Saturday November 1, 2008, 6:39 am
Here is the abstract for the article:

Attribution of polar warming to human influence
Nathan P. Gillett1, Dáithí A. Stone2,3, Peter A. Stott4, Toru Nozawa5, Alexey Yu. Karpechko1, Gabriele C. Hegerl6, Michael F. Wehner7 & Philip D. Jones1

The polar regions have long been expected to warm strongly as a result of anthropogenic climate change, because of the positive feedbacks associated with melting ice and snow1, 2. Several studies have noted a rise in Arctic temperatures over recent decades2, 3, 4, but have not formally attributed the changes to human influence, owing to sparse observations and large natural variability5, 6. Both warming and cooling trends have been observed in Antarctica7, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report concludes is the only continent where anthropogenic temperature changes have not been detected so far, possibly as a result of insufficient observational coverage8. Here we use an up-to-date gridded data set of land surface temperatures9, 10 and simulations from four coupled climate models to assess the causes of the observed polar temperature changes. We find that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence. Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities2, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level11.

link to the abstract with hot links to the literature cited (numbers in text): http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo338.html


Here is some additional comentary regarding the paper:

Another nail in the climate denial coffin

One of the most persistent arguments among those who resist the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that Antarctica isn't warming at all, but actually getting cooler. Some parrot this particular talking point because a few studies have shown the interior of the continent gaining snow mass, even though that's what the climate models say global warming will do to the place. But other, slightly more sophisticated, critics say the real problem is a lack of evidence that Antarctica is experiencing any changes that can be attributed to human-caused, or anthropogenic, factors. Now that argument will be harder to make.

In a paper titled "Attribution of polar warming to human influence" appearing today in Nature Geoscience, an international team of climatologists led by Nathan Gillett of the University of East Anglia report that their analysis of Arctic and Antarctic temperature trends finds the opposite to be case. "In both the Arctic and the Antarctic, the anthropogenic regression coefficient is significantly greater than zero," they write, which translates to "we're fairly confident that what's going on at both ends of the Earth has something to do with our fiddling with the levels of greenhouse gases in the air."

Gillett's team cranked recent observation through simulations run on computer climate models and found that the only way to explain the rises (and falls) in temperatures is to invoke non-natural forces. The Arctic runs are based on a century of observations, while the Antarctic runs can only draw on 50 years of data, yet statistically significant results emerged for both.

This is only one study, but given that others have found strong anthropogenic signals on the West Antarctic Peninsula, and given what's going on at the North Pole -- 2008's summer ocean melt didn't quite match 2007's in terms of area, it turns out that the total mass of ice hit a record low last month -- the denial camp really should give up trying to argue the science supports its stubborn refusal to get with the program.

http://climate.weather.com/blogs/9_17738.html

Saturday November 1, 2008, 6:47 am
With any change, the messenger is first violently attacked, then they are ridiculed, and finally, the change is accepted as if it was never in doubt in the first place....

If the messenger is lucky, they will not be killed, or tortured.

Saturday November 1, 2008, 6:58 am
Don't worry - the "persestant" denialist (we know who she is LOL)will soon be arriving and "attacking" the article and "attacking" the messenger (wink)...

Saturday November 1, 2008, 7:29 am
lol you could be right. Thank Chris. Great article.

Saturday November 1, 2008, 7:34 am
Noted..thanks Chris.

Saturday November 1, 2008, 7:39 am
Yes this is indeed the case. We humans have created the global warming with all the poisons that we are putting in the atmosphere. 80% OF THE WARMING IS DUE TO US HUMANS, 20% is due to the tilting over bringing the Earth a little nearer the Suns rays. My question is are you all doing something to make a difference. Or are you only talking about the situation. Let us have some good ideas on how can we make a difference, and lets get doing something positive. God bless you all for the work you are doing. Thank you Father for my gift of to-day. Janet.

Saturday November 1, 2008, 7:46 am

Thank You Chris NOTED!!

Saturday November 1, 2008, 8:00 am
It Always is The Humans!!!!!!!!!! AND ALL ELSE THAT IS DIEING!!!!!! WHAT FOOLS THSES MORTALS BE!!!!!

Saturday November 1, 2008, 8:05 am
AH Animal spirit I see that U have stated the truth-
also Thanx Chris 4 article wish I could say I was surprised.

Saturday November 1, 2008, 8:13 am
Oh yes Janet - getting the infromation out is only the first step - taking action and making a difference is what it ultimately is all about :)

Saturday November 1, 2008, 9:00 am
noted

Saturday November 1, 2008, 9:02 am
one of the biggest problems we face is turning around the attitude of "it's all about me". too many rationalize their waste and excessive pollution -every one has a reason why they must instead of why they shouldn't. i'm telling you -we are dealing with the matrix -people have become desensitized -and either choose to believe in nothing or do anything about it -it's easier than taking the time to find the truth. ultimately their choice to be ignorant is their own destruction -i call it lazy and selfish. it frustrates me that we have to push for laws taking away more freedoms -but with so many with out a conscious -what else is there to do? the zombies appear to need some kind of control -maybe this to is from toxins -nobody has had fresh air or chemical free food for far too long. it has to wreak havvoc on our central nervous system and brain cells -creating some sort of mind mutation -doesn't it?

Saturday November 1, 2008, 9:05 am
When oh when will people realize that our earth is very, very ill! Many of us know that but when will the others understand this! When it's too late, that's when! Yes Animalspirit! What fools indeed! They will be the downfall of our earth as we once knew her! Thank you Chris for a great article!
Save Our Earth! She is the only one we have! Noted!

Saturday November 1, 2008, 9:12 am
Right, if your ready for action, lets go. Start with yourself. What are you driving? If its not powered by Water, get yourselves a kit, and it is a simple thing to do to convert your gas guzzler into friendly, harmless, transport. Refuse to buy any other kind. If you lobby the manufacturers and tell them what you want, they will have to comply, or go broke. Go search Water powered cars, watch the inventors who show you how its done Free to all the world. The manufacturers are takeing this seriously, but don't let them tell you its too expensive, or difficult. There will be a race to get this tec; out. But if you watch the inventors showing you how to do this, you will know different, especially after watching the Videos. This will be a good start. Let us do something other than talk, Love you all Janet.

Saturday November 1, 2008, 9:36 am
There's no longer an argument as the evidence is conclusive: we have met the enemy and it is us. We each must do our part to reduce, recycle, reconfigure, rethink and redo what has gotten us into this mess.

What is the legacy we will leave our children, humanity and the planet? That we were selfish and lazy in spite of the information before us?

Saturday November 1, 2008, 9:41 am
I read about this new evidence on the BBC website and posted it in our little Grassroots group. People need to start taking responsibility for their actions. Thanks, Chris.

Saturday November 1, 2008, 9:41 am
If we want big changes, the first thing to do is to change ourselves. Now we know: all depends on ourselves. Let's start!

Thank you, Chris!

Saturday November 1, 2008, 10:53 am
Good going, Chris! Sometimes I wonder whether the biggest problem is to convince people or fix it. I have decided they both take equal priority.
Louise B.

Saturday November 1, 2008, 12:43 pm
It's just another computer model which I doubt took account of the undersea volcanos pumping out heat along the Penninsula.But some in the scientific community disagree, adding to an already splintered array of opinion on the causes of climate change and whether the Antarctic is actually warming. Here's what an expert has to say:

"John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama, has done studies on climate models and says they are extremely limited tools in trying to mimic what happens in nature.

He said they are unable to reproduce all of the naturally occurring influences and, as a result, give a false picture of what might be causing changes in the environment. Clouds, for example, can dampen warming in the real world, but he said models have been shown to amplify warming.

"They overstate the confidence of what they have in that result because we have too many examples of models that fail," Christy said from Huntsville.

"We have shown that climate models just don't have the variability that nature provides to us."

Christy too disputed whether the bulk of continental Antarctica is warming, saying that it is, in fact, cooling. The report looks largely at the Antarctic peninsula - which makes up two per cent of the continent - and the eastern and western coastal regions, where they have found warming.

The report focuses on temperature changes going back to 1900 and up to the present, but doesn't include earlier periods when areas in the Arctic were actually warmer than they are today and were not affected by man-made greenhouse gases, said Christy.

"Just 1,000 years ago the Arctic was much warmer than it is today so it's interesting that they would use the term conclusively," he said.

"Natural variability can account for warming since the Arctic has been warmer before."

Saturday November 1, 2008, 12:47 pm
thanks Chris..noted..

Saturday November 1, 2008, 12:58 pm
what kept you judy? you are late to your own party.) thank you for being a part of our study -you are a fine specimen of example.

Saturday November 1, 2008, 1:12 pm
Just look at the map at the number of volcanos on Antarctica. The penninsula is in a tectonic plate area, so there are also plenty of underwater vents pumping out heat.

How does one account for that heat in a computer model....especially since the people producing the model want to prove that humans are producing the heat?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/antarcticvolcanoes2.jpg

Saturday November 1, 2008, 1:17 pm
Conclusive proof the Antarctic was warmer 1000 years ago.

The elephant seal (Mirounga leonina) has an interesting story to tell us about the Hockey Stick and the global temperatures over the past few thousand years. In a recent article in the very prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team of scientists from the United States, United Kingdom, and Italy reveal an amazing discovery that further challenges the shape of the hockey stick.

The team went to Antarctica funded by the Office of Polar Programs at the United States’ National Science Program and the Italian Antarctic Research Program and they poked around for hair and skin from elephant seals who visited the area in the past. They also examined where the elephant seals exist today; the Hall et al. team notes that “Relatively few elephant seals have been observed in Antarctica, and these consist primarily of seals on foraging excursions or isolated molting groups.” However, at many times in the last 10,000 or so years (the Holocene), elephant seals felt more at home in Antarctica thanks to much warmer temperatures.

