Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Anti-Climate Alarmist Revolt is On!
#61
Quote:Every summer (our winter), the edges of Antarctica warm up just enough for some snow to melt. Obviously, a little warming will create quite a bit more melting, which is a factor in dreaded sea-level rise from global warming.

Satellites have been monitoring this activity in both the North and South polar regions since 1980. What Tedesco wrote was this: "A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008-09" (emphasis added).

Note it says "30 year minimum Antarctic snowmelt.

Here's the chart:

[Image: michaels-101909-summer-melt-graph.jpg]

The snow is melting less and the ice is increasing throughout about 90% of Antartica.

The most important point though, is that NASA did not send out a press release on this, but did send out press releases when it appeared that the snowmelt was increasing.

Quote: NASA's seems to beat the drum only when the news on global warming is bad, and remains mute when it is good.


Say it isn't so! There are people here who believe that NASA only gives the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[Image: rofl2kyi.gif]

Complete article h e r e.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#62
JohnWho Wrote:The snow is melting less and the ice is increasing throughout about 90% of Antartica.

The most important point though, is that NASA did not send out a press release on this, but did send out press releases when it appeared that the snowmelt was increasing.

JW, if I recall correctly, that was a report, in which they use one anomaly over the entire region. They kooks were quite excited over this fact.

However, NASA conveniently overlooked the FACT that the year before, or two years, it was discovered that under that very spot, an active volcano was confirmed.

Surprise,.........Surprise,..........surprise!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#63
This is not just a science lesson, but also an economic and political lesson. NASA and other supposedly objective organizations are funded by taxes and the goodwill of legislators. The bureaucrats in charge of these organizations have their positions because of those same politicians. Included in this list are the alphabets: FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD, and all the rest.

If you want truth and accuracy, look to entrepreneurial companies that can only profit by presenting a product which can be vetted for honesty which holds truth and accuracy above partisan politics.
Reply
#64
Representative John Linder, does a pretty good job of covering all of the AGW bases.

Quote:Climate challenges
By Rep. John Linder
For the last several years, when people have instructed me that human activity was causing a dangerous increase in global temperatures, my response has been, "Then tell me, what should the temperature be?" Should it be the temperatures that the planet experienced 1,000 years ago during which Greenland was settled as a farming community and during which wine grapes were grown in Scotland? Should it be the temperatures of 300 years ago when the Little Ice Age ended the inhabitation of Greenland and the Thames iced over? Should it be the temperatures of 829 A.D. when the Nile River froze? No response!

We are told, based on computer models, that human beings burning fossil fuels, and exhaling, are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and that this, in turn, is trapping heat and is responsible for the modest temperature increase between 1976 and 1998. The conclusion is that we must alter our entire lifestyles to avoid a planetary catastrophe.

For computer models to be accurate, inputs must include all of the factors that can impact climate. Knowing this, as well as believing it is likely that the majority of factors that do impact climate are yet unknown, how can we trust the models?

To begin with, CO2 is not driving temperature, as is being claimed for today's warmth. We know from cores taken from the Vostok glacier in Antarctica that while CO2 and temperatures do increase and decrease in consonance; the temperature changes precede the CO2 changes by about 1,000 years.

We currently have about 388 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere by volume. That is at the lower end of the historical comfort scale. The most fertile time that our planet has ever seen was during the Cambrian Period about 542 million years ago. In a very short period of time all of multicellular life that has ever existed was deposited in the fossil evidence. That occurred because the planet was warm. The CO2 level in the atmosphere was 20 times higher than it is today. The entire planet was green with growth and oxygen levels were unusually high.

Likewise, during the period of dinosaur dominance, CO2 levels were 5 times higher than today, enabling the planet to grow enough greenery to keep them alive.

Even today, the most diverse part of our planet in both plant and animal life is around the Equator -- the warmest area of the globe.

We are told that the calving of ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula is proof that the world's largest ice pack, which comprises about 90% of the globe's ice, is melting. The Antarctic Peninsula constitutes 2% of the continent. The other 98% of the continent has been growing by about 27 gigatons of ice per year. This comes not from computer models, but from 30 years of satellite measurements. Those same empirical observations show that the sea ice surrounding Antarctica is at a record high extent.

