Pretty much, yep... and agrees with the quote above from Susan Solomon (senior scientist at NOAA and co-chair of the latest report from the IPCC) at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco.


Evidence exsists for all kinds of unproven things.

Edit: forgot to add the portion of the quote

I love the way all the scientific papers I posted are consistantly ignored for newspaper articles.

Nature Article (Nature is a very highly respected scientific journal)

Edit to add link.

yes the hedley center is a top climate center for the world.

a lot of scientists forget to add a lot of factors into their climate analysis though. like magnetic reversal.

the earths magnetic field has been slowly diminishing (its almost impossible for it to go away), but it is slowly diminishing and there is evidence of previous ice ages that have occured because of this magnetic reversal. have you read about the giant solar falre the sun just released?? things like that can through the earths magnetism out of wack and it has been shown to change the magnetism dramatically as well. the discharge was measured to be about x17, which is very very big

history can explain a lot of whats happening right now. the earth has been hotter than it is today based on ice core samples. thats fact.

ppm of C02 has been higher on this planet than it is today. we werent even around to be in the factor, so how is today so much different than it was millions of years ago back when dinosaurs roamed the earth? every time we have gone past the 300 ppm of C02 the earth has gone into an ice age. eventually. thats also fact.

i will keep saying this as well. ive posted graphs and timelines of how volcanic activity can change the face of this planet and the temperature faster than anything and the earth has had more than usual volcanic activity as of recent. there are 400 degree centigrade thermal vents under ice caps. you dont think that melts ice faster than 1.5 degree celsius increase in temp?

man did not cause this.... when every climatologist and meteorologist around the world admits and they are 100 percent sure not 90 percent that us humans caused whats going on today ill be a believer and i wont post any more ice age theories.

as of right now im not the only one of many people that agree otherwise. just as many people, and people tens times more qualified than i am in climate conditions, believe that the opposite is happening.

If you think about it you've already answered your own question. Humanity wasn't around so there were far more trees/vegetation to consume the CO2. The Amazon rain forest is being decimated...many forest areas, globally, have been annihilated...
It doesn't hurt to look at the big picture, and consider the whys and hows. It's not science, it's common sense.
Our planet can handle to co2 emissions which are naturally ocurring. What humanity is adding, while decimiating that which consumes the co2, isn't natural - it's man made. And we seem hellbent on choking the life out of our support system. Which is testament to our insanity.

To the person who said there has been questions of evidence of god on this forum...I'm aware of that, and have mentioned it myself a few times. The silence is still deafening...as in - those who espouse god and religion seldom respond to the evidence question. Qualifying- in the threads I've read.

40-50 MILLION acres of tropical forests are lost each year

and

this graph shows the increase of of global carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning.



And to think Earth is invisible to human influence.

2000 scientists from 40 nations pooled their resources and did exactly what you asked.

Global Warming and humans being the main contributing factor to it is fact, so whether or not you want to beleive it or simply don't want to you can't change facts. Even Exxon Mobile one of the worlds largest oil companies admitted that it's the real deal. You know it's serious when the enemy admits defeat in all this.



You know when an ice age happens the polar caps aren't melting at a rate of 10% a decade. We have also gone way past 300 ppm already.... Once we hit 500 and we will the effects start to become irreversable.


Consider your Ice Age theory debunked

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/earlyice.htm

my ice age theory isnt debunked haha

did you clearly not get what i said? over 300 ppm, that means 300 and up, ice age. exact fact.

so one ice age is the going theory for all the rest? 443 million years ago there wasnt even anything that exhaled Co2 so thats not even a factor of today. you cant compare that age to ours when there wasnt even a substantial air breathing, Co2 exhaling animals on the planet. oranges to apples.

and to further explain my point, the last ice age 11,500 years ago began when C02 was at its peak.

look at my graphs i have posted as well on volcanic activity and ice ages and it will show it



Source

hmmm 1 scientist saying that humans play not part vs. 2000 from 40 other nations...This Boris Berry is nothing more then a rogue is his field.

Infact he is against going green at all citing if we do reduce our emissions etc it will be a doomsday scenario I wonder who paid him off to say such insane things.





Well we are just about 400ppm and guess what only warming no ice so obviously the information is flawed.

there are just as many climatologists and scientists that are for the opposite effect. this isnt the first time this has happened in history and it wont be the last one by far.

there has been higher parts per million in different ages of this world and ice ages still happened. it a naturally occuring cycle. yes we have accelerated it i will give you that. we dont help it in any bit and i am all for lowering emissions but we as humans have not caused it



it doesnt happen overnight. periods before ice ages are abnormally warm then a sudden drop in temps across the extreme northern hemisphern and extreme southern hemisphere

also might i add, that magnetic reversals are directly tied to ice ages as well. our sun just sent out a solar flare that measured x17. thats one of the largest to date since we were able to record such things. huge solar flares and solar storms can drop our earths magnetic field and reverse it.... if the sun keeps it up on this it can reverse the magnetic fields of this planet and study shows are magnetic fields strength has been diminishing. the sun can also go into its dorment state also which would change the effects of this global warming dramatically and there has been reason to believe that it will soon go into that dorment cycle which is every so often amount of years.

While I like the idea of trying to be aware of and making a real effort to reduce all forms of polution...and replanting the environment...conservation... I

I think there is more to this green house fear... we are in Australia being told that the hot weather drought hasn't been as bad as this since the 1960's,

global heating happens in cycles... with many different causes.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

but what was the weirdest was snow in Australia at Christmas!!! right in the middle of a heat wave!!!!! That had to have been artificially created!!! or some miracle... a wished, prayed for, 'White Christmas'

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/2070.asp

"Scientists, Weather Engineers and Space Specialists are working towards something that can change human civilization forever! It is the methods of artificial weather modification.

The process when perfected, can help in agriculture, getting rid of droughts, floods and avoid cyclones and typhoons.

It is also the process by which the enemy can be devastated, artificial floods, cyclones and typhoons created.