Hall et al. examined sand and gravel from raised beaches in Antarctica and found a substantial amount of hair and skin from our poster boy’s ancestors. The research team writes that “Both visual inspection and DNA analysis confirm that the material is from southern elephant seals.” Hall et al. date the material found on the Victoria Land Coast (VLC) of Antarctica and find “The period between 1,100 and 2,300 14C yr B.P., marked by significant expansion of elephant seal colonies and a disappearance of Adélie penguins, represents the greatest sea-ice decline (and probably the warmest ocean and air temperatures) in the Ross Sea in the last 6,000 yr. This was followed by an increase in sea ice and the development of land-fast ice ≈1,000 yr ago on the VLC, which we propose led to the abandonment of seal colonies. The ice regime remains too severe for either elephant seals or penguins to occupy the southern VLC today.” They note that during this warm period “Foraging excursions into the Ross Sea are unlikely to explain the concentrated deposits of skin because elephant seals forage alone. The large amount of molted hair/skin suggests that the region was used for molting. Mummified pup remains suggest that the region also was used for breeding.”

Their abstract is amazing stating “We show that southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina) colonies existed proximate to the Ross Ice Shelf during the Holocene, well south of their core sub-Antarctic breeding and molting grounds. We propose that this was due to warming (including a previously unrecognized period from ≈1,100 to 2,300 14C yr B.P.) that decreased coastal sea ice and allowed penetration of warmer-than-present climate conditions into the Ross Embayment. If, as proposed in the literature, the ice shelf survived this period, it would have been exposed to environments substantially warmer than present.”

Well isn’t that interesting. Hall et al. find that Antarctica was “substantially warmer than present” in the past, and the ice shelves failed to collapse during the Holocene warming periods and the “delicate” ecosystems of the most southerly latitudes of our planet apparently survived.

Denying the existence of the Medieval Warm Period borders on silly, for as we see in this article (along with hundreds of others), the planet was so warm 1,000+ years ago that elephant seals moved south to a much warmer Antarctica. The case is occasionally made that the Medieval Warm Period was a European event, or maybe an event confined to the mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. The skin, hair, and mummified offspring of elephant seals found in Antarctica clearly show that the entire planet was substantially warmer than today 1,000+ years ago.

We feel for the elephant seals who cannot occupy Antarctica today because conditions are “too severe” at present. With a little global warming, maybe our poster boy shown above can go home again? His ancestors would simply be amazed to see the old homestead in Antarctica now locked in ice and too cold for habitation.

Reference:

Hall, B.L., A.R. Hoelzel, C. Baroni, G.H. Denton, B.J. Le Boeuf, B. Overturf, and A.L. Töpf, 2006, Holocene elephant seal distribution implies warmer-than-present climate in the Ross Sea, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 10213-10217.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/11/seals-hair-skins-hockey-stick/

Saturday November 1, 2008, 3:02 pm
Thank Chris. Great article.
People need to start taking responsibility for their actions.
(But Will They?)

Saturday November 1, 2008, 3:07 pm
thank you, Chris
I have come to believe it is a exellent article when Judy shows up
Marion very good words and so true
noted

Saturday November 1, 2008, 3:15 pm
Go Janet , Go marion, go Debbie, Go everybody. Yes, its about the little steps multilplied by millions that is helping IMMENSLY. The "new' technology is available and on the way to being made available to ALL. Thx Chris.

Hi Judy! Are yoy voting for McSame , the biggest denialist , besides Bush. Have to tease you a little, lol.

Saturday November 1, 2008, 4:18 pm
Thank you all - with the noteable exception - for the supportive comments. Obviously, there will always be some who will be in denyal no matter what the evidence shows. Some will use models to prove their point - when the model supports their view - but then discount ALL the models (and any other evidence) which is counter their view - doubble standards abound when one is desparate to maintain the status quoe LMAO! Why is the duneialists "specialists" (the vast minority of the literature) ALLWAYS superior to the supporters specalists (even when they are the vast majority of the opinion) - again a desparate desire to maintain the status quo is revealed...Then we also have the denialist who yapps about "credentials" of the scientists, but then makes her own assertions about "volcanos", the validity of models, and other unsupported BS (bad science, or by applying specific examples to make wide sweaping judgements) - exactly what are YOUR credentials to be making such statements LMAO!!! Here we have a peer reviewed scientific article by experts in the field - maybe you should pay at least a little attention to wha they have to say??

Anyway, ALL of this has been debated - repeatedly - and as I said, some will never believe the truth.

However,it is heartening to see that so many are seeing through the constant flow of BS (bad science) and realize what is going on. It is also heartening that some are willing to take ACTION - action which will not only address the climate issue, but make the world a safer, cleaner, more livable place overall. It is nice to see people who care about more than just themselves - people who care about other people - and other life formes - who share this planet. For those who want to do more - take ACTION - on this issue - please consider checking out my Global Warming Action Group - we need all the voices we can muster to turn this problem around:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/StoppingGlobalWarming

Thank you to all who are willing to step up to the plate and "take some responsibility" for their actions and to fight the status quo :)

Saturday November 1, 2008, 4:28 pm
Yes, good comments from almost everyone. And I'm so glad you keep us informed, Chris. What I find amazing about trolls and naysayers is they go out of their way to distribute productive threads and conversations. Personally, I avoid McCain and Republican threads because I respect those people and they do not share my views. But to go out of one's way to disrupt discussions because we have differing views is rude, selfish and plain stupid.

As an instructor, I would remove students who disrupted the classroom likes this. As a parent, I...well, let's just say that people like this needed a parent like me to show them how to conduct themselves in public and at social events. This is exactly what is wrong is America today - arrogant, selfish people who believe they can treat others any way they want. They hide behind their computers in a little room and are a nuisance online. In public, they are scared, insecure people who have little power or control over their lives.

Just my two cents worth on small minds that contribute little to society.

Saturday November 1, 2008, 4:28 pm
Correction:

What I find amazing about trolls and naysayers is they go out of their way to "disrupt" productive threads and conversations.

Saturday November 1, 2008, 4:33 pm
now that the test subject has showed up -does anyone else notice -just how hard the work is to be in denial? just a tiny portion of that energy is all you need to make a real difference -it must be exhausting living the lie.) so my theory on laziness doesn't appear to be quite accurate. thanks judy -i'll have to give some new thoughts on the matter -may help me get to through to others a little more efficiently.

Saturday November 1, 2008, 4:35 pm
Noted. So true. Thank you Chris.

Saturday November 1, 2008, 4:40 pm
Thank you for this article, Chris. As you and I have discussed, it's amazing how the denialists continuously proffer junk science as though it were real, cite personal blogs as though they were bone fide studies, and refer to industry-funded articles in an attempt to appear objective.

Humans can no longer arrogantly insist that our collective behaviour hasn't damaged the earth, or that it's our "right" to do as we please. The Earth is home to many creatures, we among them - not the "only" ones. As someone pointed out, truth is often politically, socially or religiously unpopular, but the time to "be nice" about the uncovered truth has past. It's time to act and be responsible for our actions. Articles and discussions like the one here is the first step - it's gratifying to see more and more people moving forward!

Saturday November 1, 2008, 5:17 pm
What junk science are you refering to....this article...in which the "research" is computer modeling with values pre-determined to show the most warming.....

You will not tar me with that right wing brush Marion Y.
First I'm Canadian.

Second McCain is the son of the man who helped cover up the attack on the USS Liberty. He's as much a NWO puppet as Obama the Magnificent.

McCainis SUPPOSED TO LOSE. Why else would they pick Palin as his running mate or nominate a man who probably only has less than 4 years to live...

Since the Medieval Warming Period was accomplished without SUVs and the Antarctic was warmer 1000+ years ago, WHO ARE THE REAL DENIALISTS? I say it's the people who want the world to be impoverished by energy restriction.

Coal can only be partially replaced by something of equal energy production. Solar and wind can't do it....only nuclear can.

Is that what all you supposed "environmentalists" are trying to accomplish...because that is what you will get. Make no mistake about that. In fact the nuclear establishment has provided much of the scientific personel from the beginning of the nonsense.

Whatever warming we experienced in the 1990s was less than that of the 1920-1940 period and certainly less than the MWP....again...which are the real denialists?

Saturday November 1, 2008, 5:22 pm
And the disproven dogam continues - we have discussed all at length - I see you are not even bothering to support your claims at this point - just spouting them out for the 20th to 30th (litterally) time LMAO...and the "conspericy" boloney is below a scientific discussion...

Saturday November 1, 2008, 6:02 pm
Which claims would you like me to support Chris O?

I don't notice you showing anything proving my statements wrong. Double standard?
Where's your proof....CO2 changes climate?

I'll be glad to provide the evidence for my statements. But I thought you hated when I did that.

Do be specific. I do so look forward to this,

In the meantime here is a nice piece on the IPCC and the temperature change graph before they substituted the discredited "Hockey Stick" in a later report. You have seen this, but I'm sure many of the other haven't.

http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/lying_made_easy~1318827

Saturday November 1, 2008, 6:10 pm
Global warming by humans is a joke, but many are convinced that going from CO2 at 250 parts per million to 370 parts per million, is evidence that CO2 is the cause of warming. When you are knowledgeable about Chemistry, and realize how many parts per million of Nitrogen, and Oxygen, compose our atmosphere to begin with, the CO2 content doesn't have any affect at all. That's like saying that if you add one teaspoon of salt to your swimming pool, you could float like you are in the Great Salt Lake and could float.
In the 1100 to 1400 era people actually were farming on the southern coast of Greenland, now that area is covered by Ice. Why? The temperature of the earth allowed the formation of plants and animals on the northern coast of Alaska at one time or there would be no oil there now. So long before man could have caused CO2 contamination to affect temperature we have evidence of these variations. The radiation of the sun varies so much over time to cause such changes, not man, not fossil fuels, and will continue until we have the next Ice Age. The fear about global warming is to convince Americans that we have to stop our life style, so the rest of the nations of the world can take over. Turn off America, turn off our freedoms, join the New World Order under a One World Government. We are being downsized and destroyed by people that want to destroy Americas freedoms.

Saturday November 1, 2008, 6:11 pm
Actually, the article is so good, I want to make sure it is read, but go see the graphs too.

