Global Warming Crisis Continues, Despite Lack of Global Warming

[pjc]

Rather than getting our news about the imaginary climate change crisis from the authoritarian propagandists who run the mainstream media, we would be well advised to turn to sources more grounded in reality. South Africa's Engineering News (http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=136273), for example:
During 2008, have we seen many stories in the newspapers about 2007 being particularly warm as a result of global warming? During 2006, the doomsters were predicting that 2007 would be the hottest year on record, so why have we seen no reports about this? The answer is simple — 2007 turned out to be the coolest year for 30 years. It is also the case that there has been no global warming since 1998. In fact, since 1998, there has been steady cooling. Even more dramatic is the fact that the most recent computer model predictions indicate that there will be no more global warming for the next ten years. But the doomsters say that, after this ten-year period, global warming will come back with a vengeance. Why? This answer is simple too: Because authoritarians and corrupt profiteers have invested far too much in the global warming hoax to admit that not only is human activity not causing global warming, currently there is no global warming.

This is a shame, because warming periods in the past were unsurprisingly associated with economic expansion. Humans are like most other life forms in that we fare better in a warmer world.


Nonetheless, South Africa prepares to drink the Kool-Aid by imposing a tax that will mean a 10% increase in electricity costs. This will kill two birds with one stone, enriching the bureaucracy, while keeping people poor enough to think they need the very government that is holding them down. But it will have no effect whatsoever on the climate.

http://www.moonbattery.com

[TreyP]

Rather than getting our news about the imaginary climate change crisis from the authoritarian propagandists who run the mainstream media, we would be well advised to turn to sources more grounded in reality. South Africa's Engineering News (http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=136273), for example:
During 2008, have we seen many stories in the newspapers about 2007 being particularly warm as a result of global warming? During 2006, the doomsters were predicting that 2007 would be the hottest year on record, so why have we seen no reports about this? The answer is simple — 2007 turned out to be the coolest year for 30 years. It is also the case that there has been no global warming since 1998. In fact, since 1998, there has been steady cooling. Even more dramatic is the fact that the most recent computer model predictions indicate that there will be no more global warming for the next ten years. But the doomsters say that, after this ten-year period, global warming will come back with a vengeance. Why? This answer is simple too: Because authoritarians and corrupt profiteers have invested far too much in the global warming hoax to admit that not only is human activity not causing global warming, currently there is no global warming.

This is a shame, because warming periods in the past were unsurprisingly associated with economic expansion. Humans are like most other life forms in that we fare better in a warmer world.


Nonetheless, South Africa prepares to drink the Kool-Aid by imposing a tax that will mean a 10% increase in electricity costs. This will kill two birds with one stone, enriching the bureaucracy, while keeping people poor enough to think they need the very government that is holding them down. But it will have no effect whatsoever on the climate.

http://www.moonbattery.com

They forgot to check with NASA.

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.

NASA Data (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/)

[pjc]

Conflicting data, no change there..

So are we doomed, or not?

It's all BS!

[JrSyko]

Conflicting data, no change there..

So are we doomed, or not?

It's all BS!

How is that conflicting? It either is or isn't and I'm going to go with NASA on this one.

[TreyP]

Conflicting data, no change there..

So are we doomed, or not?

It's all BS!



http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:v6630aEDxqNu3M:http://blogs.townonline.com/newton/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/head-in-sand.JPG

[pjc]

I will never go with James Hansen's BS.

Here is his latest, fit for consumption of, and for the wild eyed, lemming like praise of the general Moonbattery aka Trey and Travis.

-CEOs of fossil energy companies “should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature".

Trey, from your previous parrot of the pages at Daily Kos, I am sure you agree, right?

-The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last eight years.

When Canadian mining engineer Steve McIntyre discovered in 2007 that the U.S. government’s NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- led by Hansen -- had screwed up its figures and erroneously (and conveniently, for Hansen) reported that 1998 is the warmest year on record instead of 1934, Hansen flipped out. He referred to those who caught the error as “court jesters,” charging they did the bidding of unnamed captains of industry.

[Infidel Racing Team]

Let me see.....NASA vs www.moonbattery.com .........Hmmm tough one....Ill go with NASA. :D

[pjc]

Let me see.....NASA vs www.moonbattery.com .........Hmmm (http://www.moonbattery.com%20.........Hmmm) tough one....Ill go with NASA. :D

Ah, short sighted again eh Infy? Must be your bias.

The article came from and with link back to SAEN.

[TreyP]

I will never go with James Hansen's BS.

Here is his latest, fit for consumption of, and for the wild eyed, lemming like praise of the general Moonbattery aka Trey and Travis.

