

Theodore Roosevelt IV is Managing Director at Lehman Brothers and a member of the Firm’s senior client coverage group, which oversees the Firms client and customer relationships. Mr. Roosevelt is an active conservationist. He is Chair of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, Vice Chair of the Wilderness Society, and a Trustee for the American Museum of Natural History, The World Resources Institute, the Institute for Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Wyoming, and a Trustee of Trout Unlimited.

The Lehman reports in two parts can be found on this site ‘Intellectual Capital’. In “The Business of Climate Change ll”, the following acknowledgement is made: “On the scientific side, we are grateful to Dr. James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who, at the end of a particularly informative dinner hosted by Ben Cotton of the Man Group, gave generously of his time to clear up a number of scientific questions that had been niggling us. Dr. Peter Collins and Richard Heap of the Royal Society provided valuable input and brought us up to date on the more controversial areas of scientific developments in the domain of global climate change.” H/T Eduardo Ferreyra originally posted to Climate Sceptics Internet discussion group.

Lehman’s failure provides a preview of our future if more companies bank their future on the speculative advice of these advocacy scientists, politicians and environmental groups, while ignoring short term realities. http://www.icecap.us/

Wednesday September 17, 2008, 6:56 pm
Again...has NOTHING to do with the SCIENCE of the matter...just more retoric from the Icecap prapaganda site LMAO!!!!

Wednesday September 17, 2008, 7:11 pm
from your previous article, Judy -

"This is confirmed by a plot of actual global average temperatures from the best available source, weather satellite data that shows there has been NO net global warming since the satellites were first launched in 1979."

The data I provide includes the satellite data and shows the basic premmis of the artical is pattently WRONG - and that one comes from Icecaps too - just shows how unreliable that site is...pure denialist prapaganda...

Wednesday September 17, 2008, 9:26 pm
If Judy keeps it up she will have achieved GW all by herself! So much HOT air! LOL!

Wednesday September 17, 2008, 10:24 pm
I'm with Judy and even Andrew on this gimmick for One Govt.

Have you ever noticed when you enter the city limits from a drive in the country how the temp. increases 10 to 20 degree's?

In the USA approximately 1 acre of open land is lost through urbanization and degradation for each person added to the U.S. - about 3 million people and therefore 3 million acres lost each year.

(Gore calls it carbons, I think it is the miles & miles of green life we bury with concrete and/or toxins.)

China is covering it's country in concrete in its fastest stage of historical development.
And the mtn. tops are melting.
Alaska & Canada are gleaming their forest lands and urban areas are growing. The lake are filling with petroleums, oils, that boats dump. Cess pools generate heat as well.

Carbon is poisonous and should be cut without taxation, that so far has INCREASED carbon output by the Corp's that are trading. So Gore's hijacking the concerns of environmentalist has done little for the climate anywhere except his financial climate.

That's not to say we should continue polluting and destroying forest, this definitely must stop..

The other thing Gore has managed with his N.Prize is to create division within the hearts & minds of passionate caring people and it seems ended any study or research for other causes harming planet earth. Divide, Distract, while taking to the sky more than any time in Gores past.

Don't you find him just a little contradictory in his own applications to his hype?

Wednesday September 17, 2008, 11:39 pm
This is what science should be:

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

But we're hearing far too often that the "science" is "settled", and that it is mankind's contribution to the natural CO2 in the atmosphere has been the principal cause of an increasing "Greenhouse Effect", which is the root "cause" of global warming. We're also hearing that "all the world's scientists now agree on this settled science", and it is now time to quickly and most radically alter our culture, and prevent a looming global catastrophe. And last, but not least, we're seeing a sort of mass hysteria sweeping our culture which is really quite disturbing. Historians ponder how the entire nation of Germany could possibly have goose-stepped into place in such a short time, and we have similar unrest. Have we become a nation of overnight loonies?

We decided to publish the results of our counter-exploration on the internet - but in a somewhat uniquely different fashion. Knowing that most folks aren't geeks, and may have little understanding of science or math, we're going to attempt to teach some of the essential physics and such as we go along. Readers with little or no mathematical or scientific training may find it challenging, but if you have a general understanding of introductory college or even solid high school level chemistry or physics, you should have no problem in following this amazing tale. The brighter readers, even without a science background, should be able to follow, as well. Smart folks learn faster than most.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Thursday September 18, 2008, 6:12 am
If you do take the time to read the article above, I would also suggest looking at the one I submitted - it is failrly easy to make a side by side compaison of points. In my view, the support for human caused cliamte change (humans being a SIGNIFICANT, not exclusive cause of the CURRENT WARMING TEND)is the stronger case.

