End of “Global Warming”debate – common sense wins

[Surf n Turf]

Suspicions confirmed – Junk Science is now coming on display. Wonder how this will impact “cap & tax”
SnT

Climate Research Unit has been hacked –
The details on this are still sketchy, we’ll probably never know what went on. But it appears that University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown.
The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files. An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server, here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today:

Email “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

The smoking gun to finally destroy the fraud of global warming appears to have arrived. Hacking of the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain where all the bigger names (Mann, Jones, Briffa, et al) in the AGW fraud spout their lies from. Huge file of 61 megabytes released by the hacker in which the various players admit to changing data, etc. etc. etchttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2390574/posts
http://www.climateaudit.org/


Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold
There are several comments about scientists wanting to hide their environmentalist views to promote the best results
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/#more-6188

[Snaquebite]

Apparently this is breaking slowly, google is bring up more and more hits...

The crimes revealed in the e-mails promise to be the global warming scandal of the century — and have massive bearing on the climate change legislation being considered by our lawmakers here at home.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/20/the-global-warming-scandal-of-the-century/

[Kyobanim]

I guess they faked physical evidence too. Hmm, those guys are pretty good.

[greenberetTFS]

I guess they faked physical evidence too. Hmm, those guys are pretty good.

K,

I'm trying to read you on this,do you think this is all BS? :confused:

Big Teddy :munchin

[Kyobanim]

I have no opinion on this other than it is impossible for 6 billion people to live on this planet and not have an impact on the environment.

That being said, climate change only has a long term impact on humans. The planet will take care of the problems we cause in its own time.

And yes, I think a lot of this is BS, on both sides. It's like politics, there's left and right and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

And what the hell are those women wearing in your avatar?

[Snaquebite]

Made it on Fox...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html

[greenberetTFS]

I have no opinion on this other than it is impossible for 6 billion people to live on this planet and not have an impact on the environment.

That being said, climate change only has a long term impact on humans. The planet will take care of the problems we cause in its own time.

And yes, I think a lot of this is BS, on both sides. It's like politics, there's left and right and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

And what the hell are those women wearing in your avatar?

K,

Scarves..............:eek: By the way I think your comments are well taken...........;)

Big Teddy :munchin

[Snaquebite]

I am curious how this will pan out. There is a lot of pending legislation out there that is one way or another tied to GW.

[nmap]

Some of the e-mails put the climate center in a remarkably bad light.

LINK (http://market-ticker.org/archives/1648-Global-Warming-SCAM-HackLeak-FLASH.html)

Here's a link to the files - all 61 MB of them.

LINK (http://storage.denninger.net/FOI2009.zip)

[levinj]

I find it interesting and a bit troubling that these e-mails came to light through a hacker.

While I fully acknowledge that the scientists who favor global warming have an agenda, shouldn't we be asking what the agenda of this hacker was? And for that matter, whether all of these e-mails are accurate.

[HowardCohodas]

I find it interesting and a bit troubling that these e-mails came to light through a hacker.

While I fully acknowledge that the scientists who favor global warming have an agenda, shouldn't we be asking what the agenda of this hacker was? And for that matter, whether all of these e-mails are accurate.

Objective truth is a pretty good agenda trump card.

[levinj]

Howard,

If we knew who it was, we could judge their intent a lot easier. As it is, who's to say that they didn't tamper with some of these e-mails? I've read of one scientist admitting to the accuracy of a single e-mail, but nothing beyond that. I could have missed it, though.

It doesn't trouble you that these e-mails came to light because someone committed a felony? It makes me wonder whether these are a by-product of some other criminal activity. Did the person hack into the system specifically to find the e-mails, or did they come across them while doing any number of criminal activities and decide it'd make a good smoke-screen for the security breach?

All of that said, I'm curious to see how this plays out. In a way, it reminds me of the Leibniz-Newton calculus dispute, where private letters were often published in libels. Apparently, science has a long history of this sort of thing. :rolleyes:

[HowardCohodas]

Howard,

If we knew who it was, we could judge their intent a lot easier. As it is, who's to say that they didn't tamper with some of these e-mails? I've read of one scientist admitting to the accuracy of a single e-mail, but nothing beyond that. I could have missed it, though.

I'm not certifying it's veracity, I'm setting a high standard for an item that need not be overly critiqued with respect to the agenda of the person releasing it.

Every leak represents the agenda of the leaker. Without leakers, Washington political reporting would be non-existent. My only regret is that leaking and reporting national security information is not likely to be punished.

[JJ_BPK]

Objective truth is a pretty good agenda trump card.

More People More Gas,,, BUT

Look at the percent of people gas as it pertains to other gaseators...

I found this poster the other day. I think the data is accurate and that the PC Tree-huger crowd is manipulating the WORLD to their agenda.

Now, there is a correlation between the number of humans and cows. Less humans, less cows.. Except in parts of the world where Cows are considered deities..

And for that matter less humans means less cars, planes, trains, & factories..

Unfortunately,, no matter how many or few humans we have. Trees will continue to grow, die, & decompose and turn into OIL. The earth will continue to have Volcano's. The Sun will have storms that heat the earth...



Please consider:
An academic's career rises exponentially to the volume of his/her success in publishing in their choisen field,,
or any field that gets appropriate media coverage...


Ba Da Bing... :cool:

[GratefulCitizen]

Always wondered what caused the concurrent "global warming" on Mars and the moons of Jupiter.

Perhaps it's that big thermonuclear fire going on in the center of the solar system.:rolleyes:

Hmmm...
If it burns hotter, things warm up.
If it burns less hot, things cool down.

[Team Sergeant]

I find it interesting and a bit troubling that these e-mails came to light through a hacker.

While I fully acknowledge that the scientists who favor global warming have an agenda, shouldn't we be asking what the agenda of this hacker was? And for that matter, whether all of these e-mails are accurate.

I don't. I'm glad the hackers did what they did..... I'm just wondering who they are and who's funding them. It takes all of thirty seconds to figure out if they (the emails) are real or not, I'm guessing they are in fact, fact.

Kyobanim,

6 billion might make an impact, but how many other species lived on this planet that numbered in the millions or billions that were 50 times "larger" than humans and, lived here until that nasty meteorite gave them all a dirt nap. I'm with you we're making an impact on this planet, but I don't think it's effecting the climate the way "al idiot gore" states.

