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.

I have to take issue with saying that moving to more cleaner, efficient, renewable energy sources is going to lead to economic ruin, especially in light of the fact that our current dependence on a multi-billion dollar oil cartel is one of the leading factors in our current economic downslope.

Also, I disagree - the majority of scientists do not agree that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary cause of Climate Change (either warming or cooling). The fringe fanatics on one side strongly state that it is the primary problem, while the fringe fanatics on the opposite side say it has no influence at all. What the majority seem to agree on is that it may have some influence, but the actual level of that influence is not even close to having a "consensus".

I would like to see a source for that if you have it, please.

Also, what is Gore's "agenda" exactly? How does he profit from pushing so called "bad science"?
I mean it was pretty obvious how the oil companies were going to benefit by casting doubt over global warming during Clinton's term, they pretty much just stole the playbook from the tobacco companies, "We don't really know that cigarettes cause cancer..." Is there an analogue with Gore?

• The huge negative values of coefficients of efficiency at those scales show that model
predictions are much poorer that an elementary prediction based on the time average.
• This makes future climate projections not credible..

Actually by "source", I was looking for some approximate number in the scientific community (with credentials pertinent to the subject) who support climate change and those that doubt it.

Of course note that "doubt" should be separate from "denial" as the latter is usually little more than a disinformation campaign.

Its the cause of the moment. Remember "We are the world"? Farm-aid? Yeah, we all do, but those movements just faded off to never be heard from again. Give it time - this too shall pass.

Global warming hysteria challenged
An anti-nuclear, Toronto-based, urban-loving, 1970s peace activist who opposes subsidies to the oil industry might be the last person expected to detail cracks in the science of global warming.
But Lawrence Solomon has done just that............
http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/371688

***The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine this week announced that 31,072 U.S. scientists signed a petition stating that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate..."***

Dear John Who,
Only because your's has been the strongest voice for waiting until all the facts are in, is why I am taking this moment to write this note directly towards you.
This is not to belittle you in any way, but is meant to get your attention.
All those articles you are providing links for information on global warming all the time. Well they have been tainted.

Okay John so you got some information from sources outside the U.S.
What makes you think that the sources you quote are any more reliable the the ones here that have been tainted by our government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

My opinion is as worthless as anybody elses, (but I'll give it anyway as I'm usually right) , and that is that although man is making his enviroment more imperfect, he will survive the effects satisfactory.

No one can fortell the future,unless your God or Psychic.

I agree with that.

So why accept the future that you are being told will happen (the Al Gore apocalypse)?

Why accept that the only solution is to do what he says (through his financially lucrative carbon trading concept)?

Especially when there is so much doubt.

Do you know better, than all the Brains, of these Countries,combined?

But, all the sources that tell you that GW is man's fault because of CO2 emissions are perfect and beyond reproach?



"
You deserve any hardship this may cause you, but the rest of us who only want an accurate, fair assessment of the situation, do not.

Instead of "attacking the messenger", you might want to do some research.

Just a suggestion.

You are the one who has been providing me with the links to educate me on what you have been saying.
I suggest you get off the computer and look at your sky, your earth , and look at the thermometer yourself instead of listening to what someone else has printed.
A wise man once said: belive nothing of what you read, and only half of what you see.
I want to apologize for this staement up front, so I'm sorry.

Quit relying on others to make your decisions get out and do some science yourself.

Do something like taking leaf counts, absorbsion rates of carbon in water, maybe take the temperature readings from different points on the planet.
Atmosphere gasses in and out of different cities.
Tap into the weather reports at the poles.
Check water temperatures in the Humbolt current.
See at what rates our food sources are being depleted due to global warming and not just overuse.
Those good scientists you're always refeffering to do simple stuff like that don't they?
Pick up a robin's egg and measure the shell thickness to see what effect co2 has had on them.
Ask a department of natural resourse worker what effect the co2 has been having on all animals reproduction rates. ( specially insects )

Just measuring gasses, temperature and arguing patterns is insufficient to be of any accuracy when discussing anthropogenic global warming.

You know what, forget it!

You're right and I'm wrong and for me this debate is over.
It's just not worth it as I will have been long since dead before you come to see your folly!

No one can fortell the future,unless your God or Psychic

May 29, 2008, 1:53 pm

This just in from the White House: Global warming is real, and humans are very likely to blame.

“Scientific Assesment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States,” one of two reports released today by the Bush administration, acknowledges that rising temperatures and a changing climate could pose challenges for everything from agriculture and water to energy use.

