• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Global Warming

Damn Mark,

I want to give you rep points for that last post but I need to spread them around more.

FOGTENDER FOR PRESIDENT!!!
 
JimR said:
I'll second that nominee. "Fogtender for President"
Click to expand...

Naw, too many skeletons in my closet... would sound like a wedding car driving down the road with a bunch of cans being towed behind it....

Might take an anonymous appointment that has lots clout and high pay to support my track rebuilding addictions... :thumb:
 
fogtender said:
Naw, too many skeletons in my closet... would sound like a wedding car driving down the road with a bunch of cans being towed behind it....

Might take an anonymous appointment that has lots clout and high pay to support my track rebuilding addictions... :thumb:
Click to expand...

I bet you have less "Real" skeletons than the Clintons do?
 
Snowcat Operations said:
Your probably more correct than most people know!
Click to expand...


I wish the truth would come out about all the dead people that followed the Clintons since he was in Arkansas. I also wish the truth would come out about Hillary's laywer credentials.


Back to the Global Warming. We are expecting another 6 inches of snow this weekend. That should bring the total for December up to 20+ inches. Not bad for Global Warming.
 
Oh my God some people just don't understand!

fogtender

Mate we are in the worst drought in recorded history here in Australia. For sure the drought will break and we will have good rains again. If you understood global warming you would realise the changes are much more subtle, than to state it's cold or wet or dry. I would suggest you send a letter to your God and ask him to guide you to someone that can enlighten you of the facts.

Rain forests once covered about 14% of the earth today it is less than 6%. We lose about 1 and1/2 acres of rain forest every second. You talk absolute bunkum, most rain forests don't recover once indiscriminately cleared.
 
daedong said:
Oh my God some people just don't understand!



Rain forests once covered about 14% of the earth today it is less than 6%. We lose about 1 and1/2 acres of rain forest every second. You talk absolute bunkum, most rain forests don't recover once indiscriminately cleared.
Click to expand...

What covered the earth where you live? I remember a bunch of folks protesting here when the city mowed down a thicket where a bunch of birds were nesting. Most of them had come from across the street from their subdivision of stick built homes. I guess it was lost on them that those birds probably nested where their houses sat. Every one of us that lives in a home or works in a building took away habitat, forest, rain forest, wet lands or what ever. It's kind of arrogant for someone to sit in their nice home and tell some farmer on another continent not to clear his land for other purposes. Man won't be here forever, so far the only thing that has come close are cockroaches.
 
daedong said:
Oh my God some people just don't understand!

fogtender

Mate we are in the worst drought in recorded history here in Australia. For sure the drought will break and we will have good rains again. If you understood global warming you would realise the changes are much more subtle, than to state it's cold or wet or dry. I would suggest you send a letter to your God and ask him to guide you to someone that can enlighten you of the facts.

Rain forests once covered about 14% of the earth today it is less than 6%. We lose about 1 and1/2 acres of rain forest every second. You talk absolute bunkum, most rain forests don't recover once indiscriminately cleared.
Click to expand...


Daedong,

Sorry you missed the humor, so I will point out the "obvious" fact that rain forests are wet, they don't burn, they rot. A "Rain Forest" gets almost 200 inches of rain a year... Jungles are drier and they do burn, but they don't sound as touchy-feely as "Rain Forests" and don't draw in the money from the far left to save them.

People cut down trees and plant crops. The crops are growing faster than most of the trees that were cut down and may produce Oxygen even faster than the old growth which gets rid of the CO2. The loss of the "Rain Forest" has been ongoing for thousands of years, not the twenty to fourty that is constantly claimed. The Aztec's cut and burned almost everything, then after they "Distroyed" their enviroment, what happened... it overgrew everything they built... in less of a blink of an eye in the earth's timeline...

The Drought you are in is not the "Worst" in history, it may be the "Worst" in your recent history, and may be a monsoon shortly and then what...

At one point in time, there was no Rain Forests at all, then they were everywhere... Some were covered in ice, some were under water, some are now oil fields in the Arctic, change happens and we really don't have as much power to control it as we like to imagine. The planet may have your part of the world slated for the next Atlantis...what happens then?

What happens when your drought turns into a lightning strike and burns off naturally, is that man's fault too? Regardless of what you or the far left wants, the planet is going to do what it wants and my point is that some are creating a religion out of it, the sheep are following trying to drag everyone else with them, and that I object to.

We need to clean up after ourselves, but not use it as a lame excuse to give people power that don't deserve it...

Currently it is -40 outside my house, the East Coast of the U.S. is getting hammered in cold weather, Northern Calif. is under a winter storm watch and expecting up to two feet of new snow.... Don't sound like a very good day for the "Church or the Global Warming" to me.:4_11_9: The Masive Hurricanes that were suppose to happen, didn't... it goes on and on as it has for Millions of years...
 
Last edited:
frogtender, read what I said
"Mate we are in the worst drought in recorded history here in Australia."

Rain forests do burn and are burnt deliberately in the dry season.


Merry Christmas
 
More intellectual dissent and evidence that there is no consensus.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=178&Itemid=1

VISCOUNT MONCKTON'S INSIDE STORY ON THE BALI CONFERENCE A readable but revealing summary of what really happened at the UNFCC meeting on climate change in Bali. And why the ordinary people of the world should be very, very afraid.

