Global warming is not happening

[TxTiger]

MINNEAPOLIS - A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.

A few toes is such a small sacrifice for such a noble cause that could affect the world population.:crazy: :rotfl:

Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.

"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_sc/polar_trek_1

"Unpredictability" get real, how about naturally occurring changes in the earth's climate.:headbash:

 

[-88-]

Global Warming: why it is the Left's last best chance to gain a stranglehold on our political system and economy
-- and how we can fight back

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism
by Christopher Horner

For decades, environmentalism has been the Left's best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small. It's for Mother Earth! It's for the children! It's for the whales! But until now, the doomsday-scenario environmental scares they've trumped up haven't been large enough to give the sinister prize they want most of all: total control of American politics, economic activity, and even individual behavior. With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only global government can tackle such problems. National sovereignty? Democracy? Forget it: global warming has now brought the Left closer to global government, statism, and the eradication of individual rights than it has ever been before.

Now, in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Christopher C. Horner tears the cover off the Left's manipulation of environmental issues for political purposes - and lays out incontrovertible evidence for the fact that catastrophic man-made global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science. He explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and UN globalists endlessly bleat that "global warming" is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true. It's the ideal scare campaign for those who are doing all they can to secure strict control over society, business, and the minutest details of individual life. For, as Horner explains, if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could "solve" it. According to the logic of the greens' own numbers, no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of Big Government.
Horner (an attorney and Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) reveals the full anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-human agenda of today's environmentalists, dubbing them "green on the outside, red to the core." He details how they use strong-arm legal tactics - and worse - against those who dare to point out the weakness of their arguments for global warming. Along the way, he explodes ten top global warming myths, carefully examines the evidence to determine how much warming there really is and what is actually causing it. He exposes the lies that the environmental lobby routinely tells to make its case; the ways in which it is trying to impose initiatives such as the Kyoto Accords on an unwilling American public; and much more - including the green lobby's favorite politicians (an often surprising rogue's gallery including John Kerry, John McCain, Joe Lieberman and others).

It's time to stand up to the environmentalist industry and insist: human beings are not the enemy. In breezy, light-hearted and always entertaining fashion, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism gives you the facts you need to do so.

No, the sky is not falling, despite the Green Left's best efforts:


Proof: media hype and deceptive Al Gore slide shows notwithstanding, greenhouse gas concentrations demonstrably do not determine temperatures

The mainstream media's routinely sloppy, inaccurate reporting about evidence of global warming and other environmental matters

More proof: The hole in the ozone layer - the 1980s manmade environmental crisis - was caused by the Antarctic atmosphere being too cold

How environmentalists throughout modern history have instilled fear over one looming "crisis" or another with the aim of increasing government control over things big and small

Why the environmental alarmists do whatever they can to avoid actual debate

The environmentalist movement: not a grassroots phenomenon driven by scruffy idealists but an elite-driven movement that lards the coffers of pressure campaigns with wealth - commonly inherited, often corporate, and far too-frequently looted from the taxpayer

Recent studies that have shown that the environment is actually flourishing - and how the greens have turned even these into evidence of our imminent doom

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem": the environmentalists' openly anti-human agenda

How real pollution problems can be addressed through the technological improvements that the Left is doing all it can to obstruct

Al Gore's global warming jihad: how it will lead to massively higher costs and direct or indirect energy rationing - and probably many measures that are even worse

How much of the budget for environmental pressure groups comes directly from taxpayers -- through grants for public "education" and congressional schemes designed to subsidize the greens' lawyers

Green lunacy run amok: how even respectable political figures (and Slick Willie) say that the environmental damage caused by American industry is a greater threat than terrorism

Why, as with other political crusades that fail in the arena of representative democracy, the greens now see the courts and supranational bodies as their best hopes

How environmental policies come with a cost, often to the society as a whole, decreasing wealth, and so harming health - dangers the average environmentalist ignores

How greens worship primitive lifestyles from afar, while those mired in them would kill to escape them

How, almost without fail, global warming skeptics are charged with being stooges of industry - a charge that neither addresses the skeptic's criticism or question, nor reflects the fact that most of "industry" now actually supports the alarmists' agenda

Ethanol: sobering evidence that it might not be good for the environment - and how the damage to soil from single-crop farming is probably more real than global warming

How the risks of climate change policy far outweigh the risks that might realistically be expected as climate continues to change

 

[3 Ks]

Praise the internet, idiot is thy name and on a toe-less horse rode a brainos called global warming gore ...

 

[-88-]

Climate change danger 'overplayed'

Two leading British scientists have hit out at the "Hollywoodisation" of fears over climate change.

Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, have criticised peers who they accuse of "overplaying" the global warming message.

The pair placed the highly respected American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) at the centre of their criticism.

The pair reportedly say some researchers make claims about possible future impacts that cannot be justified by the science. At a conference in Oxford they will say this damages the credibility of all climate scientists.

They think the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate only works to create confusion in the public mind.

The 2004 smash hit film The Day After Tomorrow blurred the lines between science and entertainment with its depiction of catastrophic consequences after global warming caused large areas of the Arctic ice shelf to break off and melt.

Professors Hardaker and Collier argue for a more sober and reasoned explanation of the uncertainties about possible future changes in the Earth's climate.

They criticised a strongly worded statement released by the AAAS at its last annual meeting in San Francisco in February which said: "As expected, intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies.

"These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible."

According to Professors Hardaker and Collier, this may well turn out to be true, but convincing evidence to back the claims has not yet emerged.

 

[Unregistered]

An online video some kind soul posted to youtube in its entirety.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Complete)
"This short program, produced and shown in England, destroys the arguments put forward by Al Gore and the human caused Global Warming activists."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

We're definitely not alone in having our suspicions that its a load of crap.