The language, tough by the administration’s standards, largely parrots previous reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, down to the “likely” and “very likely” italics. But the reports are still significant, given the popular perception for years that the administration was at odds with the bulk of scientific research.

The conclusion? “[M]ost of the recent global warming is very likely due to human generated increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.” While there are still questions about the role of sunspots and other natural variations, the report says that “emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use and from the effects of land use change are the primary sources of this increase.”

As for the impacts, the report paints a fairly grim picture. In the short term, warmer temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations will be good for agriculture—before becoming a bad thing. The health impacts will probably be bad on balance—more malaria, Lyme disease and the like. Ecosystems will suffer. Water supplies will tighten.

But for all the talk about how global warming is affecting the energy mix, the adminsistration’s take on energy is especially interesting: “To date, most discussions on energy and climate change have focused on mitigating human effects on climate. However, along with this role as a driver of climate change, the energy sector will be subject to the effects of climate change.” That is, the U.S. will need more juice the hotter it gets.

And not just for air conditioning, though that’s big part of it. Industrial processes will require more energy, like big refrigeration units. Farms and cities will need more pumped water, requiring more electricity. The upshot?

[C]limate change is expected to cause a significant increase in the demand for electricity in the United States, which would require the building of additional electricity production facilities (and probably transmission facilities) at an estimated cost of many billions of dollars.

May 29, 2008

Today, the White House finally released an overdue report on the comprehensive impact of global warming on the United States. It is the first such report from the Bush administration since it took office more than seven years ago.

Starting to catch up with the understanding long agreed on by the world's climate scientists, the report says, "It is likely that there has been a substantial human contribution to surface temperature increases in North America."

With recent U.S. wildfires, downpours, drought and smog, the report paints a sobering picture of threats to America's food, water and energy supplies -- stressed in an ever hotter country.

Integrating federal research efforts of many agencies and literally thousands of scientists, it reports that the global climate disruption now under way is already damaging U.S. water resources, agriculture and wildlife and is expected to keep doing so -- often worsening -- for "the next few decades and beyond."

There is no part of the country that escapes some sort of consequence," said Anthony Janetos, director of the Joint Global Change Institute

Temperatures are expected to continue rising by about 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit before the century is out. The report says that in the West grain harvests and vegetable and fruit crops are more likely to fail because of rising temperatures. It also points out that weeds -- of concern both to farmers and those who suffer from pollen allergies -- are growing more rapidly due to elevated levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the air.

"These are consequences for forests in our backyard, for agriculture on which we depend, for the water resources that we depend on, both for agricultural production and household use and manufacturing, that this is the basis of a good quality of life for everybody," Janetos said.

The report projects a likely increase in frequency and severity of heat waves and other extreme weather events, including storms and floods, stating that "cold days and cold nights are very likely to become much less frequent."

It also projects that because of worsening weather and heat the nation's transportation systems face "significant challenges." Coastal and river flooding and landslides are hitting roads, rails and ports, and heat spells buckle or soften roads.

Forests in the West, Southwest and Alaska will be assaulted by more frequent forest fires and decimated by insects that no longer die off in winter because winters are generally warmer. In the middle of the country are reports increasing drought.

Janetos warns that these dire effects are already under way, not lurking the future.

"These are things that are happening today. They're not just things that will happen 30, 40, 50, 100 years from now," he said. "We wanted to be within the planning horizon that land managers and conservation planners and farmers actually have to deal with."

Rick Piltz at Climate Science Watch worked on the report for the administration before quitting in 2005, protesting the White House was rewriting the science. He and other administration critics charge the White House delayed this report for years and is taking credit for it now while passing any decisions about action to the next president.

"Here we have an administration that has one foot out the door. They have run out the clock on taking any really meaningful action on climate change." Piltz said.

During a teleconference with reporters, White House associate science director Sharon Hays said the report "communicates what the scientists are telling us."

But Piltz points out that the scientific community has been articulating these findings for years and says that the subsequent action on the report is what will count.

"This is something that has been well understood in the scientific community and the government for some time now," Piltz said. "Even after we lift the hand of censorship off this climate science communication, we still need the political leaders to embrace it and learn from it and act on it."

This report agreeing with the AGW/CO2 "consensus" comes, what, only 2 weeks after almost 32,000 people, a good portion scientists, say that Global Warming is not being caused by man's CO2 emissions?

...

So then, it would be reasonable to assume you are not God

and you don't have psychic abilities?

Well about as reasonable as chasing shadows.....I don't know.

I do know it is hard for my being a genius, I told you that when I first came here.