TS

[levinj]

TS, we're in agreement there. I just want to know the why of it. I've been of the opinion that global warming is a natural trend for awhile now, so I don't doubt that some shaky science is getting revealed here. I just never fully trust gift horses.

[Chris Cram]

TS, we're in agreement there. I just want to know the why of it. I've been of the opinion that global warming is a natural trend for awhile now, so I don't doubt that some shaky science is getting revealed here. I just never fully trust gift horses.

Perhaps not a gift horse. An Advocate.
Justice, Professional Ethics, Scientific Idealism...
Qualities that can be found hiden in some Graduate Students?

Here is a snip from one email from last month:


...We already have this for GISTEMP, but have been awaiting HadCRU
to be able to do a more decisive update of the status of the
disingenuous "globe is cooling" contrarian talking point, mike
p.s. be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy
and what emails you copy him in on. He's not as predictable as we'd like...
As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,...

If you were a young professor at this authors University, it would be unwise to cross him. In these emails they discuss their efforts to undermine the research of a Professor in another country.

[longrange1947]

I can see more good in the hackers motives then bad. My bet is he knew the truth and wanted to release it to the public so that BS bills as in Cap and tax were defeated.

My take and I am dam glad he did it.

[ryno]

I don’t have a problem believing that six billion people have an impact on this planet.
I don’t have a problem with researching more efficient and cleaner sources of fuel.
I do have a problem with ignoring any evidence that runs counter to “the sky is falling unless we act now” hysteria. Scientists have known for quite a while that the planet’s temperature has fluctuated greatly over the last few billion years.
They need to just admit they don’t have all the damn answers and that more research is needed.

[dadof18x'er]

very interesting clip....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac

[Chris Cram]

Conservatives and libertarians are not really skeptical of global warming because they just don't want to believe, they are skeptical because they see it as a way for the ultra-Left to expand the government's power over our lives by a tremendous amount.

The Left want to do this via healthcare (gain control of 16% of the U.S. economy) and through global warming legislation. That's what it's really about, control.

A responce from an older libertarian:
too simplistic.....
we want to see real data and an open forum for discussion of the pros and cons
facts as presented don't match what we are seeing and experiencing

I agree.

On the subject of physical evidence…
Do you remember Fusion in a Bottle, also called Cold Fusion?
Always question... Show me the numbers, show me the math.

The driving factors of our Earth Climate System are so diverse.
The greater our understanding of the System, the greater our understanding of the limited nature of our understanding…

[zpo]

On the subject of physical evidence…
Do you remember Fusion in a Bottle, also called Cold Fusion?
Always question... Show me the numbers, show me the math.





Ask them. --> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html

[Chris Cram]

Ask them. --> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html

Thanks for the flash back... 11 years, already. :D
On the other hand, we had high temp superconductors reported in wsj in 86-87, that turned out to be totally solid.
You never know for sure until you test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconductor

I would like to hear a true believer explane what there initial conserns were with the theory, and how they were addressed/resolved to their satisfaction. It seems that I have only heard people defending their positions. And much of the defence is an attack on the character or credentials of the opposition.

This is not my field. I'm a novice. But there are some basics in research that are common to the physical sciences, that are being 'worked' in this case.

On the research side, I've had the opertunity to work on
Plate Tectonics publication in 76'.
Cygnus x-1 in the 86', and Western Oregon Spotted Owl in 88-89'

In this case, we have huge money, power, reputation... We have University Professors flying all over the world to speak with UN and world leaders.
We have ex-VPs making millions of dollars...

My gut says… The seduction of power is in play. And science is taking a second seat.

[zpo]

reported in wsj

No, I didn't mean Wired, there are three people listed in the article. Them, them.:D

[dr. mabuse]

Am I the only one on this forum that ever read National Geographic?

2-3 years ago in the Oct. issue ( I think ) the mag was having it's annual "scare the public" cover on global warming, perhaps to raise publication #'s.

Here's the short story that I believe settles the matter.

1. In the article, they studied ice core samples (north or south pole, don't remember) and, per the attached graph and data, there is a predictable TEMPERATURE BUMP EVERY ~ 22 MILLION YEARS (CAPS INTENTIONAL). Hey, per the graph, we just had a bump!

2. So, it appears this cycle was happening long, long before man walked the earth.

So, pray tell, how can it be that we caused the last temperature bump if it was happening over and over and over again before we were here???? Same temp range, same everything.

3. And since the claimed margin of error for the accepted computer model just happens to be about what they claim is the human contribution to CO, why trust them?

4. Some of us older folks remember the coming ice age scare in the '70's, complete with some of the same self righteous, we're-smarter-than-you types that are on board for the this latest scare ( Bill Allen is one of them).

5. Finally, if Natioanl Geographic is presenting some very strong data (ice cores) to debunk the theory of our contribution, well...they're political tree-huggers now more than anything else. Think about it.

Follow the grant money. This is not rocket science or Elliot wave theory or fractal theory or curve fitting (sorry nmap, had to throw that in). There is a TON of $$ to be made if you're ethically flexible, and yes, researchers will lie and fudge their numbers to make things fit sometimes. ( synthetic vit. B research, for example)

Sometimes you can judge the message by the messenger. The truth is just as plain as the nose on ALGore's face.

Happy Meat-Substitute-Of-Your-Choice day.:D

[Chris Cram]

dr. mabuse, I agree...


No, I didn't mean Wired, there are three people listed in the article. Them, them.:D

George Miley,
John Bockris,
Michael McKubre,
Arthur C. Clarke

And your point?

Back to the cooking... :D
I need more ovens...

[kimberly]

Al should have started this campaign a few thousand years earlier. Our New England mountains were created from glacier movement a few years back. I don't think man had anything to do with the melting of the ice, but here we are, with all these beautiful mountains to look at.

There has been "global warming" for so long man didn't even exist when it started.

No doubt the global population has impacted the earth and it's natural resources, but we can't take credit for the warming temperatures and melting poles.

[Surf n Turf]

Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax

Finally some politicians with a backbone --- even if they are Liberals.:munchin
SnT

Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy – just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would.

The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.

For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five is fantastic news.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/

[Richard]

Based on news reports this week...

Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. There's a consensus that it's going to change, so they've decided to keep us in the dark.

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[Paslode]

Do 6 billion people and Urban Sprawl leave their mark, surely they do. 30-35 years ago we had a heavy snow in my area by this time of the year and it would stay on the ground for weeks, not days. And we had more tornados in close proximity to where I live.