The "heat island effect" being discussed regarding warming in the cities is indeed a true phenomon - however, it does not effect the global climate - it effects the local climate.

Heat Island Effect

Basic Information

http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/about/index.html


Urban heat island

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

Thursday September 18, 2008, 11:02 am
Thank you, Chris, noted

Friday September 19, 2008, 6:47 am

InterestingChris, Using satellite images, researchers discovered that city climates have a noticeable influence on plant growing seasons up to 10 kilometers (6 miles) away from a city’s edges. Growing seasons in 70 cities in eastern North America were about 15 days longer in urban areas compared to rural areas outside of a city’s influence.[6][7]

Friday September 19, 2008, 7:34 am
Yes, Carol, as I said, the Heat Island Effect has LOCAL influences - CLIMATE is measured on a regional scale (think the size of states, countries, or continents) or global scale...

Friday September 19, 2008, 6:40 pm
Fascinating still. TY Chris for great debates.

Friday September 19, 2008, 6:47 pm
Thank you too...we all need to continue to question our thoughts on this (and other subjects)...that is how we make good decisions on how to proceed...

Saturday September 20, 2008, 11:09 am
Since we are entering a cooling period that is likely to last 30 years, that gives us PLENTY OF TIME. to figure out whether CO2 generated by human beings has an effect worth bothering about.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=18012

In the meantime. I would prefer not to starve and freeze in the dark because the looney greens have it wrong.

Saturday September 20, 2008, 11:44 am
I find it HALARIOUS that you turn ONE YEAR of cooling into a 30 year cooling trend without question...Note that my source indicates that the "cooling trend" is likely to break some time in February - certainaly not 30 years from now. I will worry about that if and when it comes to pass. Look again at the temprature record - it goes up and down over short periods of time (WAETHER) but the long term trend (even with the current cool year) is UP (long-term, CLIMATE CHANGE).

Sunday September 21, 2008, 1:01 am
No, it has been 10 years of no warming and cooling for 6 years. The one in denial is you and the reast of the Warmists....which is why the sneaky "Climate Change' dodge, so that no matter what it does--warm OR cool the Banksters collect money from the suckers who buy into the scam and those of us that don't too.

"Furthermore, the best fit polynomial shows a strong declining trend. Are we seeing the beginning of a natural cooling cycle? YES. Further cooling, with upward and downward variability, is expected because the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has returned to its cool phase, as announced by NASA this year.

Global warming and cooling have closely followed the phases of the PDO. The most significant pattern of PDO behavior is a shift between “warm” and “cool” phases that last 20 to 30 years. In 1905, the PDO shifted to its “warm” phase. In 1946, the PDO changed to its “cool” phase. In 1977, the PDO returned to its “warm” phase and produced the current warming. In 2007-8, the PDO turned cold again, so we can expect several decades of naturally-caused global cooling.

Some scientists are predicting that this cooling will be severe, and is a greater threat to humanity than global warming ever was. Meanwhile, politicians are still obsessing about global warming. http://www.icecap.us/

The catastrophe behind climate change

By Christopher Booker

As the estimated cost of measures proposed by politicians to "combat global warming" soars ever higher - such as the International Energy Council's $45 trillion - "fighting climate change" has become the single most expensive item on the world's political agenda.

As Senators Obama and McCain vie with the leaders of the European Union to promise 50, 60, even 80 per cent cuts in "carbon emissions", it is clear that to realise even half their imaginary targets would necessitate a dramatic change in how we all live, and a drastic reduction in living standards.

All this makes it rather important to know just why our politicians have come to believe that global warming is the most serious challenge confronting mankind, and just how reliable is the evidence for the theory on which their policies are based.

By far the most influential player in putting climate change at the top of the global agenda has been the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up in 1988, not least on the initiative of the Thatcher government. (This was why the first chairman of its scientific working group was Sir John Houghton, then the head of the UK's Meteorological Office.)

Through a succession of reports and international conferences, it was the IPCC which led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, soon to have an even more ambitious successor, to be agreed in Copenhagen next year.

