Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...

[Lisa]

I saw this on James P. Hogan's website this morning, and I felt I had to share:

GLOBAL COOLING: 1895-1932

The Times, February 24, 1895
"Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again"
Fears of a "second glacial period" brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia's climate.

New York Times, October 7, 1912
"Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age"

Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923
"The possibility of another Ice Age already having started ... is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak."

Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923
"Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."

Time Magazine, September 10, 1923
"The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age."

New York Times, September 18, 1924
"MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1929-1969

New York Times, March 27, 1933
"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise"

Time Magazine, January 2, 1939
"Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right.... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

Time Magazine, 1951
Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year.

New York Times, 1952
Reported global warming studies citing the "trump card" as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat.

U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954
"[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing."

GLOBAL COOLING: 1954-1976

Time Magazine, June 24, 1974
"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations the are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Science News, March 1, 1975
"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the 'very extraordinary period of warmth' that preceded it."

International Wildlife, July-August, 1975
"But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime."

New York Times, May 21, 1975
"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1990s-?

Earth in the Balance, Al Gore, 1992
"About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of systenance because of the rising sea level due to global warming, in the next few decades."

Time Magazine, April 19, 2001
"[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible."

New York Times, December 27, 2005
"Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming"

The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2002
"Billions will dies, says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not usually a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a 'broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords,' and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot where a few breeding couples will survive."

[John L]

It is so nice to discover that another SF writer is not taken in by this hysteria. Hogan is a good bloke, and a fair writer. From an anthropological POV, the Giants stories did not pass the scientific 'smell' test, but I enjoyed them all the same.

This particular article, which he wrote, peaked my interest.

Quote:December 30, 2006
Rewriting the Past
Twiddling The Data To Give Desired Answers

Berkeley Professor Emeritus of Law Phillip Johnson is quoted as saying, "Whenever science is enlisted in a political cause, the result is always that the scientists themselves become fanatics."

Despite numerous suggestions that I should, I haven't followed the current fashion of opening a blog. I find them the biggest time-waster since televison--which I don't watch either. But somebody who follows a list of exchanges between scientists committed to promoting the Global Warming line sent me a copy of a posting in which one of them exhorted "We've got to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period!" The reference was to the period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings established settlements and farms on Greenland, the Chinese sailed in the seas north of Siberia, and burning hydrocarbon fuels had nothing to do with it. By "get rid of" he meant finding a way of massaging the data to expunge the event from the record, along with its inconvenient implications. Think about what that means. We have a clear-cut instance of a dogmatic belief that is to be instilled and circulated for ideologically motivated reasons, with contrary evidence being suppressed and dissent silenced. And this is popularized by the media and defended by journals as constituting "science."

Some time ago, I posted an item about the notorious Hockey Stick report that purported to achieve precisely the above objective by ironing out pre-1900 temperature swings, but was shown to employ a devious statistical procedure that made the desired result inevitable, even when given random data as input. Nevertheless, it is still widely cited and used as a guide for policymaking. Since then, John L. Daly has produced an informative piece entitled "The 'Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science," posted at http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm that provides ample charts and figures to show that temperatures have indeed cycled significantly through the past thousand years, and the cause is almost certainly variations in the Sun. Daly also discusses the inherent weaknesses of studies such as the Hockey stick that draw their conclusions from analysis of tree rings, which tell only of the growing season and whose growth is affected by such other factors as sunlight, cloudiness, pests, competition, forest fires, soil nutrients, frosts and snow duration, as well as temperature.

An accepted principle of science is that a demonstration of substantial physical evidence that contradicts a theory is sufficient to falsify that theory. To that end, Daly presents ten examples of physical evidence ranging from the Caribbean to East Africa to Tasmania to Japan showing that not only is the Hockey Stick false, but that the Medieval Warm Period and "Little Ice Age" that followed it were not only very real, but also global in extent.

Another interesting piece, referred to me by Thomas Pearson, is one entitled "The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide," by Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman, online at http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2...ittal.html . Analysis of 400,000 years' worth of Vostok Antarctic ice cores shows that carbon dioxide is absorbed from the atmosphere in cold-water regions of the oceans and re-emitted after being tranported to warm regions. Far from being the cause of temperature changes as the currently structured models presume, carbon dioxide levels are controlled by them. The CO2 increase that we're told caused the O.60C warming that took place in the first half of the 20th century, for example, occurred predominantly after 1950. Or as Dr. Glassman puts it:[/size]

Quote:Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures.