It can allow controlling the world economy and agricultural commodity markets.

In ancient religions and legends, weather control, creation of cyclone, rain, flood, drought were nothing new. In the modern age the Scientists and technologists are busy perfecting the weather control sciences. It is shaping up as the most vibrant area of research and development.

Many countries are mastering the science of weather control. As a matter of fact many experts predict that a war game is being played by major powers in the world to demonstrate their capabilities of weather control. Most of these initiatives are classified and shoved off from the public. The only way one can track these initiatives is to look at countries taking actions to shield against weather control experiments.

Recently, scientists and engineers have started unveiling the actual methods of weather control. Some primitive methods like Cloud-top seeding can confuse you and point you to a wrong direction. Cloud-top seeding is usually performed between the temperatures of -5°C and -10°C. The greatest amount of super-cooled liquid water is usually found within this range. This corresponds to an altitude range of 15,000 to 22,000 ft depending upon location. Dropping or ejecting silver iodide flares into the growing cloud turrets dispenses seeding agent. The seeding agent is placed into the super-cooled clouds where nucleation is desired, so the updrafts in these cases are relied upon only to provide a continuing source of condensate. This delivery technique requires less anticipation on the part of those directing the seeding operations and may have a more immediate effect.

The more modern methods involve artificial ionization of earth’s atmosphere between 15,000 and 30,000 ft. and above. Manipulating the ionosphere and use of controlled solar-terrestrial interactions can create much larger effects. Scientists are realizing that the earth’s weather is controlled by Sun's natural Electromagnetic Radiation reaching the earth. The Sun’s Radiations and Ultraviolet Rays have to cross the ionosphere to reach the earth.

There are early indications that the solar radiations and flares are directly responsible for planetary weather changes. And Solar flares and levels of radiations are caused by bombardment of cosmic rays on the Sun from either a distant massive black hole or a star-cluster caused by the collapse of thousands and thousands of stars in a small space.

Computer models obviously focused on the ionosphere, which acts as a filter for the solar radiations to reach the earth. If one can manipulate and control the filter, it becomes a potential source of massive weather modification. That is what the computer simulation models found. Controlling the ionosphere potentially allows weather control. The algorithmic variation of ionosphere can create the magic in a massive scale.

There are many methods of controlling the ionosphere. It is the process of artificially manipulating ion density in the ionosphere. High power transmitter and antenna array operating in the HF(High Frequency) range is one of the methods. There are lots of literature on that in the Internet and declassified scientific research journals.

However, the recent trend is in using super conductors in space satellites to generate intense high intensity electromagnetic flux."

Copyright © 2003-2005, Indiadaily.com. All Rights Reserved.

************
http://www.bariumblues.com/space_based_weather_control.htm


"It has also been suggested that upper atmosphere winds (above 50KM) play a role in the motion of the lower altitude jet stream.(J. R. Herman and R. A. Goldbert. sun, Weather and Climate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D. C. ) Balsley et al have studied the modulation of the auroral electrojet and found correlation with modulation of the zonal winds at 88 KM altitude. (B. B. Balsley, et al, 1983. "On the Potential of Radar Observations for Studying Coupling Processes Between the Ionosphere and the Middle Atmosphere," Weather and Climate Responses to Solar Variations, Colorado Associated University Press, Boulder, Colorado. USA)

The HAARP antenna as it is now configured modulates the auroral electrojet to induce ELF waves and thus could have an effect on the Zonal winds.

I recently have revisited the potential for electromagnetic beam modification of weather in a series of papers written with the support of the European Space Agency. They asked me to investigate potential applications in which a Solar Power Satellite was the source of energy. (They have been designed for 1,000 MW)

I have published two papers on the use of what I call the "Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite" and have done numerical simulations of its use to prevent tornado formation in mesocyclones. They are: "Systems Considerations of Weather Modification Experiments Using High Power Electromagnetic Radiation", Published in Proceedings of "Workshop on Space Exploration and Resources Exploitation-Explospace 20-22 October, 1998, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.

Last week I presented:

"Mesocyclone Diagnostic Requirements for the Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite Concept" Published in the Proceedings of "The Second Conference on the Applications of Remote Sensing and GIS for Disaster Management", Jan. 19-21, 1999, Sponsored by NASA and FEMA.

Safety is emphasized in both papers."

[Dr. Bernard Eastlund]

Website: http://www.eastlundscience.com

CO2 the Effect and NOT the Cause


In the past I had wondered whether the rise in CO2 levels was the cause of warming or the effect. Warming temperatures can impact weather patterns. Drought has a negative impact on plant life. Warmer/hot weather increases the fire risk. What happens when foliage is wilted or burned? The plant has lost its ability to turn CO2 to O2. CO2 levels rise. Warming waters can also have a negative impact on sea life. Coral bleaching is an example.

So lets take a look at the Vostok data. I am including two images. One is the image as is from:

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

The other is that same image but with a copy of the temperature plot pasted on top of the CO2 plot. I'll post them now for you to look at then I'll comment on something unusual in the overlay.





While the text looks funny the tick marks on the bar at the bottom line up. The data lines up from top to bottom and left to right. The greenish looking line represents CO2 levels. The yellowish line represents temperatures. In most cases the CO2 and temperature levels ride upwards together. In some cases like 125,000 years ago and 325,000 years ago it looks as if MAYBE the temperature rise is a few years ahead of the CO2 rise. Hard to say for sure. What however is VERY clear is that the temperature drops are paced well ahead of the CO2 drops. In the first few years of the drop the lines are close together and its hard to really see who is leading. But as the years move on the gap becomes very clear. The temperatures are falling well in advance of the CO2 levels.

If the theory were correct that rising CO2 levels were causing the warming then it would not be possible for the temperatures to drop sharply well in advance of the CO2 drop. Unless of course it was that the CO2 level changes were a result of temperature changes and not a cause.

