The evidence based data showing the Earth’s failure to continue warming has confounded the promoters of man-made climate fear. The American people have consistently rejected climate alarm as a Gallup Poll released on Earth Day 2008 shows the American public’s concern about man-made global warming is unchanged from 1989. Gore's $300 million dollar campaign to promote climate fear is attempting to convince American's that they face a climate "crisis" despite the new accumulating scientific evidence to the contrary.

From the article:


Full article h e r e.

Uh, just a reminder -

the facts are not all in, the scientists do not agree, the debate is not over.

The IPCC/Al Gore folks are now going into damage control mode.

perhaps we'll now see some genuine, non-(big)money motivated studies that will get serious, sensible appraisal?

As you say, nothing has yet been firmly established, but it's gonna be an interesting "damage control" exercise........ perhaps we'll now see some genuine, non-(big)money motivated studies that will get serious, sensible appraisal?

I wonder if this guy still has a job? -

CBC's Rex Murphy on "Global Warming".

However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.

Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that."

From the article,
I really don't see how this is a refutation of global warming/climate change.

The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998.

It certainly shows that there are differing interpretations within the scientific community as to how it will actually play out in the short-term, but that's hardly uncommon.

Researchers belonging to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in Nature (May 1) that, after adjusting their climate model to reflect actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years, “global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations… temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”

You got that? IPCC researchers project no global warming over the next decade because of Mother Nature.

Although the result seems stunning in that it came from IPCC scientists who have always been in the tank for manmade global warming, it’s not really surprising since the notion of manmade climate change has never lived up to its billing.

When NASA’s James Hansen sounded the alarm in Congress 20 years ago, he predicted that rising concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) would drive global temperatures higher by 0.34 degrees Celsius during the 1990s. But surface temperatures increased during that decade by only 0.11 degrees Celsius and lower atmosphere temperatures actually decreased. Global temperatures remain well below an El Nino-driven 1998 spike despite ever increasing atmospheric CO2.

Global warming hysterics purport that manmade emissions of CO2 are the primary driver of global climate and that controlling emissions will favorably affect climate. While this is obviously not so since it virtually supposes that without human activity climate change would not occur, it nevertheless remains their viewpoint.

The Nature study, however, reasserts Mother Nature in her rightful place as our climate dominatrix.

This guy says it better than I did, and much more:

The Great Global Warming Race



He takes it much further, however, and shows how, if you follow the money, you can see why it would be very inconvenient for some (cough, AL Gore, cough) to have the truth exposed.

Well, the oil interests have done far more in terms of spreading disinformation than Gore/IPCC, but I digress.

Whatever lack of unified consensus there may be, I think the majority of scientists fall on the side of climate change taking place due to human influences, and even if they're incorrect, the net result of their actions in terms of cleaner and more efficient energy needs to happen somewhere down the line. Better safe than sorry IMHO.

I think you are missing the point that John is making....And what the majority of people who disagree with Gore are making....and have been making.

No one is saying that we shouldn't do things to improve our environment. We just shouldn't rush to get on Al's bandwagon when the "information" he preaches is based on incorrect "scientific" data. The policies of Gore and his minions would be ruinious to many economies. Better to be safe than sorry but ruin our economy in the process? While Al gets filthy rich? That's not a good scenario, imo. Unless you are Gore, of course.

Using previous misinformation as a basis for deciding to follow Gore's policies is not a logical approach to the issue.

No one is saying that we shouldn't do things to improve our environment.