What's more, every computer model shows that greenhouse warming is associated with a "hot spot" located about 4 to 6 miles above the Equator. We have been measuring that spot for 50 years with instruments. It doesn't exist. Thus, whatever warming we see is unlikely to be due to the greenhouse effect as the models explain it.

We are told that the melting of Arctic ice is endangering the future of polar bears. There were 5,000 polar bears 50 years ago. There are 25,000 today. This does not seem like extinction to me. Additionally, Captain Roald Amundsen of Norway explored that entire region in 1905 -- sailing through the North-West Passage -- in a sailboat! Today, there is usually ice blocking his route.

In his movie An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore says that sea levels will rise by 20 feet in the next century, putting much of the world's oceanfront land and islands at risk. Real science tells us that the last glaciation ended about 11,000 years ago. Oceans have risen since then by about 4 feet per century. In the 20th century, sea levels rose by about 8 inches. Indeed, Dr. Nils-Axel Moerner from the University of Stockholm, who has written 520 peer reviewed articles on sea levels and is considered a world authority, recently declared that sea levels have been unchanged for the last 3 years.

Years ago Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, theorized that higher temperatures over the equator caused the cirrus clouds to disappear and heat was vented up over the atmosphere. That theory is now proven to be a fact and has been quantified by NASA. It begins when the surface temperature of the ocean exceeds 28 degrees centigrade. This fact is not considered on the computer models.

This is what this whole discussion comes down to. In science only two conditions obtain. One is theory and the other is fact. The entire notion of human caused global warming is a theory based on computer models. None of it has been proven through rigorous empirical observation to be a fact.

On December 7, 2009, President Obama will send a delegation to Copenhagen, Denmark, for the U.N. Climate Conference. So what exactly is the goal of this conference? A few months ago Al Gore explained the ultimate goal: Global Governance. If the climate alarmists get their way, the U.S. economy would be subject to the whims of a U.N.-led climate government, unaccountable to American taxpayers, but most certainly using American taxpayer funds to operate. Since so many countries are happy to blame the U.S. for the vast majority of what they amusingly claim is a catastrophic slide into global devastation, I am sure that a new U.N. Climate Government will be all too eager to call on the American taxpayer to foot the bill. In fact, the 200-page draft document says just that. We will be billed by an un-elected bureaucracy for our "climate debt." And we will yield our sovereignty to international law.

I noted earlier that this has been a discussion. Unfortunately, it has not been a debate. The alarmists refuse to debate. They say that the science is settled. Nonsense! There is no such thing as settled scientific theory. Only settled scientists. If Al Gore believes his science is settled, he should agree to debate and prove the skeptics wrong. Yet he has been running from debate for years.

To those who ask who would be hurt if we were wrong about CO2 and reduced the amount in the atmosphere, I say only the 1.6 billion most vulnerable people in the world. They are desperate for more CO2 so they can grow a plant to eat. Their lives are brutal and short. They desperately need what we have enjoyed over the last 100 years.

Over the last 2 million years this planet has experienced about 20 glaciations. They last about 100,000 years interrupted by warming periods of about 10,000 years. It has been about 11,000 years since the last glaciation ended. During the last century we saw one of the longest periods of high solar activity since the last glaciation. Temperatures rose. We have seen less sun activity in the last 11 years than we have seen for a very long time. The temperature has also been steady or declining for 11 years. (By the way, not one of the computer models, which so confidently predict what will happen in 100 years, predicted that cooling.) Let us pray that this is not signaling the next glaciation; one that actually kills people.

There is no need for any climate treaty at Copenhagen. It is time to disband the U.N.'s self-serving and serially dishonest climate panel. Officially-sponsored environmental extremism is a danger to our national security.

Representative John Linder (R-GA) sits on the House Ways and Means Committee which has jurisdiction over the Waxman-Markey bill, jurisdiction over the Boxer-Kerry bill should it pass in the Senate, and authority over all carbon taxes generally.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#65
Oh, I just heard this today, and it is a great accompaniment to this issue. It's Thomas Dolby's
Enjoy! Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#66
Hmm...

looks like he (Rep. Linder) has been paying attention.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#67
JohnWho Wrote:Hmm...

looks like he (Rep. Linder) has been paying attention.