And note the last part, which fortifies the science, and has been shown at sites, which I cannot find again. In them CO2 has been shown to increase and decrease as a result of temperature change, not the other way around. AND, the cause of change is the SUN. What about that can't people understand?

Figure 1
"CO2, temperature, and dust concentration
measured from the Vostok, Antarctica ice
core as reported by Petit et al., 1999."
[Dust record deleted.] http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Image: Vostok-ice-core-petit.png#file.

Note the chart, which clearly shows temperature changing first, followed by a change in DO2.

[Ron Lambert]

Lisa, that is pretty good evidence that fads come and go in scientific thought. What is really sad is the outrageous totalitarian spirit of rule or ruin we see among those currently trumpeting global warming, where some are even demanding that scientists who disagree with them be stripped of their degrees, credentials, etc., and virtually be black-balled. I still consider very eye-opening the arguments against the global warming cabal presented by Michael Crichton, in his novel, State of Fear.

This is instructive, because this is exactly the same way many evolutionist scientists behave, all the while denying there is any conspiracy or "fads" of scientific thought. The cabal may not be formally organized, but nonetheless there is a concerted effort to discredit creationists by any means whatsoever, regardless of weight of evidence, morals, or ethics.

Some people think scientists are better than other people, and would never stoop to tyrannical, intolerant, close-minded, fanatical behavior.

My mother served jury duty one time in a case where a medical doctor was accused of brandishing a gun to intimidate someone in a case of road rage that carried over into a visit to a bank drive-through, with lots of witnesses. The lawyers involved were hard put to keep people off the jury who put doctors on a pedestal, and even then, there was one person on the jury who delayed them for a long time because she just couldn't believe that a doctor would do that.

I have debated evolutionists who thought it was pure paranoia to think that mainstream scientists could be capable of intolerance and prejudice, and must be opposing creationism only on the basis of the facts, no matter what clear examples to the contrary are provided.

[Stars & Stripes]

John,

A Finnish professor has been showing that carbon-dioxide solubility in the oceans has been ignored by the man-made GW crowd and must be accounted for. Maybe this the the information you were thinking about. Here's his take.

Quote:Recent research has discovered that a warmer climate corresponds to a higher atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. Two explanations have been presented: Either the carbon dioxide may warm the earth because of the greenhouse effect, or the carbon dioxide concentration may increase due to decreased solubility in the oceans by a temperature increase forced by something else than carbon dioxide. The second explanation can be tested by equilibrium calculations. In this report a general simulation program for chemical equilibrium calculations created by Westerlund (1990) is utilized. Here I will give only a short description of some of the equations involved, and a few results of the calculations with the simulation program.

http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm

http://www.john-daly.com/ahlbeck/ahlbeck.htm

-S

[jt]

Good post, Lisa.

[John L]

For further on the CO2 graph, showing that it follows temperature change, rather than the other way around, check out the thread I started on the Resourses Section.

[John L]

Oh Lord! Here comes the next barrage of Statist screed, in the guise of science. These people remind me of the furniture company in Knoxville, the Brown Squirrel. Each promotion, on TV and radio, was going to be the biggest and bestest ever. Each one was hyped so much that I wondered when the company would actually reach orbit, they were so sky high. Now, I see that the GW Kooks have been taking lessons.

Climate change means hunger and thirst for billions: report

Quote:Billions of people will suffer water shortages and the number of hungry will grow by hundreds of millions by 2080 as global temperatures rise, scientists warn in a new report.

The report estimates that between 1.1 billion and 3.2 billion people will be suffering from water scarcity problems by 2080 and between 200 million and 600 million more people will be going hungry.

Excuse me? I thought that there were arlready that many people going hungry and without safe, potable water already? Is this new?

10 years to save the planet

Quote:A NEW worldwide movement backed by celebrities, musicians, politicians and business leaders is aiming to reverse the effects of global warming over the next decade.

Global Cool launched in London and LA today and is calling on one billion people to reduce their carbon emissions by just one tonne a year, for the next 10 years.

Boffins have found the climatic tipping point - when the climate becomes irreversibly damaged - can be turned back if global CO2 emissions are reduced by one billion tonnes a year.

Amazing! These people think that the planet will be destroyed if we don't do something in ten years. This reminds me of Ted Danson stating, in the mid 80s, that if we didn't do something about the oceans, it would be totally dead in 20 years. Well, 20 years later, I still believe that the oceans are doing far better than they were back then. Tank you Mr. Danson.

