No one can get it straight. Keep going.

So, what is the upshot? I am a bit behind on the whole scorecard. . .

re: #1 lone_wolf_in_illinois

So, we know nothing more/new?

Nitrogen: 81%

O2: 17-18%

CO2: Trace Element.

Climate Change Believer: Doesn't care.

re: #4 DisturbedEma

So, we know nothing more/new?

Except that it is not "peer reviewed"! It helps when your peers think the same way you do, though. Sure makes the dissenters stick out in the crowd. I agree with Charles, put it on a 48 hold.

I wonder what howard from panda's thumb thinks.

re: #4 DisturbedEma

We know that Mr. Monckton's dis-invitation to submit is probably in the mail.

It's a myth

It's always nice to see science in agreement/disagreement on the greatest issue/non-issue of our time.

It's the Sun.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil - Hundreds of baby penguins swept from the icy shores of Antarctica and Patagonia are washing up dead on Rio de Janeiro's tropical beaches, rescuers and penguin experts said Friday.

More than 400 penguins, most of them young, have been found dead on the beaches of Rio de Janeiro state over the past two months, according to Eduardo Pimenta, superintendent for the state coastal protection and environment agency in the resort city of Cabo Frio.

SNIP

Overfishing? Pollution? Global warming?

It's the Sun, Son.

/Just say No to Solar Warming Denial.

are very probably likely to be primarily responsible

I would say there is a "very probably likely" chance that there will be egg on faces. It will be interesting how quickly the trickle of global warming advocates, abandoning the SS Globalwarming, will become a deluge of rats as the ship sinks faster and faster.

I wouldn't expect the APS to change their position. They've gotten way too political lately - always under the guise of science, of course. I wish they'd just stick to publishing journals and organizing conferences.

Proud to be a "flat earther" per al gore

Regardless of if there's a "crisis" or not, I'm not in favor of taking drastic action to "countering" global warming and damaging our economy when China or India in the process automatically negate whatever actions the United States takes.

Between this topic and his 2000 election antics, Al Gore is like the Pied Piper of gloom, doom, and dissension.

/I think he might be the devil.

There has never been global warming. NEVER.
The Infidels in America are covered by Glaciers. They are in the ice age. praise Allah

/baghdad bob

Good.

I can go ahead with my retirement project for a banana plantation near Lubbock.

Whatever else happens, global warming will NOT lead to desertification. Past warming cycles have typically been characterized by a great increase in rainfall. This is because, er, more water evaporates when the oceans get warmer.

Lefty scientific authorities like Ted Turner obviously think otherwise because the desert areas with which they are familiar (ie Palm Springs) are also hot.

re: #21 buzzsawmonkey

Touche'--but wouldn't it be great if he'd keep his pie-hole shut?

After inviting Monckton to submit a paper (on a position they know he holds re co2), they put an embarrassing red disclaimer on his work. This seems like a purposeful attempt to discredit him in the eyes of the scientific community and he is right to demand an apology.

Who Loves the Sun?

re: #26 buzzsawmonkey

Indeed it would. He has a lot of crust to spout off the way he does.

Are you calling him flaky?

Great response from Monckton to the APS via American Thinker link. He's taking names.

This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been offered or having requested any honorarium.

Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur's findings and ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of the text of the Council's decision, together with the names of those present at the meeting. If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community"; and, tertio, that "The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?

Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an apology?

Yours truly,

THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

re: #29 wolfie

Definitely--and I think he may be fruity, too.

I just got back from a week on Cape Cod where some of my wife's family joined us from Michigan. Every one of them got badly sunburned. Obviously this is a clear cut case of global warming at its worst....Or maybe they all just neglected to use enough sunscreen.

just wanna say thanks for this article. This informs people in a rare and right way on how this discussion evolves. I hate all the climate histeria and would wish it's all to blame on the sun, but i would wish even more to know what's the truth on this matter.

re: #31 buzzsawmonkey

I'm panning him.

Stop this meringue on his character....this piatribe!
/

Some people seem to get the point. At least two I know of.

re: #30 ciaospirit

Great response from Monckton to the APS via American Thinker link. He's taking names.

And kicking ass.

re: #35 bloodnok

Stop this meringue on his character....this piatribe!
/

Do you really have to give such a tart response?

It's impossible to flip-flop on this if one were never on the side of the Chicken Littles to begin with.

"Global Warming" Infidel

re: #38 wolfie

Do you really have to give such a tart response?

Let he/she who has not sinned cast the first scone, Wolfie...

New issues swirl around controversial NASA branch

NASA's primary climate monitoring agency is the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. Operating out of a small office at Columbia University, GISS is run by Dr. James Hansen. Official NASA climate statements come through GISS ... which means they must get by Hansen. Many other scientists and agencies make climate predictions, but Hansen's top the list for scare factor, predicting consequences considerably more dire than his colleagues.

SNIP

A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute' funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org and other political action groups.

SNIP

re: #41 MandyManners

New issues swirl around controversial NASA branch

NASA's primary climate monitoring agency is the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. Operating out of a small office at Columbia University, GISS is run by Dr. James Hansen. Official NASA climate statements come through GISS ... which means they must get by Hansen. Many other scientists and agencies make climate predictions, but Hansen's top the list for scare factor, predicting consequences considerably more dire than his colleagues.

SNIP

A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute' funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org and other political action groups.

SNIP

OMG--that's almost a smoking gun!

re: #5 bp sf

Nitrogen: 81%

O2: 17-18%

CO2: Trace Element.

Climate Change Believer: Doesn't care.

Off just a smidge in your assessment, but I'm sure diffrent sources list diffrent levels The AGWBSB's still don't care.
Nitrogen 78%
Oxygen 20.9%
Argon .9%
Carbon Dioxide .03%
Water vapor 1%

3 disturbedEma-- Pull it together.
See there is "Climate" and there is "Change".
so you put the two together and you have
"Climate""change"....
there you go! Now you are up to speed.
/makes about as much sense as Algore saying "all debate is over"...

re: #42 goddessoftheclassroom

That article's from 2007 -- I posted about it:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Weather is complex. To call it chaotic is a gross understatement. At this point, I'd say it's safe to say our understanding of the processes involved is infantile. When we can't get an accurate weather forecast a few days in advance, it's pure BS to claim to be able to predict trends a hundred years from now, especially given the models don't work with historic records.

Now, here's the real kicker for me: Who decided warming was bad? It extends the growing season, meaning there is more food. It expands the regions capable of growing food, meaning, duh, there is more food. Considering the extent of starvation during the historical periods of global cooling, I'd say global warming is better than global cooling.

It's all about power. If those harping about it really cared, they'd be going after the major polluters, and that ain't the US.

IMO, worse than the global warming hysteria is the politicizing of science in general. It is a great detriment to not only science, but regular non-science folks as well. I think it's laying a foundation for science to be mistrusted in the future when the global warming doesn't pan out or is better understood and thus revised. This will play into the hands of those seeking to truly undermine science in the eyes of regular people by the other group trying to politicize science- the ID crowd. They will use this as a club to beat the whole of science while hypocritically failing to mention the problem of forcing ideology into a field that should stick strictly to the scientific method and adhere to findings and not biases or faith.

re: #41 MandyManners

Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central focus" of his life,

Does this mean that after the McCain is sworn into office that Soros will go away? After all Bush will be out of office.

re: #31 buzzsawmonkey

I'm panning him.

If you can get close, use a cast iron skillet instead of a pan. Use ear plugs too, the gong effect could leave your ears ringing.

#43

Every time I calibrate my spectral analyzer 02 is 17.6 to 17.9; but then again, I'm in New Jersey.

re: #36 DeathtotheSwiss

Thanks for that.

I'm going to have to part company with some people on this, because if the paper was not peer reviewed (and I haven't seen anything proving the contrary) then the APS had little choice but to put some kind of notice on it. The "peer reviewed" story was all over the place -- Drudge Report drives a huge amount of traffic to stories.

I don't blame the APS. They were correcting false information.

re: #49 buzzsawmonkey

So many riffs on Al Gore and his half-baked ideas...

Yup, a real Betty Crock-er lies

re: #41 MandyManners

ding....&...heart
Or as buzzsaw might say,

DING went the strings of myHEART.

re: #45 Charles

That article's from 2007 -- I posted about it:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

I think it was the first article about Soros that I saved.

