Wednesday July 23, 2008, 10:57 pm
global warming or not, we should try to live our life in a more greener ways.

Thursday July 24, 2008, 12:48 am
Yes, fossil fuel dependance is not a good idea, no matter what - and especially because global warming is a FACT!

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


Anti-denaliest Resources

If you're looking for a chance to educate yourself on climate change, get started on greening your own life (with all the normal caveats that lifestyle changes are nowhere near enough) or have facts and figures at hand to win your next argument with a denialist, you've got some tricky choices ahead of you. After all, the web has never been more overrun with climate "resources" and "guides," and most of them are lame -- some are downright inaccurate or misleading. (quote from the author, not me )

Here is a quick survey of some interesting and useful links:
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007016.html

Thursday July 24, 2008, 1:20 am
"Got it? Global warming, such as it was, is over. Done with. Kaput."

don't think so:

2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/

Thursday July 24, 2008, 5:10 am
"Global warming is clearly over, yet Al Gore and his acolytes keep warning us that the planet is heating up even as it continues to get colder.
If that suggests that Al Gore and his fellow global warming fantasists are nuts, well , ..."

WTF?
What an idiot!
Ever heard of Global Dimming? THAT is in fact counteracting Global Warming, but "Global DImming" is actually nothing but pollution. A pollution we are fighting. And the more successfull we are in fighting pollution, we reduce Global Dimming and thus SPEED UP Global Warming.

I have good news for you, Judy: Global Warming is not over - the fun is just about to start!
;-)

Thursday July 24, 2008, 9:49 am
More Bad News for the Global Warmers
By Michael R. Fox Ph.D., 7/21/2008 9:40:19 AM

The issue of global warming rages on is some minds. Remarkably, there really hasn’t been much of a debate, not a serious science debate anyway. There have been shouting and screaming, predictions of doom, and the willingness to destroy our energy sources and our economy to “save the planet”. But as P.J. O’Rourke noted, there are a lot of people who would do anything to “save the planet”, except take a science course.

While there hasn’t been a true debate, there has been a hugely one-sided angry monologue, heaping scorn upon those who dare ask for evidence. The one side has been heavily funded by the government, foundations, and individual contributions. The so-called “warmers” have enjoyed the unstinting support of a scientifically illiterate media, the movie industry, and many institutions that have been on the receiving end of an estimated $5 billion annually for nearly 2 decades. That will buy a lot of supporters, Ph.Ds or not.

They have also received a great deal of support from the public school systems, many of which require the student viewing of the latest, mostly discredited, “warmists” scare stories. These are the organized educators of two generations of citizens who have been crippling the citizenry with declining math. and science skills. Too many educators regard the scare stories as received wisdom making the videos required viewing. Too few of the educators are apparently disposed to challenge the scare stories, utterly incapable of asking any hard questions, like “where is the evidence?”.

The world of science is moving quickly past these questionable events in an expanding universe of new evidence, which is showing that the current state of the global warming theory is in serious decline.

For example, the recent summary by Fred Singer and 22 expert contributors to “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” makes some extraordinary statements about computer models. (In addition to the many excellent contributors, this summary also contains 167 references to the scientific literature).

This is important since computer models are being improperly, yet extensively, used by state legislatures as the basis of policies for greenhouse gas mitigation, rather than using actual climate data taken from the real world. These statements include:

Computer models do not consider variations of irradiance and magnetic fields of the sun

Computer models do not accurately model the role of clouds

Computer models do not simulate a possible negative feedback from water vapor

Computer models do not explain many features of the Earth’s observed climate.

Computer models cannot produce reliable predictions of regional climate change

We must conclude that climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), do not accurately depict our chaotic, open-ended, climate system. They cannot make reliable predictions and should not be used to formulate government policy.

As Christopher Monckton recently admonished, “We must get the science right, or we will get the policy wrong”. Many states such as Hawaii and Washington are well along the way of doing just that.