And 20-30 years ago we were going into another Ice Age according to many so-called scientists/experts.

Now according to Owl Gore were going to burn up if we don't do something NOW!!!! Yet if that is ture, then why doesn't Owl down size from his energy sucking mansion to 900 sq ft common dwelling?

Florescent vs Incandescent......GE closes a incandescent factory in the US to move it China where it can produce 'Mercury' laced florescent bulbs out of the watchful eye of the EPA......that gets you lost jobs and hazardous waste.

We gotta have battery run cars.......every car accident will require a HAZMAT team to contain and clean up the SULFURIC ACID.

Windmills.........they kill birds and require substantial amount of 'cleared' land. People want a windmill in the backyard about as much as they want high lines.

Cap and Tax, global warming, climate change.....a money making scheme to en-rich folks like Owl Gore. It will also put millions more out of work, in Hoovervilles or the Government Soup Line.

If these joksters had their way, at best we be back to horse and buggy and every thing would wear a fart meter.


A round of applause for the infiltrator!

[Hammock]

A hidden camera captured the action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRBWLpYCPY&feature=player_embedded

[Chris Cram]

:DA hidden camera captured the action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRBWLpYCPY&feature=player_embedded

Nicely done... :munchin
I wonder if someone will send that to The Man(n) or Dr. Jones? :D

[Pete]

Climate change data dumped

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation........."

Don't look for this to be on ABCNBCSeeBS tonight. If it is it'll be with the slant of "Evil Rightwingers are being mean to good scientists by flooding them with paperwork."

[Snaquebite]

I actually thought we might hear more after the hacker incident, but I guess not...The Treaty conference is coming up 7 Dec and still nothing...this treaty is scary. I believe someone stated even if Obama signs it that it has to be ratified by congress...I hope that's true.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/03/the-copenhagen-treaty-draft-wealth-transfer-defined-now-with-dignity-penalty/

[Pete]

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

"......The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ...."

and

Inquiry into stolen climate e-mails

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8383713.stm

".....But a spokesperson said information about the investigation into the hack at UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) would be made public very soon.

Scientists will be scrutinising the choice of chair and the terms of reference.

One senior climate scientist told me that the chair would have to be a person accepted by both mainstream climate scientists and sceptics as a highly respected figure without strong connections to either group.

BBC News understands that senior individuals at UEA have acknowledged the potential damage to the university's reputation from the CRU affair and are anxious to clear the institution's name.

But there is a risk that some people will not accept the findings of any inquiry unless it is fully independent, as demanded by the former UK Chancellor Lord Lawson earlier in the week..............."

[Team Sergeant]

Climate change data dumped

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based."



And another extreme left wing "lie" exposed & "outed".

Too late though, millions of children (& idiots) all over the world have been indoctrinated into believing we have a "global warming" situation. I've little doubt few (especially the left wing) will read the "new" articles concerning the propaganda.

[The Reaper]

Exactly.

The decision has been made, damn the facts.

TR

[incarcerated]

Follow the money:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iTRZ4QDU8I7b9Rc94wwerRVdws3QD9C9B2RG0

Upfront money needed to ease UN climate deal

By CHARLES J. HANLEY (AP) – 1 hour ago
NEW YORK — Money on the table — perhaps $10 billion a year or more — could help close a deal in Denmark next month and keep climate talks moving toward a new global treaty in 2010. But if poorer nations see too little offered up front, the U.N. conference could end in discord.

The money would help developing countries cope with ocean flooding, drought and other effects of climate change, while also helping them cut down on emissions of global-warming gases. The funds might eventually come from new sources, such as a tax on airline flights, but negotiators for now are seeking quicker infusions.

"Rich countries must put at least $10 billion a year on the table to kick-start immediate action up to 2012," the U.N. climate chief, Yvo de Boer, told reporters last week in a preview of the two-week conference opening next Monday in Copenhagen.

His goal gathered backing in recent days, including from French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who said his nation would contribute $1.3 billion over three years.

"The rest of Europe will do so," Brown told a Commonwealth summit in Trinidad on Friday. "And I believe America will do so as well."....

[Pete]

$10 billion to the 3rd world?

And how much does anyone think will end up helping the poor of the 3rd world? Maybe 1 or 2 million.

I see most of that going straight into the pockets of the 3rd world thugs, excuse me, I mean politicians.

[PedOncoDoc]

The decision has been made, damn the facts.

IMHO this is exactly like the scare of vaccines causing autism. A law firm hired some scientist to come up with a scapegoat for the increasing number of cases of autism beign diagnosed (broadening the diagnostic crieria to any kid who is slightly socially awkward wasn't enough apparently). He came up with some really biased data and showed it to some other people who bought the lie. Only after his agenda and financial backing was revealed did the rest of the scientists withdraw their names from the paper. Several well-done, scientifically-based papers have disproven this one article, but there are plenty of people out there screaming "Look what you did to my child!" because they cannot fathom that shit happens and we are too quick to label a child for being different - you should see how many kids are being forced to take ADHD medication because the teachers just don't want to have to deal with them!

Quick aside and disclaimer - ADHD exists, as does Autism, but they are over diagnosed since the diagnostic criteria are so subjective.

I'm shocked that no one has tried to blame global warming for the increasing incidence of autism - it's the only other thing that reportedly has "radically changed" in the past 60 years.

I hope I didn't just start a global panic.:rolleyes:

[6.8SPC_DUMP]

Global agenda..
China has unveiled its first firm target for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, two weeks before a global summit on climate change in Copenhagen.

Beijing said it would aim to reduce its "carbon intensity" by 40-45% by the year 2020, compared with 2005 levels.

Carbon intensity, China's preferred measurement, is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit of GDP.

But our correspondent says it does not mean China's overall levels of carbon dioxide will start falling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8380106.stm

$10 billion to the 3rd world?

And how much does anyone think will end up helping the poor of the 3rd world? Maybe 1 or 2 million.

I see most of that going straight into the pockets of the 3rd world thugs, excuse me, I mean politicians.

Yes Sir and IMHO a pay off for getting them to adopt measures that will effect their populations the most.

I wonder if floting around in the back of some Western policy makers mind's is the idea of having to consume less oil in the future.

It doesn't trouble you that these e-mails came to light because someone committed a felony?

I'd imagine the hackers that could face decades for exposing the biggest fraud in science are troubled by it.