Bali diary

Fortnight Of The Undead

By Christopher Monckton in Nusa Dua, Bali

Down the Poxy, our local fleapit late on a Saturday night, voodoo flicks like Night Of The Undead were always popular when I was a lad. To shrieks of scornful merriment from the teenage audience, mindless zombies would totter aimless across the clumsily-constructed sets with lugubrious expressions frozen on their messily-made-up death-masks until the hero, with the lurv interest wrenched screeching from the clutches of the late Baron Samedi and draped admiringly on her rescuer’s extravagantly-muscled arm, triumphantly saved the day.

Thus it was in Bali during the Fortnight Of The Undead. There was surreality in the air. The overwhelming majority of the governmental delegates, journalists, quango stallholders, fortune-hunters and environmental lobbyists who attended the UN climate conference in the soulless Nusa Dua conference centre tottered aimlessly among the clumsily-constructed sets with lugubrious expressions frozen on their messily-made-up death-masks. Monckton’s Rule: the further Left, the tackier the make-up. The only laughter came from our gallant band of doubters, the heroes of this otherwise gloomy production.

I nearly didn’t go to Bali. The UN, which had not wanted any dissent at this carefully-staged event, rejected my journalistic credentials out of hand, and without explanation. However, a non-government organization came to the rescue and the high priests didn’t dare to say No a second time. That would have looked too obvious. I proved my journo-cred by writing a major article in the Jakarta Post on day 1 of the conference, cheekily claiming my share of the Nobel Prize because the IPCC had made a correction to its latest Holy Book at my suggestion, and concluding that, since our influence on the climate is a non-problem, and the correct approach to a non-problem is to do nothing, my fellow-participants should have the courage to do nothing and push off home.

The Post circulated the article to all delegates and syndicated it worldwide, provoking weeping and gnashing of dentures among the zombies at my challenge to the scientific accuracy of the Holy Books of the IPCC. I don’t think the UN will dare to question my journalistic credentials again.

The UN’s sinister bureaucrats were furious that their attempt to stop me writing in the newspapers from the conference had failed. So they interrupted a presentation by me to delegates, threatened to have me thrown out by Security if I addressed any meeting open to the Press in the conference venues, and cancelled without reason a room they had previously booked for our team’s daily conferences. The room wasn’t even needed for someone else: it stood empty. So we mounted a demo outside the conference: half a dozen scientists (and me) in white lab-coats and (for some reason) wrap-around shades, holding a banner saying, “New science drives out old fears: Kyoto 2 is not needed”.

The UN, whose pot-bellied goons had taken over the entire Nusa Dua conference zone from the leaner and more competent Indonesian and Balinese security forces, moved us on within minutes, while allowing anti-nuclear protesters, Greens and even Hilary Benn, described as a UK Minister, to mount demonstrations for hours on end.

The official propaganda mantra at the conference, first suggested by a UK pressure-group last year and now enthusiastically adopted by the UN, was that “The Science Is Settled”. The zombies, led by the outgoing and incoming conference chairmen, recited this mantra with glazed but increasingly desperate pietism.

An IPCC lead author came to one of the press conferences we managed to hold before the UN showed its alarm at our effect on the delegates by shutting us down. He said a mere layman like me had no business challenging the supposed “consensus”. And he tried to maintain that a table of figures in the latest Holy Book had been added up correctly when, as a slide I was showing made quite clear, it had not added up to within a factor of two of the right answer. In the land of the zombies, two plus two equals nine.

Outside the conference hall, I went up to a fragrant Japanese lady manning one of the exhibits set up by the ever-growing number of taxpayer-funded quangos with bewildering but important-sounding initials that are profiting by the lavish State handouts available to anyone willing to proselytize for the cult of the wrathful God Siotu. “What disasters?” I enquired, with an expression of shambling, potty-Peer innocence. This usually provoked a lurid list of plagues, droughts, floods, deaths, cataclysms and mass extinctions worthy of St. John the Divine at his most hyperbolic. The UK High Court judge who condemned Al Gore for exaggerations of this sort would have locked up most of the stallholders and sent me the key.

But this lady had somehow escaped the zombies. She drew me to one side and whispered, “Don’t tell my boss, but two-thirds of the delegates here are mad.” They would have been mad, if they’d had minds at all. One of the most enduring impressions on all of our team was that the Enlightenment has been switched off. Enter the Dark Age of Unreason. Ever since the high priests tampered with the scientists’ text of the IPCC’s 1995 Holy Book, deleting multiple references to the absence of credible evidence for any anthropogenic effect on climate and inserting the directly contrary statement that there was now a discernible human influence, anyone who dares to check the science is regarded as a heretic for daring to question the Holy Books of voodoo. Never mind the facts: just believe the nonsense, even when it doesn’t add up.

I couldn’t resist baiting the stallholder at the stand run by a certain national weather bureau. This particular tax-gobbler, reliably Messianic in its Siotological fervour, had a childishly imaginative poster that ramped up the imagined disasters as global temperature rose by each additional degree Celsius. At just 2 degrees, the poster said the Greenland ice sheet would be permanently destabilized. Oo-er. The message was illustrated by the usual picture of a glacier calving spectacularly into the water.

“’Scuse me,” I said, Earl-of-Emsworth expression in place, “but isn’t that a picture of a glacier that cuts across a freshwater lake in Argentina?” For it wasn’t Greenland. It looked suspiciously like a grainy vid-grab from the traditional collapsing-glacier footage shown every few minutes on the unspeakable BBC. As the waters of the freshwater lake build up behind the glacier, it breaks apart spectacularly every eight years. Or rather, as I pointed out to the stallholder, every five years these days, because much of the southern hemisphere is cooling. This image did not demonstrate “global warming” but regional cooling.