Schwarzenegger NASA Visit: Post Your Captions in Reply

Hehehe

"I just had a terrible thought: what if this is a dream?"
-Total Recall

re: #47 Sharmuta

IMO, worse than the global warming hysteria is the politicizing of science in general. It is a great detriment to not only science, but regular non-science folks as well. I think it's laying a foundation for science to be mistrusted in the future when the global warming doesn't pan out or is better understood and thus revised. This will play into the hands of those seeking to truly undermine science in the eyes of regular people by the other group trying to politicize science- the ID crowd. They will use this as a club to beat the whole of science while hypocritically failing to mention the problem of forcing ideology into a field that should stick strictly to the scientific method and adhere to findings and not biases or faith.

Excellent insight. This is what I have feared most; in their zeal for grants, politicized scientists are selling their birthright for a mess of pottage.

re: #48 Ford_Prefect

Does this mean that after the McCain is sworn into office that Soros will go away? After all Bush will be out of office.

Naw. He'll just invest more money in perverting the media and the Democrats.

re: #54 Charles
What about the emminent personage the scientist claims reviewed it in the first half of his reply asking for a retraction/apology? Oh, crap, no name given. Sorry.

re: #45 Charles

That article's from 2007 -- I posted about it:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

I missed that--but of course you were on top of it!

With so much hype about global warming, how does someone who is not a scientist decide what is true? An article I saved from last year:

Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data

I did like what one commenter had to say--Critical thought is not blindly following a voice, but analyzing what the voice has to say before following it.

Anyone like to give some guidelines?

re: #46 mossley

Weather is complex. To call it chaotic is a gross understatement. At this point, I'd say it's safe to say our understanding of the processes involved is infantile. When we can't get an accurate weather forecast a few days in advance, it's pure BS to claim to be able to predict trends a hundred years from now, especially given the models don't work with historic records.

Now, here's the real kicker for me: Who decided warming was bad? It extends the growing season, meaning there is more food. It expands the regions capable of growing food, meaning, duh, there is more food. Considering the extent of starvation during the historical periods of global cooling, I'd say global warming is better than global cooling.

It's all about power. If those harping about it really cared, they'd be going after the major polluters, and that ain't the US.

Ofcourse its political, follow the money trail in reverse. We are giving industry deals to China and not requiring them to use safeguards that American and European indusrty must use. Al Gore is the pointman in this fiasco. China funneled money to the Clintons for their various campaigns and deals.
We beatthem in the cold war, yet American Socialists (communists without spines) are determined to bring communism to our shores no matter what the cost.

re: #46 mossley

Now, here's the real kicker for me: Who decided warming was bad? It extends the growing season, meaning there is more food. It expands the regions capable of growing food, meaning, duh, there is more food. Considering the extent of starvation during the historical periods of global cooling, I'd say global warming is better than global cooling.

It's all about power. If those harping about it really cared, they'd be going after the major polluters, and that ain't the US.

This is precisely my view.
Warming= longer growing seasons, expanded productive zones, higher rainfall.

Al Gore is a pudding head. Thinks the whole planet is going to be dessert.

/running away now

[Link: www.breitbart.tv...]

i would love to pay this way.

re: #60 MandyManners

Naw. He'll just invest more money in perverting the media and the Democrats.

I kind of thought the media and the Democrats were perverted enough.

re: #45 Charles

Great! I can save that.

re: #54 Charles

I'm going to have to part company with some people on this, because if the paper was not peer reviewed (and I haven't seen anything proving the contrary) then the APS had little choice but to put some kind of notice on it. The "peer reviewed" story was all over the place -- Drudge Report drives a huge amount of traffic to stories.

I don't blame the APS. They were correcting false information.

According to Monckton's response to the APS,as quoted at the American Thinker blog, the articlewas peer-reviewed, and furthermore, the APS invited him to submit it.

Is this going to boil down to what constitutes peer review?

We Rethuglicans need to get over this GW stuff, that's old hat. BHO is concerned about the world for another reason:

If Malcolm X's discovery toward the end of his life, that some whites might live beside him as brothers in Islam, seemed to offer some hope of eventual reconciliation, that hope appeared in a distant future, in a far-off land. In the meantime, I looked to see where the people would come from who were willing to work toward this future and populate this new world. Source: Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p. 80 Aug 1, 1996 [Link: www.ontheissues.org...]

Let me try to diagram this:
Malcolm X > white brothers in islam > offers hope of reconciliation > Barack looks toward the people who were willing to work toward this future and populate this new world.

His writing is tough to parse (and maybe intentionally so) but this future he looks forward to give me the creeps.

re: #51 bp sf

#43

Every time I calibrate my spectral analyzer 02 is 17.6 to 17.9; but then again, I'm in New Jersey.

I just did a web search, and took what I found there. I'm sure levels vary with location. Levels of oxygen in the Los Angeles or Denver areas would be lower then those in say Columbia.
Likewise heat levels vary depending on what is present. The more trees, the cooler. Or as has been shown, hte presence of Algore can bring unseasonably cold weather. Want snow in July? call AL.

The glow-bull warming thing is pure junk science, in my opinion.

Look at the people who shill this nonsense: David Suzuki, Al Gore, Green-p*ss and the rest of the loony moonbat brigade.

I scorn, and have no use for any rubbish promoted by the above loonies.

Remember Y2K? And Global Cooling? The Nuclear Winter?

Pure junk science. Designed to frighten the feeble minded.

There has been some interesting work lately that the paper does not fully cover.

1. The position of the planets causes the center of gravity of the solar system to move around in the vicinity of the sun. The sun itself orbits around this center of gravity. The basic period is about 11.2 years.

2. When the center of gravity is not at the center of the sun, the sun experiences tides, just as the earth does with the moon. Because the solar system contains multiple planets, the tidal cycles on the sun are very complex.

3. These tides appear to cause storms on the sun, which we see as sunspots. In turn, these storms influence our weather.

4. Based on predictions of future movements of the center of gravity, it appears that we are going into a very calm phase in the sun. That in turn means a much cooler earth.

re: #68 Ford_Prefect

I kind of thought the media and the Democrats were perverted enough.

Not enough for Soros.

re: #58 DeathtotheSwiss

Schwarzenegger NASA Visit: Post Your Captions in Reply

Hehehe

"I just had a terrible thought: what if this is a dream?"
-Total Recall

"If I connect all the dots what is it a picture of?"

re: #74 Chip Designer

Interesting- do you have some links for that?

re: #46 mossley

I've often wondered what the correct temperature of the planet is. The global warming crowd is so invested in this that they don't want to see the positives that have occurred on this planet in the last 100 years. Food production is up, people are living longer and the wealth of people has expanded dramatically. Pretty good results for maybe 1 degree of warmth overall.

re: #76 Ford_Prefect

"If I connect all the dots what is it a picture of?"

It's a picture of a jackass.......

re: #74 Chip Designer

There has been some interesting work lately that the paper does not fully cover.

1. The position of the planets causes the center of gravity of the solar system to move around in the vicinity of the sun. The sun itself orbits around this center of gravity. The basic period is about 11.2 years.

2. When the center of gravity is not at the center of the sun, the sun experiences tides, just as the earth does with the moon. Because the solar system contains multiple planets, the tidal cycles on the sun are very complex.

3. These tides appear to cause storms on the sun, which we see as sunspots. In turn, these storms influence our weather.

4. Based on predictions of future movements of the center of gravity, it appears that we are going into a very calm phase in the sun. That in turn means a much cooler earth.

So, by that, I take it that if the planets were ever to all line up, it would be a very hot spell followed by a very cold one as earth orbits so much faster then mars and the further planets, whereas the faster orbiting two are considerably smaller and though closer have less influence?

Do other articles that have been submitted and do not meet the peer review standards have the same red disclaimer at the top of the article or are they not published? I would be interested to know if this is atypical treatment.

i just want to slap people who say, "it is no longer open to debate."

re: #70 Alberta Oil Peon

According to Monckton's response to the APS,as quoted at the American Thinker blog, the articlewas peer-reviewed, and furthermore, the APS invited him to submit it.

Is this going to boil down to what constitutes peer review?

What's described by Monckton is not

re: #79 Dahveed
There is no correct temperature for the planet. It fluctuates. Hell if you look over long periods of time this little dirt ball is covered with ice more often than it is temperate enough for carbonated life forms!