The common view of the IPCC is that it consists of 2,500 of the world's leading scientists who, after carefully weighing all the evidence, have arrived at a "consensus" that world temperatures are rising disastrously, and that the only plausible cause has been rising levels of CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases.

In fact, as has become ever more apparent over the past 20 years -not least thanks to the evidence of a succession of scientists who have participated in the IPCC itself - the reality of this curious body could scarcely be more different.

It is not so much a scientific as a political organisation. Its brief has never been to look dispassionately at all the evidence for man-made global warming: it has always taken this as an accepted fact.

Indeed only a comparatively small part of its reports are concerned with the science of climate change at all. The greater part must start by accepting the official line, and are concerned only with assessing the impact of warming and what should be done about it.

In reality the IPCC's agenda has always been tightly controlled by the small group of officials at its head.

As one recent study has shown, of the 53 contributors to the key Chapter 9 of the latest report dealing with the basic science (most of them British and American, and 10 of them associated with the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office), 37 belong to a closely related network of academics who are all active promoters of the official warming thesis. It is on the projections of their computer models that all the IPCC's predictions of future warming are based.

The final step in the process is that, before each report is published, a "Summary for Policymakers" is drafted by those at the top of the IPCC, to which governments can make input. It is this which makes headlines in the media, and which all too frequently eliminates the more carefully qualified findings of contributors to the report itself.

The idea that the IPCC represents any kind of genuine scientific "consensus" is a complete fiction. Again and again there have been examples of how evidence has been manipulated to promote the official line, the most glaring instance being the notorious "hockey stick".

Initially the advocates of global warming had one huge problem. Evidence from all over the world indicated that the earth was hotter 1,000 years ago than it is today. This was so generally accepted that the first two IPCC reports included a graph, based on work by Sir John Houghton himself, showing that temperatures were higher in what is known as the Mediaeval Warming period than they were in the 1990s.

The trouble was that this blew a mighty hole in the thesis that warming was caused only by recent man-made CO2.

Then in 1999 an obscure young US physicist, Michael Mann, came up with a new graph like nothing seen before. Instead of the familiar rises and falls in temperature over the past 1,000 years, the line ran virtually flat, only curving up dramatically at the end in a hockey-stick shape to show recent decades as easily the hottest on record.

This was just what the IPCC wanted, The Mediaeval Warming had simply been wiped from the record. When its next report came along in 2001, Mann's graph was given top billing, appearing right at the top of page one of the Summary for Policymakers and five more times in the report proper.

But then two Canadian computer analysts, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, got to work on how Mann had arrived at his graph.

When, with great difficulty, they eventually persuaded Mann to hand over his data, it turned out he had built into his programme an algorithm which would produce a hockey stick shape whatever data were fed into it. Even numbers from the phonebook would come out looking like a hockey stick.

By the time of its latest report, last year, the IPCC had an even greater problem. Far from continuing to rise in line with rising CO2, as its computer models predicted they should, global temperatures since the abnormally hot year of 1998 had flattened out at a lower level and were even falling - a trend confirmed by Nasa's satellite readings over the past 18 months.

So pronounced has this been that even scientists supporting the warmist thesis now concede that, due to changes in ocean currents, we can expect a decade or more of "cooling", before the "underlying warming trend" reappears.

The point is that none of this was predicted by the computer models on which the IPCC relies. Among the ever-growing mountain of informed criticism of the IPCC's methods, a detailed study by an Australian analyst John McLean (to find it, Google "Prejudiced authors, prejudiced findings") shows just how incestuously linked are most of the core group of academics whose models underpin everything the IPCC wishes us to believe about global warming.

The significance of the past year is not just that the vaunted "consensus" on the forces driving our climate has been blown apart as never before, but that a new "counter-consensus" has been emerging among thousands of scientists across the world, given expression in last March's Manhattan Declaration by the so-called Non-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.

This wholly repudiates the IPCC process, showing how its computer models are hopelessly biased, based on unreliable data and programmed to ignore many of the genuine drivers of climate change, from variations in solar activity to those cyclical shifts in ocean currents.

As it was put by Roger Cohen, a senior US physicist formerly involved with the IPCC process, who long accepted its orthodoxy: "I was appalled at how flimsy the case is. I was also appalled at the behaviour of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it.