As a Washington State citizen who was born, raised, and educated in Olympia, with very strong scientific credentials, I am disheartened to see the state, as a matter of policy, muzzle science, terminate debate, and pretend “the science has spoken”. I am also frightened that State leaders would rely so heavily on such dubious computer models to formulate state environmental policies. Atmospheric physicist Jim Peden recently observed “Climate modeling is not science, it is computerized tinkertoys”. This doesn’t inspire confidence or respect in our state officials to formulate the best policies they can. They clearly are not.

In fact, state sponsored repression of science is reminiscent of the sacking of the Library of Alexandria in ancient Egypt. It is reminiscent of the Burning of the Books of Nazi Germany in 1933. It is reminiscent of some of those killed in the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia for the sin of wearing glasses, the user being perceived as being capable of reading, and perhaps, even thinking, unapproved thoughts.

What is the state of Washington trying to hide, trying to accomplish by suppressing science? Stopping science when it is politically convenient? Why teach science if it going to be ignored? Yes, I am ashamed of this type of leadership in my state. There is nothing to be proud of in such repression.

As Dennis Avery recently said, “Let’s have a real debate of the climate evidence. We’ve heard enough from the computers.”

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., a science and energy reporter for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyist for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mailto:mike@foxreport.org

Thursday July 24, 2008, 10:59 am
do a search on Christopheropher Monckton and Fred Singer - oil funding abounds - so maybe that should be taken into consideration before taking their word for the "science" of the situation LMAO!!!!

Thursday July 24, 2008, 11:26 am
Do a search on Al Gore and Maurice Strong while you are at it. Look at Molten Metals and the fact that both of them own carbon trading businesses.
The latest on CO2 is that it follows the warming cycle with higher atmospheric levels every 65 years as the warming oceans release it.
The oceans will reabsorb it when as the Earth cools again.

In 1958 the modern NDIR spectroscopic method was introduced to measure CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere [Beck 2007]. In the preceding period, these measurements were taken with the old wet chemical method. From this period, starting from 1857, more than 90,000 reliable CO2 measurements are available, with an accuracy within ± 3 %. They had been taken near ground level, sea surface and as high as the stratosphere, mostly in the northern hemisphere. Comparison of these measurements on the basis of old wet chemical methods with the new physical method (NDIR) on sea and land reveals a systematic analysis difference of about minus 10 ppm.
Wet chemical analyses indicate three atmospheric CO2 maxima in the northern hemisphere up to approx. 400 ppm over land and sea since about 1812. The measured atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1920 –1950 prove to be strongly correlated (more than 80 %) with the arctic sea surface temperature (SST).
A detailed analysis of the Atlantic Ocean water during the arctic warming since 1918 – 1939 by Wattenberg (southern Atlantic ocean) and Buch (northern Atlantic ocean) indicates a very similar state of the Atlantic Ocean (pH, salinity, CO2 in water and air over sea etc.) These data show the characteristics of the warm ocean currents (part of global conveyor belt) at that time, indicating a strong CO2 degassing from the Atlantic Sea, especially in the area of Greenland/Iceland and Spitsbergen. More than 360 ppm had been measured over the sea surface.
In 2004 Polyakov published evidence for a multi-decadal oscillation of the ocean currents in the arctic circle, showing a warm phase (strong arctic warming during 1918 –1940 with high temperatures in the Iceland/Spitsbergen area) similar to the current situation, and a cold phase (around 1900 and 1960). Today the Iceland/Spitsbergen area is known for a strong absorption of CO2.
This multi-decadal heating of the oceanic CO2 absorption area and larger parts of the Northern Atlantic Ocean was followed by an increase of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to approx. 400 ppm during the 30s and approx. 390 ppm today. The abundance of plankton (13C) and other biota supports this view.
Conclusion: Atmospheric CO2 concentration varies with climate, the sea is the dominant CO2 store, releasing the gas depending on multi-decadal changes of temperature.
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/bayreuth/Summary-bayreuth.pdf

Thursday July 24, 2008, 11:52 am
Soooo there is SOME counter evidence...still the VAST MAJORITY of scientists support human caused climate change as real...a few decenters and some counter arguments don not make that go away...

and telling us to do a search on those other peoiple is IRRELEVENT since they are not being quoted here LMAO!!!!!!