Semi-OT: Channel 4 censured for programme that said climate change was a fraud

The Great Global Warming Swindle, which aired in March last year, has been accused of downplaying the threat in the public mind. It sparked an outcry among environmentalists and many campaigners argue that the programme has contributed to people believing that the threat is not real.

It is understood that complaints by Carl Wunsch, a climate expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, will be upheld. The regulator is expected to say that Channel 4 should have told Dr Wunsch that the programme was going to be a polemic.

The regulator will also uphold complaints made by the government’s former chief scientist, Sir David King, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But the broadcaster will not be censured over a second complaint about accuracy, which contained 131 specific points and ran to 270 pages, with Ofcom finding that it did not mislead the public

re: #47 Sharmuta

IMO, worse than the global warming hysteria is the politicizing of science in general. It is a great detriment to not only science, but regular non-science folks as well. I think it's laying a foundation for science to be mistrusted in the future when the global warming doesn't pan out or is better understood and thus revised. This will play into the hands of those seeking to truly undermine science in the eyes of regular people by the other group trying to politicize science- the ID crowd. They will use this as a club to beat the whole of science while hypocritically failing to mention the problem of forcing ideology into a field that should stick strictly to the scientific method and adhere to findings and not biases or faith.

Science has been beaten down in schools to such an extent it has little more respect than study hall. If you looked at some of Killgores graphs in his links the other night, it's not so much what is being taught, but how it is being processed in the students minds.
According to his links a large proportion of former students and adults that have been taught evolution are self-reporting to have a creationist leaning. I'm still scratching my head over that seeming contradiction.

global warming is a big money maker for the people at the top.
and a big feel good thing for the losers at the bottom. (fools)

re: #75 MandyManners

Not enough for Soros.

There sure is a lot of political incest going on there. Funny how that part of the story is never mentioned by the MSM.

re: #81 JeremyR

......"So, by that, I take it that if the planets were ever to all line up, it would be a very hot spell followed by a very cold one as earth orbits so much faster then mars and the further planets,.."

Do you remember the big Jupiter effect that was going to end the universe? Circa 1979?

re: #87 EC Marm

I have not only seen Killgore's links- I have most of them saved in my favorites.

re: #82 snowcrash

Do other articles that have been submitted and do not meet the peer review standards have the same red disclaimer at the top of the article or are they not published? I would be interested to know if this is atypical treatment.

It is atypical, yes -- but as far as I can tell, the APS had no choice. They were correcting a rapidly-spreading false report, and probably getting a lot of email and media attention.

When I saw the article first it did not have the notice. Correcting the record is the right thing to do.

re: #77 buzzsawmonkey

If you are religious, consider the statement that appears many times in the Psalms; "G-d has fixed the earth so that it cannot falter."

If you are not religious, consider Katrina or the tsunami in Thailand; the planet, with a flip of its wrist, can wipe out vast numbers of human beings without batting an eye. Or consider Lake Erie; considered "dead" 30+ years ago, it has now fully recovered. Consider that, ugly as oil spills are, and despite the immediate loss of marine life, the main reason we go nuts over cleaning them up is for ourselves; the marine life as such is not threatened (despite individual deaths, but nature is red in tooth and claw), and the planet would, left to itself, cleanse itself--just over a longer period of time.

Consider, too, that there is nothing which decrees that this global mean temperature that we have right now is the Best of All Possible Temperatures. The only reason that is being decreed is because some officious assholes are trying to do so--not because there is any objective evidence for it. Not that what we do or don't do will necessarily affect that global mean temperature anyway, but even if it did--why is it this one we simply must preserve?

All this is independent of the "science" of global warming/cooling/whatever. A little sense and a little lack of hysteria goes a long way, regardless of what the most recent Expert has to say.

Assume a creationist POV for a moment. Imediately after the flood of Noah, there were no ice caps, no glaciers, no pack ice. Genesis notes that the ages began to taper off immediately, falling from hundreds of years to seventy in only a few generations. If such was the case, might it be that warmer is better? Higher temperatures means more water vapor in the atmosphere, and less of it locked up at the poles etc. Maybe what we have is a case of global dehydration. Areas in subSaharan Africa are in drought as are other parts of the world, all because too much moisture is trapped in ice.
I know it sounds crazy, but there might be some truth in it.

re: #93 buzzsawmonkey

LOL!

re: #41 MandyManners

Open Society Institute.

Institute for Advanced Studies.

Moveon.org.

Michelle Malkin has a neat piece on GulfStream (Jet) Liberals..

[Link: michellemalkin.com...]

We don't pay carbon taxes. Only the little people pay carbon taxes..

Bwwwwaaahahahah!

re: #93 buzzsawmonkey

I still don't know what to think about global warming. Both sides are pretty full of shit. I guess we'll know more in another 5-10 years.

I am currently editing a letter to a cruise line for my husband. One of his gripes was that when we attended a lecture, on board, all about Glacier Bay it turned into a global warming lecture.

re: #84 Charles

But its not always impartial, look at all the stuff in favor of global warming, some of these guys jump on board so fast it would sink if it was a ship.

re: #97 buzzsawmonkey
Frackin' goats too. Herds and herds of goats will wreck an ecology faster'n shit.

re: #93 buzzsawmonkey

I am increasingly convinced that "global warming" hysteria is merely an attempt by a very thin scum of the obscenely rich to get the rest of us to save their beach houses.

The global warming groups are the modern day equivalents of snake oil salesmen. The problem is that so many are buying the product without any thought.

Lots of those drunk on the kool-aid in the comments section at Lambert's site.
As usual being leftists, they are pompous and condescending beyond belief.
I always find it amusing when the left, who bases it's entire belief system on the denial of reality, calls those that disagree with them, "denialists".

I'm just curious.
What ever happened to the ozone hole growing/ozone layer disappearing/were gonna die in 10 years routine?

re: #106 Mr. Pulpo
Manbearpig stole the ozone hole.

re: #92 Charles

It is atypical, yes -- but as far as I can tell, the APS had no choice. They were correcting a rapidly-spreading false report, and probably getting a lot of email and media attention.

When I saw the article first it did not have the notice. Correcting the record is the right thing to do.

Maybe I am naive about scientific publications, but wouldn't the right thing to do be to not publish the article in the first place until it had been peer reviewed.

Michelle Malkin interviews OK Senator James Inhofe on Global Warming™

Worth a look.

re: #89 Ford_Prefect

There sure is a lot of political incest going on there. Funny how that part of the story is never mentioned by the MSM.

Please see my No. 96. I think those are just three Soros organizations.

re: #97 buzzsawmonkey

No, there isn't.

The reason Northern Africa is a desert is that it was overfarmed during the Roman Empire, at which time it was the Empire's breadbasket.

I disagree, many areas are experiencing drought which leads to crop failure.
Frankly some part of the USA are in danger because they were farmed using irigation from wells and the water table cannot recover fast enough leading to dry wells. Parts of Texas are experiencing that problem. However, other areas used to have enough rainfall to make them good farm land.
There are many variables in play, it would be nice if we had rainfall records from one thousand years ago.

As the planet Earth rotates around the Sun, our entire solar system rotates through the Milky Way. Think of it this way; put a kitchen plate on the kitchen table and begin to spin the plate. While doing that have another person pick up the kitchen table and carry it around the planet. Who knows what our solar system encounters during it's 225 million year rotation through the Milky Way? Only Al Gore, apparently.
Wiki, not bad.

re: #101 JeremyR

But its not always impartial, look at all the stuff in favor of global warming, some of these guys jump on board so fast it would sink if it was a ship.

I didn't say it was always impartial. But it's either peer reviewed or it's not, and the Monckton article was not. The APS had to put a notice on it to counter that false claim.

If the article had passed through peer review, it would be big news. If it ends up being successfully reviewed, it still may turn out to be news.

Right now though, the APS acted responsibly to correct the record.

re: #106 Mr. Pulpo
This is just second-hand word of mouth but according to a NASA scientist that Desert Sage, my husband and I met a few times, the ozone hole is getting smaller since we have changed our refrigerants. The guy doesn't buy Gore's theory on global warming, however.

re: #93 buzzsawmonkey

I have no animus toward democracy, as long as it doesn't spoil the view. ----Quentin Crisp

i wonder how many scientists publish pro- global warming papers because of job/money pressures.
or bribes.
how can 2 groups be so far apart?
i have a goofy friend who gets tears in her eyes when we talk abt. global warming. it's ridiculous.
something to worry abt. so she won't have to face her life.

re: #111 JeremyR

I disagree, many areas are experiencing drought which leads to crop failure.
Frankly some part of the USA are in danger because they were farmed using irigation from wells and the water table cannot recover fast enough leading to dry wells. Parts of Texas are experiencing that problem. However, other areas used to have enough rainfall to make them good farm land.
There are many variables in play, it would be nice if we had rainfall records from one thousand years ago.