Yeah, not all Repubs are Stupid and Gutless. Too bad they are in the minority. S7
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#68
Linder's article is a very nice succinct understandable rebut. Good for him.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#69
Now this:

Quote:Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.

From Americans Skeptical of Science Behind Global Warming

Also:
Quote:But then Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party are more likely than Democrats to see disagreement in the scientific community over global warming and to suspect that data has been falsified.

Does this go back to what we've discussed about which group finds it easier to be told what to think than to think for themselves? I think it does.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#70
And the Revolt really IS on, ladies and Gentlemen. Down Under, in AussieLand, the new leader of the Liberal Party has come out swinging his big fists. The odds are that PM Rudd is going to Have to call an early election soon, in order to try to regain confidence in his government. And the new Liberal leadership has decided to make the election a referendum on the issue of Global Warming.

Quote: Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has challenged Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to a series of public debates on climate change.

The Government plans to re-introduce its emissions trading scheme (ETS) legislation into Parliament when it resumes in February, after the bills were defeated in the Senate last week.

Mr Abbott says most people want more information on the scheme.

"That's code for saying that they don't understand it," he told the Nine Network on Sunday.

"I'd like to challenge the prime minister to a series of public debates on this subject before Parliament comes back.

"This big emissions tax, it's going to be not just for this year or next year, it's going to be forever if it comes in, and it shouldn't come in with(out) the public understanding exactly what it means."

Mr Abbott said the debates could be in a town hall and broadcast to the public or beamed live from a television studio.

"We'll debate it up hill and down dale, we'll debate it once, twice, three times, four times, however many times is necessary until the public feel that they have had their questions answered to their satisfaction," he said.

Referring to former federal opposition leader John Hewson's inability to explain a Goods and Services Tax (GST) to the public, Mr Abbott said: "Perhaps he (Mr Rudd) can explain what the emissions tax will do to the price of a birthday cake".

Mr Abbott said he was prepared to allow the prime minister to choose the debate venue.

"It's really up to him but he can't and shouldn't run away from explaining fully this great big new tax to the Australian public," he said.

He said Mr Rudd often sounded more like a public servant in a seminar than a "retail", or one-on-one, politician.

"But look, I don't under-estimate him. He didn't get to be the prime minister by being foolish or by lacking the ability to communicate and I'm sure he would give a good account of himself."

Citing comments from Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) board member and economist Warwick McKibbin, Mr Abbott said Australia could reduce its carbon emissions by at least five per cent without an emissions trading scheme (ETS).

"I haven't said it will be cost-free ... but I think there are all sorts of ways of paying for this that don't involve a great big new tax that we will live with forever," he said.

"Don't assume that I want regulation, what I want is appropriate incentives.

"You could have a fund that would directly purchase emission abatements and that would be a lot less than the $10 billion or $12 billion a year money-go-round which Labor is proposing."

Mr Abbott said tree planting and more energy-efficient buildings could make a significant contribution to slashing carbon emissions.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#71
Here is another piece, on just how shell shocked the Rudd Laborites are over the loss of their Cap and Trade bill. AND their shock at watching the opposition Liberals cleansing their party of,...........what was it the deputy PM called them? Oh, "climate change extremists and deniers", that's what they were labeled. Wink1

Quote:Copenhagen backlash hits a government in denial
December 7

When Julia Gillard faced the media outside Federal Parliament in Canberra on Wednesday she looked shell-shocked. She then proceeded to give the most jittery, hollow, nonsensical performance of her career. It was pantomime of the lowest order.

''Today the climate change extremists and deniers in the Liberal Party have stopped this nation from taking decisive action on climate change,'' the Deputy Prime Minister said, deadpan, into a thicket of cameras and recorders.

Extremists and deniers. In case anyone had missed the point, she repeated the phrase five times. ''Now [we] have been stopped by the Liberal Party extremists and the climate change deniers. This nation has been stopped from taking a major step in the nation's interests by Liberal Party extremists and climate change deniers.''

This is clearly going to be the mantra the Rudd Government uses to describe anyone who opposes its pointless legislation on an emissions trading scheme.

Gillard used the terms ''denier'' or ''denial'' 11 times, pointed words because they carry the connotation of Holocaust denial. The last time that tactic was used in the national debate, after the release of the Bringing Them Home report, it exploded on those who used it.