Heres another tidbit to consider, from this newsgroup thread:

http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz...0eec4/bec19162387330f1?hl=en#bec19162387330f1

Ilya Prigogine received his Nobel prize for his studies of self organising
circulation patterns in chaotic systems and his Nobel prize acceptance
lecture will repay careful study although it is heavy going. The model is
one of sudden jumps between stable states. The quantum effect writ large.
Modern research shows that, as far as global climate is concerned, these
changes can happen over a period of a few years and that the last such
change was about 8,000 years ago when there were far fewer than 6 billion
people on earth. No worries; our large brains, language and tool making
abilities, and social structures are all adaptations driven mostly by
numerous sudden changes in climate over the last few million years.

 

[Gabrielle]

GORE REFUSES TO TAKE PERSONAL ENERGY ETHICS PLEDGE

WASHINGTON, DC – Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” today to consume no more energy than the average American household. The pledge was presented to Gore by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, during today’s global warming hearing.

Senator Inhofe showed Gore a film frame from “An Inconvenient Truth” where it asks viewers: “Are you ready to change the way you live?”

Gore has been criticized for excessive home energy usage at his residence in Tennessee. His electricity usage is reportedly 20 times higher than the average American household.

It has been reported that many of these so-called carbon offset projects would have been done anyway. Also, carbon offset projects such as planting trees can take decades or even a century to sequester the carbon emitted today. So energy usage today results in greenhouse gases remaining in the atmosphere for decades, even with the purchase of so-called carbon offsets.

“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do,” Senator Inhofe told Gore.

“Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?” Senator Inhofe asked.

Senator Inhofe then presented Vice President Gore with the following "Personal Energy Ethics Pledge:


As a believer:
â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š· that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;

â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š· that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;

â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š· that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and

â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š· that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;

I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”


Gore refused to take the pledge.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=7616011f-802a-23ad-435e-887baa7069ca

More... Very important!

SENATOR INHOFE OPENING STATEMENT
Ranking Member of the EPW Committee

Hearing on Vice President Al Gore’s Perspective on Global Warming
March 21, 2007

Thank you for holding this hearing, Madame Chairman, and to you also, Mr. Vice President, for agreeing to come before our Committee to testify about your perspectives. Your views are already known to many Americans, but today will allow us to engage in a dialogue which should be interesting.

It is my perspective that your global warming alarmist pronouncements are now and have always been filled with inaccuracies and misleading statements. Many of the peer-reviewed studies published in such journals as Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, and Science are radically at odds with your claims. I do not have time to delve into each flaw with your movie, but I do want to touch on just 2.

First, you have claimed that there is a “strong, new emerging consensus” linking global warming to an increase in hurricane intensity and duration. Yet last year, the World Meteorological Organization very clearly rejected this assertion, and other scientists agree.

Secondly, you said that East Antarctica might melt and this could raise sea levels by 20 feet, so we’re all going to die. However, according to many scientists, Antarctica is gaining ice mass, not losing it. In a 2005 study published in Science a team of researchers led by Dr. Curt Davis found an overall gain in ice mass in Antarctica over a ten year period.

And the public is catching on. Even the New York Times last week published an article about scientists, many of them your supporters, who say you have overstated your case on global warming — in fact, they warn that you may be hurting the so-called cause with your "alarmism."

Given that, it is no wonder you have turned down the chance to debate the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus. And now I understand a debate challenge has been issued by Lord Monckton of Benchley.

Now there is a reason for this.

When the debate is balanced, skeptics win, alarmists lose. In New York last week, for instance, a major debate took place to examine whether global warming is a crisis. Prior to the debate, the hand-wringers, the alarmists, in the audience outnumbered those who didn’t think it was a crisis 2 to 1. After the debate, the alarmists were outnumbered – a major turnaround in beliefs in a single night.

That shift mirrors a larger one taking place in the scientific community. Claude Allegre, a French geophysicist – Nir Shaviv, an Israeli astrophysicist – and meteorologist Reid Bryson have converted from alarmists to believing that climate variability is largely natural. In short, the ranks of converted scientists are skyrocketing.

Lastly, the cost: Global warming is now big business. Thousands of individuals and even some Fortune 100 companies stand to make tens of billions of dollars.

I was on the floor opposing the ’93 Clinton-Gore tax increase of $32 billion, but the cost of Kyoto and other CO2 reduction schemes are estimated to be over $300 billion, ten times the cost of your ’93 tax increase. And who’s paying for it? Those on fixed incomes and the poor, who as a percent of their monthly budget spend five times more on energy than the average household.

Largest tax increase in history – 10 times Clinton-Gore of ’93 and the poor pay for it… and the science isn’t there. We just can’t do that to America, Mr. Vice President… and we’re not gonna.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=75d0b214-802a-23ad-49d8-42ef79986e5e

 

[Gabrielle]

The coming Ass Age

No matter how much liberals try to dress up their nutty superstitions about global warming as "science," which only six-fingered lunatics could doubt, scratch a global warming "scientist" and you get a religious fanatic.

These days, new religions are barely up and running before they seize upon the worst aspects of the God-based religions.

First, there's the hypocrisy and corruption. At the 1992 Democratic Convention in New York, Al Gore said: "The central organizing principle of governments everywhere must be the environment." The environment would not, however, be the central organizing principle of Gore's own life.

The only place Al Gore conserves energy these days is on the treadmill. I don't want to suggest that Al's getting big, but the last time I saw him on TV I thought, "That reminds me – we have to do something about saving the polar bears."

Never mind his carbon footprint – have you seen the size of Al Gore's regular footprint lately? It's almost as deep as Janet Reno's.

But I digress. As has been widely reported, Gore's Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the energy of the average home in that state. But it's OK, according to the priests of global warming. Gore has purchased "carbon offsets."

It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to develop corrupt practices such as papal indulgences. The global warming religion has barely been around for 20 years, and yet its devotees are allowed to pollute by the simple expedient of paying for papal indulgences called "carbon offsets."

Americans spend an extra $2.2 billion on gas a year because they're overweight, requiring more fuel in cars to carry the extra pounds. So even with all those papal indulgences, Gore may have a small carbon footprint, but he has a huge carbon butt-print.

Further proving that liberalism is a religion, its practitioners respond with the zeal of Torquemada to any dissent from the faith in global warming.