[Team Sergeant]

I'd imagine the hackers that could face decades for exposing the biggest fraud in science are troubled by it.

My guess is someone told some serious hackers dudes where to go looking for a "cool" global story.;)

Now who would have known that the "scientists" at the University of East Anglia were complete liars and frauds? Surley they did not turn themselves in.....

Who has the ability to read your emails without you knowing? And who knows to put this information into the hands of "skilled" hackers?

Sounds like the work of the Freemasons.:D Or maybe the NSA.....:munchin

[Sdiver]

My guess is someone told some serious hackers dudes where to go looking for a "cool" global story.;)

Now who would have known that the "scientists" at the University of East Anglia were complete liars and frauds? Surley they did not turn themselves in.....

Who has the ability to read your emails without you knowing? And who knows to put this information into the hands of "skilled" hackers?

Sounds like the work of the Freemasons.:D Or maybe the NSA.....:munchin

I must have missed THAT meeting. We're still trying to figure out how Barry got into office. :D

[GratefulCitizen]

Chuckle...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_mathematics_of_global_warm.html

In other words:
predicting the future (particularly the weather) is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.

Edward Lorenz already addressed this issue over 40 years ago. :rolleyes:

Someone tell al gore.

[Dark Matter]

I would like to offer some perspective on the global warming debate, if not from a "left-sided" view point then from a scientific "fact-based" view point. There is plenty of political propaganda out there on both sides of the issue, which I will attempt to avoid by referencing established, respectable institutions and actual papers written, so that everyone can form (or modify) their own opinion on the matter.

I did some cursory research on the University of East Anglia, since I had never heard of it before. According to the ARWU 2009 (http://www.arwu.org:80/ARWU2009_2.jsp) (a set of college rankings put together by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, East Anglia ranks at 181 in the world. This means that while it is certainly not the local community college, it is by no means a powerhouse on the world academic stage. One complaint on the ranking system is its heavy weight on the natural sciences, which since we are discussing global climate change, I don't see as a problem. The accuracy of college rankings is another matter entirely, but it should give a general idea of the reputation of different universities.

On the CRU website, they say, "It is likely that CRU ranks only behind NCEP/NCAR, ECMWF (ERA-40) and NCDC as the acknowledged primary data source by climate scientists around the world." Since they admit they are behind NCAR in primary source data, I propose to look at the NCAR website, here (http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/now.php). This link uses data independent of CRU's and explains the current warming trend.

Now an important point. Data from several different, independent sources indicates current warming. Unless there is a vast conspiracy to falsify data over thousands of people (which I consider unlikely, especially considering scientific ethics), it has been shown there there is a warming trend. What causes this warming is still the main point of debate.

Research into different causes of global warming and its affect on total climate change in ongoing. Instead of referring to UEA, which I will consider compromised for this discussion, I will instead reference MIT, #5 worldwide on the ARWU, and perhaps the most prestigious technical institution in the world. In addition, since climate change is inevitably an economic matter, MIT houses the Sloan School of Management, ranked #9 in Businessweek's Rankings (http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/rankings/) for MBA programs, and #7 for undergraduate education. MIT excels at crafting mathematical models. The following abstract is taken from a paper, here (pdf) (http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/22/19/pdf/i1520-0442-22-19-5175.pdf):

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Integrated Global System Model is used to make
probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model’s first projections were pub-
lished in 2003, substantial improvements have been made to the model, and improved estimates of the
probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are
considerably warmer than the 2003 projections; for example, the median surface warming in 2091–2100 is
5.18C compared to 2.48C in the earlier study. Many changes contribute to the stronger warming; among the
more important ones are taking into account the cooling in the second half of the twentieth century due to
volcanic eruptions for input parameter estimation and a more sophisticated method for projecting gross
domestic product (GDP) growth, which eliminated many low-emission scenarios.

In addition, there is evidence that, even if human input is not a significant factor to global warming/climate change, regulation of human emissions is still economically advantageous, see full paper here (http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Reprint07-21.pdf):

In this review article, we explore how surface-level ozone affects trees and crops with special emphasis on consequences for
productivity and carbon sequestration. Vegetation exposure to ozone reduces photosynthesis, growth, and other plant functions.
Ozone formation in the atmosphere is a product of NOx, which are also a source of nitrogen deposition. Reduced carbon
sequestration of temperate forests resulting from ozone is likely offset by increased carbon sequestration from nitrogen fertilization.
However, since fertilized croplands are generally not nitrogen-limited, capping ozone-polluting substances in the USA, Europe, and
China can reduce future crop yield loss substantially.

Both of these papers were found by looking around the MIT Course 12 (Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Science) website (http://eapsweb.mit.edu/). More directly, see the MIT Joint Program webpage (http://globalchange.mit.edu/). Note, there is also a paper here that is of great relevance to the biofuels thread (and their economic impact).

My real point is this: whatever the actual cause of global warming, human or natural, there is a lot of evidence towards an actual warming trend, as cited above. As such, it seems prudent to shape economic policy to take this into account. See for example the paper on the Joint Program Page on coastal adaptation and economic tipping points.

Thoughts?

[CJFarris]

When a scientist/engineer offers up an opinion, it stops being science. The scientific method is not being followed here.

Missing raw data? What kind of crap is that?! Any conclusion drawn from a non-repeatable experiment is worthless. The lack of play this story is getting in scientific circles is telling, IMO. The peer review process has broken down and the professional integrity of the whole field is called into question as a result.

[Pete]

.....Thoughts?

My thoughts are that there may be global warming but it is not man's fault.

There have been many swings in climate over the past 2,000 years that we know of. Many more in the past 20,000 years that we have good evidence of.

Would it be better for the population of the world if climate warmed 3 degrees or if it cooled 3 degrees? I would say going down 3 degrees would be a much bigger danger to mankind.

My problem with the way things are now is that the "warmers" are using it as a means to tear down the west with wealth redistribution to the 3rd world.

Wonder when it will get warm enough for the Vikings to move back to Greenland?

251 days spot free so far this year and still counting.

[GratefulCitizen]

Definitely would like to see more studies done on how a volcano eruption or two affect local and global climate.
Definitely would like to see mores studies done on how variations in solar output affect global climate.

It would be interesting to see the numbers from these studies set side-by-side with the effects attributable to humans.

Man may have an effect on the global climate.
My question is: compared to what?

If the variations from other causes dwarf mankind's effects then all I can say is this:
WHO CARES?!?