So this is going to get interesting because the political ground has shifted in the past six months. It is now the Rudd Government that appears to be in a state of denial.


And rightly so, because the ground has completely shifted in the debate. With ClimateGate being exposed, the AGW forces are now playing defense, and my guess is that the Liberals will use this to ride back into the majority again.



GO LIBERALS!!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#72
Would those be the "common sense liberals"?

S2
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#73
JohnWho Wrote:Would those be the "common sense liberals"?

S2

How did you like my "Volunteer" Orange? 8)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#74
Very "Tennessee" of you.

How about a Florida orange:

[Image: large_orange4.jpg]



S1
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#75
Thank you much! I'll slice it up and give it a 'go'. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#76
Here is something interesting, from Reason. Another one of those Libertarian rags. Wink1

And get this.

Quote:NPR ran a piece today about the apparent paradox that as "scientists" become more convinced that climate change is real, man-made, and catastrophic, the global public is shrugging its shoulders.

Quote:In a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, climate comes in dead last, No. 20 of the 20 big issues of concern to America.

As former Sen. Tim Wirth, who calls for massive, transformative responses to global warming, puts it:

Quote:"I don't think any place in the world would you find the public demanding [climate legislation]. I think it's very hard to see the public demand anything. That's very rare."

NPR puzzled over the lack of concern from you, me, and the Chinese factory worker. What might explain the lack of a sense of urgency? Well, ClimateGate ain't helping. And then there's all that money from Big Carbon, which is reinforcing doubts that warming is either occuring as rapidly as doomsayers claim and underscores the economic consequences of say, reducing carbon emissions per capita back to what they were in 1875.

Earth to NPR, did it ever occur to you that perhaps the average person on the street may be rooted in the real world more so than you? Or perhaps they may have a bit more common sense? HELLO!!!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#77
Looks like the Liberals are setting up for an upcoming election where Global Warming is the central point of the debate.

Quote:Global warming has stopped, says Tony Abbott

By Renee Viellaris

December 08, 2009 11:00pm


OPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott has gone one step further from being a climate change sceptic and has questioned if the world is warming.

The comments were seized upon by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, who will arrive in Copenhagen today for climate change talks that aim to set the foundations for cuts to global greenhouse gas emissions.

It comes as the US Environmental Protection Agency plans to limit greenhouse gas emissions because they "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people".

When Mr Abbott seized the Liberal leadership from Malcolm Turnbull last week he rejected criticisms that he was a climate change denier, but said he was sceptical about what level mankind had contributed to the problem.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#78
Dr Patrick Michaels, has this to say about the AGW gang. Are you reading this BUZZ?

Quote:How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus
The East Anglia emails are just the tip of the iceberg. I should know.

By PATRICK J. MICHAELS

Few people understand the real significance of Climategate, the now-famous hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most see the contents as demonstrating some arbitrary manipulating of various climate data sources in order to fit preconceived hypotheses (true), or as stonewalling and requesting colleagues to destroy emails to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the face of potential or actual Freedom of Information requests (also true).

But there's something much, much worse going on—a silencing of climate scientists, akin to filtering what goes in the bible, that will have consequences for public policy, including the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent categorization of carbon dioxide as a "pollutant."

The bible I'm referring to, of course, is the refereed scientific literature. It's our canon, and it's all we have really had to go on in climate science (until the Internet has so rudely interrupted). When scientists make putative compendia of that literature, such as is done by the U.N. climate change panel every six years, the writers assume that the peer-reviewed literature is a true and unbiased sample of the state of climate science.

That can no longer be the case. The alliance of scientists at East Anglia, Penn State and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (in Boulder, Colo.) has done its best to bias it.

A refereed journal, Climate Research, published two particular papers that offended Michael Mann of Penn State and Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. One of the papers, published in 2003 by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas (of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), was a meta-analysis of dozens of "paleoclimate" studies that extended back 1,000 years. They concluded that 20th-century temperatures could not confidently be considered to be warmer than those indicated at the beginning of the last millennium.

In fact, that period, known as the "Medieval Warm Period" (MWP), was generally considered warmer than the 20th century in climate textbooks and climate compendia, including those in the 1990s from the IPCC.