Why would you have the two going up together and the CO2 falling after? Well the warm/heat and fire will cause immediate damage to the vegetation and sea life. Death doesn't correct itself overnight. You can lose a crop overnight but it will not regrow overnight. As temperatures correct themselves the plant life is able to regenerate and bring down CO2 levels.

The CO2 rise in the last 100 years is still part of the warming that has been going on for quite some time. The CO2 levels may be overstated a bit because of man made pollution but you will find that temperatures just as they have in the past will begin to plunge. A number of years later the ecosystem will correct itself and just as it has in the past the CO2 levels will come down.

Source

If CO2 is the effect, why does it peak before the temperature peak? That makes no sense at all.
I would expect the earth to right its self as well, but would you want to risk future generations by ignoring the vast amounts of evidence for human effects on the climate, becasue it might br your kids who suffer the consequences just some sociopathic idiots running multinational oil companies can make some extra money.

You completely wrong btw the vast majority of climate scientist believe the current global warming is a product of humanity and green house gas.

Just because one man had a heart attack as a result of being in a car crash, doesn't mean another man cannot have a car crash because he suffered a heart attack

CO2 can both lead and follow temperature, according to circumstances. Thus, Vostok data proves nothing with regards current climate change.

Besides which, if temperature rises are leading to increased CO2 amounts, rather than the other way around, why has there been such an unprecedented large rise in CO2 compared with such a small - thus far - rise in temps?

im glad you ask... if you read the graphs its shows that even when we werent around the temps where higher than they are today.... Co2 output on a massive basis is not by humans and the burning of fossil fuels, its by underwater and land volcanic activity for the most part. yes we humans have added to it but we are certainly not the cause of it. natural processes like this have been occuring more than once throughout history as explained with the graphs.

they are finding unusually large underwater, active volcanoes all over the world right now. there are 407 degree C thermal vents under the arctic ice cap. we never seemed to thought that maybe this is why the ice is melting. theres also a few under the anarctic ice cap as well spewing hot hot hot lava as well.

japanese scientists just discorvered a massive lava plateau on the Mid Ridge in the Indian Ocean about 500 miles east of Mauritius. that is a huge lava plateau. and these are springing up all over the world. just think about it a second, this plateau measures about 8.8 miles by 1.7 miles at a depth of about 8,860 feet, the plateau is covered with lava some 980 feet thick, spewing 2,150 degrees f lava out at a constant rate dont you think that would warm the ocean a tad?

Source

This thread belongs in the correct section. Every other thread that displays the slightest hint of implying a conspiracy gets moved to the conspiracy section so why not this one?

i never said that the "global warming" theory is a conspiracy, but corrupt i think yes.

but you see there is no politics in what i am bosting and providing arguement and evidence for because they dont wanna grasp that they could be totally wrong about this and then what will the media and the people of the world think?

they have to push what the started with i think and you dont think that they could pay top scientists to put these readings out there just to make the people believe? it is quite feasable to think about. i would rather believe a low level scientist than a highly regarded one because who are the people going to believe more? the one with more credentials and the high powered people of the world know this. its fairly simple. im not saying thats whats going on cause i dont know. but i look at every angle of "what if". you have to in the society of today.

back to what i was saying though, it just doesnt hit me that we as a world population can cause that when there are so many more things that spew more C02 in the air than us humans. i mean global warming is a process when the earth heats up and Co2 levels rise, plant life flourishes because of the Co2 in the atmosphere then once the plant life has done its work on the Co2 in the atmosphere we cool down and then the opposite happens.

the earth will heal itself one way or the other. its done it for billions of years. far longer than we humans can even think to imagine on a timescale

i mean when pompei erupted it cooled the entire planet by a few degrees in less than a year. they found ashes and rock from pompei halfway around the world!

so if earth has a plan, and has done it for billions of years, who are we to stop a process. we cant change the world climate no matter if the entire world stops using fossil fuels. its gonna happen because its more than just us humans.

No one has even touched on the fact scientists have been trying to explain the rising temperatures of all the planets in the solar system. Actually there are those who think the solar system goes through cycles and the internal heating of planets is all apart of the cycle.

Think about this. If global warming was really a threat and governments truly believed that fossil fuels were behind it all wouldn't it be logical to think implementations would've been made a long time ago? Vehicles, homes, etcetra would be powered with fuels that didn't add to "global warming". Do you think these governments would even bother to mine for coal and the pumping of oil if meant the destruction of the planet? Governments are made up of people who want to stay alive just like the rest of us, so if things were as they claimed there would be no discussions by the general public as to whether or not "global warming" is real, whatever needed to be done to nip it in the bud would've been done with or without the public's nod of approval.

As stated earlier it is all about politics.

I agree with this. Good post

It's sad how fast people will follow whats waved in front of their noses.

I think anyone who believes in the Global Warming fad that is sweeping the world needs to look at a few facts first.

1. When Mt. St. Helen erupted in 1980, (a large, but not uncommonly so eruption, as volcanoes go) it dumped into the air more Carbon dioxide, monoxide, sulfur and other "green house" gases and pollutants than the entirety of mankind has since we discovered how to harness fire. This is just one eruption of one volcano.

2. All the forests of the earth account for about only 3-8 percent of the CO2 (and other polutants) removed from the air. The rest (between 92 and 97 %)? The ocean, via plankton and algae.

3. A recent Discovery Channel documentary showed that we are in fact in the middle of an uncommonly CALM phase in weather history. As noted by miles of ice cores from Greenland, We have been lucky.


4. Only about 25% of the Glaciers in the world are retreating. The rest are static or growing.



Basically you have to realize just how big the Earth is. And how powerful. We as humans, with the exception of Nuclear waste, have very little chance of effecting the planet on a global scale. On a local scale, yes. Industry can pollute and harm, but the Earth has ways of taking care of itself.