[TrapLine]

My thoughts are that there may be global warming but it is not man's fault.

There have been many swings in climate over the past 2,000 years that we know of. Many more in the past 20,000 years that we have good evidence of.

Would it be better for the population of the world if climate warmed 3 degrees or if it cooled 3 degrees? I would say going down 3 degrees would be a much bigger danger to mankind.

My problem with the way things are now is that the "warmers" are using it as a means to tear down the west with wealth redistribution to the 3rd world.

Wonder when it will get warm enough for the Vikings to move back to Greenland?

251 days spot free so far this year and still counting.

Well said Pete. Great points, especially for those of us who live in areas once covered by glaciers.

[Razor]

Hey you folks in Florida, how much control can mankind exert on a hurricane? Hey you folks in the Midwest, how much control can mankind exert on a tornado? Hey you mariners, how much control can mankind exert on ocean storms? Hey Oregonians, Alaskans and Hawaiians, how much control can mankind exert on the eruption of a volcano? Hmm, I detect a trend here. :rolleyes:

[JAGO]

Hey you folks in Florida, how much control can mankind exert on a hurricane? Hey you folks in the Midwest, how much control can mankind exert on a tornado? Hey you mariners, how much control can mankind exert on ocean storms? Hey Oregonians, Alaskans and Hawaiians, how much control can mankind exert on the eruption of a volcano? Hmm, I detect a trend here. :rolleyes:

Razor,
Lots! It is all in the ratio of the rum to the vodka.
v/r
phil

[Razor]

CQ!

('Chuckle Quietly', since my officemates frown upon randomly LOLing and waking them from their naps) ;)

[HowardCohodas]

Greenhouse Gas Observatories Downwind from Erupting Volcanoes (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/greenhouse_gas_observatories_d.html)

Problems in the collection of atmospheric CO2 data parallel other absurdities in the global warming fraud. The Climategate scandal is exposing the massive and systematic fraud behind the fabrication of the worldwide temperature record necessary to make the case for global warming. But what about the record of atmospheric CO2?

The U.S. NOAA openly admits to producing a CO2 record which "contains no actual data." NOAA temperature stations sited in ways that artificially inflate temperatures have been exposed over the past two years. CO2 observatories have similar flaws. Two of the five NOAA "baseline" stations are downwind from erupting volcanoes. All five are subject to localized or regional CO2 sources.

...

[Pete]

Wolfeman

"The usual armwaving denial that we should not trust our own lying eyes was delivered by a Harvard Professor in the Boston Globe......"

and got a response

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/

"........But the computer code is transparently fraudulent. Here, one finds matrices that add unexplained numbers to recent temperatures and subtract them from older temperatures (these numbers are hard-programmed in), splining observational data to model data, and other smoking guns, all showing that they were doing what was necessary to get the answers that the IPCC wanted, not the answers that the data held. They knew what they were doing, and why they were doing it......"

Who's data should be trusted right now? NOAA has been shown to be full of crap and in the bag on the scam.

Remember the scam about the testing stations around America? Next to runway taxiways getting blasted by jet exhaust, next to building HVAC units getting blasted by the fans, next to asphalt parking lots, etc, etc, etc.

Global warming only works if scientists(?) dump the Medievil Warm period.

So wolfeman, in the studies you cited, just where did they get their raw data and what computer program did they use. Any of it from questionable sources?

I'd say right now its in the court of the "warmers" to prove they're not corrupt liars spinning trash as fact.

[Pete]

Researcher: NASA hiding climate data

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

"............"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler. ....................."

I would think NASA would be required to cough up how they're cooking the books.

[Chris Cram]

Content of 1202939193.txt

From: J Shukla <shukla@cola.iges.org>
To: IPCC-Sec <IPCC-Sec@wmo.int>
Subject: Future of the IPCC:
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:46:33 -0500
Cc: Ian.allison@aad.gov.au, neville.nicholls@arts.monash.edu.au, ... (to be added below)

<x-flowed>
Dear All,


I would like to respond to some of the items in the attached text on
issues etc. in particular to the statement in the section 3.1.1
(sections 3: Drivers of required change in the future).

"There is now greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance in
the work of IPCC, which could provide policymakers a robust scientific
basis for action".

1. While it is true that a vast majority of the public and the
policymakers have accepted the reality of human influence on climate
change (in fact many of us were arguing for stronger language with a
higher level of confidence at the last meetings of the LAs), how
confident are we about the projected regional climate changes?

I would like to submit that the current climate models have such large
errors in simulating the statistics of regional (climate) that we are
not ready to provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for "action"
at regional scale. I am not referring to mitigation, I am strictly
referring to science based adaptation.
For example, we can not advise the policymakers about re-building the
city of New Orleans - or more generally about the habitability of the
Gulf-Coast - using climate models which have serious deficiencies in
simulating the strength, frequency and tracks of hurricanes.

We will serve society better by enhancing our efforts on improving our
models so that they can simulate the statistics of regional climate
fluctuations; for example: tropical (monsoon depressions, easterly
waves, hurricanes, typhoons, Madden-Julian oscillations) and
extratropical (storms, blocking) systems in the atmosphere; tropical
instability waves, energetic eddies, upwelling zones in the oceans;
floods and droughts on the land; and various manifestations (ENSO,
monsoons, decadal variations, etc.) of the coupled ocean-land-atmosphere
processes.

It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make
billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected
regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate
variability. Of course, even a hypothetical, perfect model does not
guarantee accurate prediction of the future regional climate, but at the
very least, our suggestion for action will be based on the best possible
science.

It is urgently required that the climate modeling community arrive at a
consensus on the required accuracy of the climate models to meet the
"greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance".

2. Is "model democracy" a valid scientific method? The "I" in the IPCC
desires that all models submitted by all governments be considered
equally probable. This should be thoroughly discussed, because it may
have serious implications for regional adaptation strategies. AR4 has
shown that model fidelity and model sensitivity are related. The models
used for IPCC assessments should be evaluated using a consensus metric.

3. Does dynamical downscaling for regional climate change provide a
robust scientific basis for action?

Is there a consensus in the climate modeling community on the validity
of regional climate prediction by dynamical downscaling? A large number
of dynamical downscaling efforts are underway worldwide. This is not
necessarily because it is meaningful to do it, but simply because it is
possible to do it. It is not without precedent that quite deficient
climate models are used by large communities simply because it is
convenient to use them. It is self-evident that if a coarse resolution
IPCC model does not correctly capture the large-scale mean and transient
response, a high-resolution regional model, forced by the lateral
boundary conditions from the coarse model, can not improve the response.
Considering the important role of multi-scale interactions and feedbacks
in the climate system, it is essential that the IPCC-class global models
themselves be run at sufficiently high resolution.


