The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

[Orangutan]

The Goracle will not be pleased...

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Ha. Yeah, right.

[AMDScooter]

Ha. Yeah, right.

Ya.. the 50 Billion dollar MMGW industry pointing out possible bias in others....lol.

[Orangutan]

Ya.. the 50 Billion dollar MMGW industry pointing out possible bias in others....lol.

Gee, whom shall I believe? "Bloggers", who have zero credibility? A politician (i.e. professional liar) who receives large amounts of money and support from companies and groups who make money off of fossil fuels and deny global warming, and who also opposes conservation of the environment? An astronomer reviewing geophysics? An unnamed "scientist" (second sentence, second paragraph)? A string theory and quantum gravity theoretical physicist (Lubos Motl)? Maybe Joel Schwartz, a planetary scientist for a capitalism thinktank that opposes global warming and environmentalism? Maybe Bob Carter, a noted opponent of global warming, whose background is in marine geology and is also a member of another right-wing thinktank that receives money from oil companies? Or Joseph Conklin, a meteorologist who holds only a master's degree in liberal studies?

And what of their "Sampling of very recent inconvenient scientific developments for proponents of catastrophic man-made global warming"? Not at all what they make them out to be. For example, the first one:

The study found that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2 degrees C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle, the authors note.

Sound like it "bust down MWGMZMGZ" or whatever the hell you want to call it? Nope, not even close.

Here's what it comes down to, Scooter: James Inhofe and his lackeys are full of shit. Politicians are full of shit. Bloggers especially are full of shit. The people who create these controversies play off of the ignorance of the common folk, so that they are whipped into a furor through misdirection and misinformation.

[Dutchcedar]

The NASA reports much of the MMGW claims were based on were full of shit.

The hockey stick much of MMGW claims were based on were full of shit, too.

Turns out the "scientists" based their opinions on data that was full of shit.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Its all about money.

[Orangutan]

DELETED

Thanks for the personal attacks. Every time I give you a chance you run your mouth off.

[THOMAS LYNN]

WWW.WECNMAGAZINE.COM/2007issues/may/may07.html
Why dont you read what the original proponent of manmade climate change thinks.The Father of modern climatology.Or read history.A fine example of a scientist who is not so specialized that he can actually see the forest through the trees.

[AMDScooter]

The MMGW business about to launch 100mil in ads...

Global Warming Ads From Al Gore Coming Soon

In other news....

IPCC Member: NASA’s Hansen Moving 'Dangerously Away From Scientific Discourse to Advocacy'

[AMDScooter]

CNN/AP still pimping for those found to be cooking the figures to get a desired result...

Scorching U.S. heat in 2006 blamed on humans

Barking moonbat replies:


Scorching U.S. heat in 2006 blamed on humans

First, the headline:
Scorching U.S. heat in 2006 blamed on humans

WASHINGTON (AP)—“We have met the enemy, and he is us,” the comic-strip character Pogo said decades ago. A new analysis of last year’s near-record temperatures in the United States suggests he was right.

Ok, so right off the bat we have an assertion. What is the back up for that assertion?

Warming caused by human activity was the biggest factor in the high temperatures recorded in 2006, according to a report by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The analysis, released Tuesday, is being published in the September issue of Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union.

In January, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center reported that 2006 was the warmest year on record over the 48 contiguous states with an average temperature 2.1 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal and 0.07 degree warmer than 1998, the previous warmest year on record.

Wow, pretty compelling stuff. But wait, I thought I read something about there being an issue with the algorithm they used to calcualte the “warmest year on record”.

In May, however, NOAA revised the 2006 ranking to the second warmest year after updated statistics showed the year was actually .08 F cooler than 1998.

Damn those statistics. OK, so it wasn’t the warmest year on record, but it can still be blamed on homo-sapiens, right?

At the time the agency said it was not clear how much of the warming was a result of greenhouse-gas induced climate change and how much resulted from the El Niño warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that was under way.