U.N. agency pressures Ban on climate crisis summit

Quote:The U.N. environment agency pressured Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday to call an emergency climate summit amid dire reports about the risks from global warming.

A summit, tentatively planned for September, would focus on the hunt for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on cutting greenhouse gases widely blamed for forecasts of more heatwaves, floods, droughts and rising sea levels.

U.N. environment agencies are lobbying Ban to play a leading role in helping governments battle climate change after Kyoto expires in 2012. But he stopped short on Tuesday of endorsing his officials' proposal for a summit of some 20 key leaders.

this is like something out of a Ben Bova SF novel. I have even read some of his dire articles, and even commented on his journalistic pandering to him. He even answered me, stating that he did tend to over do things a little bit. Good for you M. Bova.



Waxman Seeks Climate Inquiry Evidence

Quote:WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Democratic chairman of a House panel examining the government's response to climate change said Tuesday there is evidence that senior Bush administration officials sought repeatedly "to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming."

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said he and the top Republican on his oversight committee, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, have sought documents from the administration on climate policy, but repeatedly been rebuffed.

"The committee isn't trying to obtain state secrets or documents that could affect our immediate national security," said Waxman, opening the hearing. "We are simply seeking answers to whether the White House's political staff is inappropriately censoring impartial government scientists."

"We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger," Waxman said.

Note the attempt to usurp Executive Privilege here. And also note the attempt to demonize any attempt to urge caution on a subject that does not appeal to "The Nostralitus" himself.

'Inconvenient Truth' Producer Pens Kids' Global Warming Text

Quote:- Move over, Chicken Little. A children's book planned for release in September is an attempt to "fill the minds of children with 'sky-is-falling' global warming hysteria," a Republican senator warns.


The producer of former Vice President Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" is hard at work on a new project: writing a book to help school kids "understand why global warming happens."

Scholastic, Inc. - one of the world's largest publishers of children's books, including the "Harry Potter" series - announced Monday that its Orchard Books imprint "has acquired world rights to 'The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming' by Laurie David and Cambria Gordon, scheduled for publication in September 2007."

What is interesting is that when, and I don't mean "If", the next global cooling trend takes place, where will this hysteria turn? If you think that global cooling will be blamed on global warming, and the nasty capitalist pig neysayers, YOU WIN!!!

Meanwhile two books, containing more solid and less hysteric contents, explain that the GW process is natural and is caused by GASP! The sun. Who would ever "thunk" of that one?

Quote:Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity
Tue Jan 30 2007 10:02:32 ET

Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.

Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.

Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.

The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started floating through the chamber.

“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” says Svensmark.

The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the sun’s irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth’s temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth’s atmosphere from outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.

Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.

[John L]

I found this article interesting, in that a scientist, who acknowledges voting for Algore, manages to debunk much of what he is attempting to push.

Also here is another thing that constantly fills my head, every time I see the late president of about 10 minutes. It seems that about once in a century, we are blessed with a consumate 'blowhard', who captures the imagination of a sizable minority of the citizenry. One hundred years ago, it was the consumate airbag, William Jennings Bryan.

Obviously, the successor to Bryan is none other than Algore, and he to is preaching a religion, of sorts. Will he end up in the same stature as Bryan? I certainly hope so. They both blew, and blow, more hot aire than they should have, and finally were the seeds of their own undoing. Perhaps we will have another Scopes Monkey Trial equivalent, where Algore can claim a victory, as he sinks into the Curse of Annominity.

[angelfish83]

has anyone factored all the hot air politicians spew out into the whole global warming calculation?

[John L]

Here is James P Hogan's latest entry at his home site.

I know, just another stupid Science Fiction writer. What do they know about science?

Quote:BEHIND THE MASK

I've long maintained that the real agenda behind the environmentalists' opposition to rational energy use and any technology that brings real comfort and benefit to humans is population reduction and control. But you can't openly acknowledge the aims of measures that imply the elimination of three or four billion people. Like environmentalists, I accept that unchecked, exponential growth would soon result in an unlivable planet. Unlike them, I believe that changes in behavior and life styles cause sufficiently advanced populations to become self-limiting in numbers in ways that simplistically applying models derived from freely breeding animal populations to humans don't address--see for example an earlier Comment on nuclear energy. The way to a better future in which human, not animal, values determine the quality of life requires leaders with the knowledge, vision, and courage to press on to the far side of the bridge, instead of retreating back from the halfway point to conditions reminiscent of the Black Death or the Thirty Years War, after which the bridge would only have to be crossed again later.

Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, who has consistently stood for solid, observation-based science and challenged the official line on global warming, wrote back in 1996:

Quote:Also, although ideally science is independent of moral fashions, in practice there is undoubtedly an influence. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to consider whether moral fashions are robust. In the case of eugenics, it is evident that the progressive moral fashion of one era later came to be regarded as morally repugnant. Whether the same fate awaits today's environmental ethos is impossible to predict, if only because of the ambiguities of the environmental ethos. However, to the extent that the current environmental ethos calls for restricting the economic prospects of the world's poorer countries, it is by no means inconceivable that it too will come to be regarded as repugnant by future generations.

Science and Politics: Global Warming and Eugenics, in: Risks, Costs, and Lives Saved, R.W. Hahn, editor, Oxford University Press, New York, 1996

Well put, Dick

(The eugenicists deplored that too many of the "wrong" kinds of people--i.e. people unlike themselves--were reproducing, and sought state-enforced measures to rectify the situation. The irony of this, which would be funny if the consequences wern't so dire, is that by the eugenicists' own Darwinian definition, whoever are the most successful reproductively automatically constitute the most "fit". Period.)

J.P.H.

[WarBicycle]

Quote:Newsweek Magazine, April 28th 1975:
There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas - parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras - and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

"The world’s food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Source

This is what brought on pollution controls in vehicles, now they're trying to force up to purchase products we don't need.[/url]

[Palladin]

Bottom line,behind all this hokey pokey is population reductions,only not THEM. I think the abortion movement is largely animated by this fear,not by "women's rights",though that is part of it.

It always has amazed me how these guys want to reduce the human population,but,it doesn't include them.

[jt]

Palladin Wrote:It always has amazed me how these guys want to reduce the human population,but,it doesn't include them.

An astute observation.

It's the darn proles that are causing the problems, in their mind. However, one of them recently committed suicide to reduce their own carbon footprint, and others do not procreate. This should be encouraged. Crank up the guilt machine.

[JohnWho]

jt Wrote:

Palladin Wrote:It always has amazed me how these guys want to reduce the human population,but,it doesn't include them.

An astute observation.

Maybe.

If they included themselves though, wouldn't that be somewhat self-destructive?

"We" are needed, "you" are not.

[John L]

A good way to see what is most likely to happen is to pay attention to what inventories and investments show. For example, look at this.

Quote:Hedge-fund managers and other large speculators increased their net-long positions, or bets prices will rise, in New York heating oil futures in the week ended Sep. 22, according to U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission data Sept. 25.

“It could be one of the coldest winters, or the coldest, winter of the decade,” Rogers said.

U.S. inventories of distillate fuels, which include heating oil, are at their highest since January 1983, the U.S. Energy Department said Sept. 23. Stockpiles of 170.8 million barrels in the week ended Sept. 18 are 28 percent above the five-year average.

Heating oil for October delivery rose 1.38 cents, or 0.8 percent, to settle at $1.6909 a gallon on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Get your cold weather gear out, and get them ready.

[John L]

Things are just getting coolder and coolder.

Michigan: Morning temp sets new record

Orlando officially dropped to 62 degrees, which is just one degree shy of the record

Idaho Quick cold snap fills up homeless shelters

Meanwhile, sunspots are still practically nonexistant. Only three in the past 85 plus days, and two were at the same time.

Meanwhile, Much, Much, much more to come.................................

[Thaiquila]

Since so many of you have "offspring" I hope you have prepared a message for your grandchildren about how you thought it was OK to ignore the warnings of Al Gore as our earth becomes uninhabitable for human beings. You greedy fools!

[John L]

Thaiquila Wrote:Since so many of you have "offspring" I hope you have prepared a message for your grandchildren about how you thought it was OK to ignore the warnings of Al Gore as our earth becomes uninhabitable for human beings. You greedy fools!

Greedy? LOL!!, just wise, that's all FeatherMerchant.

[jt]

Thaiquila Wrote:Since so many of you have "offspring" I hope you have prepared a message for your grandchildren about how you thought it was OK to ignore the warnings of Al Gore as our earth becomes uninhabitable for human beings. You greedy fools!

Our grandchildren will be trying to grow corn and wheat in the southern part of the US as the glaciers move south across Canada and Chicago.

[JohnWho]

But, the higher CO2 levels will allow the wheat and corn fields to produce more, negating their loss in the north.