Regards,
Shukla

[Chris Cram]

Content not needed...

[longrange1947]

Something that still amazes me and maybe the more intelligent here can enlighten me. We have all the doom sayers stating the the east coast of the US and other countries will disappear with the rising waters.

Question, if this is not a normal cycle, then why is it that so many old ports of England, Africa and such are now over a mile inland? :munchin

[JJ_BPK]

Question, if this is not a normal cycle, then why is it that so many old ports of England, Africa and such are now over a mile inland? :munchin

Rick,,

A lot of old port cities were as far "up the river" as possible for protection from both weather and un-invited hordes.

If there had been a Ice-age going on, the port would be where the water run deepest,, at the mouth..

If there had been a "global warm period" and the ice caps melted and the city may end up well inland??

The problem with most port cities is the person that selected the site and had the city built.

An example of modern stupidity,, New Orleans,, the location was selected and it was built below the hi-tide 300 yrs ago,, and still is below the hi-tide..

Another,, Saint Petersburg, Russia. It was built on a swamp by an egotistical idiot.

The Pharaoh Akhenaten and Queen Nefertiti built the new capital of Egypt in the middle of the waterless waist land. Soon after he & his son, King Tutankhamun, died, the new guy moved it back to the river bank.

And the famus canal city, Venice Italy ?? It's sinking faster than they can prop it up...

There are others..

[longrange1947]

Just curious, saw a special on the History channel where they were showing old ports that were over a mile from any water, not just the ocean. Similar to the loading ports at some locations in which the water level is now meters below the loading port.

Seems as if cycles run in cycles. :munchin :D

[Pete]

Just curious, saw a special on the History channel where they were showing old ports that were over a mile from any water, not just the ocean. Similar to the loading ports at some locations in which the water level is now meters below the loading port.

Seems as if cycles run in cycles. :munchin :D

I don't have the figures at my fingertips but during the last ice age (not that long ago earth wise) the water level was something like 300 feet below where it is right now. Cave paintings have been found in caves that you need SCUBA gear to enter now.

As a side note, a pirate city in the carribian got hit with an earthquake and dropped right under the sea.

Ballard (sp?) and his boys did a search of the Black Sea and found a sea side village a few hundred feet under water and figure it got flooded when the area was flooded by the Med.

Man is such a tiny piece of lint compared to Mother Nature.

[Go Devil]

Something that still amazes me and maybe the more intelligent here can enlighten me. We have all the doom sayers stating the the east coast of the US and other countries will disappear with the rising waters.

Question, if this is not a normal cycle, then why is it that so many old ports of England, Africa and such are now over a mile inland? :munchin

If my classes in archaeology hold true, rivers are "live" and will change course, depth, and elevation due to ground condition and content as well as amount and flow of water.

The Midieval Warm Period/Little Ice Age caused some rivers and lakes to swell beyond their current levels.

Sediments can also play a large factor in water levels and accessibility.

Here in Indiana I am currently sitting atop a pre-ice age river that once flowed above ground east to west through Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois; it currently flows below ground, supplying water for numerous municipalities.

The only thing consitent is change.

[ZonieDiver]

I don't have the figures at my fingertips but during the last ice age (not that long ago earth wise) the water level was something like 300 feet below where it is right now. Cave paintings have been found in caves that you need SCUBA gear to enter now.

Nor do I have the figures on the dates of the last Ice Age, but in my Underwater Archeology class, lo these many years ago, my professor spent his summers off the west coast of Florida, diving in 60-90 ft. of water, seeking "fire rings" of stone - with burn material and other evidences of early man at that depth.

Unless Al Gore has proof that early man could start a fire underwater, I think even he would have to admit that this area was once above water.

[Chris Cram]

Just curious, saw a special on the History channel where they were showing old ports that were over a mile from any water, not just the ocean. Similar to the loading ports at some locations in which the water level is now meters below the loading port.

Seems as if cycles run in cycles. :munchin :D

Don’t forget plate tectonics when examining the rise and fall of sea level relative to a coast line. The Northern and Southern Oregon coast is rising while the Central coast is sinking. There are so many variables in surficial geology, that even the professionals usually qualify their predictions in the following format. “Well… It will do ‘A’ or ‘B’ or ‘C’…. or something else”. Sophomores and the Arrogant seem to forget that last one.

[GratefulCitizen]

Peer reviewed, indeed.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/revenge_of_the_computer_nerds_1.html

[longrange1947]

And with this they are still pushing the hoax for more power and money. Cap and Trade is still on the table and major arm twisting is presently occurring.

[Go Devil]

... major arm twisting is presently occurring.

And in return, arms need to be cleaved from these greedy miscreants.

[Richard]

Pretty good OpEd on the issue - if we could only ask Gallileo Galilei what he thinks of the effects of political influence upon science. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

When Science Becomes a Casualty of Politics
Cathy Young, RealClearPolitics, 10 Dec 2009

In the unfolding debate over "ClimateGate," the affair of the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that offer an inconvenient peek behind the curtain of climate science, one thing is clear. Virtually every commentator's position on the issue - is this a scandal that exposes global warming as a scientific sham, or a faux scandal stoked by climate-change denial propaganda? - can be predicted by his or her politics. You can look at the byline or the publication, and predict with near-100 percent accuracy what the article will say. It is no surprise that The Wall Street Journal deplores the arrogant and dogmatic mindset of the "warmists," or that The New Republic assails the brazenness of the "deniers."

While the facts are ostensibly the same, the interpretations differ so dramatically that we might as well be talking about two different realities. For instance, when CRU director Phil Jones wrote about using "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures in a particular period, was this an admission to manipulating and fudging temperature data? Or is this simply careless use of language that gives sinister overtones to entirely innocuous activities? Defenders of the scientists point out that "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique quite openly used by one of Jones' correspondents, Penn State University climatologist Michael Mann, in a 1998 article in Nature magazine, and that "hiding" the decline is simply another way to describe adjusting the data. Their critics say that the data was being manipulated, casting doubt on some of the most widely accepted calculations of temperature increases in the past 100 years.