A few years ago, Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book titled "The Skeptical Environmentalist," disputing the hysteria surrounding global warming and other environmentalist scares. Lomborg is a Greenpeace anti-war protester – or, as he is described on liberal websites, he is a "young, gay vegetarian Dane with tight T-shirts." His book was cited favorably in the New York Times.

But for questioning the "science" behind global warming, Lomborg was brought up on charges of "scientific misconduct" by Denmark's Inquisition Court, called the "Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation." I take it Denmark's Ministry of Truth was booked solid that day.

The moment anyone diverges from official church doctrine on global warming, he is threatened with destruction. Heretics would be burned at the stake if liberals could figure out how to do it in a "carbon neutral" way.

Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball is featured in the new documentary debunking global warming, titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." For this heresy, Ball has received hate mail with such messages as, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further global warming."

I'm against political writers whining about their hate mail because it makes them sound like Paul Krugman. But that's political writers arguing about ideology.

Global warming is supposed to be "science." It's hard to imagine Niels Bohr responding to Albert Einstein's letter questioning quantum mechanics with a statement like: "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further quantum mechanics."

Come to think of it, one can't imagine the pope writing a letter to Jerry Falwell saying, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further infallibility."

If this is how global warming devotees defend their scientific theory, it may be a few tweaks short of a scientific theory. Scientific facts are not subject to liberal bullying – which, by the way, is precisely why liberals hate science.

A few years ago, the New York Times ran an article about the continuing furious debates among physicists about quantum mechanics, which differs from global warming in the sense that it is supported by physical evidence and it doesn't make you feel good inside to "do something" about quantum mechanics. It is, in short, science.

Though he helped develop the theory of quantum mechanics, Einstein immediately set to work attacking it. MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark called the constant testing and arguing about quantum mechanics "a 75-year war."

That's how a real scientific theory operates. That's even how a real religion operates. Only a false religion needs hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54819

 

[-88-]

Gore and excess energy comsumption

Al Gore testified before a Senate Committee on global warming and blamed Mankind as its cause. His proposal: raise energy taxes. Regardless of the reality of global warming, I for one believe this is an excellent idea. Yes, let's raise taxes on the biggest residential consumers who use more than 2 times the energy of an average American household.

I propose the following Excess Energy Consumption Tax (EECT): All residential electric and natural gas consumption taxes should be based upon excess energy use; after all, the point of raising taxes is to discourage excessive consumption to save the planet, right? Any excess energy consumption will be defined as being twice the national average consumption. All consumption in excess of the threshold will be taxed at the multiple of the national average rate of energy use.

Using Al Gore as the example of 18,400 kWh per month in 2006. He uses 20 times the national average therefore his bill should be as follows: Assuming the national average at 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year or 890 kwhrs/month, on the first 1780 kwhr, there would be no tax, on the next 890 kwhrs he would pay a 100% EECT equal to the electric utility’s kwhr charge, on the next 890 kwhrs he would pay a 200% EECT and so on. By taking this taxation route to saving the planet we will wring out the worst and most wasteful energy consumers.

Those high energy consumption consumers have two choices: reduce consumption preferably using the most efficient electrical devices or get off the electric grid by installing solar panels or wind turbines. It should be obvious that those who now pay in excess of a $1,000 a month for electricity, never mind natural gas, have the financial means to buy small scale electrical generation (18,000 kwhr/mo or so). How long do you think Al Gore would continue to consume energy at his current rate under this taxation regime before he both reduces his consumption and then gets off the electric grid?

Of course we can quibble about how much the EECT should be, but one fact remains, if Al Gore and the rest of the wealthy 5% or 15 million people (who own 70% of the personal wealth of the US) would reduce their consumption, residential electrical use in the US (1,140 billion kwhr) would drop at least 50%, and that's a big number! Their share, 570 billion kwhrs is a lot of energy in anyone’s book.

Do any of you really doubt that Al Gore is not typical of the wealthy? If you doubt that the wealthy, represented by Al Gore, John Edwards or Nancy Pelosi, consume at least half of all residential electricity, do the math: 15 million people X 20 times average US household = 300 million people. This is a very conservative estimate since we know that Al Gore and the rest of the wealthy have more than one house each and most if not all of those houses are significantly larger than the average American household of 2,500 sq ft.

Now tell me if the US couldn't meet it's Kyoto targets if the wealthy like Al Gore were get off the electric grid or reduce their consumption down to that of the average American household? For those of us who don’t believe it’s mankind’s fault, we can still support this approach because such a reduction in energy use would bring the US very close to energy independence.

If this approach is successful, then it should also be applied to fuel for private jets. Remember, one transcontinental flight, one way, consumes as much fuel as two commuters driving (2 vehicles) to work for an entire year. So who is consuming the planet? Al Gore and his friends like Brad Pitt or the average American?

 

[Dragasès]

People like Gore and Pitt are not Americans. They are nationless, globalist, jew-bolshivik parasites.

 

[Gabrielle]

Global warming on trial
Sixth-graders decide that humans aren’t to blame

By Ben Ready
The Daily Times-Call

LONGMONT — Humans don’t cause global warming, a jury of sixth graders at Trail Ridge Middle School concluded Thursday after hearing opposing arguments from their peers.


“They’re pretty young for this kind of thinking. They did great,"� paleontology teacher Ken Poppe said after the 40-minute “trial"� in his classroom.


With Earth’s warming accepted as a tenet, pre-teen “lawyers"� and “scientists"� debated whether humans have caused it.


Eleven jurors listened intently as prosecutors and defendants flashed contradictory graphs tracking global temperatures, carbon dioxide levels, polar ice cap statistics, volcanic activity and sea surface temperatures — all of which were found Wednesday in the school’s computer lab.



“The earth has warmed and cooled over many years. If it’s caused by CO2, why haven’t the charts shot up?"� Poppe’s son and lead prosecutor Caleb argued during a rebuttal.


In a climax that sent half the class to its feet and forced the judge to call for order, opponent Monique Nem slapped a contradictory graph onto the prosecution’s table.