As an aside, the inconvienent truth, someone needs to ask how much Al Gore made off of that film. And see how "green" Gore is. I'm guessing that private jet and limo aren't running off solar power. And to think he wants to stage a world wide tour of eco-friendly bands, with a show in Antartica. How much pollution would that bring to the ice shelf there? How much extra energy would have to be generated to hold those concerts? How much extra CO2 would all those writhing, mosh-pitting concert goers be breathing out into the atmosphere? Come on, there is obviously economic and or political gains intended here, and everyone getting scared is just adding to the fire of it. Don't believe everything your fed.

thank you, veraqu, someone looking for the facts

scientist are now telling the world that methane from farm animals mainly cows as had a major factor on global warming, how long cows been around? longer than the industrial revolution i feel i understand that modern industrie and vehicle pollution can't be helping, but to include animals too. what next a world cow cull?

Belial,

Good point. They've yet to include roach droppings and tapioca pudding both of which are just as ridiculous to point a finger at as to the reason for global warming. (LOL)

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."




Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

Source

to those who want evidence - here , educate yourselves.



http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title..._global_warming

lol strike one. that doesnt prove that what is happening right now is global warming in any way. all you have shown me is that the temperature has risen. yes the worlds temperature has risne but thats not what we are talking about. i have graphs up from nasa as well, showing the opposite. in order to correctly know whats going on you have to dig millions and billions of years to figure it out. not just a few hundred years

that graph shows an increase that follows the industrial revolution right through to now, it's mans need for oil based motion and energy that as caused the problem.

great reply about Dr. Shariv's article on the web about global warming --------------- http://forums.freep.com/viewtopic.php?p=66162

The article you have obviously referenced completely misrepresents his works and views. Shaviv’s work involving cosmic rays highlights their role in long-term climate regulation. By long-term I mean from thousands of years to geological periods, much longer than people have had the ability to influence climate, which at the most is a couple of thousand years since the dawn of large scale agriculture.

His work deals with long suspected processes such as the Milankovich Cycle and eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit and a cosmic phenomenon known as the faint young son paradox. In short, Shaviv questions the role of atmospheric carbon at a geologic time scale and his work has no validity regarding the anthropogenically enhanced greenhouse effect.

If you want to talk about hard science, there is plenty of it to back up the hypothesis of global warming. The physics are there, as is the chemistry. Changes in solar activities can not explain the recent heating of the Earth. They can explain a very small portion, but not a majority. You have completely misinterpreted Shaviv’s work, if you have even read it. I suspect you simply read a distorted synopsis of his work you found on the internet.

Lastly, your statement,

“Forth, Now I know many of you will dismiss this as some right wing wacko blather, but, unlike the Democrats, I have an open mind and have enough intellectual curiosity to to continue to look at both sides of an issue. Global Climate Change is most likely happening, however, this has happened many times on this planet before, and long after we are gone it will probably continue to happen.”

demonstrates your bias and lack of knowledge on the subject matter. The last sentence dealing with recurrent climate change, which does happen naturally by the way just not like this, highlights the lack of logic in your argument. Simply put, the current warming is happening at a far greater rate than it would naturally, why is that? It is because the levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are higher than they have been in thousands of years and due to land use and land cover changes, more long wave radiation is being released from the surface and captured by said gases.

The scientific consensus that you speak of is based on large amounts of empirical data that has been collected an analyzed by the climate community. The hard science is there. The physics to back it up is there. All you have to do is look, and as you said, all you have to do is look at the information with an open mind to see it. Scientific information has been grossly misinterpreted by the public and media for years. Remember when researchers first suspected a link exists between the rotation of glacial and interglacial periods and changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun and axial tilt?

To this day, many people will claim that science predicted that we would enter into another ice age soon. This is a misinterpretation of the science. It was stated that under normal conditions the planet was due to begin moving into a period of glaciations, not that the planet would be. One misspoken word, one misinterpreted result, deliberately or indeliberately changes the perception of science. I suggest doing your homework because you sound like an unknowledgeable skeptic despite all of your efforts to the contrary.

hhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmm

"Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

1. Fred Singer:

In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [9]

However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. SEPP, however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies. The organizations Singer has recently been affiliated with - Frontiers of Freedom, ACSH, NCPA, etc. - have recieved generous grants from Exxon on an annual basis.

yes i understand back 20-30 years ago the big alarming threat was that it was global cooling and yes we havnt seen an ice age yet, but we are very very much due for one is you base them on the timescales throughout history.

as it has been proven that 75 percent of the known galciers around the world are not retreating at all. some are static some are growing in size.



then you should know that the earth has been much hotter, without our influence, in the history of this planet? that the parts per million has reached 600 ppm millions of years ago? or that its a fact that when the earth breaches the 300+ppm mark we start transitioning to ice age?(thats fact by the way).

i look at the whole picture instead of just Co2 and greenhouse gasses. we as humans didnt cause it.

have you also looked at any of the geological parts of it yet? and how they are finding more and more Co2 dumping hotspots on the ocean floor than ever have known? or the fact that there is 400 degrees C thermal vents under the arctic ice cap? or the new lava plateau they have found that spills out 2,150 degree F lava out at a constant rate that is 8 miles long? dont ya think that would heat up the waters and the earth?

we cannot change the global climte in that amount of time no way and science is out there proving it different. i have posted the graphs, the articles stating otherwise. so to sit here and call me an idiot is quite rude when i have came up with very good information.

just because i dont believe in what you preach, doesnt make me an idiot. hell they thought einstein was a complete wacko, crackpot and look what he acchieved and he was one man. just because the numbers are against it doesnt mean they are right.

there are other things involved than just this "global warming" bologne. i dont buy it because i read evidence to the contrary from good sources. sorry mine doesnt come from government paid sources like the ipcc, nasa, etc.

find me evidence that doesnt have ipcc, nasa, al gore, the blah blah coalition of global warmign scientists, and then i will give it a good hard read, because all they are is pollitcal outfits.

i want pure pure pure science without politics at all. thats what i have been posting.

So how much carbon dioxide do you propose was released by Mount St. Helen?