“We wanted to find out whether it was pure coincidence that the two warmest years on record both coincided with El Niño events,” Martin Hoerling of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, said in a statement.

His study looked at the effects of El Niño in the past as well as the effects of the release of gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by human industrial activities.

The analysis of past El Niño events in the 20th century found that the result was a slightly colder than normal annual average temperature over the 48 contiguous states.

To double check that, the researchers conducted two sets of 50-year computer simulations of U.S. climate, with and without the influence of El Niño. They again found a slight cooling across the nation when El Niño was present.

Then they looked at the effect of the increased greenhouse gases—which are given that name because they can help trap heat from the sun somewhat like a greenhouse traps heat.

Let me see if I understand. We have actual data to use from the past 50 years, so what they did was run a couple of simulations to see what the computers thought would happen if the situation was different. Then they looked at the effect of increased greenhouse gases (meaning different than what actually happened) and found:

They ran 42 different tests using complex computer models to simulate changes in the atmosphere under various conditions and concluded that the “2006 warmth was primarily due to human influences.”

Ooooooo. Complex computer models....I’m impressed. Are those the same models that can’t accurately predict the weather 15 days from now? The same ones that, given actual data, cannot predict what actually happened when they test history?

Yeah, I’m up with your conclusion here pal. Hows about you go back to your complex computer models and try to get them to accurately model reality first, then we’ll give you a shot at predicting the future.

Mkay?

I especially like this quote:

At the time the agency said it was not clear how much of the warming was a result of greenhouse-gas induced climate change and how much resulted from the El Niño warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that was under way.

VS. the title of the story: Scorching U.S. heat in 2006 blamed on humans.

In short. They do not know if ANY of the hot weather was caused by MMGW. Thus the title.... which leaves no doubt. Nuance...

[AMDScooter]

Soo much for the "consensus"...

Less Than Half of Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Less Than Half of Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
By Noel Sheppard
Created 2007-08-29 14:01

Consensus? What consensus?

A new survey about to be published by the journal Energy and Environment finds that less than 50 percent of the scientific papers written about climate change since 2004 have endorsed the view that man's activities are causing global warming.

Think Katie, Charlie, and Brian will be discussing this tonight?

As reported [1] by DailyTech Wednesday (emphasis added throughout):

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as [history professor Naomi] Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Think someone will be interviewing Al Gore in the next couple of days to get his view on this? Or James Hansen? Or any of the global warming alarmists?

But I digress:

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

[...]

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors."

If we had an honest media, this would be a huge part of today's reports. Unfortunately, it is quite likely that only conservative blogs, Fox News, and the Drudge Report will view this survey as being in any way newsworthy.

What a disgrace.

**EDIT** Also at NB:

Greenpeace Co-founder Slams DiCaprio’s New Global Warming Film

Here's something you don't see every day: an environmentalist bashing an environmentalist.

Yet, such was the case Wednesday when Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, slammed the new Leonardo DiCaprio film "The 11th Hour" as the "latest climate-change rant" representing "another example of anti-forestry scare tactics" which sadly indicated that "we're losing sight of some indisputable facts."

As a result, "[t]his film should be a good, clear reminder for us to put the science before the Hollywood hype."

[/\/\adGamer]

^^you mean its all a hoax? Wonder what thats gonna mean for my bank of carbon credits?Wait I dont get any seeing how I let my F250 ford truck run all day long with the air on while im out of it 3/4 of the day cause I cant stand to get into a hot truck

[AMDScooter]

Greenhouse Gases Blamed for 2006's High Temperatures Despite CO2 Emissions Decline

[AMDScooter]

How ironical... perhaps he can solicit the Goracle to break some ice for him. And if he froze to death... would that be MMGW's fault also.. ?