Medieval Warm Period
by williamshepherd @ 2006-11-11 - 14:12:33

In 2004 John Youngdahl was charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission with Securities Fraud and Insider Trading. In October 2001 Youngdahl found out that sales of the Treasury Department’s 30-year bonds were going to be cut off. He found this out before the news was made public…and gave his firm’s Bond Traders the tip-off. In a matter of minutes they made a killing estimated at £3.5 million. Youngdahl was working for Goldman Sachs at the time and is now behind bars…incarcerated in the Land of Striped Sunshine.
medievalperiod

Ways need to be found to put scientists in the dock too. They have their own forms of Insider Trading and need to be held publicly accountable for their Scientific Fraud. So far they have had an easy ride. This particular buck starts and stops at the top with the United Nations and its corrupt Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which stands accused of knowingly undervaluing the sun’s effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashing the greenhouse effect, overstating the past century’s temperature increase, arbitrarily repealing a fundamental law of physics (my note: the Stefan -Boltzman Law for Black-Body Radiation) for political convenience and tripling the man-made greenhouse effect to shoehorn its computer data into its prejudices.

IPCC’s third assessment report released four years ago is a Scientific Fraud…right up there with the Blair Dodgy Dossier on non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. The report implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages by displaying two 450 000 year graphs…a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that is scaled to look similar. Usually similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The IPCC Report didn’t. If it had the truth would have shown…the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.

In 1995 David Deming…a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma…reconstructed North America’s historical temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: ‘With the publication of my article in Science I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them…someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes.’ One of the more important players foolishly let his guard slip and sent Deming an email that said ‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.’ So they did.
ipcchockeystick

The second IPCC Report in 1996 showed a 1000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the third IPCC Report in 2001 contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1000 years. This is wrong. Here is how it was done.

Firstly IPCC gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature four hundred times more weight than any other…and omitted to mention the fact. The overweighted technique was one which IPCC’s second report had said was unsafe…measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years because temperature speeds up growth. But tree fertiliser speeds up growth too and one of them is carbon dioxide so this distorts the calculations unless some way is found to make allowance for shifting carbon dioxide levels.

This might be bad science but need not be criminal. But closer scrutiny shows that the deception goes deeper…a domain of barefaced lying and Scientific Fraud. IPCC stated that 24 data sets were included going back to 1400. But without saying so they left out the set showing the medieval warm period...tucking it away in a folder marked ‘censored data’.

IPCC then used a computer model to draw the graph from the data. Now anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of statistics knows you can best fit data to any curve. Give it a=x+b and you will get a straight line. Give it a=x to the power of b and you will get a curve. IPCC asked for hockey-sticks so it got them…even from random electronic ‘red noise’.

The large full-colour hockey stick was the only graph to appear six times in the IPCC Third Report in 2001. The Canadian Government copied it to every household. It is a lie. It took four years for a leading scientific journal to publish the truth. It was ignored. The Canadian Government did not apologise...and IPCC still uses it. The good news is that the US Senate investigated. They unearthed a conspiracy, labelling the graph ‘meretricious’ and noting that known associates of the scientists who had compiled the graph wrote many of the papers supporting its conclusions.

IPCC…and the Stern Report…pretend the graph is not important. But scores of scientific papers show the medieval warm period was real, global and up the 3C warmer than now. There were no glaciers in the tropical Andes, Viking farms in Greenland and little ice at the North Pole when a Chinese naval squadron sailed round the Arctic in 1421.

Saturday November 1, 2008, 7:06 pm
Judy - why should I waste my time disproving your SAME REPEATED claims another 20 times? You simply repeat them - most of the posters on this thread - or anyone who has read the news posted here - are well aware of that fact - so it is pointless since apparently the only motive you have is to harrass by shear repition - you offer nothing new...You may think you are accomplishing something - but your harrassment will not stop the truth...people are reading my original article - and people are taking action - the rest is irrelevant and I will not waste more of my valuble time and energy engangeing you in the same arguments...you making the claims for the 30th time dones not make them any more correct than the first time you said them LMAO!!!

Rather than go point by point again - interested readers can go to these resources if they care to "fact check" your cut and paste diatribes:

Skeptical Science

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

Here are a few "Myth Buster" sites you may want to check out:

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

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Here is our round-up of the 26 most common climate
denialist myths and misconceptions.
http://www.care2.com/news/member/537645068/411848

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 November 1, 2008, 8:03 pm
noted thank you

Saturday November 1, 2008, 8:21 pm
First myth from yahoo

Myth: The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.
Fact: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming

That is right. It warmed 0.6 C on 100 years.....but the CAUSE is in dispute.

Myth: Even if global warming is a problem, addressing it will hurt American industry and workers.
Fact: A well designed trading program will harness American ingenuity to decrease heat-trapping pollution cost-effectively, jumpstarting a new carbon economy.

Wishful thinking about the new economy, and there is no reason to try to limit what they call"heat trapping pollution",because there isn't any. Water vapor is 60% at least, and more likely 90-95% of the "greenhouse effect. As soon as it is saturated...it rains...end of story


Myth: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?
Fact: Although water vapor traps more heat than CO2, because of the relationships among CO2, water vapor and climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on controlling CO2.

Now does that make any sense? They just declare that CO2 MUST be controlled. No reason given...IT MUST.
How do you like Green Fascism? Just wait until they really get going.

Instead of answering this drivel, I point you to the article below which shows how little correlation there is between CO2 and warming AND HOW MUCH CORRELATION THERE IS BETWEEN HEATING AND THE SUN AND OCEAN CURRENTS

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/
Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2
Lots of lovely graphs.

Then of course there are the true versions of Myths/Facts. There are much fewer of them.That is because the skeptical side runs on peanuts and can't afford what the Big Green Machine has spent on websites and NGOs.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

Now it is time for rumplestilskinlike action of jumping up and down shouting Exxon Exxon.

Saturday November 1, 2008, 8:58 pm
Please folks - do a search on Icecaps and Friends of Science - both funded by oil companies - and Judy know it, thus her last comment LMAO!!!

Saturday November 1, 2008, 9:25 pm
I think Icecap took some grant money years ago and a foundation which gets most of its donations from people in the oil business started off Friends of Science . Both are now funded by individual contributions.

Now lets take a look at the funding of the BIG GREEN MACHINE, shall we.

Lehman Bros: The Environmentalist Connection
If you go to the web site of the Alliance for Climate Protection, the group that is sponsoring the $300 million “We Can Solve It” ad campaign, you’ll find the second name on the list of board members is very interesting:

Theodore Roosevelt IV
Managing Director, Lehman Brothers
Chair of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change(funded by Rockefeller Bros Fund...oil money)

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.

That’s quite the environmentalist resume, isn’t it? We should also note that Lehman Bros issued a couple of reports on “The Business of Climate Change,” which are rent-seeker’s guides to making money off global warming regulation. If this sounds familiar, it’s the path down which Enron trod.

These reports were enthusiastically greeted by the environmental lobby. They were advised by James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies and chief scientific adviser to Al Gore.

Now, I am not saying that Lehman Bros fell because its MD was an enthusiastic environmentalist. It failed because of risky decisions made in the mortgage market. However, its failure - like Enron’s before it - demonstrates that attempting to trade in artificial assets that represent no real value is a supremely risky business. Carbon trading would be just such a risk, dependent as it is on fickle government action. Lehman Bros’ collapse should make Wall Street, utilities and investors equally wary of lobbying for such a market.

Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see if Mr Roosevelt’s name disappears from the boards of the environmentalist organizations as quickly as Ken Lay’s did following the Enron collapse. Of course, Mr Roosevelt is not facing any criminal charges as far as I can make out and he does have a rather spiffy name (who says America has no aristocracy?) so it is quite possible that he will find a happy home heading up an environmental group. After all, his management skills would be just what they need.
http://www.openmarket.org/tag/lehman-bros/

Saturday November 1, 2008, 9:31 pm
Also, since the CO2 hypothesis about "global warming" is total dog turd, why shouldn't those most affected by the anti-energy campaign fund some truth tellers?

Or is this supposed to be a lynching.

Gore made sure all funding was cut off to skeptics when he was VP.

Bag Man for Eco-Extremists
By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, June 13, 2008

“Cynical politics” may be a redundancy, but it is hard to imagine a more cynical political issue than global warming (GW). In his 1992 book Earth in the Balance, Al Gore called for a “wrenching transformation of society.” Leftists, with their elitist penchant for social engineering, didn’t need any convincing. The challenge for Gore was the inconvenient truth that, in a democracy, a would-be central planner needs to get the masses on his side, too. To do that, he borrowed a strategy encapsulated in H.L. Mencken’s statement, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Apocalyptic GW became Al Gore’s hobgoblin of choice.

Gore needed the scientific community to back up his assertions and the media to spread the word. Enlisting the help of the media was easy (apocalyptic fantasies are sure ratings winners), but getting enough scientists on board was trickier. When Gore started his GW campaign in the early 1990s, a contemporary Gallup poll of scientists showed that only 18 percent thought there was any evidence to support Gore’s theory. Even a survey conducted by Greenpeace found only 13 percent of climatologists willing to declare GW “probable.”

Nevertheless, Gore repeatedly claimed that (literally) 98 percent of scientists agreed with him, and he exhorted reporters to ignore skeptics. Right from the outset, the GW cult (like other illiberal movements, such as communism and fascism) had to resort to the “big lie” technique to make it appear that the science of GW was settled. (See my prior article, "Questions About Global Warming," for some of the holes in the “science” of global warming.)

As senator, and then vice president, Gore used his power to channel money toward those who “played ball” and away from those who doubted GW. The latter found that grant money dried up, promotions were denied, and even jobs were terminated. Gore’s colleague, Colorado Senator Timothy Wirth, became Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs in charge of promoting GW theory and international agreements to address the alleged problem. Wirth was quoted as bragging that he could change a lot of minds with a billion dollars per year of State Department money. Indeed, recent estimates are that $50 billion has been spent promoting the GW theory (mostly governments and international organizations using tax money) and less that $1 billion to question it. Advantage: GW.