_ _ _ _ _

How much CO2 did Mount St Helens' eruption in 1980 release into our atmosphere? Can you give me some idea of how much CO2 volcanoes add to the atmosphere generally?

I don't have an exact number. At Mount St Helens the maximum measured emission rate was 2.2X10^7 kg per day. The total amount of gas released during non-eruptive periods from the beginning of July to the end of October was 9.1X10^8 kg . I do not have an estimate for the volume of CO2 released during the Plinian eruptions. As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2. Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from man-made sources. For more detail, see Morse and Mackenzie, 1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates.

Scott Rowland, University of Hawaii Steve Mattox, University of North Dakota

[Click]

~~~

Mount St. Helens produces between 500 and 1,000 tons a day of carbon dioxide, he estimates.

Nothstein, of the state energy office, says the Centralia coal plant puts out about 28,000 tons a day. Statewide, automobiles, industries, and residential and business heating systems emit nearly 10 times that amount.

Gerlach, who often gets calls from power-plant operators and oil-company executives who believe nature is just as responsible for global warming as man. His answer always disappoints them.

"I tell them the amounts don't even come close and I usually never hear from them again."

Worldwide, people and their activities pump 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, he said. The total from volcanoes is about 200 million tons a year — or less than 1 percent of the man-made emissions.

[Click]

~~~




Juvenile forests are responsible for removing carbon dioxide. As soon as a forest begins to mature a near equilibrium is reached, in which young tree's remove carbon dioxide and older tree's release carbon dioxide (via decaying matter). If you cut down vast areas of vegetation, not only will carbon dioxide no longer be removed from the atmosphere, but large amounts will be contributed.

It simply doesn't matter which percent of the carbon dioxide removed is down to forests, there's a relatively low threshold.



Maybe you aren't aware of it, but humans are a global force.





We're adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and restricting the Earth's mechanisms which are responsible for removing the carbon dioxide. You do the math. Unfortunately global warming is only one of the ecological problems posed by industry.

Great information folks, amazing what truth is out there if people are willing to open their eyes and stop buying what the media is selling. People need to remember that the only reason we have TV channels we don't pay for is because they're paid by advertisers.

Published on Friday, February 2, 2007 by the Guardian / UK
Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study
by Ian Sample

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


now how many more keep it quiet ? just like bushco - more rotten under the skin.

Disappearing Plankton
The ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide may be at risk. Presently oceans are absorbing about 2 billion tons of carbon annually [3] . A report in Nature, August 1995, suggests that the oceans may be losing fixed nitrogen, an essential fertilizer that allows phytoplankton to grow. Phytoplankton absorb and fix carbon that is then transferred to the deep ocean. If in fact the oceans are losing nitrogen as they warm, they will tend to absorb less carbon, boosting the rate of carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere. [24]

Plankton are a major carbon sink in addition to the forests, other green plants, the permafrost, the earth's soil and atmosphere. Plankton take in about half of all the world's CO2, using the carbon for growth, while releasing oxygen during the process of photosythesis. During the past 20 years there has been a stark decline, more than 9%, in primary production of plankton, while in the same period plankton of the North Atlantic has decreased by 7%. Less plankton; less carbon uptake.Watson W. Gregg, a NASA biologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland says that the greatest loss of phytoplankton has occurred where ocean temperatures have risen most significantly between the early 1980's and the late 1990's. In the North Atlantic summertime sea surface temperatures rose about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit during that period, Gregg said, while in the North Pacific the ocean's surface temperatures rose about 7/10ths of a degree.(San Francisco Chronicle, David Perlman, Science Editor, October 6, 2003). See NASA Report on Ocean Plant Life Absorbing Less Carbon

In the Arctic, loss of sea ice associated with warming could result in the diminution of phytoplankton populations. This could lead to ‘knock-on effects’ throughout the Arctic food chain, including declines in the stocks of several key prey species of cetaceans, such as copepods and plankton-feeding fish, including Arctic cod, a key prey species for narwhal and beluga whales. Warming and the attendant ice melt might result in greater stratification of the water column and decreased nutrient resupply, limiting the growth of phytoplankton populations that are a critical link in the cetacean food chain in the region. See Report by William Burns, Director of Communications & Research Associate, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security

Research suggests a positive feedback scenario, where more intense storms roil oceans and cause the latter to release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. [36]

Loss of Carbon Sink: Warming Tundra & Thawing Permafrost

Tundra
Tundra is usually defined based on vegetation, areas covered by bushes, grass and low vegetation. It also includes colder and dryer desert-like landscape with little or zero vegetation. The tundra is found in areas north of the taiga (the northernmost pine tree forest). (84) The tundra, located near or inside the polar regions, covers 1/5th of the world's land surface.The tundra is warming and as it warms, it is leaking carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. The process is another of the positive feedback scenarios, that will increasingly inhance climate change.[58]

Worldwide, about 50 gigatonnes of carbon are estimated to be held in a frozen state in the tundra, and now the tundra is beginning to become a source of carbon dioxide. In the 1970's University of California biologist Walter Oechel studied carbon dioxide emissions in the tundra, which until this time had been thought of as a carbon sink. Doing further tests in the 1980's, Oechel discovered that this was no longer the case, that warming temperatures had changed the tundra to a net emitter of carbon dioxide. Says Oechel, " We found to our great surprise that the tundra was already losing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. So that by the start of these experiments, which was in 1982, the tundra had already warmed and dried enough, that its historic role as a carbon sink had reversed and changed. It was now losing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. That was totally unexpected."

27] The United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. "The Potential Effects of Climate Change on the United States" (Joel B. Smith and Dennis Tirpak, eds.) Washington, D.C.

[29] Hastenrath, S., and P.D. Kruss, February 1992. Greenhouse indicators in Kenya. Nature. Volume 355. p.503-504.