“We’ve proven you wrong! The CO2 levels have shot up,"� she said.


The jury responded more warmly, however, to Caleb Poppe’s response: The graphic cited a Hawaiian source; Hawaii has volcanoes; volcanoes emit CO2.


In closing arguments, Alexia Hegy said global temperatures actually decreased in the 1960’s, while the global population rose. Humans cannot be at fault, she concluded.



With the final word, defense attorney Sarah Steed countered: “It all comes back to us, the people — not the sun, not the weather. We need to turn off lights when we don’t need them. Bikes can work. The environment can be richer."�


Seven of 11 jurors decided humans are not to blame, but everyone agreed classroom debates make for fun learning.


“It was a hard decision, because both sides made good points,"� said student Samantha Roberts.


Ken Poppe said he let students choose which side of the debate to argue. Poppe personally believes global warming is cyclical and not affected by humans, while his Colorado State University student aide David Richards believes the opposite. Both, however, said they presented both sides equally to the students leading up to Thursday’s debate.


“What I think is not the issue. It’s what the students dig up and how they present the case,"� Poppe said.


Only one parent questioned Poppe’s decision to hold a global warming debate. That mother expected him to present Al Gore’s global warming movie “An Inconvenient Truth"� as indisputable facts, Poppe said. After he explained his neutrality in the classroom, the mom allowed her child to participate in the debate, he said.


“You don’t understand someone’s position until you can argue it to their satisfaction,"� Poppe said, quoting a famous physicist. “I don’t believe in Darwinism either, but I can argue it as well as any Darwinist."�

http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?ID=15357

 

[-88-]

It's no surprise that some scientists have begun to quietly complain about Gore.

Hot-Headed Gore Needs To Cool Off
Weekly Standard: Gore's Exaggerations Hurt Science And His Cause

Gore proposes essentially four assertions, which build conditionally: (1) Earth's climate is getting warmer; (2) man is responsible in substantial part for this change; (3) this change will result in net harm; and (4) this change can be reversed by man. Let's take them in order.

Here is what we know for certain about climate change: In the last 100 years, the average temperature on Earth has risen 1 degree Fahrenheit. This is not unprecedented. Throughout history, the planet has gone through temperature cycles. There have been "warm periods" and ice ages. To take just one example, Swiss climatologists believe that the glaciers in the Alps have melted into near nothingness 10 times in the last 10,000 years.

As recently as the 1970s, global cooling was considered by many scientists to be a major imminent threat, with the book “The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age"� doing the work of today's “An Inconvenient Truth."�

Given the history of fluctuations in temperatures, to what degree is man responsible for the current rise? That depends on whom you ask and when you ask them. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it believes that human activity has been a primary driver.

But this verdict is not final: The IPCC recently explained that its initial work on climate change overestimated man's impact by as much as 25 percent. Who knows how it will change its estimates in the future.

Meanwhile, other scientists say they believe the sun is responsible. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany note that the sun has seemed to be burning more brightly for the last 60 years, which may account for the increase of 1 degree.

But as British scientist Nigel Calder notes, theories about climate change that don't finger man as the culprit are met with hostility or blank stares in the parts of the scientific community most heavily invested in Gore's theses, such as the IPCC.

Which brings us to the third part: If global warming is real, what would the net effect be? Gore says it would be very bad indeed. Taking his cue from the former vice president, the announcer of the Academy Awards telecast gushed that "Davis Guggenheim and the cast were scheduled to shoot in New Orleans the night before Hurricane Katrina hit, an event that brought home the threat — and the impact — of global warming." If global warming causes more storms like Katrina, that would be trouble.

But as a recent piece in Slate acknowledges, "the hurricane-warming link isn't settled at all. Rather, it's a very contentious debate between two groups of scientists — computer-modeling atmospheric scientists versus meteorologists."

Gore, however, goes further. In promoting the 2004 film “The Day After Tomorrow,"� he told the press, "I hope this movie will provide many opportunities for in-depth conversations about what this issue is really all about." The movie depicted a series of super storms that cause a near apocalypse and bring about, in a matter of days, a new ice age.

Given this promiscuous doomsaying, it's no surprise that some scientists have begun to quietly complain about Gore. A number of them recently went on record with their complaints to the New York Times.

Kevin Vranes, a University of Colorado climatologist, worried that Gore had been "overselling our certainty about knowing the future."

Gore warns about a 20-foot rise in sea level; the IPCC panel estimates "that the world's seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates."

Ever apocalyptic, Gore says that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this." But Don Easterbrook, a geology professor from Western Washington University, notes that within the last 15,000 years there have been shifts up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."

What's more, some broad historical evidence, such as that presented by Thomas Gale Moore in his book “Climate of Fear,"� suggests that Earth's "warming periods" have been accompanied by advances in human civilization. As the saying goes, past performance is not an indication of future gains. But if the climate were to warm gradually, it's not obvious why man wouldn't adapt and flourish again, as we have in the past.

Of course, none of that matters if the final condition of the Gore hypothesis doesn't hold. Can man stop the changing of the climate?

Again, the science is conflicted. Gore certainly believes we can. Others are less certain. Climate-change alarmist Paul Hellyer, a former Canadian minister of defense, recently said he believed advanced technology from extraterrestrial civilizations offered the best hope to "save our planet" from the perils of climate change.

Art Bell and Whitley Strieber take a backseat to no one in their worries about climate change. They wrote the book “The Coming Global Superstorm,"� on which “The Day After Tomorrow"� was based, and they, too, fear it may be too late. Bell is host on a radio show about UFOs and the paranormal. Before hooking up with Bell, Strieber wrote five nonfiction books about having been abducted by aliens.

Nothing wrong with any of that, of course. We all have to believe in something.

But when you compound the probabilities, the claims of environmentalists such as Gore begin to look less and less certain. In fact, in their unwillingness to brook dissent or countervailing theories, they seem less like scientists and more like the fundamentalists they otherwise scorn.