British Yachtsman Who Counted On Global Warming to Cross Arctic Now Trapped by Ice

In one of the most hilarious cases of being tripped up by dubious scientific hype, British yachtsman Adrian Flanagan attempted to be the first to sail across the arctic north of Russia. He based his hope on the fact that he believed in the Global Warming propaganda that the arctic is rapidly losing its ice thus making his trip possible. One little problem. Cold cruel reality has crushed the Global Warming hype and now Flanagan's boat is trapped by ice in the arctic. To add to the irony, Flanagan who seems to be destined to go down in history as Wrong Way Flanagan, is now pleading with Russian authorities to provide him with the services of a nuclear powered icebreaker to get him out of his embarrassing situation.

As recently as August 18, Wrong Way Flanagan's hopes were still high that he could sail across the arctic north of Russia. Moscow News announced his trip in an article ironically titled, Global Warming is Here.

A British yachtsman, Adrian Flanagan, is due shortly to head off from Chukotka to attempt the first solo sail through the Northern Sea Route.

While one Chukotka port official described this as "kamikaze," Flanagan too is optimistic. Contacted by AFP he said that the ice looked set to recede at least as far as in 2005, which was a record year. But while some see opportunities, others are already counting the costs of climate change.

Flash forward to today and we can see the sticky situation that Wrong Way Flanagan put himself into by placing his faith in Global Warming to clear his path in the arctic as chronicled by Australia's Herald Sun in an article with the sobering title of Ice blocks British solo sailor:

A BRITISH yachtsman attempting the first solo Arctic sea passage across northern Russia was examining his options after heavier than expected ice blocked his route, his manager said.

Adrian Flanagan is discussing with Russian authorities the possibility of using a nuclear-powered icebreaker to lift his boat out of the water and carry it round the most icebound stretch of Russia's Northern Sea Route.

...He had hoped that his 11m reinforced yacht would be able to get all the way to Europe due to lighter ice conditions observed in recent years, thought to be a result of global warming.

But after making his way through the Chukchi, East Siberian and Laptev Seas, Flanagan has been forced to a halt by heavy ice at the most difficult point in the route, the Vilkitsky Strait.

...Flanagan is now anchored by an island just east of the Vilkitsky Strait, still hoping for the ice to clear but working on the backup plan, his manager said.

She described the yachtsman's mood as “pretty fed-up”.

Besides the arctic ice, Wrong Way Flanagan now appears to have another problem. Remember those polar bears that Global Warming activists were warning us were endangered? Well, it now seems that the tables have been turned and those endangered polar bears are now endangering Flanagan:

Ostrov Peschanyy is a bleak, featureless island that is little more than a sand spit rising a few metres above sea level. It's a resting place for walrus and Western Arctic Marine Operations HQ have advised Adrian to keep a careful watch for polar bears hunting walrus there.

So as Wrong Way Flanagan, who has turned himself into a Global Laughingstock on the altar of Global Warming, remains trapped in the arctic perhaps someone would be kind enough send him a copy of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth for him to pass the time while waiting for the ice to melt and for the endangered polar bears to go away.

[BlackDragon24]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science....ap/index.html

[AMDScooter]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science....ap/index.html

Drowning Polar bears and Polar bears endangered... sounds like someone has "an inconv. troof" on loop. Despite increasing bear population umbers. More alarmism about shrinking ice... assumptions based on "observations" AND:

"20 computer scenarios of the effects of warming on sea ice, used by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its assessment report released this year.

More fun with computer models. The same models that cannot accurately forecast weather 15 days in advance are claiming to be able to predict trends 40 years from now. Not just one... 20 of them. Are all or any of these "computer scenarios" based on the same bogus algorithms NASA just got spanked for using and "tweaking" to produce a "desired" result? You remember.. the corrections that broke the Goracle's hockey stick?? The article is conspicuously not specific. Guess we'll have to wait for the report.

I'm still not buying what they are sellin. Stinks of snake oil.

[BlackDragon24]

^^^Well, I think it has a little more to do than with JUST computer models:

An analysis of 20 years' worth of real-life observations supports recent U.N. computer predictions that by 2050, summer sea ice off Alaska's north coast will probably shrink to nearly half the area it covered in the 1980s, federal scientists say.