[34] "Geochemical Consequences of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Coral Reefs," Joan A.Kleypas et al., Science, April 2, 1999

50]U.S Global Change Research Program
[51] Report titled 'Confronting Climate Change in California' by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and The Ecological Society of America, 1999 p.17, published by UCS Publications, Cambridge, MA.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), ranking member on the Government Reform Committee, has just released a series of emails from the Department of Commerce that suggest that Bush officials “tried to suppress a federal scientist from discussing the link between global warming and hurricanes.�

In a letter to Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Waxman details how CNBC requested an interview with NOAA scientist Tom Knutson in October 2005 — one month after Hurricane Katrina — “to discuss whether global warming is contributing to the number or intensity of hurricanes.� the request for the interview with Dr. Knutson was subsequently denied. Knutson
told the Wall Street Journal he felt censored.

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20060...05731-66383.pdf

waxman emails - http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20060...01130-14873.pdf



we have escalated it - or didn't you read what I had posted earlier ? of course you didn't .


what are your sources other than one theory and right wing big business rhetoric?

source please

global warming has , by the numbers , increased over all. those are hard facts. not the freak heat wave or snow storm or hurricane season , but over all it has increased. Ocean levels have risen twice as fast this decade.

A tree's rings can tell us more than just its age: Researchers from Columbia University are looking at them to find the history of global temperature increases. The rings, which typically grow wider during warm years and narrower during cooler ones, have helped scientists create a climate change chronology that, in some cases, can track back as far as 262 AD. Evidence from ancient Mongolian trees has so far matched data from tree rings in North America, Europe and western Russia, showing a steady increase in global temperature from the 1870s onward

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/gmaps/climate-change/

even if a global warming or cooling is natural --- why would big business be so against better practices to clean up this globe? why would any skeptic?

that is the bottom line of global warming as far as man goes - man's contribution to it. it isn't what happens naturally , but mans increase in it's speed.

so your either for a cleaner healthier world or your not. it's that simple.

Good post mate.

thank you brave new world...



its not about that though.... the earth has its own ways of cleaning the world up.... its the ice age... when it all coems down to it the earth and the solar cycles decide the fate of humans and the earths progress.... right now yes we are on an accelerated path of warming but thats not because of us. it has in part to do with the sun and the geothermal parts of the earth. there are many volcanoes aroudn the world looking to erupt in massive proportion. we cant control that at all. so if there is a massive eruption like say pompei for example, global warming is out the window. the earth will cool itself because of the blanket of ash and Co2 in the air and will have the opposite effect.

everyone forgets to remember that C02 is the main elemnet in fire extinguishers. Co2 can also make this world very cool so the mass amount of Co2 in the air will only accelerate the process of and ice age in the event of a dormant solar cycle.

there are so many factors to just say that this or that is gonna happen. thats why "global wamring" is just theory at this point. global temperature rise is apparent but doesnt mean global wamring

During the past few millions of years the Earth's climate has fluctuated, but it still keeps returning to generally the same state. Is that because the Earth has the ability to 'repair' itself and wants to maintain this climate? No. It's just a cycle that has developed.



How?



No. Volcanic winters have nothing to do with carbon dioxide at all, they are caused by aerosols. Carbon dioxide acts as a blanket, there's no denying that.



That's nothing to do with the carbon dioxide being cold, it works as a fire extinguisher because it starves the fire of oxygen, which is required for combustion to take place.



Through which mechanism?



That's most non-sensical thing I've read in this thread so far. How do global temperatures rising not indicate global warming?

Unless you mean to suggest that it doesn't necessarily indicate that the commonly accepted mechanism of global warming is true...?

the sun goes through various cycles and has shown that in dormant cycles of the sun, no matter whats happening on earth the global temperature cools down. when the solar cycle is very active, it warms the global temperature. its pretty much that simple really.

just a few weeks ago there was a massive solar flare that was one of the strongest ever recorded since we were able to record solar flares and sun spots. it registered x17.

how does underwater volcanic activity warm the earth? well the earths heat is transferred throughout the world really by ocean current. when the ocean warms the earth is going to warm.

Scientists Discover Undersea Volcano Off Antarctica
– 31 May 2004 – Scientists have found what they believe is an active and
previously unknown volcano on the sea bottom off the Antarctic Peninsula .
The international science team from the United States and Canada mapped
andsampled the ocean floor and collected video and data that indicate a major
volcano exists on the Antarctic continental shelf.

Eugene Domack, the expedition's chief scientist, said the volcano stands
700 meters (2300 feet) above the seafloor and extends to within roughly
275 meters (900 feet) of the ocean surface in an area known as Antarctic
Sound, at the northernmost tip of Antarctica .

He noted that there has been "no previous scientific record of active
volcanoes in the region. The volcano is unusual, Domack said, in that it
exists on the continental shelf, in the vicinity of a deep trough carved out
by glaciers passing across the seafloor.

In addition to mapping, the research team used a bottom-scanning video
recorder, rock dredges, and temperature probes to survey the sides and
crest of the submarine peak. The video survey revealed a surface that is
heavily colonized by bottom-dwelling organisms.

But a dark mat of underwater life broken along the edges of the volcano
by barren patches of dark, black rock indicate that lava has recently flowed
there.

Source

9 Jan 06 – The plateau is located in the Mid Ridge in the Indian Ocean about 500 miles east of Mauritius, said Professor Tamaki Ura, director of the University of Tokyo's Underwater Technology Research Center.

This is presumed to be not only the biggest lava plateau in the Indian Ocean but also one of the biggest in the world," Ura said. Their submersible vehicle "also spotted hydrothermal eruptions on the northern part." (In other words, it’s volcanically active!)

Measuring about 8.8 miles by 1.7 miles at a depth of about 8,860 feet, the plateau is covered with lava some 980 feet thick.

Source

How Global Warming Could Cause The Next Ice Age

While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration, and Al Gore's recent conference on the topic during one of the coldest days of recent years provided joke fodder for conservative talk show hosts, the citizens of Europe and the Pentagon are taking a new look at the greatest danger such climate change could produce for the northern hemisphere - a sudden shift into a new ice age. What they're finding is not at all comforting.
In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world. Here's how it works.