This is richly ironic. GW fanatics routinely accuse skeptics of having been bought off by Big Oil. They expect Americans to disbelieve private-sector scientists while trusting government-funded scientists (i.e., virtually all the scientists on the GW bandwagon) as if, a priori, government funding is holy, but private funding corrupt.

The Kyoto Protocol—which called for the developed nations to curb their CO2 emissions—was the international front of Gore’s GW agenda. For the last seven years, Gore’s media allies have denounced George Bush for “killing” Kyoto. Poppycock! The history is this: after the Clinton administration signed Kyoto, the senate voted 95-0 against implementing Kyoto’s provisions because they were slanted so unfairly against the United States. Clinton then signed an executive order barring the executive branch from enforcing any part of Kyoto. Bush didn’t kill Kyoto; he inherited a corpse. (Factoid: since Kyoto was written, greenhouse emissions in the countries that adopted it increased 21.1 percent on average, while U.S. emissions increased only 6.6 percent; yet, the United States has been singled out as the irresponsible global citizen. That’s politics!)

Kyoto’s agenda wasn’t to save the world, but to shackle economic activity in this country through curbing energy consumption. It’s easy to understand why foreign economic competitors would want this, but why would Gore and American liberals want to do this to the American people? The answer is simple: the lust for power and importance. Remember: control energy and you control people.

There are signs that Gore’s movement is losing credibility. An English judge ruled that Gore’s award-winning film An Inconvenient Truth may not be shown in U.K. schools without disclaimers and the inclusion of opposing opinions, on the grounds that it is a work of political propaganda, and not scientifically sound. Various scientists on the political left who formerly endorsed the GW dogma now repudiate it. Remarkably, 19,000 scientists have signed a statement urging our government not to take any rash, costly actions to curb CO2 emissions.

Unfortunately, taking rash, costly action may be the eventual outcome. Last week, the Senate considered setting limits on CO2 emissions through the colossally expensive and grandiloquently named “Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.” Fortunately, this destructive proposal doesn't have enough support to pass now, but it raises the possibility that Al Gore will get the last laugh after all. What an irony it would be if, even as scientific support for his GW theory crumbles, his years of propagating the “big lie” of the GW hobgoblin were to cause Congress to impose the “wrenching transformation of society” that he has long yearned for.
Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is a faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College.
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1F5A5AE1-03EC-4716-8D33-A7C134B79B33

Saturday November 1, 2008, 9:43 pm
Not that that has ANYTHING to do with the article at hand LMAO - nor does it have anything to do with the sources of information I provided - just random prapaganda LMAO!!! I guess Exxon and the fossil fuel industries have done no funding of junk science right? - and those poor little companines have no money to do such things LMAO!!!

Both Friends of Science (by good old Tim Ball) and Icecaps (by good old Joseph D’Aleo) was FOUNDED by oil money sources ... and since you are quoting them, that is a relavant discussion ... what you provide is meaningless since it has nothing to do with the sources I quote here ...

Again ... simple cut and pasted random boloney...

Saturday November 1, 2008, 9:47 pm
"Also, since the CO2 hypothesis about "global warming" is total dog turd, "

Ah, the bright and insightful comment of an obvious expert on the subject of climate science - your grasp of climate science is astounding LMAO!!!!!!!!

Saturday November 1, 2008, 9:49 pm
So, where dis you get you degree in climatology again????

Saturday November 1, 2008, 10:06 pm
"Indeed, recent estimates are that $50 billion has been spent promoting the GW theory (mostly governments and international organizations using tax money) and less that $1 billion to question it. Advantage: GW."

I am still waiting for you to provide a source for this redicilious statemetnt - anohter one of those boloney numbers that keep being propagated but never verified...

Saturday November 1, 2008, 11:18 pm
Okay....let's take global warming out of the equation for a second and look at what warming theorists want to accomplish -- reduced use of fossil fuels. Well, that's going to occur anyway unless Judy has a few million dinosaurs decaying in her basement. So since we know we'll run out of fossil fuel, coal, wood, all those lovely things we like to burn...why don't we just resign ourselves to alternative energy, since we'll need it eventually anyway. I realize that might be a little too "common sensical" and doesn't require a lot of using "the google", Judy, but it does seem a tad more practical than anything else. Now I'm also going to suggest that you eat less meat. That solves the methane issue and is better for your bowels and overall health. Oopsy! I think I just gave Judy another reason to go a-googling! Enjoy!

Saturday November 1, 2008, 11:26 pm
Conclusive proof that global warming deniers will NEVER listen to reasoning.

Saturday November 1, 2008, 11:28 pm
When all the top scientists from around the world got together and concluded this fact,,, that was good enough for me:)
But every extra helps those who don't understand the importance of humans taking responsibility for their actions. Thank you Chris

Saturday November 1, 2008, 11:28 pm
Um... John Christy is on our side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy"In an interview with National Public Radio about the new American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."[5]Christy has also said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are a cause of the global warming that has been measured, he is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."More recently, in a publication in the series Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy he said, "I showed some evidence that humans are causing warming in the surface measurements that we have but it is not the greenhouse relation.""

Saturday November 1, 2008, 11:30 pm
Good point Kate - Here are some other "evil" things the "warmists" are promoting:

creation of green jobs
movement towards using renewables - away from dependence on foreign oil
stoping deforestation (and planting trees)
becomming more energy efficient

Those horrible "environmentalists" - what are they thinking promoting those aweful actions - don't ya know ther is a ton of money to make by maintaining our reliance on fossil fuels!!!!

Sunday November 2, 2008, 12:04 am
Living sustainably is a BIG conspiracy! This is good stuff. :p The environmentalists are out to destroy the world! ahahah Keep it coming. PMSL

Sunday November 2, 2008, 12:05 am
You quoted this guy...??? Have you not checked out your own sources?

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

25 Counts of sexual Harrassment. Over a gun control Article, and he was moved to the basement of the University

http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=257

Sunday November 2, 2008, 12:18 am
Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades.

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, explained how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions.

“In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," Carter wrote on June 18, 2007. (LINK )

[Note: The U.S. alone has spent $30 billion on federal programs directly or indirectly related to global warming in just the last six years, according to one estimate. (LINK) ($5.79 billion in 2006 alone) Adding to this total is funding from the UN, foundations, universities, foreign governments, etc. Huge sums of money continue to flow toward addressing climate fears. In August, a State Treasurer in California "proposed a $5 billion bond measure to combat global warming," according to the Sacramento Bee. (LINK) Even if you factor in former Vice President Al Gore's unsubstantiated August 7, 2007 assertion that $10 million dollars a year from the fossil fuel industry flows into skeptical organizations, any funding comparison between skeptics and warming proponents utterly fails.(LINK) ] Update: Gore to launch $100 million a year multimedia global warming fear campaign. Gore alone will now be spending $90 million more per year than he alleges the entire fossil fuel industry spends, according to an August 26, 2007 article in Advertising Age. (LINK)

Global Warming 'A Big Cash Grab'

Meteorologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, called the Newsweek article part of a “coordinated assault” on skeptics.

“[Newsweek] alleges that a few scientists were offered $10,000 (!) by Big Oil to research and publish evidence against the theory of manmade global warming. Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from the federal government to do the same, but in support of manmade global warming,” Spencer wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog post. (LINK)

James Spann, a meteorologist certified by the American Meteorological Society, suggests scientific objectively is being compromised by the massive money flow to proponents of man-made climate fears.

"Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story," Spann wrote on January 18, 2007. (LINK) "Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab," Spann added.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&C

Sunday November 2, 2008, 12:21 am
DAVID DEMMING opposes gun control and gets accused of sexual harassment for it.

Sorry, In my book THAT'S HARRASMENT.

Sunday November 2, 2008, 12:36 am
To say that Gore has a conflict of interest is putting it mildly when he plans to profit from carbon trading.

Gore Launches $300 Million Climate Change Initiative
Former Vice President Al Gore is set to unveil a three-year, $300 million climate change campaign Wednesday, one of the most ambitious and costly public advocacy campaigns in U.S. history, the Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin reports:

The Alliance for Climate Protection's "we" campaign will employ online organizing and television advertisements on shows ranging from "American Idol" to "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." It highlights the extent to which Americans' growing awareness of global warming has yet to translate into national policy changes, Gore said in an hour-long phone interview last week. He said the campaign, which Gore is helping to fund, was undertaken in large part because of his fear that U.S. lawmakers are unwilling to curb the human-generated emissions linked to climate change.


"This climate crisis is so interwoven with habits and patterns that are so entrenched, the elected officials in both parties are going to be timid about enacting the bold changes that are needed until there is a change in the public's sense of urgency in addressing this crisis," Gore said. "I've tried everything else I know to try. The way to solve this crisis is to change the way the public thinks about it."

Private contributors have already donated or committed half the money needed to fund the entire campaign, he said. While Gore declined to quantify his contribution to the effort, he has devoted all his proceeds from the Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," the best-selling companion book, his salary from the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers and several international prizes, such as the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, which add up to more than a $2.7 million. Paramount Classics, the documentary's distributor, has pledged 5 percent of the film's profits to the group, and some of the money raised through the 2007 Live Earth concerts will help the campaign, along with Gore's proceeds from an upcoming book on climate change.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/30/gore-launches-300-millio_n_94155.html

Sunday November 2, 2008, 12:46 am
Thanks Chris, noted..I see SHE'S BACK..!!

Sunday November 2, 2008, 12:57 am
What's the matter. Can't stand having the scam exposed?

Or is it that joiners just get on the bandwagon and don't notice where it's heading?

No matter, it's cooling and when they pile taxes and fees on you, maybe you will remember how your trust was betrayed ....as it gets harder to pay the heating bills.