The stallholder robotically reached for the IPCC’s latest Holy Book and showed me graphs of sharply-rising temperatures in South Africa, Australasia and South America. She didn’t show me the Antarctic, of course: that has been cooling for half a century. It had not occurred to the poor dear to wonder why the IPCC’s temperature graphs for all continents but one were shown as rising steeply in recent years, when the global mean temperature has not shown any statistically-significant rise since the IPCC’s previous Holy Book came out in 2001. The thing about stable average temperatures is that if some have risen others must have fallen. Or so it seems to me. But then I’m not a zombie.

“Anyway,” I said, “doesn’t the 2007 rewrite of the Holy Book say that the Greenland Ice Sheet would only lose significant ice-mass if a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius or more were to be sustained for several millennia?” That, after all, was what a UK High Court judge had recently found, when he condemned Al Gore’s ludicrous hundredfold exaggeration of sea-level rise as alarmist and told ministers to correct this and eight other flagrant errors in Gore’s rocky-horror movie before exposing hapless schoolchildren to it.

Here’s a question. If the science behind the scare is as certain as the zombies say, why are they so terrified of a few doubters? Google me and you’ll find hundreds of enviro-loony websites, such as Wikipedia, now an international music-hall joke for inaccuracy, that call me a fraud (for writing about climate science when I’m not a climate scientist), a plagiarist (for citing learned papers rather than making up scare stories), and a liar (for saying I’m a member of the House of Lords when – er – I’m a member of the House of Lords, though, being merely hereditary, I don’t have a seat there).

One of these bedwetting sites even has a “Monckton Watch” page, with a hilarious collection of colourful stories, including the story of how I told the stallholder that much of the southern hemisphere was cooling. No mention that the location of the BBC’s favourite glacier has indeed been cooling. And, of course, no mention of the elephant in the room – that a national weather bureau had flagrantly exaggerated the Holy Book’s official ramblings about Greenland on its silly, taxpayer-funded poster.

You’ll find precious little science on the zombie websites. They specialize in global whingeing ad hominem, rather than scientific argument ad rem. The frenetic personal assaults have become so self-evidently ludicrous that I’m getting an increasing number of emails from people who have first heard of my work from the Kool-Aid slurpers and have gone on to find, to their surprise, that the peer-reviewed science to which my climate papers politely draw attention does suggest that the Holy Books have exaggerated both the influence of Siotu over temperature and the consequences of warmer weather.

An example. A couple of months back I posted a paper citing peer-reviewed evidence that the fingerprint of greenhouse-gas warming – temperature rising over the decades at a rate three times faster six miles up in the tropical troposphere than at the surface – is absent from all of the real-world records of actual temperature change throughout the past half-century. During the Bali conference, I presented my own linear regression analysis going back 25 years and demonstrating that the rate of change in temperature falls with altitude, while the IPCC’s models predict that if CO2 is at fault it should be increasing with altitude. Two days later our team of heroes had the pleasure of circulating to delegates a paper just published by the formidable John Christy and his colleagues, spectacularly and definitively confirming this result.

We circulated a one-page summary of the Christy paper showing the tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot” as predicted in the Holy Book, and the total absence of the “hot-spot” in the observed data. We explained that, in the words of Professor Dick Lindzen of MIT, who knows more about the bad behaviour of the atmosphere than anyone, the missing “hot-spot” means that the IPCC’s estimate of the impact of greenhouse-gas enrichment on temperature is at least a threefold exaggeration.

As I was handing our flyer round the Press tent, a “development journalist” angrily said: “How dare you criticize the IPCC’s scientists?” I sat down and said: “I don’t attack the scientists, though they certainly attack me. I attack the bad science.”

“Well, then,” he said, “how dare you substitute your judgment for that of thousands of climate scientists?” I said that the crucial chapter in the Holy Book attributing rising temperatures to Siotu had been written by only 53 people, not all of whom were scientists, and that – by coincidence – 53% of the comments by 60 reviewers had been rejected by the authors of the chapter. Not exactly the 2,500 scientists claimed by the high priests, and not exactly a consensus either.

I explained that I was an old-fashioned scribbler who had been taught to be sceptical of all sides of every debate, and that the authors of the Holy Book were obviously not good at sums. “Give me an example,” he said. So I did.

The Holy Book saith: “The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20% during the last 10 years (1995-2005).” Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5% higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1%, not 20%. The high priests have exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.

“So how are you so nauseatingly certain that you’re right?” he asked. “Well,” I said, “because I worked out that the proportionate increase in CO2 between 1995 and 2005 was 5%, not 20%, and then did a simple calculation from this to work out the radiative forcing. It’s called ‘checking’.” He looked baffled. Voodoo has indeed replaced science, and the paradox is that the new religion claims to worship science.

The zombies seem listlessly incapable of checking even the most elementary facts. Take Yvo de Boer, the UN archpriest at the conference. He made an impassioned speech saying that the sceptics had had their day and that everyone now accepted that, for instance, the island nations of the Pacific were facing an imminent threat from rising sea levels. Er, no. Corals have been around for 275 million years. They’ve survived temperatures up to 7 degrees Celsius warmer than today’s. And has it never occurred to the poor sap to wonder why, after a rise of 400 feet in sea level over the past 10,000 years, the sea has – by some startling concidence – exactly reached the surface of all the coral atolls?