Source (for the rest of the atricle. too long to post)

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said

Source

1992, when Mt Pinatabu erupted it colled the earth dumping millions and millions of volcanic ash into the atmosphere and it actually cooled the earth.

Stromboli of the coast of siciliy just blew its top a few days ago and is still sumping vapor, aerosols, Co2 etc. into the atmostphere.

So do you have any links to papers which mention that geothermal and solar activity is rising in accordance to the temperature rises on Earth?

A wise man once said follow yourself and not the masses. After reading this thread I understand why this man was considered wise. Just because mainstream media (and people) says man is the reason for global warming and throws tidbits of data at the subject don't make it the truth.

How have you gotten that from reading this thread? All I've seen so far are lots of hypotheses with either false, or no data to support them.

Some times the croud is right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity

I have my reservations about Wikipedia, but not all of it can be wrong, and a lot of it can be checked should you have the time.

IMHO, it's rather simple. Facts, whether you get them from man-made global warming argument or its opposition, can change from one minute to the next. So rather than following blindly the crowd I read all I can on all sides then come to my own opinion.

The crowd all too often rush to judgement based on propaganda, initials behind names , job titles,or so called statistics/data without ever looking objectively at the other side of the issue or ever asking themselves who would gain by them buying into such facts.



Yes I would agree with you. That can be said on both sides of the issue of "global warming". Do I know unequivocally this planet is not going through a "solar or man-made global warming"? No but from what I've read on the subject neither do anyone else.

Lets say hypothetically the "global warming" argument is true, what on earth can you or I do about it? Yes we can go back to living like cavemen/women but how would that help the environment if (according to the proponents of "global warming") the damage has been done and we're doomed?

I've posted this before and I'll do so again. Governments are ran by PEOPLE, people who are concerned (as you and I) about their own preservation.

Destroying the planet would mean destroying mankind, these people may like wars and creating hardships for others, they are not about to cause their own demise. Logic dictates if my driving a large SUV and powering my house with a fossil fuel would cause havoc to the environment those things wouldn't be available for me to purchase much less use, if deemed so hazardous it would destroy this world. There would be no debates on global warming, the governments of the world would collectively not allow their citizentry use of any products that would add to the ultimate destruction of this world.

Sounds like many people are looking for the absolute truth on this issue and they won't find it.

And more info keeps coming pointing to the bright yellow ball in the sky, which has been heating the planet for millenia as the *GASP* cause of Climate Change.

Two Main Scientific Frauds of the Kyoto Protocol

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." —Mark Twain

Stable climate oscillations have been estimated from annual tree-ring growth. 5,6,7 The reconstruction showed that the only difference in the modern warming of the Northern Hemisphere from previous warming periods consists of its occasional coincidence with the current technical progress. So it seems that changes in Northern Hemisphere temperature for almost 100 years often correlate well with the growth in the number of cars and engines on our planet, as well as the amount of fuel they burn.

The coincidence of the above mentioned independent processes has formed the "scientific basis" for some climatologists. They believe that modern industrialization is catastrophically warming up the planet. Carbon dioxide (СО 2 ) is formed in the process of burning fuel. These climatologists think that this СО 2 , like the glass above a greenhouse, covers an atmosphere, causing the rise in air temperature. As a result, they try to impose this incorrect climatic script on the whole world.

There are two principal mistakes in the "scientific foundation" of the U.N. Kyoto Protocol:

1. There have been many periods in the earth's geological history when it was warmer and the atmosphere contained more СО 2 than present (0.03 percent). The proponents of the Kyoto Protocol use this correlation as proof of effective greenhouse influence on the atmosphere. In fact, the increase in СО 2 is due to a natural increase in temperature of the surface of the ocean water. The warmer the climate and oceans, the more СО 2 is released from the oceans to the atmosphere. It is a well-known chemical fact: СО 2 escapes from water at heating periods. There is strong evidence that increases in СО 2 concentrations happened centuries after the increases in temperatures. 8 The result of warming (isolation of СО 2 ) was intentionally commingled with the reason of the existence of the warm climate periods.

2. Terrestrial air holds heat better than carbon dioxide (СО 2 ). The saturation of the atmosphere by additional amounts of СО 2 always leads to cooling-off tendencies of the air. Theoretical estimations showed that replacement of an existing nitrogen-oxygen (78 percent/21 percent) blend in the earth's atmosphere for the СО 2 (100 percent) would result in cooling of the terrestrial surface by almost 2°Ð¡ 9 (http://macroevolution.narod.ru/sorohtin.htm).

Nature is wiser than human beings. When the climate becomes warmer, nature extracts from the terrestrial waters additional portions of СО 2 gas, which is very useful for plants at that time. With this evidence, one can see assumptions about global warming being related to the modern industrial boom and its "greenhouse gas effects" are simply incorrect.

Climate Change and Pollution Are Not Connected
"Bad taste is simply saying the truth before it should be said." —Mel Brooks

An excellent coincidence or highly significant correlation between computer-generated global air temperatures 5,7 and independently restored ones 6 for as long as 1,200 years (see graph) shows that the mathematical model accurately describes the oscillations of Northern Hemisphere temperatures for 14 periods ranging from 7 to 1,029 years. The simulated and reconstructed curves capture many of the same events that have occurred on the decade and central scale. This empirical physical model can be used for climatic forecasts and reconstruction for at least the next 1,500 years.

The modern global warming-up (1920 to 2035 years), past and future significant cooling-off and warming-up tendencies are caused by adding together all modeled climatic oscillations, especially periods of 230, 515 and 1,029 years, formed inside the solar system 7 . That is why climate change is not connected with industrial "greenhouse gases" in any way. All long-term changes of the Northern Hemisphere temperatures have a natural origin and oscillatory character (see graph).

Movements toward pure water and clean air should deal with local and regional pollution problems, which have nothing to do with the global climate change.