 

[The Bobster]

http://www.nysun.com/article/51681

A CEO With A Spine

By ALICIA COLON
April 3, 2007

The New York Coal Trade Association, headquartered in New York City, recently held its 94th annual banquet and meeting at the New York Hilton. One of the guest speakers was Bob Murray, founder and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation and probably one of the few CEOs brave enough to challenge the militant climate control movement that threatens the future of America's economy. In his speech, he dared to say that he regards Al Gore as the shaman of global doom and gloom. He is not joking when he says, "He is more dangerous than his global warming."

Unlike many heads of corporations who are taking their companies on that long green mile and caving in to the demands of environmental militants, Mr. Murray is fighting tooth and nail for what he says is, "the little guy that nobody cares about."

"Some wealthy elitists in our country," he told the audience, "who cannot tell fact from fiction, can afford an Olympian detachment from the impacts of draconian climate change policy. For them, the jobs and dreams destroyed as a result will be nothing more than statistics and the cares of other people. These consequences are abstractions to them, but they are not to me, as I can name many of the thousands of the American citizens whose lives will be destroyed by these elitists' ill-conceived ‘global goofiness' campaigns."

Mr. Murray was a coal miner in Ohio who survived two mining accidents and built funds from a mortgaged house into a private coal mining company with more than 3,000 employees. He expresses concern about the proposals in Congress that will ration the use of coal, warning of much worse adverse consequences to Americans than those experienced after the 1990 amendment of the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Murray told me that he had seen the effect of the drastic reductions in coal production, and the wrenching impact on hundreds of communities, as a result of that legislation. In Ohio alone, from 1990 to 2005, about 118 mines were shut down, costing more than 36,000 primary and secondary jobs. These impacted areas have spent years recovering, and some never will. He spoke of the families that broke up, many lost homes, and some were impoverished, because of legislation that the environmentalists call a "success."

"I don't need a computer graphic like in Gore's movie, to learn about this havoc," he told me, "I lived it and saw it firsthand."

To Mr. Murray, so-called "global warming" is a human issue, not just an environmental one. In his speech, Murray said, "The unfolding debate over atmospheric warming in the Congress, the news media, and by the pundits has been skewed and totally one-sided, in that they have been preoccupied, speculative environmental disasters of climate change."

Mr. Murray told me that the Democrats had tried to stop his scheduled testimony on March 20 before the House Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, titled "Toward a Clean Energy Future: Energy Policy and Climate Change on Public Lands." But after Mr. Murray was interviewed by Bloomberg News and by the Wall Street Journal, they relented. The chairman refused to hear his testimony and left Rep. Patrick Kennedy, a Democrat of Rhode Island, in charge.

In his testimony, Mr. Murray explained: " America is dependent on our coal because it is abundant, with some of our best deposits located on public lands; it is affordable; and it is critical to our energy security to protect all Americans from the hostile and unstable governments from which much of our country's energy is currently imported."

Right now about 52% of the country's electricity is generated by coal. In the coastal cities we tend to forget about that because we get most of our electricity from oil, natural gas, and nuclear power plants. But the farms that grow our food and many other industries around the country can't afford these more expensive sources of energy. Manufacturers will outsource jobs to foreign countries that will not subscribe to emission caps and controls. China is building 50 new coal-fired power plants, and Beijing has stated it will not agree to mandatory emission constraints in the post-2012 Kyoto treaty. Why are we being so stupid about this issue?

The irony is that these caps and controls will do little to affect climate. Timothy Ball, a renowned environmental consultant, testified before the committee that global warming is more likely to be caused by sun spots rather than human activity. Mr. Murray's passion for saving the "little guy" is truly admirable. Too bad that fervor is completely absent in Congress.

 

[Rasp]

Pack ice forces evacuation of vessels off N.L.

Pack ice forces evacuation of vessels off N.L.

ST. JOHN'S, N.L. (CP) - Coast guard icebreakers were smashing through a massive expanse of pack ice Wednesday in a bid to free about 100 sealing vessels stuck off Newfoundland's northeast coast and southern Labrador.

A spokesman for the Canadian Coast Guard said at least 10 vessels, in an area off Fogo Island, were in "extreme difficulty" with the risk that ice could pierce their hulls. There were also three vessels in a similar predicament off southern Labrador, in the Strait of Belle Isle.

Local fishermen say the ice conditions are the worst they've seen in more than 20 years.

Brian Penney, a superintendent with the coast guard in Newfoundland and Labrador, said helicopters could be called in to rescue stranded crews as a northeast wind continues to jam the ice floes together.

"There's vessels disabled, there's vessels damaged. There's crews that are out on the ice because there's quite a possibility that their vessels may sink or the vessels are out on their sides," he said.

"There's a strong possibility that there will be other crews we may have to rescue by coast guard ship or helicopter."

Earlier in the day, a helicopter airlifted the crew from the Dad and Sons, which was damaged by ice off Fogo Island.

Penney said the stricken vessel is in danger of sinking.

"She's damaged and just listed out on the ice, and once the ice pressure comes off there's a good possibility the vessel will sink," he said.

Meanwhile, the coast guard is trying to get supplies to those vessels that are "in most dire straits," said Penney.

"Supplies are starting to run very low, in addition to fuel."

Frank Pinhorn, executive director of the Canadian Sealers Association, said the amount of ice was unprecedented.

"Ice conditions are some of the most severe we've seen in 25 to 30 years," said Pinhorn.

"I've talked to a lot of sealers and they've got holes punched in their new boats and they're taking on water."

Search and rescue officials said the vessel Sir Wilfred Grenfell, which ventured further than it normally does into the pack ice, is also having difficulty and will need help from other icebreakers.

Another coast guard vessel, the George R. Pearkes, has been trying to reach the Grenfell, along with other vessels that have been pushed close to shore by the heaving ice.

The coast guard said two vessels in the Strait of Belle Isle - the Southern Pride and the Labrador Current - were in severe difficulty.

The crew of the Southern Pride had abandoned the vessel and was waiting on the ice for help, while many vessels in other areas were also being monitored.

Poor weather conditions grounded rescue aircraft and the Quebec-based icebreaker Desgrosier, which has been working in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, was called in to help.