Also, farming methods can help land recover. The Hutterites bought farm land near Ward South Dakota that was worn out junk, fenced it, raised turkeys and turned it into fertile ground. The went from laughing stock to shrewd operators.

re: #79 Dahveed

I've often wondered what the correct temperature of the planet is. The global warming crowd is so invested in this that they don't want to see the positives that have occurred on this planet in the last 100 years. Food production is up, people are living longer and the wealth of people has expanded dramatically. Pretty good results for maybe 1 degree of warmth overall.

I was at a gathering a while back, and some moonbat kept ranting on and on about the dangers of global warming. When he finally stopped babbling long enough to take a breath, I asked them what the temperature was supposed to be. He looked at me like I had three heads, but I explained that if he knew for a fact that the earth was too warm, then there had to be a correct temperature. Simple logic. When other people started laughing, he stormed off. No one really missed him.

More from Inhofe:

INHOFE TO BLAST GLOBAL WARMING MEDIA COVERAGE IN SPEECH TODAY ON THE SENATE FLOOR

re: #112 EC Marm
That's why the Mayan calendar ends 12/21/12. Apparently our solar system will be aligned with the center of the galaxy and some bigg ass space monster is gonna eat us. Don't ask me how the Mayans knew about the center of the galaxy, it was on the History channel!

Not all.

So are we a "right-wing" blog or not? This is all so confusing. ;-)

re: #106 Mr. Pulpo

I'm just curious.
What ever happened to the ozone hole growing/ozone layer disappearing/were gonna die in 10 years routine?

Ten years went by.

re: #106 Mr. Pulpo

The main thing with the ozone hole is that the CFC's which caused it do not occur naturally.

re: #108 Ford_Prefect

Maybe I am naive about scientific publications, but wouldn't the right thing to do be to not publish the article in the first place until it had been peer reviewed.

Common sense ! :O

re: #113 Charles

I didn't say it was always impartial. But it's either peer reviewed or it's not, and the Monckton article was not. The APS had to put a notice on it to counter that false claim.

If the article had passed through peer review, it would be big news. If it ends up being successfully reviewed, it still may turn out to be news.

Right now though, the APS acted responsibly to correct the record.

Sometimes too, peer review is a failure because there is money in prolonging the perception of a problem. That can bite hard on some one who is right but lacks the clout to get it past peers.

We can only guess what the peers will do, and hope it is the right thing.

re: #120 pingjockey

It's going to be worse than Y2K.... we are doomed.

DOOMED, I TELL YOU!

Follow the money.

re: #110 MandyManners

Please see my No. 96. I think those are just three Soros organizations.

The fact that one man has so much influence while being allowed to keep his name largely out of the press is very disturbing.

re: #53 Ford_Prefect

Here to please.

re: #127 whiterasta
Mwahahaha! (best evil villian laugh)

I think I saw in Thanos blog a mention this "was published in Physics and Society is the quarterly of the Forum on Physics and Society, a division of the American Physical Society. It presents letters, commentary, book reviews, and reviewed articles on the relations of physics and the physics community to government and society. It also carries news of the Forum and provides a medium for Forum members to exchange ideas. Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum."
I agree a disclaimer is necessary based on the amount of traffic Drudges link generated. I still think the 3 sentences in the red disclaimer went way beyond a reminder of facts. BTW, I try to live like global warming is a for real event but without the hysteria.

re: #121 Geepers

So are we a "right-wing" blog or not? This is all so confusing. ;-)

I'm at the "whatever" stage on that one.

re: #118 mossley

re: #118 mossley

I was at a gathering a while back, and some moonbat kept ranting on and on about the dangers of global warming. When he finally stopped babbling long enough to take a breath, I asked them what the temperature was supposed to be. He looked at me like I had three heads, but I explained that if he knew for a fact that the earth was too warm, then there had to be a correct temperature. Simple logic. When other people started laughing, he stormed off. No one really missed him.

Too good!

Why Does NASA Oppose Satellites? A Modest Proposal For A Better Data Set

One of the ironies of climate science is that perhaps the most prominent opponent of satellite measurement of global temperature is James Hansen, head of ... wait for it ... the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA! As odd as it may seem, while we have updated our technology for measuring atmospheric components like CO2, and have switched from surface measurement to satellites to monitor sea ice, Hansen and his crew at the space agency are fighting a rearguard action to defend surface temperature measurement against the intrusion of space technology.

Why surface temperature measurements are problematic.

This project, started on June 4th 2007, is designed for the express purpose of photographically surveying every one of the 1221 USHCN weather stations in the USA which are used as a “high quality network” to determine near surface temperature trends in the USA. USHCN is a subset of the larger COOP network of stations in the USA, of which there are about 9000. The USHCN subset has been hand picked by the National Climatic Data Center to be more regionally representative due to their placement, length of service and minimum station moves. Unfortunately, the network has fallen into neglect, and the temperature data produced by it is suspect due to microsite biases. See what has been learned so far here in this slide show.

Shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from its warm mode to cool mode assures global cooling for the next three decades.

Addressing the Washington Policymakers in Seattle, WA, Dr. Don Easterbrook said that shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) from its warm mode to its cool mode virtually assures global cooling for the next 25-30 years and means that the global warming of the past 30 years is over. The announcement by NASA that the (PDO) had shifted from its warm mode to its cool mode (Fig. 1) is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and is not an oddity superimposed upon and masking the predicted severe warming by the IPCC. This has significant implications for the future and indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their prediction of global temperatures soaring 1°F per decade for the rest of the century.

OT
Ego anyone?

re: #84 Charles

I think the term "expert" is played with pretty loose and fast these days.

Complexity theory kind of says that nobody can really be an "expert" as far as the weather is concerned. Or perhaps I'm over-simplifying this on a Biblical scale.

re: #133 Charles

I submit this is an anti-idiotarian blog... And has been so for many years.

re: #129 Ford_Prefect

The fact that one man has so much influence while being allowed to keep his name largely out of the press is very disturbing.

I try not to think about that angle too much.

Inhofe, Boxer Debate Global Warming on Larry King Live

re: #123 buzzsawmonkey

You will, I trust, excuse me for observing that anyone who uses the Biblical accounts of the Flood as an historical science reference (as you did upthread) is not to be taken seriously in any discussion of scientific matters.

Regardless of if there was a biblical flood, at one time the earth was much warmer, Tattime period had huge quantities of vegitation and animals. What ever catistrophic event brought it to an end, whether a comet impact, or what ever, changed earths structure forever.

re: #140 whiterasta

I submit this is an anti-idiotarian blog... And has been so for many years.

Yep, the point is that when people say "right wing blog" we always get lumped in there. I can't stop it, so it's just "whatever."

re: #54 Charles

I'm going to have to part company with some people on this, because if the paper was not peer reviewed (and I haven't seen anything proving the contrary) then the APS had little choice but to put some kind of notice on it. The "peer reviewed" story was all over the place -- Drudge Report drives a huge amount of traffic to stories.

I don't blame the APS. They were correcting false information.

It was SPPI that put out the initial press notice that created all of this by stating that the paper was reviewed, and they are were I got the idea that the study was peer-reviewed. (now corrected thanks to LGF commenter Transient) They are anti-mmgw public policy institute, I haven't looked yet to see who the $$$ are behind them yet, but I will see if I can find out.

Charles, one thing, not to give them too much attention, but the idiot over at the lgf "watch" thinks your stance on evolution is a front so that you can more easily fall into line with your political master John McCain. He thinks you're actually a religious-fundie-creationist.

re: #118 mossley

My computer obviously hiccuped.

What I was going to say was that perhaps the earth has been particularly cool and is now normalizing. It's entirely possible that they could be negatively impacting the earth. I really don't think we have that great an impact. The fact remains that we are looking at the past 20, 50, or 100 years and the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Well, if you are going to quote Lambert, be sure to wash your hands before eating.

you know,99.96% of the atmosphere is NOT CO2.I've never understood how going from 350ppmillion to say 380ppm of CO2 could destroy the planet,as Gore contends.

re: #137 Typicalwhitey

OT
Ego anyone?