Sunday November 2, 2008, 1:03 am
I just don't understand people.
When will they see what they do to our Mother earth ;(

Sunday November 2, 2008, 1:14 am
It was what he did after the Article came out, and it involves a University of Oklahoma College Student. If you are going to leave links for us to read, then please return the favor and read ours. Scroll down to the section titled, "Sexual Harassment Charges."
I was appalled at what was written, and will not copy and paste something so Vulgar!

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

Twisting words does nothing to prove your point.
Please refrain from doing this.

Sunday November 2, 2008, 1:57 am
Please stop using up unnecessary energy in all this writing.
Hear are the true facts.
We have an imbalance in our atmosphere. We have not enough oxygen and too much carbon.
REASONS.
We have chopped down the forest which produce oxygen.
We have Airplanes by the million flying around the planet burning of so much oxygen. You will be amazed at the amount of oxygen just one engine of the Pan 747 burns.
A test was carried out when they built this engine, in a huge aircraft hanger. After running the engine for four hours with no problem it suddenly staled and the researchers did not know why until they found that the oxygen content in the hanger had been depleted. When they measured the hanger and checked the data they found that one engine burnt off 24pound of oxygen per minuet of run. The 747 has four engine's on board which when the calculations was done Just one jumbo Jet burns 39 Tons of oxygen one way from Heath row to America. Now count how many flights we have. This is the problem. No Trees which give us oxygen Aircraft burning all this oxygen. Now can you see what is going on , We need to take stock of what we can do to sort this out quickly. Stop asking silly questions and look at these as facts given to the Governments and nothing is being done about it. Do yourselves a favor if you can plant an Orchard please plant one . Love to all my Dear caring friends Janet

Sunday November 2, 2008, 5:57 am
thank you janet. we use up earths recources and destroy natural habitats at an alarming rate. inspite of the facts -use your own common sense. if we keep going -not just u.s.a. but the world -we all be depending on machines just to breath and our animals -whats left will live in cages. not only will our atmosphere be destroyed and toxic but every ecosystem gone.

Sunday November 2, 2008, 7:57 am
On Sat. Nov. 1, the history channel had a series of what will happen if the temperatures rose 6 degrees higher..thru out the world. It was very informative and it also proved the fact that we are to blame for the climate changes. All I can say is ....lookout world! It gave me a real perspective what 6 degrees rise could do! Amazing!

Sunday November 2, 2008, 8:18 am
When we have had 7 years of cooling, it is just mind boggling that you all carry on about warming

there is no sense to any of this except as an incredible loss of the ability to reason and a stricking example of the power mass propaganda.

Temperature lags CO2 by 800 years...that's been proven. FIRST IT WARMS and THEN CO2 rises.
It would be delightful if people stopped scaring themselves with impossible scenarios and things like "too much carbon and not enough oxygen"
Try backing up a statement like that from out of left field with a fact or two.

GLOBAL WARMING OR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=EwRFx80vTf0

Sunday November 2, 2008, 8:49 am
Janet...Thank you for that information!!

Mary...I saw that documentary about 6 degrees and global warming. Very alarming!! That information validates what Janet has written about the trees, forests and human consumption and waste. Also, methane gas emitted from cows (for our consumption) produces MORE pollution toward global warming than cars do.

Startling news!!

Sunday November 2, 2008, 9:04 am
The CO2 lagging warming has been discussed before - you simply ignore the facts - do read this again (30 times and counting):

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Then you give us YOUTUBE fearmngering BS again ... such a great scientific resource LMAO...

There has NOT been 7 years of cooling - despite you saying that 30 times before - there has been 13-14 MONTHS of cool WEATHER (short-term events), but the CLIMATE (over the last 30 years, climate is a long-term trend)has WARMED. Here are the data YOU provided (but were unable to intrepret correctly) in the last thread where you made the same calim:

http://climatepatrol.net/2008/10/18/global-temperature-1979-2008-september-update/

Note - there are FIVE INDEPENDENTLY derived data sets (including the satelite data YOU say are impecable) ALL showing WARMING TRENDS over the last 30 years DESPITE the cool recent WEATHER (13 MONTHS). Why do you keep saying the exact same DISPROVEN montra over and over again - we all see this pattern and some how you think you are convincing people of your claims - I guess you think we are very stupid and will listen to you without question???? It would be fine if you learned from your mistakes - but it is clear you are NOT looking for truth - simply a denialist parrot that can learn no new words or thaughts...Repeating a wrong conclusion 30 times - and hopping it will be correct when stated the 31st time is simply silly...

Sunday November 2, 2008, 9:07 am
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. - Albert Einstein

Sunday November 2, 2008, 9:39 am
I give scientific references for my statements and can back them up whereas it is you who fits Einsteins definition better.....except I don't think it is insanity, but knowing which side your bread is buttered on.

"Tanganyika temperatures follow northern hemisphere insolation, and indicate that warming in tropical Southeast Africa during the last glacial termination began to rise ~3000 years before atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1160485

CO2 vs temperature: ice core correlation & lag

Abstract

The temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations have been correlated - see e.g. Petit et al., Nature 1999 - but we know for sure that the temperature was the cause and the concentration was its consequence, not the other way around. This fact has also been explained in The Great Global Warming Swindle. It follows that the C0₂ greenhouse effect has not been important in the history and we shouldn't expect that it will become important in the future.

Special comment for Australian readers on Sep 28, 2007: just yesterday, there was a new paper in Science - Lowell et al., Science 2007 - that showed that CO₂ lagged by about 1,000 years when the last ice age started to end 18,000 years ago

The direction of the causal relationship can be shown in many ways: for example, it is not just CO₂ but other gases such as methane that follow temperature. The hypothesis of CO₂ as the primary reason wouldn't explain why these other gases are correlated, too. Also, we understand how oceans react to temperature changes by releasing gases. Finally, the gas concentrations lag behind the temperature by 800 years, see e.g. this 2003 paper in Science by Caillon et al.

* See also: climate sensitivity & nonlinear relationship between CO₂ and temperature
* MS Word introduction to the climate debate

Do read it all and see the pretty graphs from respected sources that show the TIME LAG

FIRST IT WARMS AND THEN CO2 RISES.

And maybe stop making things up too.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html

Sunday November 2, 2008, 9:47 am
Oh, yes, the original research papers are acessible through links on the article.

Ther is this an oldy but goody. It seems CO2 levels were higher than now in the recent past., 1825, 1857 and 1942. Only one of those years even had automobiles, although nobody did much driving except the military.


180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS
BY CHEMICAL METHODS
Ernst-Georg Beck
Dipl. Biol. Ernst Georg Beck, 31 Rue du Giessen, F 68600 Biesheim, France
ABSTRACT
More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are
summarised. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in
temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing
CO2 trend depicted in the post 1990 literature on climate change. Since 1812, the CO2
concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level
maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.
Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical
method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an
accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of
Nobel Prize level distinction. Following Callendar (1938), modern climatologists
have generally ignored the historic determinations of CO2, despite the techniques
being standard text book procedures in several different disciplines. Chemical
methods were discredited as unreliable choosing only few which fit the
assumption of a climate CO2 connection.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE_18-2_Beck.pdf

Sunday November 2, 2008, 11:21 am
Icecap is funded by oil companies - you still quote them...so you have ZERRO credibility :)

Sunday November 2, 2008, 11:28 am
and your constant reliance on "Frinds of Science" and Icecaps - does indeed show what side YOUR bread is buttered (or should I say OILED) on LMAO!!!!

Also, NO ONE denies that CO2 SOMETIMES lags temprature rise - but YOUR INTERPRATION is lacking - do read the linked materials(with scientific refferences)again:

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

then ignore them and repeat the same satement another 30 times LMAO!!!

Sunday November 2, 2008, 11:36 am
and on another thread YOU are trying to support "clean coal" and a couple of days agao it was oil shale - yup, LOTS of oil on that bread :)

Sunday November 2, 2008, 12:20 pm
Chris, as I sit here LMAO at Judy's comments, I want to thank you for bringing this to the front again. Boy, does she have her panties in a twist or what? BTW, how did sexual harassment get involved in Global Warming? Hmm, maybe they do have a point there with the sex part causing warming and the creation of CO2.

Sunday November 2, 2008, 12:53 pm
Gayla, I didn't bring up the sexual harassment charges against David Demming for his whistleblowing on the IPCC attempt to change the climate record and disappear the much warmer than now medieval Warm Period.

I didn't know about it until Electra CY posted the info at midnight.

Scroll back and take a look and next time at least read what has been said before you jump into the middle of things..

Sunday November 2, 2008, 5:24 pm
I have to say that I have seen that movie that Gore made and it is very disturbing. I have read some things for GW and I have read things against GW. I have to say I am not totally convinced myself of it. I do think that man has a HUGE impact on the planet and that deforestation is a horrible trend that needs to stop among many other things.

I also have to say this:
The information that Judy Cross presents is compelling to me.

The fact that Lehman Bros name is attached to it in any way is disturbing as well.

"Lehman Bros: The Environmentalist Connection
If you go to the web site of the Alliance for Climate Protection, the group that is sponsoring the $300 million “We Can Solve It” ad campaign, you’ll find the second name on the list of board members is very interesting:

Theodore Roosevelt IV
Managing Director, Lehman Brothers
Chair of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change(funded by Rockefeller Bros Fund...oil money)"


I am more worried about all the poison and pollution that is allowed in our FOOD and WATER than CO2. I think this stuff has an even more impact on the planet than CO2. But CO2 is discussed 1000 times more than all the poisons and chemicals and pollution allowed into our food and water in the media. That scares me more.

I may not know enough information. and sometimes I just don't understand the information presented but the fact that there is this big huge scare about global warming is something I DO NOT like either. It just reminds me of all the scare tactics republicans use to get their agendas accomplished.

I don't like anything that uses scare tactics rather than good strait forward facts and completely undeniable evidence.

Chris I do appreciate the article though.

I also think discourse of both sides are a good thing so people can see both sides of it.
I am a fence sitter on this. I lean towards believing it but not totally.