-CEOs of fossil energy companies “should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature".

Trey, from your previous parrot of the pages at Daily Kos, I am sure you agree, right?

-The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last eight years.

When Canadian mining engineer Steve McIntyre discovered in 2007 that the U.S. government’s NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- led by Hansen -- had screwed up its figures and erroneously (and conveniently, for Hansen) reported that 1998 is the warmest year on record instead of 1934, Hansen flipped out. He referred to those who caught the error as “court jesters,” charging they did the bidding of unnamed captains of industry.





What is this Daily Kos that you love so much?

Where is the link to this great pose that you are quoting?

If you are so eager to debate maybe you should learn how to first.

Give referances to support your posts.

[pjc]

What is this Daily Kos that you love so much?


Sorry, by your moonbattery, I could have sworn you were a Kos-ite. The questions recovers though - just where did you get that gibberish you spewed a few days back?


Where is the link to this great pose that you are quoting?


In the post...


If you are so eager to debate maybe you should learn how to first.

Give referances[sic] to support your posts.

That mirror is calling your name Moonbat. Time to affirm your self identity again.

[TreyP]

Sorry, by your moonbattery, I could have sworn you were a Kos-ite. The questions recovers though - just where did you get that gibberish you spewed a few days back?



In the post...



That mirror is calling your name Moonbat. Time to affirm your self identity again.

Typical ad hominem

Try again by addressing the subject and maybe you will taken seriously.

[Infidel Racing Team]

Typical ad hominem

Try again by addressing the subject and maybe you will taken seriously.

Yep, ad hominem and ad nauseum are his favorite techniques, entertaining for the National Enquirer crowd, but intellectually dishonest and boring to normal folk

[pjc]

I rebutted both of your intolerant claims that Hansen and NASA is infallible. It is not my problem that your "moonbat bias" makes you blind.

[TreyP]

I rebutted both of your intolerant claims that Hansen and NASA is infallible. It is not my problem that your "moonbat bias" makes you blind.

Would you mind sharing them with us?

Or are we supposted to read your mind?

Or is this just another diversion?

[pjc]

See post #6 in this same thread.

Your bias is truly overwhelming, isn't it?

Didn't you say something about "an open mind" in another thread tonight?

[TreyP]

See post #6 in this same thread.

Your bias is truly overwhelming, isn't it?

Didn't you say something about "an open mind" in another thread tonight?

Do you not understand basic english?

I asked for referances to what you posted there. Should I just take your word as to it's truth? Did you not understand my reply. Was it too hard to understand? It is the internet it's not really that hard.

[pjc]

Do you not understand basic english?

I asked for referances [cpsyag] to what you posted there. Should I just take your word as to it's truth? Did you not understand my reply. Was it too hard to understand? It is the internet it's not really that hard.

Trey, click on the active links. I know you can do it.

[TreyP]

Trey, click on the active links. I know you can do it.

Not showing any links... try again.

[Infidel Racing Team]

Not showing any links... try again.

I double checked, no active links.....Come on PJC, I know you can edit ....

[pjc]

Here, let me spoonfeed you..

See line #2 in the first post and click the link in the phrase "South Africa's Engineering News".

[Ziggy]

Not showing any links... try again.

Trey, click on the active links. I know you can do it.

See post #6 in this same thread.

Your bias is truly overwhelming, isn't it?

Didn't you say something about "an open mind" in another thread tonight?

I would really love to have a debate sometime in a bar,fully loaded,anything goes (except violence) with Trey,Pat and the Infy.In fact I would pay to host the show.:D:D:D

[pappawheely]

I would really love to have a debate sometime in a bar,fully loaded,anything goes (except violence) with Trey,Pat and the Infy.In fact I would pay to host the show.:D:D:D


YES! Make your point then take a shot. :D oops, I mean of booze!

[pjc]

To make it fair, I'd need to start drinking the day prior.

[Infidel Racing Team]

To make it fair, I'd need to start drinking the day prior.

Judging by your responses you are 30 years ahead of us already

[Ziggy]

I have not had so much fun since the hogs ate my sister.:D

[pjc]

Judging by your responses you are 30 years ahead of us already

Awe does Indy think I imbibe too much?

I really don't care.

[Infidel Racing Team]

I believe it was the late Carl Sagan in his last book "Billions and Billions" where he describe a procedure to find out the anthropogenic nature of CO2. If I remember correctly the way to know if CO2 comes from fossil fuels and not a natural process is by analyzing the Isotropic nature of the carbon in the CO2.