Penney said many of the crews are reluctant to abandon their vessels as most sealers consider that option a last resort.

In "the worst-case scenarios" boats are sandwiched by the thick, moving ice and their hulls are cracked open.

 

[Gabrielle]

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research



The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing cl
imate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!"

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warm
ing skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997.

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change.

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,”

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, a
lso reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006.

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon.

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research,
I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006.

Many more ....

Read the entire article at http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

 

[Gabrielle]

SENATOR INHOFE OPENING STATEMENT
"The Issue of the Potential Impacts of Global Warming on Recreation and the Recreation Industry"
Thursday May 24, 2007

[ Read highlights of witness hearing testimony ]

Thank you for having this hearing today, Madam Chairman. I have to say, however, that we seem to have hearing after hearing after hearing on climate change – indeed, this is the Committee's second one this week alone – but we don’t seem to actually discuss legislation. While other Committees without jurisdiction on this issue attempt to write our nation’s global warming policies, this Committee sits idly by talking about tangential issues. I believe that if we do wrestle with actual legislation, then the folly of cap-and-trade carbon legislation will become apparent.

The recreation industry’s true threats come not from
climate change – which has always changed and will always change – but from the so-called global warming ”�’solutions’ being proposed by government policymakers. Misguided efforts to ”�’solve’ global warming threaten to damage the travel and recreation industry. In short, it is a direct threat America’s way of life. If we cannot fly to remote locations, and if few automobiles are capable of pulling boats, jet skies, and campers, and if RVs become a thing of the past as environmentalists would like, then minor climate fluctuations will have little impact on recreation because Americans will not have the means to recreate.

I will not belabor my views about the scientific underpinnings of global warming alarmism, other than to make a few observations. The fact that climate fluctuates – changes – is nothing new, and should not be feared. It has always changed, and unless the processes of the planet suddenly stopped, it always will. There is little disagreement that it warmed in the Northern
Hemisphere from about 1970’s until 1998, and that since that time, temperatures flattened. And there is general agreement that some human activities such as the building of cities and expanding agriculture, have contributed to this. But there remains much debate in the peer-reviewed scientific literature as to the many factors which may influence climate that is of importance to the question of whether climate fluctuations are natural or caused by humans. But regardless of that debate, a healthy functioning planet means constant changes in our climate.

There are winners and losers as climate fluctuates. A warming period could be a boon for warm weather destinations like beaches and lakes and a cooling period like we experienced from 1940-1970s could be beneficial for cold weather recreation like skiing and snowboarding. This past winter saw record snows in the Rocky Mountain region as well as an unusually cold spring in Alaska. Currently, we are seeing a Memorial Day snow advisory for the Colorado
Mountains. Wyoming being buried in a May snowstorm and parts of Canada are still enduring winter. In addition, South Africa just set 54 new cold weather records with some parts seeing snow for the first time in 33 years as snow and ice continue to fall. And I am not finished. A massive snowstorm in China has closed highways and stranded motorists. And finally, winter has arrived early in Australia as the snow season is off to a promising start for the winter recreation industry.

But the most verifiable threat to the recreation and travel industry is the unintended consequences of misguided government policy and environmental activists. The chilling effect of guilt that the climate alarmists are attempting to instill in Americans for owning four wheel drive vehicles, flying in an airplane and enjoying travel is enough to harm the industry. For examples of this promotion of misguided policies and guilt, you need look no further than a proposal in April by the UK-based Institute for Public Policy Rese
arch, which called for tobacco-style health warnings on airplanes to warn passengers that the plane flight may be contributing to a global warming crisis. The group proposed posting signs on airplanes which read “flying causes climate change."�

Another example of unintended consequences by climate crusaders was the recent proclamation by a UK grocery store announcing it would usher in ”�’carbon friendly’ policies and stop importing food from faraway nations. This proposal may have been popular with wealthy Western environmentalists, but the idea did not sit so well with poor African farmers. As a February 21, 2007 BBC article details:

“Kenyan farmers, whose lifelong carbon emissions are negligible compared with their counterparts in the West, are fast becoming the victims of a green campaign that could threaten their livelihoods. A recent bold statement by UK supermarket Tesco ushering in ”�’carbon friendly’ measures - such as restricting the imports of air freighted goods by half an
d the introduction of "carbon counting" labeling - has had environmentalists dancing in the fresh produce aisles, but has left African horticulturists confused and concerned."�

The BBC article continues:

“Half of this produce goes to the UK's supermarkets, generating at least Ô�Å¡£100m per year for this developing country. The dependence on the UK market cannot be underestimated, says Stephen Mbithi Mwikya, chief executive of FPEAK. For Kenya, horticulture is the country's second biggest foreign exchange earner after tourism. ”�’This announcement from Tesco is devastating’, says Mr Mbithi."�

The recent announcement by travel guru Mark Ellingham, the author of the Rough Guide travel book series, that he was now recanting his promotion of worldwide travel is another blow to the travel and recreation industry. Ellingham now says that our addiction to ”�’binge flying’ is killing the planet.

This kind of alarmism should concern the travel and recreation industry, not natural cl
imate fluctuations which mankind has no control over.

There is even more proof showing that the dangers facing travel and recreation are coming from climate hysteria. The Associated Press on May 16, 2007 reported that ecotourism --the type of travel you would expect environmentalists to endorse--is no more Earth friendly than regular travel due to the long plane flights necessary to bring vacationers to exotic locales. The Norwegian Environment Minister Helen Bjoernoey is now warning about long distance travel.

"Long distance travel — especially air travel — is a challenge to all of us. We know that it has serious impacts on the climate," Bjoernoey said.

I cannot think of a more devastating sentiment to the industry than that. Reduce air travel because of unfounded fears of climate doom. That is the authentic threat not only to the travel industry, but the developing world which depends so much on tourism to improve the life its residents. Clearly, the unfounded fears of a man-
made climate catastrophe and the proposed solutions represent the gravest threats to the industry.