Then, in 1999, Mr. Mann published his famous "hockey stick" article in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), which, through the magic of multivariate statistics and questionable data weighting, wiped out both the Medieval Warm Period and the subsequent "Little Ice Age" (a cold period from the late 16th century to the mid-19th century), leaving only the 20th-century warming as an anomaly of note.

Messrs. Mann and Wigley also didn't like a paper I published in Climate Research in 2002. It said human activity was warming surface temperatures, and that this was consistent with the mathematical form (but not the size) of projections from computer models. Why? The magnitude of the warming in CRU's own data was not as great as in the models, so therefore the models merely were a bit enthusiastic about the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Mr. Mann called upon his colleagues to try and put Climate Research out of business. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," he wrote in one of the emails. "We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."

After Messrs. Jones and Mann threatened a boycott of publications and reviews, half the editorial board of Climate Research resigned. People who didn't toe Messrs. Wigley, Mann and Jones's line began to experience increasing difficulty in publishing their results.

This happened to me and to the University of Alabama's Roy Spencer, who also hypothesized that global warming is likely to be modest. Others surely stopped trying, tiring of summary rejections of good work by editors scared of the mob. Sallie Baliunas, for example, has disappeared from the scientific scene.

GRL is a very popular refereed journal. Mr. Wigley was concerned that one of the editors was "in the skeptics camp." He emailed Michael Mann to say that "if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official . . . channels to get him ousted."

Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Wigley on Nov. 20, 2005 that "It's one thing to lose 'Climate Research.' We can't afford to lose GRL." In this context, "losing" obviously means the publication of anything that they did not approve of on global warming.

Soon the suspect editor, Yale's James Saiers, was gone. Mr. Mann wrote to the CRU's Phil Jones that "the GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there."

It didn't stop there. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory complained that the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS) was now requiring authors to provide actual copies of the actual data that was used in published papers. He wrote to Phil Jones on March 19, 2009, that "If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available—raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations—I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals."

Messrs. Jones and Santer were Ph.D. students of Mr. Wigley. Mr. Santer is the same fellow who, in an email to Phil Jones on Oct. 9, 2009, wrote that he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap" out of me at a scientific meeting. He was angry that I published "The Dog Ate Global Warming" in National Review, about CRU's claim that it had lost primary warming data.

The result of all this is that our refereed literature has been inestimably damaged, and reputations have been trashed. Mr. Wigley repeatedly tells news reporters not to listen to "skeptics" (or even nonskeptics like me), because they didn't publish enough in the peer-reviewed literature—even as he and his friends sought to make it difficult or impossible to do so.

Ironically, with the release of the Climategate emails, the Climatic Research Unit, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley have dramatically weakened the case for emissions reductions. The EPA claimed to rely solely upon compendia of the refereed literature such as the IPCC reports, in order to make its finding of endangerment from carbon dioxide. Now that we know that literature was biased by the heavy-handed tactics of the East Anglia mob, the EPA has lost the basis for its finding.

Mr. Michaels, formerly professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia (1980-2007), is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#79
Here is an excellent interview by a Ms Kim Greenhouse. I have no idea who this person is, but clearly she is a former AGW believer, as was I, who has since seen the light. And I only found it as a result of random cruising through different sites dealing with global warming.

The interview is a fairly long one, but it passes quickly, because it is so interesting. In the interview, she simultaneously interviews: 1) Bob Felix, author of "Fire and Ice", and owner of http://www.iceagenow.com ; 2) Meteorologist Joe Daleo of the well respected http://icecap.us ; and 3) Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball.

It is a remarkable interview, in that it is orderly, quite detailed, and an excellent place, in which to gain a solid understanding of why the Global Warming argument is scientifically unfounded. It also highlights the fact that we have much more to concern ourselves: the next ice age, and the swiftness with which it has come crashing down many times in the past.

I have attempted to search out this Kim Greenhouse, but there is little information on her. If anyone knows who she is, please feel free to enlighten me, because I find her to be very good at what she does.

I find this interview well worth bookmarking, and passing along. Again, just who is this woman, to attract such renouned personalities?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#80
"Greenhouse" for the last name? It has to be a pseudonym....
Sanders 2020

Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The mind of the alarmist sunsettommy 6 1,764 10-02-2012, 05:46 PM
Last Post: jt

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)