I can only find the particularities of such Isotopes: http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div837/837.01/outputs/tars/IsotopicCO2.htm

I cant find anywhere online Dr. Sagans works, maybe its a copyright thing, but I will keep looking for a cross reference to support Dr. Sagan statements.

[Infidel Racing Team]

Here we go! here is a cross reference to demonstrate that the rising levels of CO2 are Man made:

Present CO2 levels greatly exceed the range found in the ice core data. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 confirms that fossil fuel burning is the source of most of the CO2 increase, unlike during prior interglacial periods.

Source:
Schimel, D. (1996). "CO2 and the carbon cycle, pp.76-86 in Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg and K. Maskell (eds), Cambridge University Press 1996.

If you grant that point i conjunction with the fact that CO2 levels have not been as high in the last 650,000 years, It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out we have a problem:
Source #2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm

[pjc]

And differing views found here http://www.masternewmedia.org/information_access/global-warming-co2-carbon-emissions/co2-climate-change-debunked-20070526.htm

[Infidel Racing Team]

And differing views found here http://www.masternewmedia.org/information_access/global-warming-co2-carbon-emissions/co2-climate-change-debunked-20070526.htm

Yes Pat, different views.....but you at least have to concede that they are not in the same league quality wise.

I offer you scientific paper references and quotes and you gave me something a little less than a blog.

You are a savy guy as far as the Internet, you know that page is as low as it gets.

Try again with better sources.

To keep it focus and simple the theme is: The anthropogenic nature of the excess CO2 in the last 500 years.

[pdailey]

Here we go! here is a cross reference to demonstrate that the rising levels of CO2 are Man made:

Present CO2 levels greatly exceed the range found in the ice core data. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 confirms that fossil fuel burning is the source of most of the CO2 increase, unlike during prior interglacial periods.

Source:
Schimel, D. (1996). "CO2 and the carbon cycle, pp.76-86 in Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg and K. Maskell (eds), Cambridge University Press 1996.

If you grant that point i conjunction with the fact that CO2 levels have not been as high in the last 650,000 years, It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out we have a problem:
Source #2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm


How can we prove what the CO2 levels were 650,000 years ago???? Last I checked, we have been tracking weather patterns maybe the last 2000 years and I don't know about CO2 levels but it sure as hell 650,000 years ago. It is all someones theory and opinions. IMHO

[TreyP]

How can we prove what the CO2 levels were 650,000 years ago???? Last I checked, we have been tracking weather patterns maybe the last 2000 years and I don't know about CO2 levels but it sure as hell 650,000 years ago. It is all someones theory and opinions. IMHO

Ice core samples. Proven fact.

[Infidel Racing Team]

How can we prove what the CO2 levels were 650,000 years ago???? Last I checked, we have been tracking weather patterns maybe the last 2000 years and I don't know about CO2 levels but it sure as hell 650,000 years ago. It is all someones theory and opinions. IMHO

Patrick,

The methodology consists more or less in extracting and analyzing the ice sheets in the Artic regions, this is a widely accepted and quite accurate way to do it.

Here is a webpage by NASA JPL explaining it better:

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/

[pdailey]

Patrick,

The methodology consists more or less in extracting and analyzing the ice sheets in the Artic regions, this is a widely accepted and quite accurate way to do it.

Here is a webpage by NASA JPL explaining it better:

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/

How do we know? How can you trust this? Because NASA said so? I'm just not as gullible in accepting scientists scare tactics. How do we not know that the planet is going through a cycle that has been happening for millions of years. Don't get me wrong, I do belive that pollution is causing problems, but to say that it is THE problem is ludicrous

[TreyP]

How do we know? How can you trust this? Because NASA said so? I'm just not as gullible in accepting scientists scare tactics. How do we not know that the planet is going through a cycle that has been happening for millions of years. Don't get me wrong, I do belive that pollution is causing problems, but to say that it is THE problem is ludicrous

Interesting thing is NASA scientists are just giving the data, it is the rest of the political world that is trying to tell us what it means.

[pdailey]

Interesting thing is NASA scientists are just giving the data, it is the rest of the political world that is trying to tell us what it means.

The answer lies in your reply. It is the "political" world telling us what this means. HMMMMMM:rolleyes:

[TreyP]

The answer lies in your reply. It is the "political" world telling us what this means. HMMMMMM:rolleyes:

Now you get it.

[dan200]

I have not had so much fun since the hogs ate my sister.:D
LMAO:D:D:D:D

[DEZERTSUB]

HEY!!!! Can I join the SUPER club???:D:D:D

[dan200]

HEY!!!! Can I join the SUPER club???:D:D:D

BLOOD IN - BLOOD OUT. R U DOWN?