Sunday November 2, 2008, 6:54 pm
Hi Jodi - Appreciate your discussion. There obviously is a lot of material to consider on this subject - and it is complicated - and of course highly politicised too. Heck, I am not totally convinced either - though I do provide supportive material where it applies. I still contend - and have made it clear - that I think we could all be wrong about human caused climate change (I still stick with the 90% chance that we are a SIGNIFICANT but not EXCLUSIVE cause of the current warming trend, though since the evidence is quite convencing from many independent scientific sources). However, I see great benefit in taking actions - like those I listed above - even if it does NOTHING for climate. Given these benefits - and the potential devistating effects of human caused climate change if the 90% proves right - I think we are well justified to be taking action. If the "warmists" are wrong - we will still be more energy efficient, be using cleaner energy (and having green jobs), less dependent on foreign oil, and reducing deforestation ... However, if the "warmists" are right and we take no action millions of lives could be lost and many species wipped off the face of the planet - not fearmongering, these statements are based on scientific analyses. Given the risks versus the benefits, I think most reasonable people would vote for taking action (unless of course they have a vested interest in not taking action, such as the fossil fuel industry). Frankly, in my opinion, I think we should be taking action even if there was only a 50-50 chance that the "warmists" are correct. As to the "money" influences, I think everyone realizes that money cuts both ways depending on who is throwing it around (if you don't think that fossil fuel industry interests are not influencing the "debate" with lots of money then you are quite nieave - speaking to Judy). However, if someone can make money and still provide us with clean energy, green jobs, and less deforestation, I say more power to them - much rather see that than the current senario where folks (fossil fuel industry) are making obscine profits AND destroying the planet in the process. Apparently, a few people are "happy" with how things are going now, and are fighting desparately to maintain the status quo (all is well, don't worry)- I am not one of them - and I will continue to work with other people here on Care2 (and outside of Care2)to make changes for the betterment of the planet... Sorry if I am rambeling a bit, this has been a long thread ...

Sunday November 2, 2008, 7:46 pm
May I recommend:
Global Warming OR Global Governance Part1 of 9
Starts out with Al Gore
INFO
"If you were to ask ten people on the street if mankind was causing global warming, at least eight out of ten would say yes. After all, Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth provides incontrovertible evidence that this is the case. Yet, contrary to what is heard in the media, there is overwhelming evidence that the warming we are experiencing is natural, with maybe a small amount contributed by man'€™s activities. Nor is there any scientific consensus. The debate is still raging within the scientific community. Sovereignty International has put together interviews of climate scientists and biologists from numerous sources who explain, step by step, why Al Gore and the global warming alarmists are incorrect. In some cases, blatantly so. It also provides evidence that the global warming agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create global governance. Hear from congressmen, experts and even well-known news broadcasters how global governance puts global institutions that are not accountable to the American people in control of every aspect of our economy. The U.S. government is very close to making this a reality. Very close. Every American, every citizen of the world, needs to hear the other side of the global warming story."
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=EwRFx80vTf0&feature=related

Sunday November 2, 2008, 7:47 pm
Chris...yes I agree. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the world trying to find many more green and or taking actions to find far better renewable forms of energy. Heck doing so could create tons of news jobs for a green energy industry to. And start moving away from fossil fuels. I think doing that even if GW IS or Isn't real, should be a goal as I really don't think constant digging for coal is good as it ruins the environment and oil which surely is not going to last forever.

So even though I think Judy has good discussion points I still don't see why we should not do everything to find other forms of energy. Suppose for the sake of the argument GW isn't real, so what, even if it is not real
We all still need to find better, cleaner forms of energy that doesn't hurt us or the planet. And if money is made from it that is probably a good thing because a "green energy" industry could create new jobs, new innovations etc etc.

So I am for anything that is GOOD for the planet and for people living on this planet.

:-)

Sunday November 2, 2008, 8:36 pm
Yes, do look at Judy's videos - but also be sure to fact check them against the resources I provided above - you will be amazed at thre BS (bad science) they promote - also remember you are watching YOUTUBE - hardly a source of "science" LMAO!!! A hint to the "quality" of the video can be seen from the description - note all the retoric and inflamitory language - obviously it is an unbiased accounting of facts LMAO!!!!!!!! Also, do a search on any of the "experts" presented, especially the "experts name" + funding ... you are likely to find that exercise very enlightening...

Sunday November 2, 2008, 8:42 pm
Also do a search on "Sovereignty International" - notice it is a CORPERATION and is NOT a scientific body...

Sunday November 2, 2008, 9:54 pm
The sources that you have come up with seem to be personal blogs, someone on our side, and David Deming. I researched your sources and the link is still usable. Telling people this guy was trying to be discredited for his opinions on Global Warming is a total fabrication, and you should know that if you had researched your own sources. Please read about David Deming. His letter to this female Student was so Vulgar that I will not post it here.

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

"In February 2000, Deming wrote a letter criticizing Yale University student Joni Kletter's February 18, 2000 syndicated article on gun control published in the University of Oklahoma's student newspaper, The Oklahoma Daily - a letter for which the professor was charged for sexual harassment. "

She also said, "Gayla, I didn't bring up the sexual harassment charges against David Demming for his whistleblowing on the IPCC attempt to change the climate record and disappear the much warmer than now medieval Warm Period."

And she must know that her statement was totally untrue, but she said it anyway. Why? It does nothing to prove your point and makes you just as unreliable as your previously quoted sources.

This guy is not a Respectable Scientist in the eyes of many, nor is he a reliable source. Read the Wikpedia page please, and quit twisting my words.

Judy said, "I give scientific references for my statements and can back them up"
I've already proven this to be wrong by researching your sources. You should have beat me to it, then you probably would not have used them.

Blogs, Yahoo, Youtube, why would you cite these unreliable sources? Thorough research on Studies, and those behind the Studies is needed to come to a rational, and logical 'opinion.'
The only thing that makes one Study better or worse than the other is the 'Source Materials' and the Source behind the Source. The people involved, Ethics and all. If they are unreliable then so is the data being passed along as fact.

Have a nice week everyone. :)

Sunday November 2, 2008, 9:57 pm
Electra and Chris...Thank you!!

Sunday November 2, 2008, 10:26 pm
Add "Friends of Science" and "Icecaps" to that list of "scientific" reference sites - both started and run by guys associated wit the oild companies LMAO!!! As I said - check the references :)

Monday November 3, 2008, 12:00 am
Actually, the wiki on David Demming is pretty funny and the pretense of shock at what he said is a bit disingenuous.

EC, you haven't "proved " anything....and you write and use the same techniques as someone else I have often encountered. Are you sure your initials aren't really DMH?
Is there a school for internet disinfo agents?


Demming refuted the usual presumptive argument against gun ownership by using the same kind of logic that the female writer of an anti-gun article had, i.e. that they can only be used badly for evil purpose. Or, in other words if you have the equipment you are guilty and will use it at the worst level. Here's the upsetting part.

"I just want to point out that Kletter's 'easy access' to a vagina enables her to 'quickly and easily' have sex with 'as many random people' as she wants. Her possession of an unregistered vagina also equips her to work as a prostitute and spread venereal diseases. Let's hope Kletter is as responsible with her equipment as most gun owners are with theirs."

That's funny and outrageous and not very politically correct, but a valid observation.

I own a chainsaw, but nobody expects me to do a Texas chainsaw massacre.

I love the way youtube is suddenly declasse'. May I remind you Gore's movie is also available on youtube...

I guess that takes care of it all by itself, so one doesn't even have to bother to refute it anymore. It's on youtube people...it's no good.

Surrrrre. Such hypocrisy.

You just keep shouting Exxon at everything and pretty soon it will sound just like "wolf".

Besides, since the CO2 hypothesis has been proven to be nonsense by the fact that it is the EFFECT of warming, not its cause... why shouldn't an oil company defend its product against trumped up charges .

Shall I dig up all that research again showing the time lags discovered by paleo geologists?

Would you deny a defense attorney to an accused? That's a pretty totalitarian attitude. Better watch it.

CO2 has NOT been tried and found guilty of anything except helping plants grow faster and become more drought resistant.



CO2s condemnation has been funded by billions more money than its defense.
That is just a fact.

Shall I cut and paste that proof again too?

Monday November 3, 2008, 12:22 am
I "shout Exxon" when it does "fit" and do not when it does not "fit" - just stating facts as you say - if you don't like the facts, then stop using those "resources" ....

If you think youtube is a "scientific resource" then go ahead and use it - people can judge for themselves how much credibility to give it - if you don't like those "facts" then stop using those resources ...

Now you are accusing people - Electra - of being someone else...just as you claim that I am a "nuclear industry shill" as you have done others who "dare" question your "findings" - such childish personal attacks show a very week argument indeed - and always your recourse when you science falls appart LMAO!!!

No, you do not need to digg up the materials about CO2 leading warming for the 40th time - your interpretation of the meaning was wrong the first 40 times you made the statement, no need to repeate it again...it is still wrong...

"CO2s condemnation has been funded by billions more money than its defense." ..Pure repeated, undocumented, retoric cut paste repeat, cut paste repeat...

Monday November 3, 2008, 3:52 am
Chris,

I would recommend ignoring Judy for several reasons... the first reason is she can not defend her position without violating Canadian, United States and International Laws on Copyright. Notice how she just Copies and Pastes entire articles. Yes I know.. everybody does it as one immature person told me... but it does not make it legal nor right and she puts this site at risk every time she violates the law. If a person can not read a article and then, in their own words write a description about it... can they really claim to understand the article? http://www.care2.com/news/member/713380060/938364

The second point is that Judy just focuses on CO2 and completely ignores the other Green House Gases like Methane, which happens to be about 100 times worse than CO2 and just so happens to be rising... she is so intent on disproving CO2 and focused on such a small part of the problem that she has lost sight of the big picture... and the big picture is we are all in trouble if this problem is not addressed. She forgets that CO2 is absorbed, in part, by our Oceans... where it has a chemical reaction that is contributing to the Oceans Acidification. (Google Ocean Acidification for more information.)