Or take the CRU scientists' arrogance and secrecy in dealing with climate-change skeptics, deplored even by some proponents of the view that human-made global warming is a major crisis, such as British environmentalist activist George Monbiot. Were the "warmists" out to suppress dissenting views when they discussed taking steps to prevent the publication of skeptics' articles in peer-reviewed journals - or merely trying to keep junk science out of respectable venues? Were they reluctant to share their raw data because they were perpetrating a hoax, or because they felt besieged and harassed by corporate-paid "deniers" and concerned that any glitch in the data would be twisted to impugn scientific truths in the eyes of the public? Is the scientific consensus that supports man-made global warming based on solid science, or on manipulation of evidence and suppression of dissent?

I will freely admit that I don't have enough knowledge of science or familiarity with the scientific method to be able to come to a truly informed conclusion at to which version of "ClimateGate" is right. Neither, I suspect, do some 95 percent (or, more likely, 99 percent) of people who have spoken out on the issue, on either side. That means they are likely to go with their political instincts and listen to those "experts" who reflect their own preconceived opinions. Conservatives and libertarians, who see the crusade against global warming as an attack on capitalism and freedom, are very likely to think that the hacked emails are devastating to the case for human-made global warming; liberals and leftists, who see global warming denial as an attempt to protect greed and unbridled consumption, are very likely to think that the only real scandal is the deniers' shameless manipulation of public opinion in an attempt to discredit solid science.

There is no doubt that refusal to accept human-made climate change is often self-serving. But the other side has blinders and selfish motives of its own. "Going green" has turned into a vast industry in its own right - as well as a religion with its own brand of zealotry. For many, global warming is the secular equivalent of a biblical disaster sent by God to punish humankind for its errant (capitalist) ways. Those who embrace environmentalism as a faith have no interest in scientific and technological solutions to climate change - such as nuclear power - that do not include imposing drastic regulations on markets and curbs on consumption.

In theory, science should be above such motives. Yet, at the very least, the scientists who back strong measures against global warming have not objected to the alarmism, the political fanaticism, or the pseudo-spiritual drivel promoted by many of the crusaders in this cause.

Public trust is something scientists must work hard to maintain. When it comes to science and public policy, the average citizen usually has to trust scientists - whose word he or she has to take on faith almost as much as a religious believer takes the word of a priest. Once that trust is undermined, as it has been in recent years, science becomes a casualty of politics.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20091210/cm_rcp/when_science_becomes_a_casualty_of_politics

[dr. mabuse]

Longrange1947, funny you should mention that.

A while back, I visited the battle site at Thermopylae and noticed the receded "shoreline" area was no where near the battlesite anymore.:munchin

[Ambush Master]

I may have missed it in here, but there's one simple FACT that they are missing!!! CO2 is a "Trace" component in "Greenhouse Gasses"!!! Care to guess what the largest constituent is?!?!?!

CO2 is somewhere around 350-400 PPM whereas WATER VAPOR is somewhere between 1000 and 40,000 PPM (depending on location, barometric pressure and temp!!)!!!

WTFO?!?!?!

[Richard]

Just curious, saw a special on the History channel where they were showing old ports that were over a mile from any water, not just the ocean.

I've been to Ephesus in Turkey which was a major Greek and Roman seaport - now high and dry about 3 miles inland - musta taken a whole horde of dhimmis to move that much earth and stone that far from the seacoast in an effort to deceive the scientists. :rolleyes:

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

[Pete]

I would like to offer some perspective on the global warming debate, if not from a "left-sided" view point then from a scientific "fact-based" view point. There is plenty of political propaganda out there on both sides of the issue, ....................

Where did you go wolfeman?

We've asked a few questions about your "fact-based" view point.

The Russians say a few things here......

http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

Have to pull down but you'll find this...

"Russia affected by Climategate

A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as "Climategate," continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century................"

[afchic]

So the US has just signed on to put $10B a year in the "Global Warming Kitty". Where exactly are we getting this money? Could it be from China, that doesn't give a rats ass about global warming???? And will not put a drop of their money in it, but will be more than happy to lend us our share, and make a tidy profit off it? Does the administartion understand the term irony?

Is our leadership REALLY THAT STUPID?????

[Monsoon65]

Is our leadership REALLY THAT STUPID?????

Yes. Yes, they are that stupid.

I seriously think that no one in the Obama cabel has Clue One when it comes to money. They'll spend it like a drunken sailor on Liberty, and don't give a crap about where it goes. If they need more, they'll just raise taxes on "the rich" again.

I think a 20 year old SrA with no check cashing privileges at the BX has better financial skills than the guys holding the governments pursestrings right now.

[The Reaper]

Yes. Yes, they are that stupid.

I seriously think that no one in the Obama cabel has Clue One when it comes to money. They'll spend it like a drunken sailor on Liberty, and don't give a crap about where it goes. If they need more, they'll just raise taxes on "the rich" again.

I think a 20 year old SrA with no check cashing privileges at the BX has better financial skills than the guys holding the governments pursestrings right now.


Few, if any, of the POTUS's "advisers" have ever run a business or made a payroll.

TR

[longrange1947]

I believe they know very dam well what they are doing and are doing it on purpose. :munchin

[dadof18x'er]

I believe they know very dam well what they are doing and are doing it on purpose. :munchin

here's a clue to how they think, it's kind of long but very good...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

[ZonieDiver]

So the US has just signed on to put $10B a year in the "Global Warming Kitty". Where exactly are we getting this money? Could it be from China, that doesn't give a rats ass about global warming???? And will not put a drop of their money in it, but will be more than happy to lend us our share, and make a tidy profit off it? Does the administartion understand the term irony?

Is our leadership REALLY THAT STUPID?????

Oh... I thought I heard the figure was 100 billion.... crap, 10 billion is nothing!

[longrange1947]

It will wind up being 100 Billion. The other great nations will fail to make thier commitments due to the drain on thier economy. In turn they will expect the US to make it up. The show is to ge the US to support all the other countries to a greater degree than they do now. :munchin

[Pete]

We're in the Fluff now.

The more we think we know the more we find out we don't.

From NASA

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/23dec_voyager.htm

"......Astronomers call the cloud we're running into now the Local Interstellar Cloud or "Local Fluff" for short. It's about 30 light years wide and contains a wispy mixture of hydrogen and helium atoms at a temperature of 6000 C. The existential mystery of the Fluff has to do with its surroundings. About 10 million years ago, a cluster of supernovas exploded nearby, creating a giant bubble of million-degree gas. The Fluff is completely surrounded by this high-pressure supernova exhaust and should be crushed or dispersed by it................."