[pjc]

Yes Pat, different views.....but you at least have to concede that they are not in the same league quality wise.


What about these guys..


U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb)Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks “Consensus”


“Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport)) Complete Report without Introduction: (LINK (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report) )

INTRODUCTION:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC



(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.


Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.” Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8)) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has “co-opted” the green movement. (LINK (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=DE6A54BF-802A-23AD-45ED-60AE6F3FEBE2)) . . . .

Scientists from Around the World Dissent
This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany (http://www.klimamanifest-von-heiligenroth.de/klimaman-e.html),Brazil (http://www.metsul.com/blog/), the Netherlands (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://www.klimaatnieuws.nl/200701/groep_wetenschappers_mens_niet_schuldig.php&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DPeter%2BBloemers%2BVolkskrant%26num%3 D100%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.micro), Russia (http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070928/81541029.html), New Zealand (http://www.climatescience.org.nz/) and France (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/20070314.FIG000000106_climat_polemique_entre_acade miciens.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DFluteau%2Ballegre%26num%3D100%26hl%3D en%26rls%3Dcom.m), nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=D4B5FD23-802A-23AD-4565-3DCE4095C360)) . . .”

See Full Introduction (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb)

[pjc]

And these guys?

31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming


Monday, May 19, 2008 4:24 PM

By: Philip V. Brennan


An incredible 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science, including 9,021 Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that flatly denies Al Gore’s claims that human-caused global warming is a settled scientific fact.




Gore calls scientists and others who question the reality of human-caused global warming “deniers” and claims they are a tiny minority among the scientific community who he insists almost universally agree that the planet is being threatened by the alleged warming of the earth.



Gore told CBS’ Leslie Stahl on "60 Minutes" recently, "I think those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view. They're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat."



These 31,072 scientists do not believe the world is flat, and they say there is no convincing scientific evidence that so-called greenhouse gasses are causing catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.



On Monday, Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, (OISM) announced the results of a drive asking scientists to sign a petition stating: “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limit on greenhouse gasses would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”



The petition went on to say, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”



Robinson explained that the purpose of OISM’s petition project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong.



Despite Gore’s extravagant claims, the petition shows that no such consensus or settled science exists.



In 2001, OISM circulated what was known as the Oregon Petition, and according to Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of “The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud,” that effort, spearheaded by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University, gathered an astounding 17,800 signatures.

To establish that the effort was bona fide, and not spawned by kooks on the fringes of science, as global warming advocates often label the skeptics, the 2001 effort was spearheaded by Dr. Seitz, a towering figure in the world of science.



Solomon wrote, “The Oregon Petition garnered an astounding 17,800 signatures, a number all the more astounding because of the unequivocal stance that these scientists took: Not only did they dispute that there was convincing evidence of harm from carbon dioxide emissions, they asserted that Kyoto itself would harm the global environment because increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”



According to Dr. Robinson, “As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.”





Solomon asked, “How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?”







© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

[btshannon]

How can we prove what the CO2 levels were 650,000 years ago???? Last I checked, we have been tracking weather patterns maybe the last 2000 years and I don't know about CO2 levels but it sure as hell 650,000 years ago. It is all someones theory and opinions. IMHO

How did the early humans get the CO2 levels so high? There are much more humans around now than 650,000 years ago. Industrial revolution was still 649,750 years away (or so....). Cooking fires? (that's a lot of grillin')

Is global climate change occurring? (probably) Is it man made? (probably not)

[pdailey]

I'm with ya^^^^^^^^^

[RacerX]

I think this video says it all.
YouTube - George Carlin - Saving the Planet

[pappawheely]

Doomed to a fatal delusion over climate change

Article from: http://www.news.com.au/images/sources/h14_heraldsun.gif</IMG> (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/)

