Global Warming Update

[NoDrama]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Global Warming Update[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] By Walter Williams [/FONT]






[FONT=Helvetica, Arial]http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, in an hour-long television documentary titled "Global Warming: The Other Side," presents evidence that our National Climatic Data Center has been manipulating weather data just as the now disgraced and under investigation British University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. The NCDC is a division of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Its manipulated climate data is used by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, which is a division of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration. John Coleman's blockbuster five-part series can be seen at www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The Coleman documentary presents research by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo. During the 1960s and into the 1980s, the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000. By 1990, the number of stations dropped rapidly to about 1,500. Most of the stations lost were in the colder regions of the Earth. Not adjusting for their lost made temperatures appear to be higher than was in fact the case. According to Science & Environmental Policy Project, Russia reported that CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data. That means data loss was not simply the result of station closings but deliberate decisions by CRU to ignore them in order to hype their global warming claims. D'Aleo and Smith report that our NCDC engaged in similar deceptive activity where they have dropped stations, particularly in colder climates, higher elevations or closer to the polar regions. Temperatures are now simply projected for these colder stations from other stations, usually in warmer climates.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Mounting evidence of scientific fraud might make little difference in terms of the response to manmade global warming hysteria. Why? Vested economic and political interests have emerged where trillions of dollars and social control are at stake. Therefore, many people who recognize the scientific fraud underlying global warming claims are likely to defend it anyway. Automobile companies have invested billions in research and investment in producing "green cars." General Electric and Phillips have spent millions lobbying Congress to outlaw incandescent bulbs so that they can force us to buy costly compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL). Farmers and ethanol manufacturers have gotten Congress to enact laws mandating greater use of their product, not to mention massive subsidies. Thousands of major corporations around the world have taken steps to reduce carbon emissions including giants like IBM, Nike, Coca-Cola and BP, the oil giant. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Dell have vowed to become "carbon neutral."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Then there's Chicago Climate Futures Exchange that plans to trade in billions of dollars of greenhouse gas emission allowances. Corporate America and labor unions, as well as their international counterparts have a huge multi-trillion dollar financial stake in the perpetuation of the global warming fraud. Federal, state and local agencies have spent billions of dollars and created millions of jobs to deal with one aspect or another of global warming.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]It's deeper than just money. Schoolteachers have created polar-bear-dying lectures to frighten and indoctrinate our children when in fact there are more polar bears now than in 1950. They've taught children about melting glaciers. Just recently, the International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit that their Himalayan glacier-melting fraud was done to "impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]What would all the beneficiaries of the global warming hype do if it becomes widely known and accepted that mankind's activities have very little to do with the Earth's temperature? I don't know but a lot of people would feel and look like idiots. But I bet that even if the permafrost returned as far south as New Jersey, as it once did, the warmers and their congressional stooges would still call for measures to fight global warming.[/FONT]

 

[laughingduck]

hhhhmmmm could it be bush's fault?

 

[fitch303]

hhhhmmmm could it be bush's fault?

Why are you asking like you don't already know the answer, everything is bush's fault!

 

[Woodstock.Hippie]

[youtube]uQYDvQ1HH-E[/youtube]

 

[Illegal Smile]

Global Warming Update: still bullshit!

 

[Wavels]

There are, amazingly enough, those among us who refuse to see this scam for what it is.
The fabric of deceit is unraveling faster than a cheap sweater...
Should Algore return his awards?
Where is Al these days, where is the courage of his convictions?
Al has raked in at least a cool hundred million with his pathetic chicken little act.
Way to go Al!

 

[jeff f]

another spear in the belly of the beast.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-forms-new-climate-change-body.html

i think they may actually be the first country to call "shenanigans" and pull out. lets keep track and see who is the last to pull out and hold onto this bullshit hoax. any guesses?

 

[darkdestruction420]

its all a bunch of crap, the earth has been going through ice ages and them receding about every 10,000 yrs f0r the last 100,000 at least. you know a post is gonna be good when it says "jewishworldreview" in the top line. lol

 

[ViRedd]

There's no doubt that there is climate change ... no doubt at all. Its not man made though. I heard one pundit put it very well when he said: "There is a place that is readily observable that has no climate change at all ... its called The Moon."

 

[darkdestruction420]

There's no doubt that there is climate change ... no doubt at all. Its not man made though. I heard one pundit put it very well when he said: "There is a place that is readily observable that has no climate change at all ... its called The Moon."

exactly! lots of people cant wrap their head around it, drives me nuts. lol. the earths climate has never really stayed the same, look in the geological record. work time, see ya

 

[dukeofbaja]

"Global Warming Update: still bullshit!" - Illegal Smile

Care to explain why the ocean levels are rising and ice caps or melting? Or why levels of krill continue to decrease and polar bears go extinct? Or why 100 of the 100 hottest days on record ever occurred within the last 5 years? Or are all those facts bullshit as well?