Gee, I wonder how this will impact Man Made Global Warming - Since the sience is settled.

[Pete]

A few stories on Global Warming in the News Today.

Feeling cold? We're at 30 below normal (Iowa)

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100103/NEWS/1030352/-1/SiteMap/Feeling-cold?-We-re-at-30-below-normal

Peru's mountain people face fight for survival in a bitter winter (Peru)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/03/peru-mountain-farmers-winter-cold

Siberian winds usher in record lows in Beijing (China)

http://www.theage.com.au/world/siberian-winds-usher-in-record-lows-in-beijing-20100103-lna6.html

As Britain told to expect snow for 'next 10 days', how is the rest of the world is coping with this Arctic weather? (Wrap up of many coutries)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240319/As-Britain-told-expect-snow-10-days-rest-world-coping-Arctic-weather.html#ixzz0be4lG7Lg

The Die Hard Warmers claim any local cold spots are proof of Global Warming.

20 deg here at the house this morning. Touch chilly for the Fay/Ft Bragg area - not a record - but chilly.

[Dozer523]

I get most if not all of my facts from TV and movies. And no one is smarter the Dennis Quaid (except when he's using a GPS and doesn't notice he and his buddies are skiing over a glass-domed mall, darn)
In the movie The Day After Tomorrow Global Warming caused a serious temperature decrease (Yeah, tomorrow . . . it's a movie so things get speed up. How much popcorn can you eat, waiting?)
But this is pretty interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
The idea being that warming causes the ice to melt (Usual suspect is Greenland). Lolts of cold heavy water pours into the North Atlantic and moves ssslllooowwwlllyyyy down the Atlantic Basin cooling everything. Is it true? I don't know. It's not a movie we'll just have to wait and see:munchin

[Pete]

...... Lolts of cold heavy water pours into the North Atlantic and moves ssslllooowwwlllyyyy down the Atlantic Basin cooling everything. Is it true? I don't know. It's not a movie we'll just have to wait and see:munchin

The problem with that theory is it's presented by the Warmers as fact. The problem with that fact is it needs more study. The deep ocean currents are not that well studied and wasn't a new one just discovered a couple of years ago?

What happened at the end of the medieval warm period? Did a slowdown of the system cause the cooling in Europe? If so what caused it? SUVs?

The problem for warmers is that to admit there was a medeival warm period is to bust their hockey stick graph all to pieces.

The warmers have been saying the world as we know it will end in 5 years for how long? 25 years?

There are some who are saying the Roman times were warm, cooled a bit during the Dark Ages and then warmed during the medieval warm period, cooled a bit and then has been warming since. If that's true then it would appear that warming and cooling are a natural cycle of the earth.

And you even used wiki as a source? The internet parking lot for AGW defenders?

[Dozer523]

The problem with that theory is it's presented by the Warmers as fact. The problem with that fact is it needs more study. Jeese, Pete I said," Is it true? I don't know." I'm not a "warmer" I 'm a skier. I'm hopin' for an Ice Age. The deep ocean currents are not that well studied and wasn't a new one just discovered a couple of years ago? I don't know

What happened at the end of the medieval warm period? I don't know Did a slowdown of the system cause the cooling in Europe? I don't know If so what caused it? I don't know SUVs? i don't think so. Were there SUVs then? That was sorta a long time ago, right? Maybe it was cow and pig farts. . . thought those were taking some heat lately.

The problem for warmers is that to admit there was a medeival warm period is to bust their hockey stick graph all to pieces. It's a map, not a graph. Sorta pretty with the warm blue turning cold red but never turning purple. Why doesn't ever just get nice and warm? Global warming's like my f-ing house! Why is it, everytime I get in the shower, someone has to run the washing machine and the dishwasher? And then the sprinklers come on?

The warmers have been saying the world as we know it will end in 5 years for how long? 25 years? "NO WAY! I'm not going that soon! Too much to do. I was hoping to make it until December 23, 2045.

There are some who are saying the Roman times were warm, cooled a bit during the Dark Ages and then warmed during the medieval warm period, cooled a bit and then has been warming since. If that's true then it would appear that warming and cooling are a natural cycle of the earth. YUP! I sort of thinks so too. Scientists say the Earth has been a solid snowball at least three times. I really doubt the Earth (if it could) cares what this particular dominant species does or thinks. After all Earth outlasted the dinosaurs. Look at the mess they made . . . bones lying every - damn - where! In the end, we will not be missed.

And you even used wiki as a source? I love wiki. I love everything about wiki but especially the idea behind wiki -- that people who are interested in stuff contribute. Not wik's fault there are jerk-wad, self-serving, lying assholes who post stuff that is not true just to see if they can get away with it. We already discussed that last summer. The internet parking lot for AGW defenders? Jeese, the conveyor is at least interesting, right?:) It's four feakin' degrees here, and I got nothing to do but take down the outdoor Christmas lights. Sucks to be me, today. Well, better get to it, two story house not including the walk out basement. There's a para-medic who is just as bored as me. Guess I'll make his day.

[GratefulCitizen]

Climate change.

Global temperature increases are a consequence of anthropogenic global warming.
Therefore, we need to give centralized control of our economies over to an elite few.

Global temperature decreases are a consequence of anthropogenic global warming.
Therefore, we need to give centralized control of our economies over to an elite few.

Yous gonna be rich, yous gonna be poor.
Yous gonna have good times, yous gonna have bad.

The agw crowd sure is good at predicting the future. :rolleyes:

[Pete]

Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/

Another story sure to "not make the news" in the US.

".......Hatton performed a z-test statistical analysis of the period 1999-2009 against 1946-2009 to test the six conclusions. He also ran the data ending with what the IPCC had available in 2007. He found that North Atlantic hurricane activity increased significantly, but the increase was counterbalanced by diminished activity in the East Pacific, where hurricane-strength storms are 50 per cent more prevalent. The West Pacific showed no significant change. Overall, the declines balance the increases.

"When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances." This isn't indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms.

Even the North Atlantic increase should be treated with caution, Hatton concludes, since the period contains one anomalous year of unusually high hurricane activity - 2005 - the year Al Gore used the Katrina tragedy to advance the case for the manmade global warming theory............"