Andrew Bolt
July 09, 2008 12:00am

PSYCHIATRISTS have detected the first case of "climate change delusion" - and they haven't even yet got to Kevin Rudd and his global warming guru.
Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children's Hospital (http://www.rch.org.au/rch/index.cfm?doc_id=1495) say this delusion was a "previously unreported phenomenon".
"A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events."
(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore (http://www.algore.com/) and Sir Richard Brazen, but I digress.)
"The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies."
But never mind the poor boy, who became too terrified even to drink. What's scarier is that people in charge of our Government seem to suffer from this "climate change delusion", too.
Here is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (http://www.pm.gov.au/) yesterday, with his own apocalyptic vision: "If we do not begin reducing the nation's levels of carbon pollution, Australia's economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands."
And here is a senior Sydney Morning Herald journalist aghast at the horrors described in the report on global warming released on Friday by Rudd's guru, Professor Ross Garnaut (http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf): "Australians must pay more for petrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll . . ."
Wow. Pay more for food or die. Is that Rudd's next campaign slogan?
Of course, we can laugh at this -- and must -- but the price for such folly may soon be your job, or at least your cash.
Rudd and Garnaut want to scare you into backing their plan to force people who produce everything from petrol to coal-fired electricity, from steel to soft drinks, to pay for licences to emit carbon dioxide -- the gas they think is heating the world to hell.
The cost of those licences, totalling in the billions, will then be passed on to you through higher bills for petrol, power, food, housing, air travel and anything else that uses lots of gassy power. In some countries they're even planning to tax farting cows, so there's no end to the ways you can be stung.
Rudd hopes this pain will make you switch to expensive but less gassy alternatives, and -- hey presto -- the world's temperature will then fall, just like it's actually done since the day Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth.
But you'll have spotted already the big flaw in Rudd's mad plan -- one that confirms he and Garnaut really do have delusions.
The truth is Australia on its own emits less than 1.5 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide. Any savings we make will make no real difference, given that China (now the biggest emitter) and India (the fourth) are booming so fast that they alone will pump out 42 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases by 2030.
Indeed, so fast are the world's emissions growing -- by 3.1 per cent a year thanks mostly to these two giants -- that the 20 per cent cuts Rudd demands of Australians by 2020 would be swallowed up in just 28 days. That's how little our multi-billions of dollars in sacrifices will matter.
And that's why Rudd's claim that we'll be ruined if we don't cut Australia's gases is a lie. To be blunt.
Ask Rudd's guru. Garnaut on Friday admitted any cuts we make will be useless unless they inspire other countries to do the same -- especially China and India: "Only a global agreement has any prospect of reducing risks of dangerous climate change to acceptable levels."
So almost everything depends on China and India copying us. But the chances of that? A big, round zero.
A year ago China released its own global warming strategy -- its own Garnaut report -- which bluntly refused to cut its total emissions.
Said Ma Kai, head of China's powerful State Council: "China does not commit to any quantified emissions-reduction commitments . . . our efforts to fight climate change must not come at the expense of economic growth."
In fact, we had to get used to more gas from China, not less: "It is quite inevitable that during this (industrialisation) stage, China's energy consumption and CO2 emissions will be quite high."
Last month, India likewise issued its National Action Plan on Climate Change, and also rejected Rudd-style cuts.
The plan's authors, the Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change, said India would rather save its people from poverty than global warming, and would not cut growth to cut gases.
"It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of wellbeing to its people."
The plan's only real promise was in fact a threat: "India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries."
Gee, thanks. That, of course, means India won't stop its per capita emissions (now at 1.02 tonnes) from growing until they match those of countries such as the US (now 20 tonnes). Given it has one billion people, that's a promise to gas the world like it's never been gassed before.
So is this our death warrant? Should this news have you seeing apocalyptic visions, too?
Well, no. What makes the Indian report so interesting is that unlike our Ross Garnaut, who just accepted the word of those scientists wailing we faced doom, the Indian experts went to the trouble to check what the climate was actually doing and why.
Their conclusion? They couldn't actually find anything bad in India that was caused by man-made warming: "No firm link between the documented (climate) changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established."
In fact, they couldn't find much change in the climate at all.
Yes, India's surface temperature over a century had inched up by 0.4 degrees, but there had been no change in trends for large-scale droughts and floods, or rain: "The observed monsoon rainfall at the all-India level does not show any significant trend . . ."
It even dismissed the panic Al Gore helped to whip up about melting Himalayan glaciers: "While recession of some glaciers has occurred in some Himalayan regions in recent years, the trend is not consistent across the entire mountain chain. It is, accordingly, too early to establish long-term trends, or their causation, in respect of which there are several hypotheses."
Nor was that the only sign that India's Council on Climate Change had kept its cool while our Rudd and Garnaut lost theirs.
For example, the Indians rightly insisted nuclear power had to be part of any real plan to cut emissions. Rudd and Garnaut won't even discuss it.
The Indians also pointed out that no feasible technology to trap and bury the gasses of coal-fired power stations had yet been developed "and there are serious questions about the cost as well (as) permanence of the CO2 storage repositories".
Rudd and Garnaut, however, keep offering this dream to make us think our power stations can survive their emissions trading scheme, when state governments warn they may not.
In every case the Indians are pragmatic where Rudd and Garnaut are having delusions -- delusions about an apocalypse, about cutting gases without going nuclear, about saving power stations they'll instead drive broke.
And there's that delusion on which their whole plan is built -- that India and China will follow our sacrifice by cutting their throats, too.
So psychiatrists are treating a 17-year-old tipped over the edge by global warming fearmongers?
Pray that their next patients will be two men whose own delusions threaten to drive our whole economy over the edge as well.
Join Andrew on blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt)