Hmm. An "Open Convention" that they charge a "donation" to get into. Is it just me or is there a contradiction there?

re: #136 JCM
I think the only way to get any sort of accurate measurement of global temperature variation is deep in the oceans. Several fixed points, in areas relatively unaffected by ocean currents. This 'average of surface temperature' is so much crap, so vulnerable to error, it infuriates me.

re: #145 Thanos

It was SPPI that put out the initial press notice that created all of this by stating that the paper was reviewed, and they are were I got the idea that the study was peer-reviewed. (now corrected thanks to LGF commenter Transient) They are anti-mmgw public policy institute, I haven't looked yet to see who the $$$ are behind them yet, but I will see if I can find out.

Could be Exxon.

Sun heats planet => planet gives off C02. C02 is highest at the end of every interglacial. As planet glaciates, C02 falls.

When heating the holiday turducken, the turducken gives off C02. You can't say the C02 accumulation in the oven is causing the heating.

Gore and Soros have huge investments in this hooey because it benefits "green" investments, carbon credits, and socialistic economic exploitation. They want a hand in your wallet and that is all.

re: #148 Dahveed
Exactly. The earth is working on a scale that we can't see. It takes millions of years for changes to occur. The last 100 years is no comparison at all. Hell, when I was in high school we were all gonna freeze and that was thirty years ago.

re: #140 whiterasta

re: #144 Charles

Yep, the point is that when people say "right wing blog" we always get lumped in there. I can't stop it, so it's just "whatever."

does that mean I'm no longer part of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY?

Charles, I want a refund !

Thanks Charles. The math gave me an instant headache. That's why I dropped physics.

The basic equation has to do with:

[The change in temperature] is equal [to some change in energy per change in CO2 per meter^2]

If the data is correct, then the change in energy per change in CO2 per meter^2 = ΔF_2x ≈ 3.405 / 3 ≈ 1.135 Watts*meter^-2.

and so on.

Anyways, it looks like this confusing math and data confused a scientist (Monckton) or he chose to deliberately report it wrong. It appears that he is forcing findings to fit previous models (the IPCC report in this case). From the article:

Did you spot what he just did? If you assume that there is no delay in warming (which is wrong) and McKitrick is right (which is also wrong), then you get a low value of sensitivity. If you also assume that the IPCC values for ΔF2x and f are correct, then their value of κ must be too high -- Monckton comes up with a number 20% less. But in the previous section Monckton argued that the IPCC value of ΔF2x was too high by a factor of three. If instead you use Monckton's number, the IPCC value of κ is too low.

What Monckton is doing is double counting his (dubious) evidence that sensitivity is lower than the IPCC number. If he had two pieces of evidence that sensitivity is half the IPCC number he would multiply them together to claim that sensitivity is one quarter the IPCC number. This is not correct.

re: #136 JCM

Why Does NASA Oppose Satellites? A Modest Proposal For A Better Data Set

No mention in the article about his connection with Soros, dagnabit.

re: #141 MandyManners

I try not to think about that angle too much.

I know what you mean. There are definitely days when I want to dig a whole in the sand a stick my head in. Unfortunately I am always afraid that the sand will be over crowded by leftists.

I have to go. Don't stare at the numbers too hard.

re: #153 EC Marm

I think the only way to get any sort of accurate measurement of global temperature variation is deep in the oceans. Several fixed points, in areas relatively unaffected by ocean currents. This 'average of surface temperature' is so much crap, so vulnerable to error, it infuriates me.

When you take in all the uncompensated induced variables, the paint being changed, micro environments changing etc.... and add the long stability of mid-level ballon measurements and high level satellite measurement. The probable induced error quickly subsumes the 0.74°C gain of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

re: #47 Sharmuta

IMO, worse than the global warming hysteria is the politicizing of science in general. It is a great detriment to not only science, but regular non-science folks as well. I think it's laying a foundation for science to be mistrusted in the future when the global warming doesn't pan out or is better understood and thus revised. This will play into the hands of those seeking to truly undermine science in the eyes of regular people by the other group trying to politicize science- the ID crowd. They will use this as a club to beat the whole of science while hypocritically failing to mention the problem of forcing ideology into a field that should stick strictly to the scientific method and adhere to findings and not biases or faith.

I believe the media plays a big part in this. It's not just that they are always falling for the leftist point-of-view - which definitely slants their coverage of these issues - but their complete lack of understanding of the scientific process. It amazes me that the majority of people have a poor opinion on the news and journalists, but they still believe the latest craze du jour they spout.

The media promoted Sagan's idea of nuclear winter as a scientific theory, when in fact it hadn't even been submitted to a journal yet. When it was - after his book and media tour - his ideas were shredded by other physicists. People still believe it.

The media jumped all over the saccharine causes cancer paper. They ignored the follow ups that showed it was a flawed study , but the majority of people still think it's not safe. Then there's alar and apples, vaccinations and autism, SARS, the avian flu, the global cooling scares of the 70s, etc.

The trouble is the public isn't blaming the media for getting it wrong - they think the science is flawed. It's a dangerous situation.

re: #146 buzzsawmonkey

Spicy and flavorful, with celery on the side.

Let's not stalk about celery, okay?

re: #162 JCM
There are too many variables to accurately measure global mean temperature. I don't care what computer the scientists can plug their data into. The set of values is constantly changing due to the weather.

MacGregor (#155),

When heating the holiday turducken, the turducken gives off C02. You can't say the C02 accumulation in the oven is causing the heating.

Wait, you're saying cause and effect aren't interchangeable?

This is getting confusing.

Well I must go eat dinner and watch my Red Sox beat those California Anahiem Los Angelos Angels of Anahiem. I will check back later.

re: #157 sattv4u2

re: #144 Charles

does that mean I'm no longer part of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY?

Charles, I want a refund !

Dang ! I thought we were neocon Elders of Zion !?!

re: #155 MacGregor

Sun heats planet => planet gives off C02. C02 is highest at the end of every interglacial. As planet glaciates, C02 falls.

When heating the holiday turducken, the turducken gives off C02. You can't say the C02 accumulation in the oven is causing the heating.

Gore and Soros have huge investments in this hooey because it benefits "green" investments, carbon credits, and socialistic economic exploitation. They want a hand in your wallet and that is all.

I think it goes a bit deeper than that. Soros and BHO want to rule the world.

re: #160 Ford_Prefect

I know what you mean. There are definitely days when I want to dig a whole in the sand a stick my head in. Unfortunately I am always afraid that the sand will be over crowded by leftists.

Come join me in my cave. No lefties there.

re: #163 mossley

..."The trouble is the public isn't blaming the media for getting it wrong - they think the science is flawed. It's a dangerous situation....."

The people are lapping up ignorance and superstition like they did thousands of years ago.

As a syndicated talk show host based out of Atlanta asks, if there is Global Warming OR Global Cooling, there has to be a "base" temperature that you have to start with as 'normal'. So the question is, what is the ideal "normal" temperature for the earth?

Okay. I read part of the paper yesterday (which did include the text that it was not peer reviewed, which I also agree it was not if only one person read it).

While I cannot speak to the accuracy of the models, I can speak to the mathematics. And the big problem is that the models are using differential equations and and are boundary value problems. These are very powerful equations when you know the initial conditions. That's the problem here. We don't know the initial conditions, and so we have to guess. The results then are totally based on that guess.

The Viscount's paper said the IPCC had used values for some of the constants were not taken from many many papers but from only a few--no more than five, if I recall correctly.

So I would summarize some of the problems as follows:

1. The boundary value problems do not have clearly identified initial conditions.

2. The estimated values for some constants in the IPCC's work were based on less than five papers.

re: #170 MandyManners

Come join me in my cave. No lefties there.

Sounds cozy. The Red Sox can wait.

I believe in Global Warming, _{^{Fairies, Unicorns, and Santa Claus.}}

re: #156 pingjockey

I remember those discussions. People were so busy thinking that we were going to have another ice age. But the global warming junkies have decided that is part of the greater global warming process I suppose. They have made every change in yearly temperature is part of global warming under their scenario.

re: #167 Ford_Prefect

Well I must go eat dinner and watch my Red Sox beat those California Anahiem Los Angelos Angels of Anahiem. I will check back later.

not a good start. back to back home runs for the Angels in the bottom of the 2nd

re: #161 David IV of Georgia

I have to go. Don't stare at the numbers too hard.