Thank you.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....a-23ad-4bfb-83e5e5c26acf&Region_id=&Issue_id=

 

[Montrose]

US Congress Take heed: "Global Warming" a threat to Israel

Washington — Proponents of tough legislation against greenhouse gas emissions are seizing on a new argument in their attempts to talk lawmakers into taking action: the threat that global warming will lead to instability in the Middle East and endanger Israel’s security.

In a series of briefings last week on Capitol Hill and with Jewish organizations, a team of experts from Israel presented data indicating that if action to stop global warming is not taken immediately, moderate regimes in the Middle East might collapse and tensions between Israel and its neighbors might rise due to a decrease in rainfall, loss of water sources and increase in extreme weather phenomena.

Jewish groups and activists have already been pressing for action on global warming, with security-minded voices prioritizing the need to end America’s dependence on foreign oil, and others stressing environmental concerns. But the current efforts to predict global warming’s geopolitical effects on Israeli and American regional interests represent a new approach to trigger action on the issue.

“We came here to raise a red flag,"� said Gidon Bromberg, one of the Israeli experts who appeared in Washington last week. “We are saying that there is a security interest that needs to be dealt with, and for that we need American leadership."�

Bromberg serves as director of the Israeli office of Friends of the Earth Middle East, a nongovernmental Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian project established in 1994. The chief scientist of Israel’s Ministry of Environmental Protection, Yeshayahu Bar-Or, joined him in Washington.

The Israeli experts met with lawmakers and congressional staffers, most of them Democrats, involved in legislation regarding climate change. The only Republican on the list was Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who is pushing his own version of global warming legislation.

“We want to provide [the lawmakers] with another tool they can use in order to gain support for legislation aimed at curbing emissions,"� said Reut Snir, who is in charge of global warming effects on the Middle East at the National Environmental Trust. Snir was behind the initiative to convince policymakers in Washington that climate change will have adverse effects on Middle East security.

Global warming in the Middle East has not gained much attention in international public opinion, which is focused more on dramatic changes already occurring in areas close to the North Pole and less on the subtle transformation in other parts of the world.

According to Bar-Or, rainfall in Israel has decreased, and the Jewish state’s summer season is becoming increasingly hotter.

“Israel is an insignificant player in contributing to global warming, but it suffers from it in a nonproportional rate,"� Bar-Or said.

The main changes, the Israeli experts predicted, would be a drop in the water supply — already a scarce commodity in the Middle East — and an expected rise in temperature that will make it even more difficult to replenish water sources. According to the information presented this week, if action is not taken, then Israel might be facing a loss of up to 100 millimeters of rain a year — almost 20% of the country’s annual rainfall.

For Israel, water shortages could influence not only its population but also the future of its relations with neighboring countries. Israel is already facing difficulties fulfilling its agreement — as part of its 1994 peace treaty with Jordan — to transfer water to the Hashemite kingdom, and will face great problems when trying to work out water arrangements with Palestinians in a final status agreement. The Jordanian monarchy, which is based on support of the agricultural communities, might be in danger. The same is true for the Palestinian leadership, which might encounter an uprising of extremists who will feed on the poverty and despair caused by the collapse of agriculture due to lack of water.

In Egypt, the expected rise of the Mediterranean Sea level could flood rich areas in the Nile’s Delta and lead to food shortages, which could destabilize the regime.

The geopolitical aspects of climate change were recently discussed in a study in which former generals and admirals of the American military looked at the influence of global warming on national security. The chapter regarding the Middle East was written by Anthony Zinni, the general who once commanded American military in the region and then acted as Middle East peace envoy for the Bush administration. “It’s not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability or climate change and terrorism,"� Zinni wrote. He added: “The existing situation makes [the Middle East] more susceptible to problems. Even small changes may have a greater impact here than they may have elsewhere."�

The Israeli experts who came to Washington last week told the Forward that they were well received by lawmakers and staffers and encountered a great willingness to hear more about the less-known effects of global warming on the region.

The issue probably will be raised again in the fall, when a high-level delegation of Jordanian and Israeli officials will come to the United States to stress the need for American action to stop global warming.

In addition to visiting Washington, the Israeli experts addressed members of the Jewish community during a meeting in Philadelphia that was sponsored by the city’s local Jewish charitable federation.

In recent years, American Jewish organizations have embraced the energy issue, though not all agree on the means to deal with it. Liberal-leaning groups are emphasizing environmental needs when lobbying for tighter emission standards and for the development of alternative energy sources. Some centrist and right-wing security-focused groups, on the other hand, prioritize the goal of achieving energy independence from Arab and Muslim regimes, and are therefore open to more domestic oil drilling and to the development of other alternatives.

One Jewish communal official who is involved in energy issues told the Forward this week that the attempt to focus the debate on global warming’s impact on Israel’s security will have no more than a marginal effect, since most pro-Israeli lawmakers are already on board on the climate change issue, and those who oppose taking action will not be convinced by arguments relating to Israel’s security.

The question of where religious communities stand on global warming was also discussed last week, at a hearing held by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Witnesses at the hearing — among them representatives of Catholic, Episcopalian and Southern Baptist churches, as well as Reform synagogues — all stressed the religious importance they see in countering global warming.

In his testimony, Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Reform movement’s Washington-based Religious Action Center, argued that religious groups must focus on the issue because the world’s most vulnerable, impoverished populations will be the ones most adversely impacted by global warming.

“This is not simply an issue of the environment,"� the Reform rabbi said. “It is at the core of the religious community’s passion for economic justice."�

Saperstein added that protecting the environment now tops the list of concerns of religious communities and is becoming the “defining characteristic and priority of the next generation of religious leaders."�

The threat of global warming will also take up a significant part of the upcoming annual Hadassah conference. The meeting, scheduled to take place next month, will dedicate two plenary sessions to the issue of climate change and ways of advocating for an environmental agenda that deals with the problem.

Among the speakers at the Hadassah conference is Ohio State University’s Ellen Mosley-Thompson, one of the leading researchers mapping the melting of mountain ice tips in an attempt to track the rate of global warming.

http://www.forward.com/articles/congress-warned-that-global-warming-is-threat-to-i/
Global Warming: NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[-88-]

Read the sunspots - prepare now for dangerous global cooling
The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.