[Contender]

ScienceDaily (July 20, 2006) — Gas escaping from the ocean floor may provide some answers to understanding historical global warming cycles and provide information on current climate changes, according to a team of scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The findings are reported in the July 20 on-line version of the scientific journal, Global Biogeochemical Cycles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remarkable and unexpected support for this idea occurred when divers and scientists from UC Santa Barbara observed and videotaped a massive blowout of methane from the ocean floor. It happened in an area of gas and oil seepage coming out of small volcanoes in the ocean floor of the Santa Barbara channel –– called Shane Seep –– near an area known as the Coal Oil Point seep field. The blowout sounded like a freight train, according to the divers.

Atmospheric methane is at least 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is the most abundant organic compound in the atmosphere, according to the study's authors, all from UC Santa Barbara.

"Other people have reported this type of methane blowout, but no one has ever checked the numbers until now," said Ira Leifer, lead author and an associate researcher with UCSB's Marine Science Institute. "Ours is the first set of numbers associated with a seep blowout." Leifer was in a research boat on the surface at the time of the blowouts.

Aside from underwater measurements, a nearby meteorological station measured the methane "cloud" that emerged as being approximately 5,000 cubic feet, or equal to the volume of the entire first floor of a two-bedroom house. The research team also had a small plane in place, flown by the California Department of Conservation, shooting video of the event from the air.

Leifer explained that when this type of blowout event occurs, virtually all the gas from the seeps escapes into the atmosphere, unlike the emission of small bubbles from the ocean floor, which partially, or mostly, dissolve in the ocean water. Transporting this methane to the atmosphere affects climate, according to the researchers. The methane blowout that the UCSB team witnessed reached the sea surface 60 feet above in just seven seconds. This was clear because the divers injected green food dye into the rising bubble plume.

Co-author Bruce Luyendyk, professor of marine geophysics and geological sciences, explained that, to understand the significance of this event (which occurred in 2002), the UCSB research team turned to a numerical, bubble-propagation model. With the model, they estimated methane loss to the ocean during the upward travel of the bubble plume.

The results showed that for this shallow seep, loss would have been approximately one percent. Virtually all the methane, 99 percent of it, was transported to the atmosphere from this shallow seep during the blowout. Next, the scientists used the model to estimate methane loss for a similar size blowout at much greater depth, 250 meters. Again, the model results showed that almost all the methane would be transported up to the atmosphere.
Over geologic time scales, global climate has cycled between warmer, interglacial periods and cooler, glacial periods. Many aspects of the forces underlying these dramatic changes remain unknown. Looking at past changes is highly relevant to understanding future climate changes, particularly given the large increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere due to historically recent human activities such as burning fossil fuels.

One hypothesis, called the "Clathrate Gun" hypothesis, developed by James Kennett, professor of geological sciences at UCSB, proposes that past shifts from glacial to interglacial periods were caused by a massive decomposition of the marine methane hydrate deposits.

Methane hydrate is a form of water ice that contains a large amount of methane within its crystal structure, called a clathrate hydrate. According to Kennett's hypothesis, climatic destabilization would cause a sharp increase in atmospheric methane –– thereby initiating a feedback cycle of abrupt atmospheric warming. This process may threaten the current climate, according to the researchers. Warmer ocean temperatures from current global climate change is likely to release methane currently trapped in vast hydrate deposits on the continental shelves. However, consumption of methane by microbes in the deep sea prevents methane gas released from hydrates from reaching the ocean surface and affecting the atmosphere.

Bubbles provide a highly efficient mechanism for transporting methane and have been observed rising from many different hydrate deposits around the world. If these bubbles escape singly, most or all of their methane would dissolve into the deep-sea and never reach the atmosphere. If instead, they escape in a dense bubble plume, or in catastrophic blowout plumes, such as the one studied by UCSB researchers, then much of the methane could reach the atmosphere. Blowout seepage could explain how methane from hydrates could reach the atmosphere, abruptly triggering global warming.

Thus, these first-ever quantitative measurements of a seep blowout and the results from the numerical model demonstrate a mechanism by which methane released from hydrates can reach the atmosphere. Studies of seabed seep features suggest such events are common in the area of the Coal Oil Point seep field and very likely occur elsewhere.