The numbers...they burrrrrrnnnnnnnn.

re: #175 Racer X

I believe in Global Warming, _{^{Fairies, Unicorns, and Santa Claus.}}

Oh yeah? Well I believe in honest politicians!

re: #154 Charles

Could be Exxon.

You know what's crazed? I"ve been looking into several groups behind WE as well, and you will find oil barons on both sides of the issue, along with biodiesel pimps, "clean coal" folks, and a large batch of traditional anti-nuclear energy groups.
SPPI is partly Lord Monckton but I'm not finding much on funding, or if they are actually allied with CPPI.

Last known funding from Exxon to their parent org was in 2002, only 100k.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a United States based organization that is skeptical of human induced climate change.

It was formerly known as the Center for Science and Public Policy for the Frontiers of Freedom [1], a conservative think tank founded by former Republican senator Malcolm Wallop[2]. The institute describes itself as a

nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science. Free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry. [3]

The organization's Executive Director is Robert "Bob" Ferguson, a former Chief of Staff to Republican Congressmen Jack Fields (1981-1997), John E. Peterson (1997-2002), and Rick Renzi (2002). The chief science adviser to the institute is Willie Soon, PhD an astrophysicist and geoscientist, an opponent of man made global warming and advancer of the theory that climate change is caused by solar variation. The chief policy adviser is Christopher Monckton, a former special adviser to Margaret Thatcher and one of the UK's most prominent climate change sceptics. Further science advisers include William Kininmonth, Robert M. Carter, David Legates, Craig D. Idso, all known skeptics of man made climate change, and James J. O'Brien. Joe D'Aleo is the institute's Meteorology Adviser.

The institute has funded a film "Apocalypse No" intended to show the errors of the Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth. It will show Monckton, chief policy adviser of the institute presenting a slide show to the Cambridge University Union examining climate change science. [4].

According to an non-cited page on ExxonSecrets.org, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute received a donation of $100,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002 for the foundation (in 2003) of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute's Center for Science and Public Policy [5].

re: #177 sattv4u2

not a good start. back to back home runs for the Angels in the bottom of the 2nd

AAAAARRRRGGGG!

re: #172 sattv4u2

As a syndicated talk show host based out of Atlanta asks, if there is Global Warming OR Global Cooling, there has to be a "base" temperature that you have to start with as 'normal'. So the question is, what is the ideal "normal" temperature for the earth?

Exactly!

To those who insist there is Global Warming™, I ask - how cold do you want it?

re: #162 JCM

When you take in all the uncompensated induced variables, the paint being changed, micro environments changing etc.... and add the long stability of mid-level ballon measurements and high level satellite measurement. The probable induced error quickly subsumes the 0.74°C gain of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Yup. But it's one hell of a jobs program, is it not? Which may be, more than anything, the entire purpose of the alarmists.
Putting a couple of sensors deep in the ocean floor could not possibly employ as many people as having hundreds of stations, manned 24/7/365, recording readings, verifying integrity of paint density and drying time, compensating for fart blastage, and whatever other hookie nonsense we are being sold.

re: #182 Racer X

Exactly!

To those who insist there is Global Warming™, I ask - how cold do you want it?

I don't want it cold- I favor Global Warming. I think it's a good thing.

.. and you know who I am trying to sniff out just to be safe.

re: #179 Sharmuta

Oh yeah? Well I believe in honest politicians!

You are a dreamer. Really, I am going now.

re: #102 buzzsawmonkey

I have a cashmere overcoat and a pair of shorts.

I'm not worried.

Aha! Flasher outfit.

re: #163 mossley

Spot on.
I'm thinking also that the media is probably inherently biased toward scare stories. If alar isn't poisoning your children, there is no story, is there?

I have to go and cook supper.

The master-baster's grilled salmon:

[Link: allrecipes.com...]

Goodnight and G-d Bless.

re: #169 MandyManners

I think it goes a bit deeper than that. Soros and BHO want to rule the world.

Agreed. And this is the perfect smiley face issue.

re: #184 Sharmuta

I don't want it cold- I favor Global Warming. I think it's a good thing.

me too. I hope it gets so warm that we start wearing less and less clothes !

(well ,, FEMALE "we's" that is ! )

re: #180 Thanos

oil barons on both sides of the issue

T. Boone Pickens.

Also, what about Gore's realtionship to Occidental Petroleum?

re: #185 Thanos

.. and you know who I am trying to sniff out just to be safe.

I'm coming up blank.

I don't know about you folks, but here in L.A. it is not even 90 degrees out today. In mid July that is unusual.

re: #172 sattv4u2

As a syndicated talk show host based out of Atlanta asks, if there is Global Warming OR Global Cooling, there has to be a "base" temperature that you have to start with as 'normal'. So the question is, what is the ideal "normal" temperature for the earth?

'Leepro' (iinm) an lgf contributer, said recently that the average temperature across the planet is 54 degree F. I don't know about you, but I'm not gonna shit myself if that goes up to 55.

re: #190 MacGregor

Agreed. And this is the perfect smiley face issue.

Oh, I wish BabbaZee were here. She can tell all about the new face of Marxism and Gramscian Whoredom.

I read the abstract of Monckton's paper. There is no doubt he has adopted the skeptics approach to Global Warming, a complete reversal. among the evidence that he cites to show the phenomena leading to the 1998 high actually equaled 2 times in the 20th Century is the buid up of temoeratures on Mars, Pluto and Jupiter. He then takes on the complete failure of the Warmists model to explain the current cooling trend in light of the 25% increase in CO2 since 1998.

re: #189 whiterasta

The master-baster's grilled salmon

I'll pass on that recipe, thanks.

Anyone with a shred of intelligence can see through the operation. Al Gore is the (well remunerated) point man used to push through the necessary lawmaking on the political side, and the real instigators make the money on the "carbon credits".

Follow the money.

Oh, the paper also had a very nice graph of the amount of CO2 compared to the average temperature going back millenia. There was no relationship between the two, based on looking at the graph. Nothing linear or nonlinear. They seemed completely independent. Including long periods when the CO2 was much higher and the global average was much lower.

re: #197 EC Marm

'Leepro' (iinm) an lgf contributer, said recently that the average temperature across the planet is 54 degree F. I don't know about you, but I'm not gonna shit myself if that goes up to 55.

My God Woman ,,,, think of the poor POLAR BEARS !

Al Gore was on with Tom Brokaw this morning.
He asserted that the California fires this year were proof of Global Warming. OOOK, so i guess that never happened before.
The Earth is probably warming. It is a cycle that the planet goes through with or without us & making us drive ox carts won't change a thing.

re: #198 MandyManners

That's what it boils down to. And they're selling the media the rope to hang our productivity and freedom.

Long term earth temperature.Pretty damn cold right now.

re: #195 MandyManners

I'm coming up blank.

The last name starts with an A.

mossley (#163),

The media jumped all over the saccharine causes cancer paper. They ignored the follow ups that showed it was a flawed study , but the majority of people still think it's not safe. Then there's alar and apples, vaccinations and autism, SARS, the avian flu, the global cooling scares of the 70s, etc.

The latest craze du jour having been debunked is second-hand smoke is as dangerous as actually smoking. Ain't heard much about that one in the press have ya?

And I don't think the Lefty Press so much "falls" for this tripe as much as they "want" it to be true so science be damned, it's news.

And isn't it funny how they always report their pet causes as fact, yet can't but call the guy the cops shoot at the bank wearing a mask carrying a bag of cash the "alleged" perpetrator.

Not worried about global warming.

In geologic time, we are just barely out of the last great Ice Age.

In 1816, the eruption of one volcano, Mt. Tambora, caused the year without a summer.

Between the power of the sun, and the power of the Earth, changes that humas can make are pretty puny. We should conserve because it saves money and we are stewards of the earth, but we delude ourselves if we believe our efforts have any long-term effects.

re: #204 opnion

Al Gore was on with Tom Brokaw this morning.
He asserted that the California fires this year were proof of Global Warming. OOOK, so i guess that never happened before.
The Earth is probably warming. It is a cycle that the planet goes through with or without us & making us drive ox carts won't change a thing.

Question for Algore.
How does the Peshtigo Fire calculate in that?