My interest in the current climate-change debate was triggered in 1998, when I was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council strategic project grant to determine if there were regular cycles in West Coast fish productivity. As a result of wide swings in the populations of anchovies, herring and other commercially important West Coast fish stock, fisheries managers were having a very difficult time establishing appropriate fishing quotas. One season there would be abundant stock and broad harvesting would be acceptable; the very next year the fisheries would collapse. No one really knew why or how to predict the future health of this crucially important resource.


Although climate was suspected to play a significant role in marine productivity, only since the beginning of the 20th century have accurate fishing and temperature records been kept in this region of the northeast Pacific. We needed indicators of fish productivity over thousands of years to see whether there were recurring cycles in populations and what phenomena may be driving the changes.

My research team began to collect and analyze core samples from the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords. The regions in which we chose to conduct our research, Effingham Inlet on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, and in 2001, sounds in the Belize-Seymour Inlet complex on the mainland coast of British Columbia, were perfect for this sort of work. The topography of these fjords is such that they contain deep basins that are subject to little water transfer from the open ocean and so water near the bottom is relatively stagnant and very low in oxygen content. As a consequence, the floors of these basins are mostly lifeless and sediment layers build up year after year, undisturbed over millennia.

Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest layers coming from a depth of about 11 metres below the fjord floor. Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single-celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms and fish scales than we do in cooler years. Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.

Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.


In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.

However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.

Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.


In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change."

link

 

[Gabrielle]

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny

June 30, 2007
BY JAMES M. TAYLOR
In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.
If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.

A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.



http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article

 

[Gabrielle]

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. - The American leg of Live Earth: The Concerts for a Climate in Crisis, like the other concerts on all seven continents, proved to be as complex as the issue it is trying to solve.

As the anointed launch of a social movement, Live Earth U.S.A. pushed and pulled a wide range of ideas - some political, some social, some as big as government policy change, some as small as changing a lightbulb - seemingly anxious to see what method may prove most effective. As a superstar concert, it was a bit more straightforward - with standout sets from Alicia Keys, Kanye West and Kelly Clarkson showing why they are A-list performers with high-energy, high-impact sets.

In either case, the eight-hour show at Giants Stadium yesterday confirmed that there is no single way to attack the climate crisis issue. Some artists, especially Melissa Etheridge, used their set time to passionately discuss the environmental cause at length. Others, like Smashing Pumpkins, didn't mention it at all.

Most took the middle ground, like Keys. "Today is not about the problem," she said as she introduced her new song "That's the Thing About Love." "It is more about the solution."

And for organizers, the solution will come with raised awareness. "Today, more than 2 billion of us have come together in more than 130 countries on all seven continents," said former Vice President Al Gore, the event's organizer. "Times like these demand action," he added, after announcing the 7-Point Pledge that he hoped millions would sign while watching the concert.

However, Etheridge aside, it was nonmusicians at this concert who made the most passionate pleas about demanding action for the environment. "Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist author, president of Waterkeeper Alliance and Robert F. Kennedy's son, who grew hoarse from shouting. "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors."Primatologist Jane Goodall offered a greeting in chimpanzee language, before saying, "Up in the North the ice is melting, what will it take to melt the ice in the human heart?"

Perhaps it would take the passion of singers like Keys, whose "If I Ain't Got You" was a thrilling highlight, or Clarkson, who turned her new single "Sober" into a poignant ballad. Or maybe it would take the heat from a trio of young rock groups - Fall Out Boy, AFI and Rockville Centre's Taking Back Sunday - who all put on strong sets and showed the rising influence coming from the indie-rock scene.

The reunited Smashing Pumpkins offered plenty of rage in their set, the classic "Bullet With Butterfly Wings" and the new single "Tarantula." And Pink Floyd's Roger Waters offered stately classic rock, as well as an inflatable pig, hailed by a children's choir during "Another Brick in the Wall." The reunited Police capped the evening with topical tracks like "Driven to Tears" and the all-star jam "Message in a Bottle."

Organizers said Live Earth was the largest musical event ever held, as well as the biggest green event of any kind. MSN, which was hosting the concert on its Web site, said that by 3 p.m., it had played more than 10 million video streams and had the most simultaneous viewers of any online concert ever.

For John Mayer, the raised awareness that Live Earth U.S.A. brought to the issue of climate change made the event a success. "I think a lot of people at Giants Stadium today want to listen," he said. "Awareness works likes a vitamin. You go to the bathroom and 99 percent of it is gone but you hope that you retained 1 percent."

http://www.newsday.com/entertainmen...6071jul08,0,3908150.story?coll=ny-music-print

 

[Rasp]

Primatologist Jane Goodall offered a greeting in chimpanzee language, before saying, "Up in the North the ice is melting, what will it take to melt the ice in the human heart?"

These so called experts crack me up Gabrielle, thanks for posting.

So, is miscegenist monkey-lover Jane Groidall studying Yeti's now? Of course the ice up North is melting; it's the beginning of summer in the northern arctic region. Have you never heard of the midnight sun Jane? I'll try to explain it to your chimpanzee mind. Better yet, check jeWikipedia: Midnight sun.

The midnight sun is a phenomenon occurring in latitudes north of the Arctic Circle and south of the Antarctic Circle. The sun remains visible at the local midnight. Given fair weather, the sun is visible for a continuous 24 hours.

Since there are no permanent human settlements south of the Antarctic Circle, the countries and territories whose population experiences it are limited to the ones crossed by the Arctic Circle, i.e. Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, and extremities of Iceland. A quarter of Finland's territory lies north of the Arctic Circle, and as a consequence the midnight sun can be experienced — for more and more days, the further north one goes. At Finland's northernmost point, the sun does not set for 73 days during summer. In Svalbard, Norway, the northernmost inhabited region of Europe, there is no sunset from approximately April 19th to August 23rd. The extreme sites are the poles where the sun can be visible for a continuous half year.