The authors explain that these results show that an important piece of the global climate puzzle may be explained by understanding bubble-plume processes during blowout events. The next important step is to measure the frequency and magnitude of these events. The UCSB seep group is working toward this goal through the development of a long-term, seep observatory in active seep areas.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adapted from materials provided by University of California - Santa Barbara.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060720103605.htm

Check out the related stories.

[JrSyko]

It just amazes me that all of you will fight so vehemently to deny this. Go suck on your car's tailpipe and then tell me if you think that stuffs good for us. Times it by a billion and then try and tell me that stuff doesn't affect the Earth.

You guys are losing sight of the big picture and that is lets try and evolve away from fossil fuels for the benefit of the planet and future generations. Why are all other technological advancements accepted so welcomely however you all fight so hard to keep us advancing away from fossil fuels?

You guys would rather just fight with each other rather then do anything productive, just like our government. Its sad to see the general citizerny starting to act like our government whereby you just continually fight with each other and don't budge an each. What's even more sad is how if we continue down this path, this country will be reduced to nothing in a matter of years. Hopefully all this selfish fighting and utter incompetence doesn't destroy the rest of the world.

And to the guys who are actually trying to say that proven science is wrong and that you can't trust core ice samples that have been there for millions of years, you guys literally sound like the people who fought so hard against accepting the Earth was round or that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Have you ever heard of counting rings on a tree to see how old it is and what has happened to it over the years? Or carbon dating where we can see how old archeological discoveries are? Open a book and educate yourself, your ignorance is shocking and doing nothing to strenghten your position.

[R_TAYLOR]

The earth is round?? Im all for finding alternative energy,the sooner the better.We are sending 700 billion a year to forein countries for oil.That needs to stop so we drill here till another source is found.When the price of wheat and corn drops and farmers go broke because of high fuel prices we are going to be importing a lot of food.Food grown with our technolgy and the worlds farmers will be laughing all the way to the bank just like the middle east is doing now.

[pjc]

It just amazes me that all of you will fight so vehemently to deny this. Go suck on your car's tailpipe and then tell me if you think that stuffs good for us. Times it by a billion and then try and tell me that stuff doesn't affect the Earth.


Typical drama.. Is this a "metrosexual" thing?

This is not about denying, it is about questioning the new religion of Global Warming in respect to the environment, our politics, our economics and our society in general. And, while doing so, presenting fact in descent.

Frankly there is a whole lot of us that have no trust in the media, the political left and the sheep-like hoards that believe anything they present without examination and doubt.

[DEZERTSUB]

Frankly there is a whole lot of us that have no trust in the media, the political left and the sheep-like hoards that believe anything they present without examination and doubt.

I am one of them!!!

Another thing....we have yet to be able to say with certainty what the bottom of the oceanic surface looks like....so how can we say WITH CERTAINTY that we are sure that those ice core samples are accurate? Carbon dating? Well, in most other tests, don't you have a CERTAIN thing that you base your experimental sujbects against?
So who placed a 150 million year object in the hands of the scientists who have been able to determine that other objects are also 150 million years old?

[pappawheely]

Open a book and educate yourself, your ignorance is shocking and doing nothing to strenghten your position.

Yep, you must drink the koolaid to acheive enlightenment. You seem to be the ignorant one. You are convinced no matter what evidence is brought to light. Tell me again how we are causing global warming when the temperatures have decreased since 1998?

[JrSyko]

I am one of them!!!

Another thing....we have yet to be able to say with certainty what the bottom of the oceanic surface looks like....so how can we say WITH CERTAINTY that we are sure that those ice core samples are accurate? Carbon dating? Well, in most other tests, don't you have a CERTAIN thing that you base your experimental sujbects against?
So who placed a 150 million year object in the hands of the scientists who have been able to determine that other objects are also 150 million years old?

Huh? We have to been to the bottom of the ocean and can tell you exactly what it looks like. As an avid diver, I've been down there numerous times! However, we've also sent machines down to the deepest parts of the ocean to see what it looks like down there so I'm not exactly sure where you are going with that one nor how it relates to ice core samples. Ice sheets don't go to the bottom of the ocean, they sit on top of the ocean and haven't moved in millions of years. That's how we know they're accurate.

Carbon dating works a little different than you think. Really guys, the stuff your saying is scary. It sounds like some of you want to go back to the Dark Ages as technolgy is scary and can't be trusted.

You all can believe in God and put blind faith in something that can't be proven but yet can't believe in scientific fact? Seems a bit hypocritical if you ask me...

[JrSyko]

Typical drama.. Is this a "metrosexual" thing?