On the evening of October 8, 1871 the worst recorded forest fire in North American history raged through Northeastern Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, destroying millions of dollars worth of property and timberland, and taking between 1,200 and 2,400 lives.

re: #207 Thanos

The last name starts with an A.

mmmm...Is he bigger than a breadbox?

Here's Wallop, founded the parent org, and his friend Ebell.
Both seem ok on the surface.

re: #208 Geepers

mossley (#163),

The latest craze du jour having been debunked is second-hand smoke is as dangerous as actually smoking. Ain't heard much about that one in the press have ya?

And I don't think the Lefty Press so much "falls" for this tripe as much as they "want" it to be true so science be damned, it's news.

And isn't it funny how they always report their pet causes as fact, yet can't but call the guy the cops shoot at the bank wearing a mask carrying a bag of cash the "alleged" perpetrator.

Oh, yeah. If they think it's true, it has to be!

re: #207 Thanos

The last name starts with an A.

Still blank.

I hate to say this, but let's go ahead and put the science aside for a second.

There is no way China, Russia or the Middle East is going to jump aboard the "no CO2" train even if the hippies can come up with the kind of proof that a) climate change is happening differently than it ever has and b) that it's caused by man.

If the hippies were serious they'd be talking about bombing Chinese coal plants.

re: #163 mossley

I believe the media plays a big part in this. It's not just that they are always falling for the leftist point-of-view - which definitely slants their coverage of these issues - but their complete lack of understanding of the scientific process. It amazes me that the majority of people have a poor opinion on the news and journalists, but they still believe the latest craze du jour they spout.

The media promoted Sagan's idea of nuclear winter as a scientific theory, when in fact it hadn't even been submitted to a journal yet. When it was - after his book and media tour - his ideas were shredded by other physicists. People still believe it.

The media jumped all over the saccharine causes cancer paper. They ignored the follow ups that showed it was a flawed study , but the majority of people still think it's not safe. Then there's alar and apples, vaccinations and autism, SARS, the avian flu, the global cooling scares of the 70s, etc.

The trouble is the public isn't blaming the media for getting it wrong - they think the science is flawed. It's a dangerous situation.

You bring up a couple of great points. I'm usually floored by the leftists in my own family who don't trust the media yet still toe their line. It's stunning.

As for the media hyping bad science- I think it goes hand in hand with their progressive leanings and the need for crisis. And you're right- it is dangerous.

re: #205 MacGregor

That's what it boils down to. And they're selling the media the rope to hang our productivity and freedom.

Yep.

i don't buy into man made global warming.
i do try to be respectful of the earth tho.
we do live on it.
i recycle paper, glass, cans, and pick up litter when i see it on the ground.
i don't throw fast food trash out of moving vehicles. i make the stinky trucks turn off their idling engines when they are delivering beer to the bar next door. and i reuse aluminum foil. lol
that's is actually a lot more than some people i know who push the g.w. agenda. all talk and no action. not even sorting their trash properly and risking a ticket.

The trouble is there seems to be a lot of "fudge factors" in all of the equations to get the real-world results and the computer model predictions to match.

My question for the AGW believers is this: Why the preoccupation with carbon dioxide? It is supposedly one of the weaker greenhouse gases, no where near as strong as water vapor or methane... and yet that is the gas they concentrate their energy [heh!] on. Why? [hint: he who controls energy controls the world economy]

If we are to move from oil to another fuel -- like hydrogen, wouldn't that increase global warming even more, as water vapor traps heat in the atmosphere far more effectively than CO2?

re: #216 Sharmuta

You bring up a couple of great points. I'm usually floored by the leftists in my own family who don't trust the media yet still toe their line. It's stunning.

As for the media hyping bad science- I think it goes hand in hand with their progressive leanings and the need for crisis. And you're right- it is dangerous.

The media crave crisis. If it bleeds, it leads.

The Heartland Institue

Good resource with data and links.

re: #188 wolfie

Spot on.
I'm thinking also that the media is probably inherently biased toward scare stories. If alar isn't poisoning your children, there is no story, is there?

Years ago, I took a part-time job at a local paper for some extra cash. First lesson I learned: the editors didn't give a damn about the truth. They wanted stories that would sell papers.

I really don't get the opinion people have that "if it's in the paper, it has to be true." Why? How did newspapers get this reputation as unbiased guardians of the truth? In the US at least, they started as political mouthpieces. Papers were the only forms of mass media until the 20th century, and a lot of the early papers had the party name included in their masthead.

re: #210 JCM

Al Gore does not get asked probing qustions. He is treated like an evironmental rock star. He sounds just as goofy as ever, buy hey , he has a Noble prize & an Oscar. Thats really all ya need to know.

The thing is, if we are warming and it caused by us, why do the leftists try to stop solar, wind, nuc plants? Hmmm.... They want the U.S. brought down, this is just the way to do it. They don't want alternatives.

re: #208 Geepers

mossley (#163)And isn't it funny how they always report their pet causes as fact, yet can't but call the guy the cops shoot at the bank wearing a mask carrying a bag of cash the "alleged" perpetrator.

As much as I agree with the rest of your post, this is a legal requirement. Until the guy is convicted of a crime, it's libel if the alleged isn't included.

Increased Carbon Dioxide is an effect, not a cause.

re: #220 stevieray

The trouble is there seems to be a lot of "fudge factors" in all of the equations to get the real-world results and the computer model predictions to match.

My question for the AGW believers is this: Why the preoccupation with carbon dioxide? It is supposedly one of the weaker greenhouse gases, no where near as strong as water vapor or methane... and yet that is the gas they concentrate their energy [heh!] on. Why? [hint: he who controls energy controls the world economy]

If we are to move from oil to another fuel -- like hydrogen, wouldn't that increase global warming even more, as water vapor traps heat in the atmosphere far more effectively than CO2?

Bovine faltulence is a serious problem and very serious science is being done.

SCIENTISTS are taking a novel approach to studying the potent gases that cause global warming, strapping plastic tanks to cows to collect methane emissions.

You have to see it to believe it.

Al Gore

" Does my ass make these pants look fat?"

re: #219 taxfreekiller

How ever the sun goes,
thereto both the earth and Al Gore go, too, also.

Al Gore is a quark gone from an atom smasher some years ago,
sort of an experiment particle gone astray.

Yes of course! Just like Farakhan pointed out that the White Devil came out of a botched lab experiment by a Black scientist, Al Gore escaped from a lab. Now I see.

re: #224 opnion

Al Gore does not get asked probing qustions. He is treated like an evironmental rock star. He sounds just as goofy as ever, buy hey , he has a Noble prize & an Oscar. Thats really all ya need to know.

He got the Noble Prize? Well damn, he must be onto something. I'll have to be more considerate of his opinions in the future.

/
*I threw up a bit writing that*

re: #221 MandyManners

The media crave crisis. If it bleeds, it leads.

Crisis helps them promote progressive solutions.

There is no question that the climate of Earth changes. Instead of expending resources to fight that change based on questionable science, it would be wise to learn how to live with it. Make sure that we have the ability to produce food even though the temperature fluctuates a few degrees.

As someone asked up thread: What IS the 'correct' temperature for the planet?

re: #228 JCM

looks like the start of a Monty Python sketch !

re: #228 JCM
That is the stupidest thing I have ever seen! I spent 20 years in Uncle Sams canoe club and that is saying a lot.

re: #208 Geepers

mossley (#163),

The latest craze du jour having been debunked is second-hand smoke is as dangerous as actually smoking. Ain't heard much about that one in the press have ya?

And I don't think the Lefty Press so much "falls" for this tripe as much as they "want" it to be true so science be damned, it's news.

And isn't it funny how they always report their pet causes as fact, yet can't but call the guy the cops shoot at the bank wearing a mask carrying a bag of cash the "alleged" perpetrator.

Yes! Alleged-Global-Warming.

re: #223 mossley

Years ago, I took a part-time job at a local paper for some extra cash. First lesson I learned: the editors didn't give a damn about the truth. They wanted stories that would sell papers.

I really don't get the opinion people have that "if it's in the paper, it has to be true." Why? How did newspapers get this reputation as unbiased guardians of the truth? In the US at least, they started as political mouthpieces. Papers were the only forms of mass media until the 20th century, and a lot of the early papers had the party name included in their masthead.

Part of me would like a return of the partisan press. At least then, readers knew which was the news was spun.

We like tests right?