Third point: I posted the same article titled, "Polar Warming caused by Humans" at: http://www.care2.com/news/member/713380060/936638
... where Judy was starting to pull the same stunts as she is for this article. Now as soon as she found out that my Wife is a Scientist as is most of our friends... Judy stopped making comments. In fact I even posted: "If you want to have a discussion then send a friend request and I will debate this with you, just be forewarned that I am not a push over and you will have to start providing facts!" and Judy disappeared and, as you very well know, went to this article!

Monday November 3, 2008, 4:43 am
Chris,

FYI: If you look at Judy's Nov 1st post where she cites John Christy... I would recommend that you take a quick look at the Wikipedia article about him... which would give you a better idea as to what this Scientist is saying and what his research show!

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

Now please notice the Satellite Data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png

Also and for the record Christy is, "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels." He does say that CO2 and Humans are causing Global Warming... he is just conservative in making predictions!

Now I do think he will start sounding the alarm as the data comes in for example in 2006 over 100 Cubic Miles of Glaciers melted: http://envirostats.info/2007/07/21/0186/

In 2007 at least 24 cubic miles of ice melted from the Greenland Ice sheet (and that is just Greenland)... and that fresh water was dumped into the Ocean: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=6049539&page=1

Now for the record... Judy has been studying this problem for 20 months and knows all about it... never mind the fact that Scientist have been concerned about the rising CO2 levels since the 50's... (Yes, the fifties!) and never mind Chris that you are a Scientist as well... we have Judy who will show us the errors of our ways... because she knows how to cut and paste with her computer mouse!

Monday November 3, 2008, 5:36 am
Chris,

Please be patient as I try to paint this picture for you!

Imagine for a moment that you are reading the Sunday Comics when you come across the following Comic Satire. You see Noah standing on a hill, it is raining and the Ark is in the background and you can see the flood beginning.

Next to Noah are two Scientists, Lab Coats on, thick glasses holding clipboards.

As the Scientists point to a graph on the clipboard... the caption reads, "Sorry Noah, the evidence is inconclusive!"

... and when you look at the graph this is what you would see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Monday November 3, 2008, 6:10 am
Ah yes, George, I will do you one better - actually FIVE better. Here are FIVE INDEPENDENTLY derived temprature data sets - as provided by Judy herself (but misinterpreted, she claimed is says one thing but it actually says another). ALL FIVE - incuding satelite data which SHE SAYS is impecable - show a WARMING TREND over the last 30 years (satelite data only go back 30 years, which limits the data set time frame). This is DESPITE the "cooling trend" she repeatedly yapps about - which is a cool period of WEATHER (short-term) not CLIMATE (which is long-term). By the way she still will not admit that her OWN DATA shows the WARMING TREND nor does she get the concept of WEATHER versus CLIMATE despite having it explained to her TWENTY or more times!!!

http://climatepatrol.net/2008/10/18/global-temperature-1979-2008-september-update/

Monday November 3, 2008, 6:29 am
Chris, Chris, Chris... what do you mean Five Better?

Your too modest!

First of all... the link you provided is about 100 levels higher than Wikipedia and I won't even comment on the other parts as I bow down while saying, "I am not worthy!"

You get a green star!

Monday November 3, 2008, 6:30 am
Also, George, ingnoring her does not make her go away ... she just continues to spout the same repeated parroted materials over and over again - been doing this for as you say 20 months ... so I simply take it as an oportunity to provide counter arguments to hopefully educate the readers - or at least give them the other (in my opinion the correct) side. That is part of my "mission" here on Care2 - to spread the truth about environmental issues. My other "mission" is to modivate people to take action - hint, this is CARE2, a place for people to meet inorder to "make a difference". Frankly, I find her calls to "inaction" (all is well) quite distasteful (reminds me of the Bush regime on steriods) and find it difficult to just let the lies, half truths, and deceptions stand - especially when I know in my heart that such inaction will cause (is causing)the loss of lives and is puting the very existance of many species at risk. She "declaired war" against me personally a few months ago, and so, unfortunately, this is where it is going...(I proposed a "truce" where I would not respond to her submisions if she did the same in return - the "truce" worked for about a week, but that was not good enough for her and she started her cut-and-paste non-stop blitiz over again, repeatedly posting on my news submissions before I was forced to respon in kind)... She has stated she has no job and that she intends to continue to devote her time to "spreading the truth" and so the lies will continue - and these wil be met with the truth when she does so...

Monday November 3, 2008, 7:06 am
Chris,

It is obvious that you are a Scientist that values quality and balance. You are not going to make alarmist predictions based on our limited understanding of a complex and dynamically connected planet which is under attack from so many directions!

I can certainly understand what it is like to deal with people who lack vision and can not see the 'Big Picture!'

I know what it is like to deal with people who can rationalize any/their behavior as being justifiable... so long as they believe that they are saving the world, they will not hesitate to violate any rule, regulation or courtesy! (Yet while doing so... they fail to see that their extreme and very narrow viewpoint does not allow for personal growth and actually hurts their cause!)

I understand the difficult position that Judy places you in and the 'Darkness' she brings... I am confident that you will are versed enough to understand this next part... I can only think of an Old Egyptian Blessing!

Monday November 3, 2008, 7:10 am
Chris you an Judy still at it??? You two kill me...LOL

Big Gorilly Hugs you two...

Monday November 3, 2008, 7:31 am
Hi Stephanie my Gorilly friend - good to see ya...Yup, still going at it LOL (did you see ANY new arguments, not likely, same old "dead horse" here LOL). Just continuing to spread the word :)

George - Thank you for all the kind words and support (and the obvious understanding of the subject). That is one of the things I love about Care2 - and why I have been here for going on seven years - the support and caring (for others and the planet) that I see in so many. There are so many problems that face this planet and it makes me hopeful to see people comming together to fight for the planet. Keep up the good fight! We are making a difference together (despite the "efforts" of a few who may not be quite so motivated, wink) ...

Monday November 3, 2008, 8:01 am
Chris,

I am confident that both you and I would agree that Judy is an intelligent person who has strong beliefs as we all do. I just wish she could find a different debate style other than Copy and Paste... I just wish she would ask questions instead of telling me why I am wrong!
(I have enough preachers and religious fanatics telling me why I am wrong... I don't need a sweet person like Judy added to the mix!)

It is obvious that she is a good person with a big heart... I just object to the style in which she chooses to attack! (Yes... there are people who strongly object to my style as well!)

... and Chris, please accept my assurances that No Electrons have been harmed with this post!

Monday November 3, 2008, 8:09 am
LOL - I am afraid that there are a few points I will have to respectifully dissagree with you on in that last post but won't say more than that :)

Monday November 3, 2008, 8:22 am
Chris,

E. Coli happens!

Monday November 3, 2008, 8:27 am
I'm not debating so much as providing the balance that the media lacks. I can understand why you are all so upset about my posting article in their entirty. It removes the basis for blasting me....since I am only the messenger.

As to The argument that youtube interviews with scientist is not a kosher tactic...I repeat...What about Gore's movie...it's on youtube...doesn't that automatically disqualify it from consideration by the new arbitrary rules.

You guys don't have a scientific leg to stand on, so you carp about the way I present research. It is easier to attack me than peer-reviewed science. Also, if I post my reading of the papers, it can be argued that I don't understand what they mean...so I blow the use of that tactic and that's what the real upset is about.

If the situation weren't so serious, I wouldn't bother tangling with troglodytes

.

Monday November 3, 2008, 8:32 am
George, your a whoot :)

Monday November 3, 2008, 8:32 am
Oh really?

To whom am I speaking? Laogzed?

Monday November 3, 2008, 8:34 am
FYI: Laogzed is the deity worshipped by reptilian "troglodyte race."

Monday November 3, 2008, 8:41 am
Correction: Laogzed is the deity worshiped by reptilian troglodyte race.

Since I have been identified as a troglodytes... then I must offer this sacred prayer to the Laogzed... (Formally known as Judy Cross but whose symbol is unpronounceable!)

Uhmmm (Clearing Throat!)

Oh Great Laogzed, may your children and childrens children live with you forever!

Oh... sorry... that should be May your spawn and Spawns spawn dwell with you forever!

Oh... darn... still not getting it right... must be nervous talking to a Demon and all...

OK... I give up... I'm a man... but I can change... if I have too... I guess!

Monday November 3, 2008, 9:01 am
Oh gosh, I am so embarrassed, it should be... I'm a troglodytes ... but I can change... if I have too... I guess!

Monday November 3, 2008, 9:07 am
Chris,

Should it be... I'm a troglodytes ... but I can evolve... if I have too... I guess!

Do troglodytes such as myself, have any hope of evolving?

Or should I just let this story line go extinct?

Monday November 3, 2008, 9:28 am
I rather know one "troglodyte" who is willing to get off their butt and do something to help improve the plant than a whole room full of "higher life forms" that tell me all is well as the titanic sinks LOL

Go troglodytes go!!!

Monday November 3, 2008, 1:39 pm
Interesting tactic....go team go! ....like science and reality is a popularity contest.

Cheerleaders is really a better description of what your ilk do.

I just wonder if anyone is reading this stuff we're writing.

Anyway, latest news says:

Atlantic Hurricane Season 2008 Withers on the Vine
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4224

Monday November 3, 2008, 1:52 pm
Mean while Judy still does not understand the difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE. 2008 Hurricane SEASON is WEATHER not climate. If we are "ilk" for working together to make the planet a better place, then "ilk" I be - and damn proud of it LMAO!!!

There have been 134 notes of this article - so obviously some people are indeed reading this and taking notice. I have also had several friends requests and people join my climate action group as a result of this article - so yes, this is quite effective despite your attempts to harrass and disrupt conversation.

BTW thanks to all who have noted and been so supportive - and showing that you are not being fooled by her shanigans :) And a big thanks to those who are working to turn this problem around and joining me in friendship and comerodery. Together we are making a difference. I look forward to working with all of you to continue this fight :)

Monday November 3, 2008, 2:24 pm
My "shenanigans"....posting evidence that there is no scientific basis for restricting CO2 and that the weather and climate changes we are going through is part of cyclical paterns.