No, it’s not a coincidence, because corals grow to meet the light. They can outpace at least ten times the Holy Books’ high-end estimate of sea-level rise, which is anyway down by a third since just six years ago. We know this, because the mean centennial rate of sea-level rise since the end of the last Ice Age has been – get this – at least double the high priests’ highest estimate of future sea-level rise. Nine-tenths of the land-based ice sheets of the world have already melted. There’s so little left that even if it began to melt (which it won’t) the rise in sea level would be very, very slow.

The new Australian prime minister got a dutiful round of applause from the zombies when he announced that his first official act had been to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. He didn’t tell them that back home he’d also let it be known that Australia had not the slightest intention of complying with the protocol. But then, practically no one else is complying with it either.

For me, it was this laughable disconnection between rhetoric and reality that was the most striking feature of the conference. Anyone with half a brain can see, after making the most elementary of enquiries, that greenhouse gases can’t have all that much effect on temperature, that even if they did the consequences would be minimal and largely beneficial. For this reason – since Heaven has a sense of humour – global temperature has now been stubbornly failing to rise for the best part of a decade, and (unless you’re James Hansen, who started the scare in the first place) 2007 will yet again fail to be a “record year for temperature” – and the zombies go back only 150 years.

Since CO2 can’t be exercising more than a minuscule influence on temperature, and since the temperature is accordingly failing to rise as predicted (or, in the past seven years, at all), the entire conference was unnecessary, but the zombies didn’t know, and they didn’t care, and – either way – they were getting rich at taxpayers’ expense thanks to the most elaborately-conceived scare of modern times.

Bryan Leyland, the leader of our delegation and an engineer far too highly-qualified to be an IPCC reviewer, asked the IPCC lead author how many more years of temperatures failing to rise as predicted would convince him to give up the pretence that the IPCC’s predictions have any connection with reality. Answer came there none.

I had a quiet word with the US delegation before the conference began, just to confirm that they were not about to go soft and goofy as Australia has done. A solidly-constructed Congressman gave me the clear message that as long as George Bush was in the White House there would be no nonsense. That meant that both this conference and the next one – at Poznan in Poland this time next year – will merely mark time until President Bush isn’t. Nothing can happen until Copenhagen in two years’ time.

I also said Konichi-wa to the Japanese delegation, whose members diligently turned up half an hour before each session, while the rest were still drying out their hangovers. They politely read our daily messages to delegates, and joined the US and Canada as the pariahs of the conference, refusing to shuffle along with the zombies.

The Luxembourgeois delegation were not so polite. A peasant-faced minister took one look at the High Court judge’s list of the errors in Al Gore’s movie and rudely tore it up in front of me, throwing the pieces on to the floor. Not enough Luxe, too much bourgeois, one feels. Unusual animation for a zombie, though. One of his colleagues began collecting up copies of the judge’s list of Gore’s bloopers as I was distributing them. I remonstrated politely and she desisted, deciding to go and complain to Security instead. On the way, she murmured that she had a black belt in karate. “So do I,” I said, with equal mendacity, trying my geriatric best to look like James Bond.

Back at the Poxy, the only time the zombies used to show any animation was when Baron Samedi came on set. They would set up an eerie, unpleasant keening, and would jerk chaotically in their frenzied excitement. So it was in Bali when, on the eve of the closing Friday, not so much Baron Samedi as Baron Thursdi, Al Gore private-jetted and motorcaded in with his vast retinue to receive the plaudits of the faithful, and to hell with the carbon footprint. Gore did what I had been taught never to do. He attacked his own country for withstanding the voodoo cult. The zombies loved it. The keening and screeching and jerking were exactly as I had remembered them.

Gore needs to pretend that the situation is urgent when it is becoming increasingly plain to everyone that it isn’t. The robust corn-stalk chewers of Iowa, polled recently about election issues, ranked “global warming” so low that fewer than one in 200 thought it mattered at all.

Therefore, to whip up the flagging panic that keeps the gravy-train of “global warming” rolling, Baron Thursdi came up with a new, improved list of 50 errors and exaggerations:

• Floods in 18 countries, plus Mexico: Four errors in one. First, individual extreme-weather events cannot be attributed to “global warming”. Secondly, the number of floods is not unprecedented, though TV makes them more visible than before. Thirdly, even if the floods were caused by warming, the fact of warming does not tell us the cause. Thirdly – and it was astonishing how few of the zombies knew this – there has been no statistically-significant increase in mean global surface temperature since the last IPCC Holy Book in 2001. “Global warming” has stopped.
• The Arctic ice-cap will be gone within 5 to 7 years: Six errors in one. First, as a paper published by NASA during the conference demonstrates, Arctic warming has nothing much to do with “global warming”: instead, as numerous studies confirm, it is chiefly caused by decadal alterations in the ocean circulation affecting the region. Thirdly, it was warmer in the Arctic in the 1940s than it is today. Fourthly, thinner pack-ice is surprisingly resistant to melting, so the ice-cap will probably be still there for many years to come, even if (which is unlikely) the warming trend resumes. Fifthly, the ice-cap was probably absent during the mediaeval warm period, and almost certainly absent during the Bronze Age climate optimum, when temperatures were higher than today’s for almost 2,000 years. Sixthly, the Greenland ice sheet melted completely away 850,000 years ago. There cannot have been an Arctic ice-cap then. So the disappearance of the Arctic ice-cap, even if it occurred, would be neither unprecedented nor alarming.
• Forest fires are causing devastation: Five errors in one. First, most forest fires are caused by humans – power-lines sparking in the wind, carelessly-tossed cigarette-butts, or even arson. Secondly, individual events of this kind cannot be attributed to “global warming”. Thirdly, warmer weather is generally wetter weather, because – as the Clausius-Clapeyron relation demonstrates – the space occupied by the atmosphere can carry near-exponentially greater concentrations of water vapour as the weather becomes warmer. Fourthly, it has not got warmer since 2001, so there is no factual basis whatsoever for attributing more forest fires to warmer weather. Fifthly, the fact of warming does not tell us the cause.
• Many cities are short of water: Four errors in one. First, water shortages arise from too much demand on too little supply. Secondly, one cannot attribute individual events of this kind to “global warming”. Thirdly, there has been no “global warming” for the best part of a decade. Fourthly, the fact of warming does not tell us the cause.
• There are more severe storms: Six errors in one. First, the scientific literature is divided on the question whether warmer weather will intensify storms. Secondly, the scientific literature is unanimous that the warmer weather which stopped happening in 2001 has not in fact caused more severe storms: the number of landfalling Atlantic hurricanes shows no trend for 100 years, and, in the 30 years for which we have records, the number of tropical cyclones and of typhoons has actually fallen steadily. Thirdly, outside the tropics warmer weather is likely to mean fewer severe storms. Fourthly, even if there had been more severe storms, they cannot be attributed to “global warming”. Fifthly, there has not been any “global warming” for the past seven years. Sixthly, even if there had been any warming, the fact of warming does not tell us the cause.
• West Antarctica has lost an area the size of California: Four errors in one. First, the bulk of Antarctica is cooling (Doran et al., 2004). Secondly, Gore’s movie says there were seven areas the size of Rhode Island that had melted (in total, 1/55 of the size of Texas), so his figures are inconsistent. Thirdly, Antarctic sea-ice extent reached record levels in September this year. Fourthly, even if Antarctica had warmed, the fact of warming does not tell us the cause.
• Deserts are growing: Three errors in one. First, some deserts are growing; others are not. Secondly, Gore’s movie says the southern Sahara is plagued by new drought, but the Sahara has shrunk by 300,000 square kilometres in the past 30 years, giving place to vegetation. Nomadic tribes are returning to territories they have not occupied in living memory. Thirdly, the fact of warming does not tell us the cause.
• Sea level is rising: Eight errors in one. First, sea level has been rising ever since the end of the last Ice Age. Secondly, it has been rising at a mean rate of 4 feet per century, more than double the latest Holy Book’s highest estimate of future sea-level rise. Thirdly, Gore himself does not believe his ridiculous estimate that the melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets will raise sea level by 20 feet imminently: he has just bought a $4 million condo in the St. Regis Hotel, San Francisco, a few feet from the Bay. Fourthly, the Holy Book shows that the combined contribution of these two ice sheets to sea-level rise over the next 100 years will be just two and a half inches. Fifthly, most of the 1 ft 5 in sea level rise that is the IPCC’s best estimate over the coming century will occur not from ice-melt but from thermosteric expansion of sea-water. Sixthly, Nils-Axel Morner, the world’s greatest expert on sea level, says even the IPCC’s forecast is exaggerated. Seventhly, the UK High Court judge condemned Gore for his “alarmist” exaggeration of sea-level rise, yet Gore seems unwilling to accept that he has erred. Eighthly, even if sea-level were rising at record rates, which it is not, the fact of the warming that caused the increase does not tell us the cause of the warming.
• CO2 is “global warming pollution”: Seven errors in one. First, CO2 is a naturally-occurring substance, not a pollutant. Secondly, CO2 concentrations, in geological terms, are at record low levels – less than 400 parts per million compared with 7,000 ppm in the Cambrian era. Thirdly, CO2 is food for trees and plants. With chlorophyll and sunlight, it is an essential constituent in photosynthesis, without which there would be no plant life as we know it. Fourthly, CO2 is harmless to animals even at very high concentrations – indeed, the concentration in the room where Gore spoke, with a thousand zombies yelling lustily, is likely to have well above 1000 ppm, but none of the zombies came to harm. Fifthly, CO2 is harmless to plants even at concentrations of 10,000 ppm, as laboratory tests have demonstrated. Sixthly, you breathe out CO2 every time you exhale. Seventhly, CO2 forms the bubbles in sparkling drinks like Coca-Cola and champagne, and it also forms the spaces between the solid matter in bread. For all these reasons, it is not a pollutant, and we are doing no more than to restore to the atmosphere the normal levels that have harmlessly prevailed in the past, playing their part in the emergence and development of life itself.
• Venus has experienced a runaway greenhouse effect, and the EU says Earth is the sister planet of Venus: Four errors in one. First, Venus is much closer to the Sun than the Earth is, and the incoming solar radiation of 236 watts per square meter at the surface is far too little to create a runaway greenhouse effect. Secondly, the surface temperature on Venus, chiefly because of its proximity to the Sun, is 455 degrees C, compared with the Earth’s 15 degrees C. Gore mentioned these figures, but led the audience falsely to imagine that the difference in temperature is chiefly attributable to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of Venus. Thirdly, CO2 concentration reached 7000 parts per million in the Cambrian era, compared with less than 400 ppm today, and temperature rose only to 22 degrees Celsius, so Gore’s comparison with the 455 degrees C obtaining on the surface of Venus is a 20-fold exaggeration of the maximum temperature likely to arise on Earth. Fourthly, a concentration of 7000 parts per million could only be reached if today’s concentration were to increase 18-fold. In 1994 Gore said that there were canals on Mars, with water in them. Best not to take his word on other planetary bodies. He would have been more to the point if he had admitted that warming has recently been observed on Mars, on the surface of Jupiter, on the largest of Neptune’s moons and even on distant Pluto. All those SUVs in space, one supposes. Or could the guilty party, perhaps, be the Sun, which has been more active in the past 70 years than at almost any similar period in at least the past 11,400 years?
• The IPCC’s 2007 Holy Book is “unanimous”: Five errors in one. First – and this cannot be repeated often enough – science is not a democratic process, and it does not matter how many scientists reach a conclusion if that conclusion is contrary to the objective truth. Secondly, the Holy Book is in fact very far from unanimous: it quotes numerous peer-reviewed papers that disagree with its conclusions. Thirdly, the Holy Book fails to quote many hundreds of further peer-reviewed papers that disagree with its conclusions. Fourthly, the IPCC’s Holy Books are divided into chapters, each with about 50 authors, and the authors sign off only on their own chapters. Fifthly, the high priests of voodoo try to secure unanimity by rejecting the nomination of authors, such as Paul Reiter, who knows that malaria is not a tropical disease and would not be spread by “global warming”, whose views are known to be contrary to the teachings of the Holy Books. Fifthly, Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes, resigned from the IPCC process, condemning it as unduly political, when Kevin Trenberth, his lead author, appeared on a public platform advocating the notion that “global warming” causes more frequent hurricanes. He is by no means the only resigner from the supposedly “unanimous” IPCC process.
• Svante Arrhenius made 10,000 calculations 116 years ago, demonstrating that temperature would rise “many degrees” in response to CO2 doubling: 4 errors in one. First, Arrhenius’ paper making that erroneous claim was published in 1896, 111 years ago, not 116. Secondly, his calculations are now known to have been inaccurate, since he had relied upon lunar spectral data that were defective. Thirdly, Arrhenius could have spared himself the trouble of his 10,000 calculations if he had used the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation, which integrates radiant-energy emission spectra across all wavelengths and converts the energy to temperature. In 1906, once he had come across the equation, he wrote a little-known paper in German, in which he revised his calculations and concluded that the warming in response to a CO2 doubling would be 1.6 degrees C, or exactly half the IPCC’s exaggerated current central estimate. Fourthly, even this estimate is probably too high.