Friday July 25, 2008, 2:06 am
To learn without to think is futile. To think without to learn is dangerous.
(Confucius)

I don't read science in this "counter", only stupid, hysterical invectives.

If you have any motivation on learning about the SCIENCE behind it all, read on here:
http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/globaldimming.asp

or here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm

for a start...
*sigh*

Friday July 25, 2008, 12:33 pm
The "vast majority" of scientists haven't been asked about what they think.
"Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple."
- Kary Mullis, Winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry
"The only people who would be hurt by abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be several thousand people who make a living attending conferences on global warming."
- Professor Kirill Kondratyev, Russian Academy of Sciences

As for the BBC, they lost credibility when they reported on 9/11 that WW7 had fallen 25 minutes before it happened. Think about that one for a while.

Friday July 25, 2008, 12:38 pm
9/11 is a smoke screen which is totally irrelevant to this discussion - more fear mongering...

BTW - Al Gore wone the Nobel Pice Prize and has a very different take on things than Nullis does...and Kondratyev is just talking out his back side LMAO!!!!

Saturday July 26, 2008, 12:26 pm
Really? If they can be shown to be corrupt and complicit, doesn't that cast doubt on integrity?
They have been caught out faking the news...we should believe the on climate issues?

That makes a lot of sense...not!

Nullis also won a Nobel...a REAL NOBEL...FOR SCIENCE.

Then your lunatic dismissal of Kondratyev as being a know-nothing.

Global Carbon Cycle and Climate Change (Hardcover)
by Kirill Ya. Kondratyev (Author), Vladimir F. Krapivin (Author), Costas A. Varotsos (Author), Costas Varotsos (Author) "The problem of the carbon cycle and its climatic implications (and respective feedbacks) has attracted attention from the days of S. Arrhenius (Kondratyev, 1992)..." (more)
Key Phrases: soil plant formations, trophic subordination, pure primary production, Okhotsk Sea, Arctic Ocean, Atlantic Ocean (more...)

Very funny how anybody who has real expertise is dismissed if they don't agree with the scam. Kondratyev is an unimpeachable source, so he must be trashed.

Saturday July 26, 2008, 12:35 pm
If their "conclusions" are BS (bad science) then you bet that they will be trashed and making a coment like such as "The only people who would be hurt by abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be several thousand people who make a living attending conferences on global warming" is not pronouncing science AT ALL - it is OPINION and it was trashed because that statement is indeed garbage - no matter who said it...there are other, just as compitent, or even more compitent, SCIENTIST that diagree with this OPINION - and YOU dismiss ALL of them..."pot calling the pan black" yet again

Saturday July 26, 2008, 12:47 pm
Kyoto is dead because India, China and the Third World are exempted. They will not go along with a new deal that prevents their economies from growing.

You are sputtering...the IPCC report is also "opinion" which they admit has only a 90% chance of being correct.

The fact that the IPCC put out the Statement for Policy Makers 3 months BEFORE the review of the science was finished just shows they had an agenda.

Kondratyev is an IPCC member and yes, that is his INFORMED opinion on why only a few reliant on Climate Cash will blow the whistle on the scam.

Saturday July 26, 2008, 12:54 pm
The IPCC opinion (f that is what it is) is the opinion of HOUNDRDS of scientists (and govenrment officials) - so its "opinion" is just as valid - if not mor valid - than Kondratyev - but you are DISMISSING them - so thanks for proving my point LMAO!!!!

Saturday July 26, 2008, 3:07 pm
Know what? I studied physics myself. And I can observe and think. I don't give a rat's what some professors paid by Exxon or Texaco think. We'll all be a lot smarter in 20 years, you betcha!