Take the Global Warming™ Test

I wonder what motivates The American Physical Society to embrace, and then stubbornly cling to Global Warming in the first place. Why not just do what most astrophysicist did and wait to see how the solar cycle would play out? Advocacy science seems ever more common, but no more correct.

re: #200 Racer X

Heathen!

One thing that puzzles me is why sea levels haven't risen, given that GWarming is supposed to tsunami the polar bears into oblivion.
(That was certainly the chief message of An Inconvenient Troof.)

My brother's an engineer in San Juan who works on marinas, ports, seaside resorts, etc. He says the average annual sea level on both the Atlantic and the Caribbean side of PRico has not risen since they started measuring it about 90 years ago.

re: #231 JCM

He got the Noble Prize? Well damn, he must be onto something. I'll have to be more considerate of his opinions in the future.

/
*I threw up a bit writing that*

The real pathetic thing is that the Polish woman who heroically rescued so many Jews In WWII was up at the same time (can't remember her name) They blew her off & gave it to Al Gore!

re: #237 MandyManners

Part of me would like a return of the partisan press. At least then, readers knew which was way the news was spun.

My view of the request for a submission of a scientific article from a science society was a de facto request for something that they would subject to peer review.

I'm not sure why they failed to review that paper prior to publication, but what other reason would they have had for the request. If they felt that his conclusions had not been peer reviewed, and already had an iron-clad belief that his findings were unsupportable, if not to be reviewed, why the request at all?

No reasons for this slap to the face other than the only obvious reason that I can see. They had no intention of their own peer review, the intention in requesting a submission was to humiliate and repudiate the author, without even a slight effort to explain why their refutation and humiliation was justified.

Please don't tell me that politics is not within this process. It's pathetically obvious that it is. What's the point of a science society requesting a paper without any intent of legitimate review of the science behind it?

There is none. I'd sue them for wilful defamation.

It's not just Monckton...and btw, Charles, The Discovery Institute is not the only corner of the world were ideological driven pseudo-science takes place. Ever worked for, or around any university Ecology Dept.? I have, and half of them are just as nuts, but with NSF funding.

From [Link: www.powerlineblog.com...]

Blowing the Whistle on Global Warming

David Evans was a consultant to the "Australian Greenhouse Office" from 1999 to 2005. He is a former global warming alarmist; however, he is also a scientist who goes where the evidence leads him. In this important article in The Australian, he blows the whistle on the fraud that many of the world's governments are in the midst of perpetrating:

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts.

You really need to read the whole thing to get the full impact, but here are a few highlights:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. ...

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. ...

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). ...

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect. ...

re: #172 sattv4u2

As a syndicated talk show host based out of Atlanta asks, if there is Global Warming OR Global Cooling, there has to be a "base" temperature that you have to start with as 'normal'. So the question is, what is the ideal "normal" temperature for the earth?

In the current century, a chilly 54 degrees F.

re: #228 JCM

You have to see it to believe it.

I wanna see someone spark up a cigarette near that cow... BOOM! That cow really will jump over the moon! It looks like something that you'd strap to the space shuttle!

mossley (#163),

As much as I agree with the rest of your post, this is a legal requirement. Until the guy is convicted of a crime, it's libel if the alleged isn't included.

True enough.

Too bad the public can't sue for being sold unproven Lefty social cause bullshit as scientific fact.

In addition to Mr. Monckton's paper at the American Physical Society there is another equally startling, and unanswerable broadside appearing from down under, in The Australian.

Australia's author of the "Carbon Accounting Model," Dr. David Evans, has blown the whistle on the ever more farfetched methods being employed by the ecocondriacs to prove that the C02 layer of the troposphere is heating, when one data set after another is showing otherwise. There is widespread consensus among the global warming advocates that there should be a hot spot ten klicks up over the tropics, its not there. End of story.

[Link: www.theaustralian.news.com.au...]

re: #240 buzzsawmonkey

You still have to get the energy from somewhere.... Coal, oil, natural gas or (gasp!) nukes.

There is no free ride.....

re: #243 opnion

The real pathetic thing is that the Polish woman who heroically rescued so many Jews In WWII was up at the same time (can't remember her name) They blew her off & gave it to Al Gore!

I consider the Nobel Prize these days to be right up there with the Pullet Surprise.

Either one and a buck will buy a cup of coffee.

re: #240 buzzsawmonkey
Well that might be considered a solution. OMG...we can't have that.

re: #242 wolfie

One thing that puzzles me is why sea levels haven't risen, given that GWarming is supposed to tsunami the polar bears into oblivion.
(That was certainly the chief message of An Inconvenient Troof.)

My brother's an engineer in San Juan who works on marinas, ports, seaside resorts, etc. He says the average annual sea level on both the Atlantic and the Caribbean side of PRico has not risen since they started measuring it about 90 years ago.

truth doesn't matter to someone like algore.
this is his glory moment, not to mention money maker,
and way of getting revenge.

re: #233 van helsing

There is no question that the climate of Earth changes. Instead of expending resources to fight that change based on questionable science, it would be wise to learn how to live with it. Make sure that we have the ability to produce food even though the temperature fluctuates a few degrees.

As someone asked up thread: What IS the 'correct' temperature for the planet?

I've recently have taken to talking to people about this exact aspect. I usually ask, "ever hear of the Ice Age?" That usually gets them thinking.

As to the rest of your post- I agree. Our resources would be better spent accepting climate change and working towards ways to ensure human survival regardless of temperature increases or decreases.

re: #248 stevieray

I wanna see someone spark up a cigarette near that cow... BOOM! That cow really will jump over the moon! It looks like something that you'd strap to the space shuttle!

Boeuf Flambé!
*French for BBQ*

re: #238 Racer X
9 out of 10. I don't agree with the first question. I believe the average temp has dropped since the year 2,000.

re: #230 opnion

If Ferry-Con believes that, then is there no reason to feel bad about slavery anymore? I mean, obviously that has to be a false story if genetic manipulation didn't occur until well over a hundred years later.

Since 1990 the biomass of the world has increased by 25%. With cooling we shall see a dramatic die off. Mostly plants. But those plants harbor a lot of insects and birds.

re: #256 buzzsawmonkey

True. But I submit that it is easier and cleaner to expand powerplant capacity than it is to blow vast sums on some bullshit hybrid.

Can people make money on an old techology?

re: #256 buzzsawmonkey

Excellent point. Stop trying to use logic in this arguement.

re: #252 JCM

I consider the Nobel Prize these days to be right up there with the Pullet Surprise.

Either one and a buck will buy a cup of coffee.

It has been devalued about like , oh I don't know, Editor of Harvard Law Review.

re: #232 Sharmuta

Crisis helps them promote progressive solutions.

Always has. Remember, we planned during the war (WWI).

re: #248 stevieray

I wanna see someone spark up a cigarette near that cow... BOOM! That cow really will jump over the moon! It looks like something that you'd strap to the space shuttle!

Youtube has some clips but, not of cow flatulence. (That's all I'm saying about the subject.)

re: #148 Dahveed

My computer obviously hiccuped.

What I was going to say was that perhaps the earth has been particularly cool and is now normalizing. It's entirely possible that they could be negatively impacting the earth. I really don't think we have that great an impact. The fact remains that we are looking at the past 20, 50, or 100 years and the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

I'm waiting for my next encounter with a global warming moonbat; I'm want to get them going about how man is ruining the planet, and then suggest we need to get the planet back to the way it was. I'm going to see if I can get them to agree with me that the Hadean Era rocked. Then I'll casually mention why it's named after Hades.

Hmm, global warming moonbat - a globbat? Glowarbat? Gwarbat?

re: #116 nyc redneck

i wonder how many scientists publish pro- global warming papers because of job/money pressures.
or bribes.

If you don't think correctly on Global Warming, you don't get grant money.

re: #215 DeathtotheSwiss,

If the hippies were serious, They'd be in favor of nuclear power. No CO2 emmissions whatsoever. Save the Planet! Nuke it!

How cold would you like it to be?

jcm (#228),

SCIENTISTS are taking a novel approach to studying the potent gases that cause global warming, strapping plastic tanks to cows to collect methane emissions.

You have to see it to believe it.

Methane being lighter than air they best be careful, their test subject might float away.

re: #269 Iron Fist

,

If the hippies were serious, They'd be in favor of nuclear power. No CO2 emmissions whatsoever. Save the Planet! Nuke it!

Even the founder of Greenpeace is pro-nuc these days.