Well, I suppose if I could be burnt at the stake for heresy, like in the good old days of the Inquisition....that would solve your shenanigan problems.

The point about the article about the hurricane season is that there really wasn't much of one.

One of the foundation belifs is that "Global Warming Brings Bigger and Better Hurricanes".
is it not?

You are stuck here.



It was about th

Tuesday November 4, 2008, 3:36 pm
Noted, thanks Chris.

Tuesday November 4, 2008, 4:02 pm
George - Judy actually do anything BUT cut 'n' paste? What planet are YOU on? LOL

"It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

That's what I've tried to communicate in all of these discussions - HUMANS CANNOT DENY THAT THEIR ACTIVITIES HAVE CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE PLANET. Add to this the damming and diversion of rivers to flood other places, mining and excavation, and mass extermination of creatures and transplanting others and you have a human-created mess. We can no longer justify our arrogance, bad behaviour and actions to suit our own convenience and selfishness by telling ourselves we're "the superior species" and therefore entitled to do whatever we want, or that some god that WE cooked up somehow "gave us permission" to do whatever or that everything was "created" for us to "do with as we wish." And then there's people like Judy who just can't bear to have to admit humans are not only fallible, we're dangerous to every other lifeform and the planet. Bleah.

Tuesday November 4, 2008, 6:00 pm
Who ever denied that as a species we are very destructive?

I'm just trying to cut through the propaganda about that life giving gas CO2 being evil.

CO2 is one of the few things we produce that is BENEFICIAL.
Depleted uranium isn't, nor is the rest of the radioactive waste the nuclear industry makes.

Coal smoke can be "scrubbed". Nuclear waste is almost forever.

Why would you trade coal for nuclear except if you were being lied to about CO2?

Tuesday November 4, 2008, 6:35 pm
Still trying to sell the false strawman argument - just because I recognise the SCIENCE of human caused climate change does NOT mean I support nuclear - that is your fake claim - there are MANY non-nuclear (and highly beneficial) solutions to the climate change issue: stopping deforestation, planting trees, creating green jobs in technology, promoting renewables, becomming more energy efficient. Only in your fanticy world of denialism is the nuclear option the only option ...

Wednesday November 5, 2008, 4:54 am
I don't know where all this pseudo specialists on climate get their information from...

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as well as so many others - this is a scientific fact; if anyone says otherwise, they are lying or are plain ignorant.

I'm not a specialist, but a greenhouse gas prevents the heat from leaving our planet through the atmosphere - so the regular cycle of heat exchange is 'damaged'. Due to human activity, CO2 is being released to the atmosphere at alarming exponential rates! This has been measured...

What planet are you living on? The majority of real scientists (not those who want to get their 15 minutes of fame) have already agreed that global warming is happening because of human activity!!

I'm sick and tired of these people who think they know anything about this issue 'vomit' falsities!!! Go back to your little caves and bury your head in the sand and let the rest of us (who think for ourselves) solve this problem!!

Wednesday November 5, 2008, 7:17 am
For Judy:

Let's take an astronomy course and look at the atmospheric content of our lovely and unhabitable neighbor, Venus...

Atmospheric composition at surface level:
Major components (by volume)
96.5% carbon dioxide (CO2)
3.5% nitrogen (N2)

Minor components (parts per million):
150 sulfur dioxide (SO2)
70 argon (Ar)
20 water vapor (H2O)
17 carbon monoxide (CO)
12 helium (He)
7 neon (Ne)

Surface pressure 92 bars
Surface density ~65 kg/m3
Surface wind speeds 0.3-1.0 m/s
________________________________________

Closer to the Sun, those clouds of CO2 permanently trap and hold in the heat maintaining Venus' average suface termperatures of 467°C (872°F). If anyone here has doubts as to whether or not CO2 has the ability to hold in the heat instead of reflecting it away - the job of polar ice caps which are rapidly melting because of the increasing, human-caused levels of CO2 - study the findings of scientists with regard to the atmosphere on that planet. Skyrocketing CO2 levels - correlated to the Industrial Revolution - is NOT a "normal" or "positive" development. I agree with you that enriching uranium isn't a positive development either, but neither is flooding our atmosphere with CO2 while also chopping down forests, damming rivers, polluting oceans, and consuming every other creature we can get our hands on.

Thursday November 6, 2008, 12:51 am
Venus has nothing to do with anything. It is a red herring.

CO2 levels aren't "skyrocketing". They are actually low because is still coming out of the Little Ice Age.

Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming

WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 27, 1992---As independent scientists, researching atmospheric and climate problems, we are concerned by the agenda for UNCED, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, being developed by environmental activist groups and certain political leaders. This so-called Earth Summit is scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992 and aims to impose a system of global environmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on the population of the United States and other industrialized nations.

Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree.

A survey of U.S. atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of 1991, confirms that there is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming observed during the past century. A recently published research paper even suggests that sunspot variability, rather than a rise in greenhouse gases, is responsible for the global temperature increases and decreases recorded since about 1880.

Furthermore, the majority of scientific participants in the survey agreed that the theoretical climate models used to predict a future warming cannot be relied upon and are not validated by the existing climate record. Yet all predictions are based on such theoretical models.

Finally, agriculturalists generally agree that any increase in carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel burning has beneficial effects on most crops and on world food supply.

We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science. We fear that the rush to impose global regulations will have catastrophic impacts on the world economy, on jobs, standards of living, and health care, with the most severe consequences falling upon developing countries and the poor.
David G. Aubrey, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Nathaniel B. Guttman, Ph.D., Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center

Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D., Meteorologist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, M.l.T.

Robert C. Balling, Ph.D., Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University

Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Roger Pielke, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University

Michael Garstang, Ph.D., Professor of Meteorology, University of Virginia

Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D., Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory

Lev S. Gandin, Ph.D., UCAR Scientist, National Meteorological Center

John A. McGinley, Chief, Forecast Research Group, Forecast Systems Laboratory, NOAA

H. Jean Thiebaux, Ph.D., Research Scientist, National Meteorological Center, National Weather Service, NOM

Kenneth V. Beard, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Illinois

Paul W. Mielke, Jr., Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Statistics, Colorado State University

Thomas Lockhart, Meteorologist, Meteorological Standards Institute

Peter F. Giddings, Meteorologist, Weather Service Director

Hazen A. Bedke, Meteorologist, Former Regional Director, National Weather Service

Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D., Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University

Roy Leep, Executive Weather Director, Gillett Weather Data Services

Terrance J. Clark, Meteorologist, U.S. Air Force

Neil L Frank, Ph.D., Meteorologist

Michael S. Uhart, Ph.D., Meteorologist, National Weather Service

Bruce A. Boe, Ph.D., Director, North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board

Andrew Detwiler, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., Institute of Atmospheric Sciences, S. Dakota School of Mines & Technology

Robert M. Cunningham, Consulting Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society

Steven R. Hanna, Ph.D., Sigma Research Corporation

Elliot Abrams, Meteorologist, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, Inc.

William E. Reifenyder, Ph.D., Consulting Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus, Forest Meteorology, Yale University

David W. Reynolds, Research Meteorologist

Jerry A. Williams, Meteorologist, President, Oceanroutes, Inc.

Lee W. Eddington, Meteorologist, Geophysics Division, Pacific Missile Test Center

Werner A. Baum, Ph.D., former Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, Florida State University

David P. Rogers, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Research Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Brian Fiedler, Ph.D., Asst. Professor of Meteorology, School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma

Edward A. Brandes, Meteorologist

Melvyn Shapiro, Chief of Meteorological Research, Wave Propagation Laboratory, NOM

Joseph Zabransky, Jr., Associate Professor of Meteorology, Plymouth State College

James A. Moore, Project Manager, Research Applications Program, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Daniel J. McNaughton, ENSR Consulting and Engineering

Brian Sussman, Meteorologist

Robert D. Elliott, Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society

H. Read McGrath, Ph.D., Meteorologist

Earl G. Droessler, Ph.D., North Carolina State University

Robert E. Zabrecky, Meteorologist

William M. Porch, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Earle R. Williams, Ph.D, Assoc. Prof. of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Univ. of Virginia, President, Science & Environmental Policy Project

Please note: Affiliations listed are for identification purposes only.

Thursday November 6, 2008, 6:00 am
There is no consensus

The skeptic argument...Lots of reputable scientists are skeptical that manmade CO2 emissions are causing global warming. So claims that there's a scientific consensus is exaggerated. A widely cited series The Deniers by the National Post profiles scientists who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.

What the science says...

The consensus position is generally defined as "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities". There are several ways you can approach the debate on scientific consensus.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm


Top U.S. Scientists and Economists Call For Swift, Deep Cuts In Global Warming Pollution

More than 1,700 of the nation's most prominent scientists and economists today released a joint statement calling on policymakers to require immediate, deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming. Issued just days before the Senate begins debate on the Lieberman-Warner climate bill, the statement marks the first time leading U.S. scientists and economists have joined together to make such an appeal.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/top-us-scientists-and-0120.html


Climate myths: Many leading scientists question climate change

Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading".

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11654

Thursday November 6, 2008, 6:56 am
"Venus has nothing to do with anything. It is a red herring.

CO2 levels aren't "skyrocketing". They are actually low because is still coming out of the Little Ice Age."

Yes, it does, Judy, because evidently you're unable to connect the dots with regard to the tendency of CO2 to trap and hold heat once it is present. The only red herring here is the cut n' paste you're posting without any tie-in analysis.

As for SEPP, which is where you lifted that post without so much as even giving us the (valuable!) URL and proper citation, here's who funds their projects:

"Funding: Conservative foundations including Bradley, Smith Richardson, and Forbes. SEPP has also been directly tied to ultra right-wing mogul Reverend Sung Myung Moon s Unification Church, including receipt of a year s free office space from a Moon-funded group and the participation of SEPP s director in church-sponsored conferences and on the board of a Moon-funded magazine."

Speaks VOLUMES as to their objectivity level on this topic.

Citation source for my information:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html