And by the way, preferred term nowadays is climate change, not global warming.

 

[darkdestruction420]

i think he meant-global warming caused by humans=bullshit. but i might be wrong

 

[dukeofbaja]

I grant you, the climate on planet earth changes periodically, humans or not. I considered making this distinction myself, and am glad you did so.

However, when the vast majority of scientists conclude the opposite, I am inclined to go with the vast majority of scientists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

[MuyLocoNC]

"Global Warming Update: still bullshit!" - Illegal Smile

Care to explain why the ocean levels are rising and ice caps or melting? Or why levels of krill continue to decrease and polar bears go extinct? Or why 100 of the 100 hottest days on record ever occurred within the last 5 years? Or are all those facts bullshit as well?

And by the way, preferred term nowadays is climate change, not global warming.

What to start with first? Ok, polar bears.

Protecting the polar bears from global warming is the new green scheme to block human progress. "Global warming is melting the polar ice caps and endangering the polar bear populations," so the mantra goes.

But, it's not true. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, average Alaskan temperatures are NOT climbing. Yet environmentalists have skillfully selected the years of the 1975-2000 warming period to create the appearance of a warming that – if continued – would lead to a catastrophic Arctic warming that would lead to destruction of polar bear populations. This is junk science at its worst.


Polar bear populations are not declining throughout their range. The total population is about 22,000 and stable. Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a biologist with the government of Nunavut, in Canada's Northwest Territory, says, "Polar bears are not going extinct" and do not even "appear to be affected." In fact, the Nunavut government continues to allow hunters to kill up to 500 polar bears a year to keep populations under control and preserve other wildlife species the bears feed on. According to Taylor, of the 13 separate polar bear populations in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number.

Now the ice caps.

The Sky Isn’t Falling
Perhaps the most significant factor to consider is the following report (excerpted) from the federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) American consul at Norway, George Ifft:

The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen [an island 12 degrees south of the North Pole – ed.] and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the favorable ice conditions will continue for some time.

Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared. The change in temperature has also brought about great change in the flora and fauna of the Arctic. There were few [white fish and] seal in Spitzbergen waters this year, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast. With the disappearance of white fish and seal has come other life in these waters. This year herring in great shoals were found along the west coast. Shoals of smelt were also met with.

Ifft’s report appeared in NOAA’s Monthly Weather Review of November 1922. Whatever caused the “favorable conditions” in 1922, it is certain man-made greenhouse gases had nothing to do with it, and the rest of the world went on with the political and cultural revolutions of the 1920s without noticing any catastrophic climate change.

Of great interest is Ifft’s comment that the unprecedented melting brought about “favorable ice conditions” everyone hoped would “continue for some time.” In the report Ifft also detailed an expedition made that summer which set a record, “sailing as far north as 81˚ 29’ in ice-free water.” Ifft published a follow-up report in the December edition of the same publication in which he explained researchers credited sun-spot and oceanic cycles with the “exceptionally favorable ice conditions.”

Al Gore’s “The ice is melting!” rant deserves as much attention as Chicken Little’s “The sky is falling!” The problem is he and other global-warming alarmists are getting as much attention as Chicken Little did. And while the fabled fowl was only trying to be helpful, the unscrupulous intent of global-warming alarmists is to set up an energy-regulating global government and an international carbon-trading market worth billions. Even though polar ice conditions are far from unusual or dangerous, these climate tycoons have far too much at stake to ever admit the sky isn’t falling and humans aren’t to blame. The public would do well to remember when Chicken Little’s friends joined in her hysteria, they ended up as dinner in the fox’s den. Unless countered through sound facts and reasoning, global-warming hysteria will end with much the same fate.

Next the hottest day comment.

It's time to pray for global warming, says Flint Journal columnist John Tomlinson

If you're wondering why North America is starting to resemble nuclear winter, then you missed the news.

At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"
I asked myself, why would such obviously smart guy say such a ridiculous thing? But it turns out he's right.
The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.

Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.

In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica? But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the nineties.

Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan's Institute of Science and Technology said this: "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other ... every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so." Now why would a learned man say such a crazy thing?

This is where the looney left gets lost. Their mantra is atmospheric CO2 levels are escalating and this is unquestionably causing earth's temperature rise. But ask yourself -- if global temperatures are experiencing the biggest sustained drop in decades, while CO2 levels continue to rise -- how can it be true?