As with the 35 errors in Gore’s movie, so with the 50 in his speech to the zombies in Bali, comfortably exceeding his personal best – all the errors tend towards an extreme and scientifically-unwarranted exaggeration of the imagined threat posed by “global warming”. The zombies, of course, lapped up every word handed down from on high by Baron Thursdi, for Bali was a science-free, fact-free zone, question-free zone. The probability that all 43 of Gore’s latest errors could have pointed by mere accident and ignorance in the direction of excessive alarm is less than one in a million billion.

Therein lies a danger that Gore has not yet seen. For he failed, yet again, to declare his financial interest before whipping up worldwide alarm with his trademark errors and exaggerations in Bali. He is a director of Lehman Brothers, a global finance house that wants to control the worldwide managed market in carbon-emissions trading. He founded his own “green” corporation, Generation Investment Management. He is a paid member of the Board of a renewable-energy company. In the UK, if he made a speech containing so many deliberate and unidirectional errors as he did in Bali, and if he failed to declare his financial interest, he would be committing a criminal offence.

It is surely only a matter of time before a complaint is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, alleging that, through the numerous, extreme and scientifically-unwarranted exaggerations which Gore has relentlessly continued to peddle notwithstanding the warning in the UK judge’s verdict, he is in effect fraudulently promoting a false prospectors to potential investors. Indeed, his exaggerations are on such a scale, and have commanded such attention, and have done so much damage, that he may even have committed an offence under the Federal racketeering statute. I wanted to ask Gore about his failure to disclose his financial interest, but – as usual – he does not dare to take questions.

The day Gore spoke in Bali, I received an email (one of hundreds from all over the world in response to my article in the Jakarta Post) from one of the Port Commissioners of Washington State. He said his fellow-Commissioners, solely on the basis of Gore’s rantings, were proposing to increase the height of the sea-walls by 20 feet. Real economic and environmental harm is now being caused by these unscientific exaggerations, which have gained credence among the zombies merely by their repetition on the lips of a former Vice-President of the United States.

The US delegation did not crumble in Bali. It stood firm in the cause of right and truth and common sense. So it was not possible for the zombies to go as far as they wanted in inflicting pointless, economically-disastrous and climatically-irrelevant policies on the world. For the sake of being seen to do something while they wait for Copenhagen, they have laboriously drawn up a “Bali Roadmap”. Like the Middle East Roadmap, the Bali Roadmap is a non-map of a non-existent road to nowhere. Meantime, we have alarmed the alarmists, and that is a first step towards the dawn of truth.
Last Updated ( Monday, 17 December 2007 )
Click to expand...
 
daedong said:
frogtender, read what I said
"Mate we are in the worst drought in recorded history here in Australia."