"In particular I am referring to the arrogance, the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science; and the politicisation of the IPCC process and the science process itself."

Yet it is at just this moment, when the IPCC's house of cards is crumbling, that the politicians of the Western world are using it to propose steps that can only damage our way of life beyond recognition. It really is time for that "counter-consensus" to be taken seriously.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/08/31/do3105.xml&posted=true&_requestid=139397

Sunday September 21, 2008, 3:45 am

"Warmists." Hee hee! That's pretty good.

Even the obstructionist Bush administration acknowledges the immense human component of global warming (but disagrees that any significant corrections are necessary).

Most of the basic science regarding global warming and the greenhouse effect was in motion before it ever reached the headlines. Scientists had determined by the 1960s that atmospheric carbon dioxide loading started affecting the climate during the Industrial Revolution, when London and other major cities began emitting immense quantities of smoke from coal stoves, furnaces, and factories.

Sunday September 21, 2008, 7:35 am
No matter how many times you say it - one year of cooling does not make a change in CLIMATE - short term changes like that are WEATHER:

Here are FIVE indeoendently derived temprature records that show the long-term trend between 1979 and present (including satelight data which is the most accurate)

http://www.climate4you.com/images/AllCompared%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979.gif

The colling peirod (weather) is being caused by a short term La Ninia event, likely to end sometime in mid-2009 before the warming trend continues.

Global cooling in 2007 - has global warming ended?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

It is inappropriate to consider a short term cooling period such as we are experiencing as being a "trend" - funnuy how Judy turns a few months of cooling into a 20-30 cooling event based on her ONE article (called cherry picking) especially when she calls all other projections of continued warming "crystal ball gazing" LMAO! Even the staunch denialists say that drawing a "cooling trend" conclusion from the recent short-term cooling is inappropriate:

Climate Skeptics Undoly Seize on Cold Spell

According to a host of climate experts, including some who question the extent and risks of global warming, it is mostly good old-fashioned weather, along with a cold kick from the tropical Pacific Ocean, which is in its La Niña phase...

http://www.care2.com/news/member/537645068/656962


None of this is new to you Judy - you have cut and pasted the same "arguments" at least 20 times so far in the last month (the exact same articles infact). Yes, as I mentioned earlier, skepticism is indeed healthy and an important part of science. However when one repeatedly says the same disproven things - and ignores ALL counter arguments - then one slipps into denialism and is simply preaching dogma...

Monday September 22, 2008, 7:23 pm
So if we commit to joining the New World Order, lose our sovereignty, and let someone else run our nation, Global Warming will cease? How?

What will our life become in this nation? Conspiracies to end the United States exist and these traitors will stop at nothing to convince us that we must give up our nation, to save the world.

I hope Don Cordell gets elected as our President this Nov. to save the freedoms of our nation. If Obama or McCain get elected, Welcome New World Order.

Wednesday November 12, 2008, 9:47 pm
"Have you ever noticed when you enter the city limits from a drive in the country how the temp. increases 10 to 20 degree's?"

Perhaps because the CO2 concentrations in the cities are higher? Plus there are so many hot vehicles running around?

"No, it has been 10 years of no warming and cooling for 6 years. The one in denial is you and the reast of the Warmists"

What 10 years? What six years? The reports indicate that the global temperatures were as high, if not higher, in 2005 and 2007 as in 1998. The claim that global warming stopped in 1998 is an outright lie.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

((((The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.))))

Go jump in a lake, Judy!

Wednesday November 12, 2008, 10:00 pm
Oh, poor fellow. I guess you haven't heard that GISS got caught fiddling the temperature record yet again. Given thayt, they are the last set of numbers I would place any faith in.

GISS Releases (Suspect) October 2008 Data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/10/giss-releases-october-2008-data/

Corrected NASA GISTEMP data has been posted
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/12/corrected-nasa-gistemp-data-has-been-posted/

Of course you have heard of the URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT. It includes everything from tamac to roof asphalt to car exhaust. It all raises the temperature of urban and suburban areas.

Aside from your usual attempt to spin things, I really am curious as to why you reserected this old thread. so you could say...go jump in the lake to me.

How warped is that?

Thursday November 13, 2008, 7:09 am
oh, I guess you have not heard (or have ignored) this

Urban Heat Island effect exaggerates warming

http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm