What is the coincidence that both Mars and the earth are showing an increase in surface temperature at the same time? Maybe it has something to do with nature, or solar waves from the sun? Maybe more research is needed here afterall?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece



Or maybe there is a Martian invasion fleet taking off for earth right now!

Vinny, did you see that now they are saying the Arctic ice sheets may be melting because of magma?



In Greenland the earth's crust is thinner apparently.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71212103004.htm

and pigs are starting to fly

It's our fault. Because we are increasing the greenhouse gases here it's causing more heat to be reflected off of Earth back onto Mars. So we're killing two planets at once. Don't you feel bad now? I bet there's some really cute animal that they can champion this cause with as well.

Wow Snot thanks for the heads up on this one.

I bet ya the Mars futures on the stock exchange have fallen through the floor.

I certainly won't be investing in NASA's next giant leap into the cosmos..AKA sending a man to Mars sounds a little pointless to me now thats for sure...After all by the time the astroNuts return after there 2 year adventure there bones will be so brittle they probably could not even support ther own body weight.Not to mention there heart muscle would be so weak they more than likely would not even be able to exspand there rib cage for a nice breath of fresh..CO2..? I mean Air...LoL

I can see it now the Astronuts would return to this planet and say "hey where 'd all the land go"?

The second Astronut would say 'Hey remember before we left that Guy Al Gore was saying the ice caps are melting and its all are fault.Gezz i guess he was right.

Global warming is the biggest fraud perpitrated on the american people.its just another way of Taxing are asses for pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than the next guy.Ok lets just say We cut back on co2 emisions.Whose to say the next Giant economy on earth soon to pop "China" is going to comply..if you think they will your one of those suckers born every min.



My two pennies..."T.M."

I wonder if this is going to cause a decrease in the Mars property value.

http://me.moonestates.com/

Here is some light reading...

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialrep...lScientists.asp

Co-Founder of the Weather Channel
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JC_comments.doc

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350746/posts

http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2002/15.html

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/article...v2006forWeb.pdf

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316566,00.html

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_...2/10/55974.html

What is the word? Oh yeah Hypocrite
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...-takes-mercedes


NASA fixes their data…. Oh 1998 is not the warmest year on record anymore.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-n...-the-millenium/

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=...d1-2fefe0905363



Why is everyone pushing this at the UN?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...ayers-foot-bill

Hey lets sign up for that!

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/un-want...-global-warming

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shep...tax-rich-scheme

One thing that has always given me the biggest kick is that these "scientists" want to try and tell me what the weather on Earth is going to look like 100, 1000, or even 1,000,000 years from now when they can't tell me with any amount of certainty what it will do tomorrow.

What always makes me laugh is that people think they are smart enough to tell us what the perfect climate is for the planet.

What if being 4 degrees warmer means that the CO2 will allow the plants (see food) to grow better thus ending world hunger?

I mean if there were no such thing as NATURAL climate change. I would be sitting under a mile high chunk of glacier here in Ohio.

I guess it was an extinct species of caveman that drove around their SUV's and caused the planet to warm and melt the glacier.....

Junkie,Thank you sir.

I was going to make that very statement last night.

We here in the in the tri- state area are waiting on a NOR -Easter tonight and the wheather man predicts yesterday 6 to 12 inches...Now its snow,freezing rain,sleet ,and rain..covered all the bases would'nt you say..lol.

Blitz,my friend your killing me with all that Light Reading.I need a speed reading coarse thanks to you..lol



Ok I will agree the earth is in a warming trend before my good friends MOD,And Undead ring in and attempt to hand me my head..All in good fun.

I sorta look at it like this..Why do you think they call it "Mother Earth"?

Because She's a lady..She runs hot and cold.No offence to the ladies out there.

For instance lastnight i asked my girl after a nice dinner and a movie..Wink.. Wink..What do you say.

Naw I got a head ache.

And tonight she said to me wanna get lucky Sailer...

Food for thought...lol



Comon MOD, and,Undead bring it on old buddy..lol



"T.M."

"When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it," he says. "This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not."

http://www.lttonline.co.uk/lttxtraarticle.php?uid=7064


http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/17/eur...od.php#end_main
Ahhh Bio-Fuels a good idea unless you depend on food from the US, why plant wheat when corn prices are through the roof.


http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...w-nsi121107.php
The models are so acurate they can't predict what we know happened when you plug the numbers in.

Here is a link from an astronomer's web site that debunks the "other planets are warming up crap.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04...-solar-induced/


There's a meme going around the internets and in the MSM that Earth is not alone in global warming: other planets, according to this story, are experiencing it too.

The usual crowd, along with many others, are taking this idea and running with it, saying that if other planets are warming up, obviously the warming on Earth is not man-made. But there's a small problem with this: it's wrong (for a more detailed analysis of this, see my blog post at Bad Astronomy).

The idea is that evidence shows that Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's moon Triton, and even tiny, distant Pluto are warming up. The only thing these objects have in common is the Sun-- so therefore the Sun must be the culprit, and we -- the polluting, self-absorbed humans -- are off the hook.

However, as an astronomer and a skeptic, I did something most ditto-heads don't do: I actually did some research. What I found is that first of all, the evidence that Mars is warming up is tentative; basically, the southern ice cap appears to be shrinking, and along with other evidence this indicates that there is some sort of climate change going on. However, the change may very well be local, confined to the southern region. Plus, we already know that other factors, like the shape of the orbit of Mars, contribute to climate change there. Looking to the Sun as the source of this is unwarranted.

The claim about Jupiter warming is simply wrong. There are localized places where gas from deep in the atmosphere (where it's warmer) is bubbling up, but this is again a localized effect, and not an indication of global change. Jupiter's atmosphere is a very weird, turbulent place, and honestly we don't understand it all that well. Calling this jovian global warming is premature at best.

Triton is entering its summer season, and due to the peculiar orbit it has, this summer will be a particularly extreme one. If it's warming there, it's a seasonal change, and expected.

And as for far, wee Pluto, it's so far out that if any warming there were from the Sun warming up, the Earth, which is much closer to the Sun, would be roasted. Since the effects of GW here on Earth are subtle, it's safe to ignore Pluto.

Me and the Capt. Atill. agreed to stop as out arguments just cancelled each other out.

Anyway, I'll just say I hope you're all right, and the rest of the world is idiot's and liars. But I will add on point/clarification. The issue isn't whether planets go through climate change, it is the speed at which the change occurs is the issue.

I hear talk like this and I get instantly aroused. I just can't get that last sentence out of my head, it got my blood flowing like there's no tomorrow. I just need one question answered to give me release:









What kind of boat do you have?

[/quote]
The issue isn't whether planets go through climate change, it is the speed at which the change occurs is the issue.


[/quote]



Nope. That's not the question. The question is "what effect does mankind play in global warming and cooling?"



Mars may be experiencing localized warming. Maybe.

The same argument can be made on earth as the Antartic Ice is getting depper and deeper and glaciers around the world are growing! http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet.htm

The self published book you are citing was written by Robert w. Felix, this is from the Guardian in the U.K.,

"Is Felix a climatologist, a volcanologist or an oceanographer? Er, none of the above. His biography describes him as a "former architect". His website is so bonkers that I thought at first it was a spoof."

If you are interested in climate change why not go to the National Geograhic website instead of relying on nutjobs like this and Richard Hoagland, a guy that thinks NASA has a secret astronuat corp and that there is a mile high glass tower on the moon?
One of your friends, Dennis Prager also continually lies by telling his audience that the MIT science department doesn't believe in climate change. As it turns out there is one professor at MIT that doesn't believe it and he just happens to be the same "expert" Prager cites when he claims that second hand smoke is not harmful. BTW the profesor is not a climatologist and has no background in biology either.

Midnight Rambler,

The point of me dropping all of the links was to show that the debate is still ongoing.

Is there such a thing as “Climate Change”? YES. If there was not the United States would still be in a tropical Climate, or there would be a large sea over most of the middle united states or Glaciers would still be covering the northern hemisphere and there would be no great lakes or Grand Canyon.

Is man responsible is the debatable question.
There is plenty of scientific data on both sides of the issue and very little fact. That is the main problem I have, everything is speculation and both sides have a political axe to grind.

It is no longer “Global Warming” because that no longer fits the template.
Of course in the early seventies it was all “Global Cooling” that was all the rage.
After a relative warm 40’s and 50’s the trend raced downward prompting articles such as the following.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,944914,00.html

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialrep.../fireandice.asp

Hurricane Katrina was global warming and we should expect stronger storms with more frequency.
That was another “Henny Penny” prediction that was not completely researched but taken as fact by many.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental...pundit-47110512

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy
* I hate trusting wikipedia, but it’s a starting point to research it yourself.

Who can forget the famous picture of the polar bear on the last remaining ice chunk, you know the polar bears that are in peril, and all will be lost etc.etc.etc… you know this picture.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/galleries...in_page_id=1055


Well what do you know….

http://www.whoi.edu/beaufortgyre/dispatch2004/index2004.html

Read the log from the actual trip, and view the pictures (dispatch #2)… Also note that their trip was delayed because of “Heavy ice conditions”

The polar bears
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.htm...f868&k=5287


The point of all of this is, there are people on the environmental side of this movement that want to bludgeon everyone over the head with what they claim as facts that are conjecture.
They repeatedly only tell one side of the story, and when they are proved wrong just move on to the next point.
They also have an agenda, lets face it you will not receive grant monies with a report that says hey this is all part of nature can I have some more money to study it.

You also have environmentalists that are 100% against progress;
Do you want to not burn coal and save polluting CO2? How about nuclear, Europe has a lot higher % of their energy from nuclear than the US why can’t we?

Drill in ANWAR… Unthinkable, even though it was set aside for that exactly. Oh it will kill all the caribou, just like the Alaskan pipeline did.

Finally, I live on the shores of Lake Erie; I remember what it was like in the 70’s and early 80’s. I fish and am an outdoor enthusiast. I support good environmental causes and fight for clean air and water.

I think most people do not remember that Ohio and Pennsylvania were covered in Smog and people died.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/aerosol/ATOC3500/...in%20Donora.pdf

I just think that this current movement is more in restricting freedoms, political agendas and other such nonsense. If someone wants to have a rational discussion about new sources of energy, new CO2 scrubbers, implementing new technologies, or other items that will piece by piece make the planet cleaner, I’m all ears.
Knee jerk reactions that tax and regulate the hell out of everything are not solutions they are punishment.

Thanks Blitz. Great post. At least their are few of us with a common sense and rational approach to this subject.

So your bottom line is that you don't want to be taxed and regulated. Industry fought air polution standards in the 70's that cleaned up Lake Erie and the skys over the nation that were so poluted that people were dying from it. People whined that jobs would be lost and companies would go bankrupt if they were made to clean up the mess they had made.
we are in the same situation today, we are being told that pumping greenhouse gaases into the air is harming the environment and industry is whining that air quality standards will ruin business. Bullshit. Environmental standards created whole new industries. Jobs were created, and everybody survived.
Please find one peer reviewed paper published in a scince journal that states that global warming is not being influenced by humans. You will not find one. Science relies on data, not on what someone believes is correct. Show me data that demonstrates that humans are not influencing climate change. All you will find are indivduals stating that they don't believe the data. Science doesn't work that way it doesn't matter what you believe the only thing that matters is what the data tells you.
Stories about thicker ice in Antartica and hurricanes being stronger are just that, stories. Show me the data.
There is irrefutable data that shows that the co2 levels in the atmosphere have been rising dramatically since the 1700's. Maybe the brightest minds in the world are wrong and Joe Sixpak is right. I'm not willing to gamble my grandaughters future on it.

The True Reason For The Ice Caps Melting

Yes I will agree that we are some cause to the warming affect and the UV rays increasing and what not but now here is something I noticed while in science class.

There was a map of what the world was predicted to be like before the last ice age and it showed that the southern states(North Carolina and below) was more like a tropical area more like it is today. The temperature was guessed to considerable higher.

Also the ice caps where much smaller than the map of today shows. It is said that the Earth will reverse what happened and fix its self from the last ice age. Since the ice age the world got warmer and warmer from before. Could it be possible that the earth is reversing the last ice age and is gonna make the ice caps the same size it was before the ice age?

Im not saying that we arent causing some problems maybe we are just "helping" it advance faster.

I say we should keep raping the Earth all we want. After all, why not use everything we can before we get hit by some giant rock or comet, invaded by aliens, swallowed by a black hole, killed by radiation from the sun because it decides to burp one day, blacked out by a massive volcano, washed away by a giant tsunami, etc. etc. etc. it's a numbers game before we have one of these or an ice age or any number of crazy things to worry about. Truth is a million things can take us out in a blink of an eye. I could care less how much CO2 is put in the air now. We've been on this earth a few thousand years and we manage to kill each other in alarming numbers. I some how doubt that our biggest worry is going to be if we drove too many SUV's in 1000 years.


Mechanic you got lucky eh? You mean she brought you a beer and left you alone in silence for an entire day??? WOW!!!!

Good Point Spectre.

When is enough....enough.
At what point, If I said we could be under the Kyoto Protocol by switching coal to Nuclear, would you be for it? There done problem solved, or is that not enough?

I've shown a ton of links and proven that the models that are primarily used are wrong.
it is a FACT that NASA admitted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/us/26climate.html
Did this make national headlines that 4 of the hottest years on record are now on the 30's? NO

FACT: the 22 models used for the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) that just concluded were tested against existing known data and proved to be wrong! They predicted warmer temps then actually happened. This was reserched by Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology, the U of Rochester, the U of ALabama, and the U of virginia.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...w-nsi121107.php

What was it about "Peer" reviews. Lets see here we have a billion dollar industry, "predicting" that the temperature will rise sometime in the future, catastrophy will happen and you have people at the UN begging for BILLIONS of dollars in wealth transfer to help other countries. Gee I just can't see why they would not sign up for accepting data that shuts down their system.

Here are some peer reviewed data for you
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...3a-b35d0842fed8

Oh I love the quote " An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears."

http://gaia.tribe.net/thread/d4411609-931e...df-8ac21cce3135

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/archive/pr0310.html (Possiblly supporting the above case?)

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/...DE2YTRlMjMxNzc=

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

Ummm so there you have it, should we continue to clean up the environment, fix our energy issues, make the world a cleaner place for kids and grandkids... Hell Yes!

Should we fly off the handle, scream that the sky is falling, start driving horse and buggys (oh the horses fart causing co2 cant do that) and shut down every factory and become hunter gatherers.

Really look at any picture of the coal burining plants in the 30's, the cars with no catalic converters, mufflers, and 6 miles to the gallon and rationally explain HOW we are polluting more than we did 30 years ago.. I say BS.

Wow, Blitz, you kind of stubbed your toe on that one! This illustrates how incredibly easy it is for someone to make outrageous claims, post a link and claim victory.

Sorry, mate, but you've now bloodied your nose with this bit of flim-flam. If you had actually read the article you linked to, you would have read that the Quixote blogger who discovered the insignificant error in NASA's data agrees that global warming needs to be addressed by cutting CO2 levels:

One thing not in question, Mr. McIntyre and Dr. Hansen agree, is the merit of shifting away from energy choices that contribute heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Mr. McIntyre said he feels “climate change is a serious issue.” His personal preference is to shift increasingly to nuclear power and away from coal and oil, the main source of heat-trapping carbon dioxide.

Reading further, you would have seen that contrary to your outrageous statement that you have "proven that the models that are primarily used are wrong," the reality as stated in the article is:

Mr. McIntyre and Dr. Hansen also agree that the NASA data glitch had no effect on the global temperature trend, nudging it by an insignificant thousandth of a degree.

Everyone appears also to agree that too much attention is paid to records, particularly given that the difference between 1934, 1998, and several other sets of years in the top 10 warmest list for the United States are so small as to be statistically meaningless.

The controversy over the study that found the 22 models were inaccurate at predicting recent change is just one study. Ironically, you've chosen to once again cite something from someone with an apparent political agenda. The lead author of that study, Dr. David Douglass, is a scientist who is well known as a climate change denialist. He even concludes his lectures with a picture of Al Gore superimposed on a mushroom cloud. A real honest broker!

Next up you cite a document produced by the political hit man that brought us Swift Vote Veterans for Truth and smeared John Murtha, a recipient of two Purple Hearts, the Bronze Star with Combat "V" for valor in combat, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry and the Navy Distinquished Service Medal. Now, there's an honest broker for you. If Morano tells us there isn't global warming and you cite it, well, damn, I guess we should be buying it! LOL!!

Morano's article is largely based on one paper submitted by a respected researcher in atmospheric physics, Dr. Stephen Schwartz. Unfortunately, Schwartz never expected global warming denialists like Senator James Inhofe to seize his research as evidence against global warming. I encourage you to check out his website here. You'll see that his research was very limited in scope and he was primarily evaluating the influence of short-lived aerosols in the atmosphere.

Schwartz writes on his home page, "No matter how the uncertainties are calculated, they are quite large relative to the estimated total forcing over the industrial period. In view of these uncertainties, which are due largely to uncertainty in aerosol forcing, it cannot be stated with certainty that the warming influences of CO2 and other GHGs exceeds the cooling influences due largely to aerosols, although this is likely to be the case."

He goes on to state, "It should be emphasized that one should not take any comfort with the fact that the aerosols may be negating much of the greenhouse gas forcing--in fact just the opposite. Because the atmospheric residence time of tropospheric aerosols is short (about a week) compared to the decades-to-centuries lifetimes of the greenhouse gases, then to whatever extent greenhouse gas forcing is being offset by aerosol forcing, it is last week's aerosols that are offsetting forcing by decades worth of greenhouse gases. Because the greenhouse gases are long-lived in the atmosphere, their atmospheric loadings tend to approximate the integral of emissions. Because the aerosols are short-lived, their loading tend to be proportional to the emissions themselves. There is only one function that is proportional to its own integral, the exponential function. So only if society is to make a commitment to continued exponential growth of emissions can such an offset be maintained indefinitely. And of course exponential growth cannot be maintained forever. So if the cooling influence of aerosols is in fact offsetting much of the warming influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, then when society is unable to maintain this exponential growth, the climate could be in for a real and long-lasting shock."

Personally, I'd rather not have to tell our grandchildren that we didn't attempt to soften our impact on the environment because, due to our myopia, we feared an increase in taxation.

I liked the following bit from this link (apparently from harvard smithsonian)
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/archive/pr0310.html

"For a long time, researchers have possessed anecdotal evidence supporting the existence of these climate extremes," Baliunas says. "For example, the Vikings established colonies in Greenland at the beginning of the second millennium that died out several hundred years later when the climate turned colder. And in England, vineyards had flourished during the medieval warmth. Now, we have an accumulation of objective data to back up these cultural indicators."

Which basically says that man adapted to the climate based on what was presented to him. When it was cold he moved. When it was warmer he came back. Seems that England and Greenland use to be quite warm. This doesnt appear to be from some kook on the left or right it's from "NASA, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the American Petroleum Institute"

This wasn't the key to the article but sort of put things in perspective to me. They actually were saying that we're not in a period of "extreme" weather any more than we were at any other time in the past 1000 years. Thankfully none of us will be here in 1000 years to give the other the big I told you so. People will adapt just like they have since the dawn of man. I'm all for building a few dozen more nuclear plants to help with the problem. I'm guessing those who are screaming the loudest that we're slow roasting the polar bears won't like that idea a bit either.

With a global average temperature that was three-tenths of a degree Celsius (0.54º Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, 2005 tied with 2002 as the second warmest year in the past 27, according to data gathered by NOAA satellites and processed at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).

Temperatures in 2005 followed a general pattern seen over the past 27 years, with the most significant warming seen in the northernmost third of the planet — especially in the Arctic. Large regions of slightly warmer than normal temperatures covered much of the globe.

Since November 1978, the Arctic atmosphere has warmed at a rate that is more than seven times faster than the average warming trend over the southern two-thirds of the globe.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is from the University of Alabama, Huntsville website. You know, the guys that supposedly re-ran the data and found global warming to be a fraud. http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=291

Why not do some fact checking. One thing I learned from the newspaper business is that reporters are lazy, generally ignorant people. Read some actual science websites and educate yourself.
What is the agenda of the thousands of scientists that developed the global warming data? They want to make you pay higher taxes and drive a Prius? I really don't understand what you think scientists have to gain from fudging the data on global warming.

What's to gain??? Their paycheck. Many of these scientist, if not most, receive grants to study this subject. The grants is what gives them a job and a paycheck. This works both ways. Scientist can "swing" evidence either way depending on who is paying for it.



Ice is growing thicker in the Antartic. These photo's show a construction crane nearly burried and the other a 120-foot communication towers with only 30 feet left to see.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet.htm

As I pointed out yesterday Robert Felix is a former architect. Is that who you get your scientific information from? I was very impressed by the obviously photoshoped picture of the transmission towers buried in snow, you know the one he doesn't even have a source for.
If you would like to know why the Antartic is seeing more snow than normal I suggest, again, that you go to the National Geographic website. There you can learn all about how Antarctica generates it's own micro climate. But you would have to be interested in educating yourself to do something like that and you obviously just want to argue.
Yes, every scientist in the world is involved in a vast conspiracy to generate research grants for themselves, except of course the scientists that disagree. They don't get any research money as evidenced by their lack of research, and you are well informed because you look at websites run by former architects and frauds like Richard Hoagland.

Hamma,

I read the article, and I'm fully aware that the author still wants to try to curb CO2 as much as possible. I knew it does not support my view fully but it does damper some of the alarmist claims like AL Gore’s extreme views like 9 of the last 10 hottest years on record are since 1995.

I have said repeatedly in this thread that Nuclear would do just that. (The author agrees as well)
I've read that if the US kept pace with France in the production of nuclear facilities to produce energy we would be UNDER the Kyoto agreement

Steve McIntyre, also kills the Hockey stick graph, showing the alarming trend that is causing a panic. So he is credible when he supports the position as you clearly pointed out in the article, is he still credible in the links below?

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
“But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records. “

“But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.”
“Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape! “

http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=95

My point throughout this entire debate, is this:

1)A huge percentage of the data is based upon statistical modeling that is a hypothetical guess.

2)There are scientists out there that have found flaws within the data, and instead of open honest debate it is quietly reported, or the person challenging it is waved off as an idiot because they are not part of the climate change culture.

3)It is true that many opposing people have an axe to grind.
The same is true on the scientific side. The UN just hosted an 11,000 person conference about this, they want billions of dollars (Much from the US) to give to other countries. They also want to control and issue “Carbon Credits” http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cf...36275/story.htm
These credits will be like a global tax. (Hypothetically)It would work like this, say the US is issued 1,000,000 credits, but hey the economy grows more rapidly than they expected Hmm… I know we will just buy come carbon credits from the Congo, they never use theirs all they do is sell them. Wow instant global wealth transfer. ( Hint: This is why Bush asked at the G8 summit for only 15 nations to meet and come up with their own framework, so they could cut the UN and their agenda out)

4)There are HUGE resources promoting one side of the science, and the skeptics rarely if ever see press attention because they do not have the “if it bleeds it leads” catchy headlines that never will get equal time.

5)The extremist claims are intended to scare the hell out of everyone, and if it all turns out to be BS they can just claim well at least the planet is cleaner, but to what cost? I’d rather they be working on cleaning polluted rivers or lakes we get our drinking water from with the monies.

6)There are other solutions to the problems, rather than taxing and regulation (I personally think the damn near 50% tax I pay is high enough) If you think that the 50% number is crazy research it yourself (Hint it’s not just what they take out of your paycheck)

Some examples of solutions:

Nuclear power, (Envromentalists hate this )

Wind Turbines on the coasts (Martha’s Vineyard residents killed this)

Drilling off Florida to reduce Coal burning plants. (Florida residents say no)

Drilling in Anwar.

1 Billion dollar Grant for a 100 MPG car/SUV that is mass producable, cost effiecient and similar to a typical car ( cost and performance of Ford Explorer)

500 million dollar Grant for solar panels for home use that are affordable and will reduce typical home energy consumption by 50% (Affordable meaning the cost of a typical home furnace)

500 million dollar grant to create CO2 scrubbers that reduce Coal burning plant emissions by 30%, that are cost competitive with existing units, setting tax incentives for plants to move to them as the older units need repaired or replaced.

I’m sure all of the smart people out there could think of some more…


Finally, for everyone who thinks that the skeptics are completely off base please provide the links with the backup scientific data for the following:

What % off Greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere, (Please don’t forget to include water vapor in your percentages.), also please include the % effect on warming rates (I’ve read that Methane creates 20 times more impact than CO2.) Also please include accurate % of what if any of these substances are man made. (I.E. if there is 5% CO2 and 80% of that is natural then the net overall greenhouse CO2 made by man would be 1%)

Please provide a study, showing the % of CO2, Methane and all of the greenhouse gases, using the exact same testing method and source. (I.E. the test data should still be recording CO2 levels to today from the same ice core, not the Antartic ice core for a while, then shifting to the siple ice core, then to an atmospheric measuring station on Mauna Loa , Hawaii) Measuring CO2 on a volcano seems a little silly to me.
Please include findings on pressure reducing variations or accuracy, and degradation in the ice cores, as well as any comparisons to conflicting data in the geological or fossil records that may be more accurate.

I love old quotes:
”This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976 “

”If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)”


And here are your bullet points, shooting down anything anyone will ever question you about.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/...ng-sceptic.html

This is my last report, I love to debate, it’s educational and fun but I need to get back to the battlefield.


P.S. no offense to anyone here, good open discussion is what these and other issues should be about.

Here's something thats going to do some damage.Wonder what caused this?

www.infowars.net/articles/december2007/211207asteroid.htm

You know it isn't hard to find some reports on the growing ice in the Antartic:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...s/V9/N45/C2.jsp

Contrary to all the horror stories one hears about global warming-induced mass wastage of the Antarctic ice sheet leading to rising sea levels that gobble up coastal lowlands worldwide, the most recent decade of pertinent real-world data suggest that forces leading to just the opposite effect are apparently prevailing, even in the face of what climate alarmists typically describe as the greatest warming of the world in the past two millennia or more.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-...ais-thicker.htm

New measurements show the ice in West Antarctica is thickening, reversing some earlier estimates that the sheet was melting.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/...20130074839.htm

The stability of the West Antarctic ice sheet has long been a concern because of the potentially catastrophic rise in sea level that would result from its collapse. Researchers at UCSC and NASA now report that, contrary to previous studies, at least one part of the ice sheet is actually growing rather than shrinking.



And here NASA has built a computer model using satalite data for the first time. This shows a predicted cooling of the poles instead of a warning.

http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/environment/sea_ice.html

A new NASA-funded study finds that predicted increases in precipitation due to warmer air temperatures from greenhouse gas emissions may actually increase sea ice volume in the Antarctic’s Southern Ocean. This adds new evidence of potential asymmetry between the two poles, and may be an indication that climate change processes may have different impact on different areas of the globe.



My hole point with the "Global Warming Crisis" is we need much much much more data before we make drastic global economical decisions that may prohibit the ability of developing countries to provide for themsleves as well as creating economic strife with severe taxation for those countries that already have a strong developed economy.

Example: There already is a food shortage (wheat) in undeveloped nations because the US (which feeds a lot of the global market) stopped growing it in the wake of artificially inflated corn prices to make ethonal products.

"Carbon Credits" sounds like a disaster in the making to me.

Good points, Vinny, but do you have any more recent information? You've cited one article that is FIVE years old, written in 2002, and another that was published two years ago.

That certainly doesn't negate your point, the issue before us is extremely complex and the experts have predicted that we'll see wild fluctuations across the globe. For instance, data that was recorded in Greenland and the Arctic this past summer appears to be an incredible aberration. The melting has accelerated to such an extent that many climatologist hope this was a complete fluke of nature.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71211233433.htm

Reuters reported earlier this month that the Antarctic peninsula is "warming five times faster than the average in the rest of the world" and researchers are claiming that this has caused a slump in the penquin population:

http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL11693128.html

It seems that no matter what kind of data is being returned, the obvious solution is for all of us to take small steps to try to do our part. Even if you think the phrase "global warming" is the biggest marketing ploy since the Loch Ness Monster, it seems to me that it would behoove all of us to cut back on our energy use. The less energy we use, the less energy we are going to have to buy from countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and all the OPEC member nations.

Here in Maine we've got plenty of incentive to cut back on our energy consumption. The mercury spewing from coal-fired power plants in the midwest have polluted all of our lakes and streams. That has, in turn, poisoned all of the fish in every body of fresh water in our pristine state. We have fish advisories posted that warn us that pregnant or nursing mothers and children should not eat any fresh water fish. Men are supposed to restrict their diet to one serving of fish per month.

To do my part, I went through my house and replaced all my incandescent bulbs with compact flourescent lightbulbs. I rewired the bathroom lights so the main switch for the room would light a single CFL in the fan instead of the bank of lights over the vanity. The secondary light switch turns on the vanity lights. Now, when someone gets up from the livingroom to go to the bathroom and throws the switch, they only burn 13 watts of electricity instead of the 240 watts they would have burned before I rewired the switches. It was a simple change that saves an incredible amount of energy and money!

I had been a bit skeptical that my small efforts would make a difference, but I was stunned to see my monthly electric bill drop from an average of $100/month to $48/month. If we all made these small changes, that would mean we could start shutting down many of the remaining oil-fired power plants in the country, and perhaps we could begin the process of weaning ourselves from the grips of OPEC.

So, whether you are blowing warm or cold air, it makes sense to spend a few more bucks to buy those CFLs the next time you need a lightbulb!

Unbelievable! I just spent an hour in replying to you Hamma and I lost it all! At least the third time this has happened! I'm not going to redo it all. I'll leave it a mystery. And don't expect anymore long winded posts by me! Crap! I'm pissed.

In essence, yes there are newer reports 2004, 2005.
And I listed a whole slew of energy saving projects I've done to my household including compact flouresects.

Damn- those Gremlins I hired are pretty good!
I hate when that happens - not that many times fortunately

Hey Pat, if only you could get those Gremlins to do something about Global Warming!! LOL!

Ah, Vinny, I feel your pain. All that time, and nothing to show for it! And it was certainly time you could have been spending with your family. I'll imagine a highly informative post that brought me up to date on the surprising cooling that is overtaking the entire Antarctic continent.

I'd be very interested to hear about the work you did around your house. I remember that terrific pool house you built, but save it for when we are on Vent. Go spend some time with the family!! And, pour me another Cap'n Morgan & Diet Coke while you are up.

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays!

- David

Interesting new book I heard about concerning global warming

http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Sci...n/dp/0980076315

I heard the person talk about the book, it sounds pretty good.

thing that worries me is that giant crack in antartica that just happend . but hey its probably propoganda or something.

Here's a new(ish) video from Al Gore and climate change. An update really, to An Inconvenient Truth.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/243

I thought it was pretty good. Please check it out.

Is it me or does Al Gore look more and more like Vince McMahon everyday...

They both sell BS and with a lot of theatrics. I'm waiting for the Hurricane "Undertaker" to destroy us all in a tack covered cage match.

I guess I would listen to Al if he had the balls to debate anyone openly about these issues, ever notice how all he ever does is give speeches.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092707B

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewb...t_more_debates/

All Gore ever does is put down people who have a seperate opinion as deniers, flat earther, fake moon landing crackpots

If you will not stand on a stage and back your opnions with scientific facts and have an open debate then you are a chicken shit
Gore wants to repress all other scientific options because he does not believe in the scientific data enough to let the facts stand on their own merit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

I can't speak to Al Gore's reasons for avoiding specific debates, but I do know that the YouTube clip you linked to was debunked a while ago. I believe this was part of a program that aired in England titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle."

Dive into the piece a bit and it is easy to see that there is a lot of bullshit flying.

If you are familiar with the "scientists" who speak out in opposition to carbon as a major contributor, you'll note that virtually everyone of them draws a salary from the oil companies. So, from the gitgo, their "science" can hardly be viewed as unbiased.

The canard of carbon levels lagging behind temperature levels was disproved very early in the debate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...o2-in-ice-cores
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...n-temp-and-co2/

The arguments that recent global warming is caused by solar activity have been debunked by science:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm...1/scisun111.xml

One of the naysayers on the YouTube clip isn't even a scientist and is certainly not qualified as a voice of science. He only earned a bachelor's degree in Physics in 1969. He is known for an online weather forecasting betting service he started in 1995. Many of his predictions have proved to be widely inaccurate.

I assume you feel that he isn't "chicken shit," but how do you explain that after his inaccurate weather forecasts were publicized by London newspapers, he banned the publication of any accounts of his predictions unless he gave explicit approval. That sounds like chicken shit to me!

One of the other speakers on the video was challenged in Canadian newspapers by a climatologist who wrote an op-ed stating that "he does not have the academic background and qualifications to make serious comments on global warming" That guy sued the newspaper and the paper responded by proving that he had lied about his academic background AND he was a paid shill for the oil and gas industry. He took the chicken shit route and dropped his lawsuit. LOL!

I'll think about these guys the next time I'm filling my gas tank. Nice to know the obscene record setting profits the oil companies are raking in are used so effectively.

Good links HammaTime,
I was searching for something else and it lead me to that link, I watched it but did no research it further in my rush.... I agree that the person sounds chicken shit to me to stand by his beliefs and not admit to being wrong.

The isteresting thing about this is it is a live debate, there are scientists on both sides throwing facts all about. I do not like hearing that all debate is closed which I am starting to hear more and more.

Some are bought and paid for on both sides. What concerns me is the LACK of honest debate in the media in genearal about this issue. Both sides are left scurring to the interet to find facts and opinions presented by both sides and the truth about what will happen is conjecture and hypothetical guess.
It will never be known until it has happened.

Al Gore is investing 300 million (from who???) to make global warming a topic on the presidential debates, has testified before congress, and is pushing this issue. He had 8 years to make this a top priority, but now it is the utmost crisis?

The thing that scares me most is the cap and trade (carbon credit) tax concepts that will be the outcome without honest debate.
Watch the John Kerry / Newt Gingrich debate.. There are solutions rather than HUGE government / UN control. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7844874520095835803

The point of the thread re-start and the link to the book was that the author suggested that he had unbiased, experts in their fields that were against conclusive evidence about man made global warming. As I said originally I had not read it, but the amazon thread lists about 15 scientists that are discussed in the book and their backgrounds.
From the interview the author stated that he is a staunch environmentalist and activist. He mentioned that he believed fully the man made global warming theory and set out to prove that there were no credable scientists that were against it. his research shocked him and he wrote the book to help re-open the debate.

From the "man made" deniers point of view if there are credable scientists that have alternative hypothises and show errors in the original data that everyone trumpets as fact then the debate should still be open.

I found this old link about some deniers and their background, maybe they all have been proven as lapdogs for big oil, or maybe they just look at the science from their own perspective and not a foregone conclusion and look for the science to justify their pre-concieved notions.
It's a 10 part series
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=...0bed2f6&k=0

Lastly HammaTime , this has been a great topic and you have brought a lot of data to be sifted thru and I wish this is what I would see in my nightly news and in the paper rather than another topic on ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1998570/posts
Or Ted Turner going NUTZ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LZuC1xLHXRc&feature=related

I've really enjoyed all the posts involving global warming, and I certainly agree that we all should cast a critical eye whenever someone claims to have "all the facts."

Unfortunately, the science behind such a complex issue as climate change is really more than us laypersons can truly grasp. We are left at the mercy of folks who seek to exploit our lack of sophisticated understanding so that they might make a buck. And, obviously, this happens on all sides of an issue.

My biggest concern is that it is getting harder and harder to know if the information we are being handed has been prepared honestly. Dig a little deeper into the background of those providing the info and it all too often becomes apparent that they have an ax to grind, or someone is paying them a lot of money in support of their position. That isn't science, it is advocacy.

Just tonight the AP is reporting that a glacier lake in Chili suddenly emptied. The water bore through five miles of glaciated ice. This is exactly what scientists have discovered is happening in Greenland.

A recent book I read that proved to be interesting was "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas.

http://www.amazon.com/Six-Degrees-Future-H...t/dp/142620213X

He did some exhaustive research into the published scientific papers that have been written on climate issues. He starts with predictions of what our planet will be like with 1 degree change, the next chapter he writes about 2 degree change and on until six degrees. I quickly read through the first two chapters, but found myself putting the book down once he reached 3 degrees. I started having a hard time absorbing the reality of such extensive change. Hell, the one degree change was really more than I wanted to stomach.

Keep in mind that six degrees of cooling had most of North America covered with over a mile of ice, so six degrees of heating represents a monumental change in the opposite direction.

As I read the book, I kept thinking about the Defense Department's report on climate change, "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security" and their implication that the military wouldn't be able to protect America after just a couple of degrees of warming. You may not have heard about the report because the government allegedly tried to keep it under wraps and the media seemed relatively disinterested in it. The London Observer first reported the findings:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004...ews.theobserver

One of the best articles on the report was done by Fortune magazine, with the cooperation of the DoD:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/for...60120/index.htm

You can read the entire report by downloading the PDF here:

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231

Obviously, the report was based on some questionable data, but the bottom line is that it doesn't take much change to completely alter the social fabric of our world.

To keep this related to the gaming world a bit, a game I've really enjoyed is "Frontlines: Fuel of War" which takes place in this dark future where new alliances have been formed as the world struggles with the lack of oil.

The DoD isn't sitting around on their hands worrying if carbon levels rightly proceeded temperature levels. They looked at a few basic facts and determined that a dark scenario may be playing out here. They undoubtedly are making intensive preparations for the defense of our country.

Come to think of it, if I was Al Gore, I'm not sure I'd want to be wasting my time debating with the very few folks left who still feel this isn't something for which we need to be preparing. If I had his resources, I'd be out pressing for people to stand up and start working to protect our country and our planet.

I live in Maine.



Just down the road from Hamma.



I want as much global warming as I can get.

Amen to that!

However....... Most places across the length of Canada reported their most snowiest winter on record!

That's why the term really should be "climate change" and not global warming. Some areas heat up, some areas cool down, some experience crippling drought while others suffer from devastating floods and some won't experience any change at all.

The big question remains, what do we do.

Skyrocketing prices for flour (here in Maine we've seen prices jump 500% in the last six months) are partly blamed on the shift to Ethanol production in the states and Canada. Farmers have converted some wheat fields to corn to take advantage of tax breaks. But, at the same time, drought in Australia has whithered their wheat crop and the spreading stem rust disease is killing wheat crops in Asia.

With the weak dollar, China can afford to outbid US buyers and they've gobbled up much of the available wheat. This is just one example of people who think they are doing the right thing (shifting to Ethanol) who end up causing more trouble down the line. Canada has responded by announcing an expected 11% increase in their wheat production for next year, but our US presidential candidates seem completely disinterested in the issue.

I've read a lot of predictions that say America will be protected from mass starvation because of the wealth of the country. Well, that wealth is whithering on the vine, along with the wheat, thanks to the incredibly depreciated dollar.

These are dire times indeed.

Well what about this.Of course you know your Goverment loves you.(Dead)

www.infowars.com/?p=1447

Get in the dying cockroach position. Old Army Term



Click to view attachment

Never mind gas prices causing food prices to rise- watch how the major shift by farmers to just producing ethanol producing crops cuts into less basic food crops being produced- lower output = higher prices can be gotten for these food produces by the producers/suppliers - we'll simply have no choice but to pay whatever modestly higher prices they seek.
Ohhh, and there are reports of very major eco-damage by the fertilizers used for these crops now seeping into waterways -gulf of Mexico for one.

WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 4,600-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.

Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

-The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%

-CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100

-Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly

-The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500

-The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated

-“Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years
-Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling

-The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%

-It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible

-Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed

-In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

Read some of the info here as well as the conclusion!
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2...load/july08.pdf

BWAHHHHHA HAHAHA!!

Oh, Blitzy I didn't realize you were such a comedian.

"Peer review!!" What a hoot.

This man you claim was "peer reviewed," who, I wonder, were his "peers?!" Was it other tabloid reporters (that is his background, newspapers, not science)!

Perhaps you'd be interested in another of these "peer reviewed" papers!

I believe RealClimate had it about right in an article titled "Cuckoo Science" when they stated, "we have a little fun in pointing out some of the absurdities that occasionally pass for serious 'science' on the web and in the media. These pieces look scientific to the layperson (they have equations! references to 19th Century physicists!), but like cuckoo eggs in a nest, they are only designed to look real enough to fool onlookers and crowd out the real science. A cursory glance from anyone knowledgeable is usually enough to see that concepts are being mangled, logic is being thrown to the winds, and completetly unjustified conclusions are being drawn - but the tricks being used are sometimes a little subtle."

This guy has developed a nickname on the web, "Peerless Prevaricator." Many claim he is a pathological liar. He is not a member of the House of Lords as proven at that link. He claims he shared the Nobel Peace Prize, and his reasoning is that he noticed a typo in the IPCC report. Give me a break!

You have been fooled.

Realclimate.org...

Yes it is a blog by high and important scientists.
they also make a lot of money and grants by pushing their views, and agenda.

They are also run by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Media_Services

Everytime a skeptic is brought up, it's always here is where they are wrong, and here is what they are beholden to.

See Vincent Gray http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id...d155a32&p=1

I'll save you the trouble...http://www.exxonsecrets.com/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1138

see how easy that was.

There are whole Blogs dedicates on how to talk to climate skeptics
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/...ng-sceptic.html
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/25/22413/741
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080303/why-...ts-are-misnamed
http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam

I guess what it all comes down to is the following
A hypothsis was presented based upon computer models of futueristic projections.
People present another hyposis, to predict that something that is projected to happen will not.
Skeptics are stuck defending a negative on an assumption

All the while fighting huge media, internet infrestructure and academia with a political agenda... and yes academia as a whole has a large Liberal bias.

Any change in current thought and it's immediatly shot down, the average temp drops down to 1900 levels.... Al Nina... a quick answer... anamolys happen, Don't worry we are right... another cold year and it will be something else...
Here i will explain away why the temperature has not increased since 1998
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...p#comment-79183

I guess I just don't buy the hype, it seems like political driven science.

Ok... Tired of surfing and this has turned to rambling