Ironically, in spite of being shown false, we must now pray for it. Because a massive study, just released by the Russian Government, contains overwhelming evidence that earth is on the verge of another Ice Age.

Based on core samples from Russia's Vostok Station in Antarctica, we now know earth's atmosphere and temperature for the last 420,000 years. This evidence suggests that the 12,000 years of warmth we call the Holocene period is over.

Apparently, we're headed into an ice age of about 100,000 years -- give or take. As for CO2 levels, core samples show conclusively they follow the earth's temperature rise, not lead it.

It turns out CO2 fluctuations follow the change in sea temperature. As water temperatures rise, oceans release additional dissolved CO2 -- like opening a warm brewsky.

To think, early last year, liberals suggested we spend 45 trillion dollars and give up five million jobs to fix global warming. But there is good news: now that we don't have to spend any of that money, we can give it all to the banks.

Yes, your facts are complete bullshit. Also, you don't get to change the name from global warming to climate change just because the former is so obviously ludicrous that your embarrassed to continue using the term. Sorry, we ain't playing that game.

 

[darkdestruction420]

i think the people who started it all truly believed in it at that time, lots of scientists got caught up in it and turned it into their careers, no one wants to say "hey guys, i just figured out....we've been wwasting billions on researching and then proclaiming it was scientific fact, but it turns out we were actually wrong. please take away my nice kushy job telling the politicians what they want to hear."

 

[dukeofbaja]

I'm impressed/horrified by the speed it took you to quote a few pages of scientifically disputable text to dismiss the need for all further independent and scientific thought on the issue entirely. Bravo

 

[dukeofbaja]

PS - You forgot to explain to me why the icecaps are receding and ocean levels are rising so quickly, as well as why weather patterns have been more unpredictable.

 

[darkdestruction420]

we are going through a cycle, it happens like clockwork. in 15/000 yrs or so we will have another ice age, its been going back and forth like that for a very very long time. the great lakes are 10,000 yrs old. did you know that every so many yrs (i wanna say 26,000 or so)the sahara turns from a desert into a ocean and back again?

 

[dukeofbaja]

This cycle is quite different, and real data backs it up. http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/co2_and_temp.cfm

 

[darkdestruction420]

from wiki, i was off by a little bit on the numbers, but still-
An ice sheet on Antarctica began to grow some 20 million years ago. The current ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, started about 2.58 million years ago. during the late Pliocene when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacials (glacial advance) and interglacials (glacial retreat). The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. All that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland, Antarctic ice sheets and smaller glaciers such as on Baffin Island.
Evidence for ice ages
There are three main types of evidence for ice ages: geological, chemical, and paleontological.
Geological evidence for ice ages comes in various forms, including rock scouring and scratching, glacial moraines, drumlins, valley cutting, and the deposition of till or tillites and glacial erratics. Successive glaciations tend to distort and erase the geological evidence, making it difficult to interpret. Furthermore, this evidence was difficult to date exactly; early theories assumed that the glacials were short compared to the long interglacials. The advent of sediment and ice cores revealed the true situation: glacials are long, interglacials short. It took some time for the current theory to be worked out.
The chemical evidence mainly consists of variations in the ratios of isotopes in fossils present in sediments and sedimentary rocks and ocean sediment cores. For the most recent glacial periods ice cores provide climate proxies from their ice, and atmospheric samples from included bubbles of air. Because water containing heavier isotopes has a higher heat of evaporation, its proportion decreases with colder conditions[26]. This allows a temperature record to be constructed. However, this evidence can be confounded by other factors recorded by isotope ratios.
The paleontological evidence consists of changes in the geographical distribution of fossils. During a glacial period cold-adapted organisms spread into lower latitudes, and organisms that prefer warmer conditions become extinct or are squeezed into lower latitudes. This evidence is also difficult to interpret because it requires (1) sequences of sediments covering a long period of time, over a wide range of latitudes and which are easily correlated; (2) ancient organisms which survive for several million years without change and whose temperature preferences are easily diagnosed; and (3) the finding of the relevant fossils, which requires a lot of luck.
Despite the difficulties, analyses of ice core and ocean sediment cores has shown periods of glacials and interglacials over the past few million years. These also confirm the linkage between ice ages and continental crust phenomena such as glacial moraines, drumlins, and glacial erratics. Hence the continental crust phenomena are accepted as good evidence of earlier ice ages when they are found in layers created much earlier than the time range for which ice cores and ocean sediment cores are available.
An ice age is a natural system. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of extra cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres;[1] by this definition we are still in the ice age that began at the start of the Pleistocene (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist).[2]There have been at least five major ice ages in the Earth's past. Outside these ages, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in high latitudes