Rain forests do burn and are burnt deliberately in the dry season.


Merry Christmas
Click to expand...

Daedong,

Like I said, I am sure you are right. Recorded (written) history "Down Under" goes back a couple hundred years as best, more than likely about one hundred years fairly accurately. And I was right about your drought not being the longest, just the most recent that you are aware of in the last few years.... But according to the weather history website I posted below from your Country's weather center, it looks pretty normal and not the "Sky is falling" you are refering to, may be a bit drier of late...... Seems that it is a normal 10 year cycle and will be headed into the more rainy seasons shortly, not the end of the world stuff that so many expound on...

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/rain_ahead.shtml

The Planet has been here hundreds of millions of years, so this drought is not even a "Blip" on the timeline chart.

So after the "Rain Forest" is burnt off, what happens, does it turn into a desert forever? I think that "Maybe" somebody plants something there or it regrows on it's own. If I don't mow my own yard in the summer even here is Alaska, it will revert to what it was before I was here, lots of trees and thick brush.... Are you saying that it doesn't do that down there? Last Summer we had 200,000+ acres burn off, and guess what, it is really green there now and the critters are doing really well, they migrate to where the food is at!!

Merry Christmas
 
Last edited:
Fogtender dont even bother. He appears to BOW at the Altar of Gloabl Warming and most likely sees Al Gore as the worlds savior. Or even as GOD. Who knows. There Global Warming Bible is the absolute truth to them and no data no matter how correct it is can change there little minds (Man made Global Warming believers that is). So save your breath (you know it puts out that evil CO2). When the planet starts its next Ice Age remember these fools for what they are. Followers, non thinkers, what can you do for me not what I can do for the good of man type of people.
 
Last edited:
The problem is the ones that bitch the most about being green are also the ones that use the most energy and expect the rest of to sacrifice for their greater cause as they can buy credits or do nothing to offset their own greed. Too bad, I will not ever buy into that program. Gore and the rest can just shove it where the sun never shines and keep on beating their energy crisis conservation global warming turned green turd drum....

Yes, now I feel better....:thumb:
 
Snowcat Operations said:
Fogtender dont even bother. He appears to BOW at the Altar of Gloabl Warming and most likely sees Al Gore as the worlds savior.
Click to expand...

Well somebody convinced these folks that the sky is falling, maybe I can show them that it is the Earth rising up instead!

Some people are taught something from somewhere, maybe I can shed a bit of a light on them to open their eyes now and then. It wasn't but a few years ago the "Experts" were claiming that Global Ice Age, was bearing down on us... I guess I missed that one too....

-44 here now, at that point, it don't mean much between F or C on the gauge... Went outside really quickly and wacked a few logs with the chain saw, now I got to go back out and split them as soon as my glasses quit fogging...
 
My daughter moved from Ft. Lauderdale to Anchorage last summer, we hope to head that way this Spring or summer. I think I'll skip the -44 though if I can.
 
Snowcat Operations said:
Fogtender dont even bother. He appears to BOW at the Altar of Gloabl Warming and most likely sees Al Gore as the worlds savior. Or even as GOD. Who knows. There Global Warming Bible is the absolute truth to them and no data no matter how correct it is can change there little minds (Man made Global Warming believers that is). So save your breath (you know it puts out that evil CO2). When the planet starts its next Ice Age remember these fools for what they are. Followers, non thinkers, what can you do for me not what I can do for the good of man type of people.
Click to expand...

It is lucky you are in the minority.
I am fifty and at my age living in such a wealthy lucky country, global warming will not affect my affluent life style, unfortunately my daughter and my future grand children may not be so lucky.
I envy you, I do wish I could just bury my head in the sand, deny what the over whelming number of leading scientists say, just be simple in my thoughts and get on with just the present and my own self interests.

Merry Christmas, and may your God give you guidance in your thoughts in the new year.
 
Well Global Warming is at it again here since last night. We got two more inches of Global Warming and with more on the way today. It should be in the high 30's low 40's at this time of year. I suggest that all these left wingers come her to experience this weather first hand and to shovel all this white stuff.
 

Attachments

  • DSC01862.jpg
    DSC01862.jpg
    73 KB · Views: 64
daedong said:
It is lucky you are in the minority.
Click to expand...

Where do you get this bit of info? Just because Al says it
doesn't make it so.

daedong said:
I envy you, I do wish I could just bury my head in the sand, deny what the over whelming number of leading scientists say,
Click to expand...

Feel free to back this up too! Leading scientists? Who?

daedong said:
Merry Christmas, and may your God give you guidance in your thoughts in the new year.
Click to expand...

Backatcha DD!!
 
So much for that "consensus", I'm just not seeing it . . .


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
[FONT=times new roman,times]U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"[/FONT]​
[FONT=times new roman,times]INTRODUCTION: [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007. Even the some in the establishment media now appears to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bites the dust.” ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated. [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ] [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Scientists from Around the World Dissent [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Germany[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Brazil[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], the [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Netherlands[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Russia[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]New Zealand[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] and [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]France[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists recently sent an open letter to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about half a dozen” skeptical scientists left in the world. ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.” [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) ] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears: [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006 - [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over.” “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.” [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case. ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) [/FONT]

# #

[FONT=times new roman,times]Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists: [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac­ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. “ [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at University of Columbia expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: ““We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.”

Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] # # #[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times])[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article: - [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] )[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.” [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.” ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century” ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]) – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes.” ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]LINK[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] ) [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority” of scientists. [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]FULL SENATE REPORT: Over 400 Skeptical Scientists Serve as ‘Consensus Busters’ in 2007: [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]This report is in the spirit of enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot who reportedly said, "Skepticism is the first step towards truth."[/FONT]

LINK TO FULL SENATE REPORT SHOULD BE POSTED BY 11AM ET TODAY

STAY TUNED....
Click to expand...
 
daedong said:
I repeat the vast MAJORITY of the scientific community support that global warming is real and a big problem for the inhabitants of the planet.

Click to expand...

At one time the vast majority of the scientific community believed the Earth was flat that the sun revolved around the Earth.

:bigMoon:
 
DEADONG may OUR GOD give you guidance as well. As far as keeping my head in the sand lets wait and see who is right. I bet you $1000 U.S. Dollars that in 10 years the Earth will experience a cooling trend. In fact you will start to see it in the next few years. Then will you concede? I tell you what if we continue down this so called "Global Warming" I will pay up. Will you. Wanna put your money where your mouth is?
 
daedong said:
It is lucky you are in the minority.
I am fifty and at my age living in such a wealthy lucky country, global warming will not affect my affluent life style
Click to expand...

Fifty? I figured that by your membership in "The Church of the Globlal Warming" that you were in your 20's since the "Warming" trend is all you know, so I gave you some credit for not having much life experiance.

But at Fifty, you were in School in the '60 and 70's, same as I was and were being taught first hand that we were on the downslide to the oncoming "Ice Age", as claimed by the "Experts" (which didn't happen either). If there had been internet at the time, it would have surpassed the current "Global Warming" craze... I can't believe that you have fallen off the band wagon of common sense... By the way, did you read the post where I put in your own Country's weather forecast? Seems that they are starting to forecast increased rain? The Drought you are in is part of a normal 10 year cycle which is normal, not something new...

I recieved this email from a friend this morning that pretty much sums up the internet's ability to promote insanity that people believe and pass on... and it is funny.

Merry Christmas all

THANKS TO ALL MY E-MAIL FRIENDS


I must send my thanks to whoever sent me the email about rat poop in the glue on envelopes
because I now have to use a wet towel with every envelope that needs sealing.

Also, now I have to scrub the top of every can I open for the same reason.

I no longer have any savings because I gave it to a sick girl (Penny Brown) who is about to die
in the hospital for the 1,387,258th time.

I no longer have any money at all, but that will change once I receive the $15,000.00 that Bill
Gates/Microsoft and AOL are sending me for participating in their special email program.

I no longer worry about my soul because I have 363,214 angels looking out for me, and St.
Theresa's novena has granted my every wish.

I no longer eat KFC because their chickens are actually horrible mutant freaks with no eyes or
feathers.

I no longer use cancer-causing deodorants even though I smell like a water buffalo on a hot
day.

Thanks to you, I have learned that my prayers only get answered if I forward an email to seven
of my friends and make a wish within five minutes.

Because of your concern I no longer drink Coca Cola because it can remove toilet stains.

I no longer can buy gasoline without taking a man along to watch the car so a serial killer won't
crawl in my back seat when I'm pumping gas.

I no longer drink Pepsi or Dr. Pepper since the people who make these products are atheists
who refuse to put, "Under God" on their cans.

I no longer use Saran wrap in the microwave because it causes cancer.

And thanks for letting me know I can't boil a cup of water in the microwave anymore because it
will blow up in my face... Disfiguring me for life.

I no longer check the coin return on pay phones because I could be pricked with a needle
infected with AIDS.

I no longer go to shopping malls because someone will drug me with a perfume sample and rob
me.

I no longer receive packages from UPS or Fed Ex since they are actually Al Qaeda in disguise..

I no longer shop at Target since they are French and don't support our American troops or the
Salvation Army.

I no longer answer the phone because someone will ask me to dial a number for which I will get
a phone bill with calls to Jamaica, Uganda, Singapore and Uzbekistan

I no longer have any sneakers - but that will change once I receive my free replacement pair
from Nike.

I no longer buy expensive cookies from Neiman Marcus since I now have their recipe.

Thanks to you, I can't use anyone's toilet but mine because a big brown African spider is lurking
under the seat to cause me instant death when it bites my butt.

Thank you too for all the endless advice Andy Rooney has given us. I can live a better life now
because he's told us how to fix everything.

And thanks to your great advice, I can't ever pick up $5.00 in the parking lot because it probably
was placed there by a sex molester waiting underneath my car to grab my leg.

Oh, and don't forget this one either!
I can no longer drive my car because I can't buy gas from certain gas companies!


If you don't send this email to at least 47,000 people in the next 47 minutes, a large dove with
diarrhea will land on your head at 5:47 p.m. This afternoon and the fleas from 47 camels will
infest your back, causing you to grow a hairy hump. I know this will occur because it actually
happened to a friend of my next door neighbor's ex-mother-in-law's second husband's Cousin's
beautician.


Have a wonderful day... AND a scientist from Argentina, after a lengthy study, has discovered
that people with insufficient brain and sexual activity read their email with their hand on the
mouse.

Don't bother taking it off now, it's too late.
 
That happened to you too????? lol. FogTender. Remember they only see what they want to see and read what they want to read. Everything else gets kicked to that part of the brain that has been turned to mush! The Truth will never be acknowledge by them. EVER!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top