This is not about denying, it is about questioning the new religion of Global Warming in respect to the environment, our politics, our economics and our society in general. And, while doing so, presenting fact in descent.

Frankly there is a whole lot of us that have no trust in the media, the political left and the sheep-like hoards that believe anything they present without examination and doubt.

Seriously Pat, nothing can ever be said that you'll believe unless you happen to agree with it. You'll always find an excuse as to why its not true if its something that doesn't fit into your agenda. You just hide behind big words and obscure websites to try and bluff your way into people believing you. And like I stated in another topic, the about of crap you've been posting lately is doing more to hurt your cause then help it.

[JrSyko]

Yep, you must drink the koolaid to acheive enlightenment. You seem to be the ignorant one. You are convinced no matter what evidence is brought to light. Tell me again how we are causing global warming when the temperatures have decreased since 1998?

Go suck on your car's tail pipe and then tell me its all good. Seriously, try it, I dare you.

[pjc]

Seriously Pat, nothing can ever be said that you'll believe unless you happen to agree with it. You'll always find an excuse as to why its not true if its something that doesn't fit into your agenda. You just hide behind big words and obscure websites to try and bluff your way into people believing you. And like I stated in another topic, the about of crap you've been posting lately is doing more to hurt your cause then help it.

Well Travis you prefer "opinion" over "fact" yet, you call this my excuse? -WAJ

Obscure websites> ya mean like Investors Business Daily?

Big words? Me? And as a complaint from a law school graduate? SHEESH!

Moonbat points for you.

[pjc]

Go suck on your car's tail pipe and then tell me its all good. Seriously, try it, I dare you.

What's next? I know, you'll be telling us to become Vegans and what to eat. After all the mainstream left, believes that the livestock industry is downright evil.

[pappawheely]

Go suck on your car's tail pipe and then tell me its all good. Seriously, try it, I dare you.

I'll leave the sucking to you thanks. :) The carbon monoxide coming out of your tailpipe is what will deplete the oxygen in your bloodstream and cause death. Carbon monoxide emissions from cars have been drastically reduced through more advanced engine mangement systems. We breathe Co2 in and out all day long. It has no negative effect on humans and is one of the key ingredients in photosynthesis. Co2 is not a pollutant.

[pjc]

Glaciers Growing on Mount Shasta

Some politically incorrect data has escaped the memory hole. USA Today admits that notwithstanding the fantasy that the planet is burning up from global warming, the glaciers on California's Mount Shasta have been growing:

Shasta's glaciers have been advancing since the end of a drought in the early 20th century. The mountain's smallest glaciers — named Konwakiton, Watkins and Mud Creek — have more than doubled in length since 1950.

Shasta's largest glacier, the Hotlum, grew more than 600 yards between 1944 and 2003 and covers nearly 2 square miles of the mountain's northeastern face. The Whitney glacier grows up to 4 inches a day in winter and is about 2.4 miles long.

Hikers seeking to cross Shasta's glaciers — marked with crevasses as deep as 100 feet — say they are much larger than the boundaries drawn on geological maps.

Naturally, the growth of the glaciers is attributed to global warming. We had better grant bureaucrats the totalitarian powers required to control the climate at once, before warm weather buries northern California under ice.

http://www.moonbattery.com/mount_shasta.jpg
Global warming is making the ice grow.

[dan200]

Really guys, the stuff your saying is scary. It sounds like some of you want to go back to the Dark Ages as technolgy is scary and can't be trusted.

Please show me this amazing technology.

What is the eco-friendly way to move an airplane through the sky?

How about an environmentally friendly 18 wheeler?

Maybe some farm equipment?

When this stuff is available it will become the standard. No one is disputing that. Until it is available we have no choice but to use it. Unfortunately we have buy the fuel for it from countries who hate us. If we would secure our own energy like we should have 20 years ago we would not be in an energy crisis.

[JrSyko]

Ignorance is bliss boys, have fun.

[pjc]

Ignorance is bliss boys, have fun.

When there is a real consensus on scientific fact instead of a consensus within a special interest group, the issue will be valid. 'Till then we should be concentrating solely on energy independence.

But feel free to alter your own lifestyle as you see fit. In this case that means no motorized transportation whatsoever and definitely no racing. Are you willing to do that?

[200MPHTape]

OK, maybe some of these folks can explain to me, why these quail waited so long to have their offspring? Was it so cold they knew to wait for warmer weather? Or was it just to hot in the spring? These guys showed up in our pit on 06-29-08 at Barona MX peewee track, I would say there was at least 50-60 of the babies running around with their parents.

[pappawheely]

Ignorance is bliss boys, have fun.


At last, you admit you are ignorant. ;)