In particular, the pollution of the atmosphere's lower layers in Canada and Russia influences only their own territories. At latitudes of these countries, air streams move mainly from the west. These countries are bordered on the east by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, where air is cleansed naturally.

Sources of contamination and areas of their harmful influence can be easily detected. They cannot be managed by the Kyoto Protocol's global rules, which have not scientific basis.

We have to work out national and international laws and regulations that would make polluting manufacturing processes unprofitable.

Who Is Guilty and What Should We Do?
"To be or not to be? That is the question." —William Shakespeare

Model forecasts based on periodicity of climatic processes reliably predict future global cold spells. Now, on the earth, we have one of the warmest and most favorable periods of our glacial epoch. For the last one million years, intervals favorable for life have constituted no more than 10 percent of time. Periods similar to a modern climate were no more than 1 percent. All ancient civilizations, including ours, came into being during the interglacial warming period, which is now coming to an end. Only 12 thousand years ago, glaciers had covered—fully or partially—the territories of Alaska, Canada, the countries of Europe, Russia, Ukraine, and China and a new glacier period is approaching.

To preserve the infrastructure of our civilization, it is necessary to artificially decrease the climatic fluctuations and stabilize global temperatures. We need to learn how to preserve a warm climate as soon as possible. The first significant temperature drop will tentatively start in 2035. To control the climate, it requires significant preliminary expenditures of time and resources. We need to start scientific and experimental studies directed at controlling natural energy fluxes in the near earth space and at the earth's surface. Since the minimum experimental cycle should be 22 years, we need to hurry up!

The programs of the Kyoto Protocol should be reexamined since they endanger our civilization. On the eve of severe natural climate changes, they direct studies, money flow, and propaganda along an incorrect path. From the very beginning, temperature drop will cause the shutdown of the northern seaways and will radically hinder production and delivery of hydrocarbons and other minerals. Northern countries, with the help of the entire world, must urgently begin to study, design, and build technical systems for dealing with the future temperature drops.

Theres much more to this article here (source)

Scientific `consensus' on global warming doesn't exist

The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summary, released Feb. 2, states that it is ``very likely'' that changes in climate are due to human influence. More recent comments in various media outlets have focused on a scientific consensus which supports the panel's conclusions. Those who question this consensus have been compared to Holocaust deniers, and some have been threatened with job dismissal. This is no longer science, but scientific socialism. I do not agree with all of the IPCC conclusions and know through peer discussions that the idea of a consensus in the meteorological community is false.

The IPCC was formed under U.N. auspices, and while each expert contributed a few pages of the report, the final publication was vetted through governmental committees before release, where significant changes could be made. The documents signed by the contributing experts note that they agree with the pages they contributed, but not necessarily the complete report nor its conclusions.

There are a number of inconsistencies in the report. The most glaring is that the models on which the conclusions depend do not agree with various sets of observations. Following are a few specific examples: The summary notes an increase in mean sea level of 7 inches during the 20th century, with a forecast rise of an additional 7 to 23 inches by 2100. Observations, however, do not agree with these predictions. Stockholm, which has the world's longest sea level measurement record of about 1,200 years, has shown increases in sea level of only plus-or-minus 0.06 inches per year, with an average very close to zero; these observations are well below the model predictions.

The Pacific Island nation of Tuvalu , barely above sea level, has requested permission to move its people to Australia or New Zealand, based on the predicted sea level rise. However, satellite data and sea level measurements indicate falling sea level at the island. The models predict that temperature increases will appear first at the poles. However, data published after the release of the IPCC Summary indicate that temperatures in the Antarctic have not increased during the previous 50 years. Those data frequently quoted in the media of increasing temperatures are only from a small region occupied by scientists; the Antarctic region as a whole does not show rising temperatures.

Away from the earth's surface, models predict that temperature trends should show a strong increase with height, particularly in the tropics. However, observations indicate upper atmosphere temperatures showing flat or decreasing temperature trends.

Research has also shown that slight changes in energy from the sun can significantly affect the earth, particularly in terms of clouds, which are a weak link in the global warming models. The level and amount of cloud can determine whether temperatures will warm as the cloud layer limits heat dissipation to space or whether temperatures will cool as the sun's incoming energy is reflected back to space before reaching the Earth's surface.

Temperature has fluctuated significantly in the past, with shorter-term cooling and warming trends of about 1,500 years superimposed on long-term cycles of ice ages and glacial melting. The 1,500-year cycle includes the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, which together extended from about 900 to 1850 A.D. During the former, literature and archaeology provide evidence that the Vikings found grapes in Newfoundland, naming their new settlement Vinland. The Little Ice Age was associated with major diseases which were rampant, due at least partially to the cold weather. As the Arctic ice edge advanced, Inuit hunters in kayaks were observed as far south as Scotland around 1700.

Clearly, these changes were not due to human influence. It has yet to be determined whether we are in a warming period which is part of the normal climate cycle.

Is it worth destroying our economy and lifestyle based on an unproven theory which does not correlate with historical observations?

Source

The Globe Is Warming – and the Sky Is Falling
Inconvenient Truth or Convenient Deception?

As with so many other topics, any viewpoint that does not agree with the "mainstream" views is snuffed by the mainstream media. We can find many credible scientists that are not very concerned about human-induced global warming. They may agree that there is some global warming and that part of it could be from industrial emissions; however, they may not feel it is such an urgent issue. Instead of following the data, which there is certainly not enough of both temporally and geographically to make a firm conclusion, let us generate some alternate understanding of our comprehension and ability to predict the future.

Look at the North American jet stream. It currently flows from west to east and dips and twists across the continent. A little more or less fluctuation has a pronounced effect on the climate including variations in temperature in the tens of degrees and not in fractions as postulated by "global warming". Now, consider how long the continent has supported humans – thousands of years at a minimum. How long have humans known of the jet stream and how much comprehensive data do we have on its behavior? Not very much. What causes the flow of the stream? No conclusive data exists. We can conceive that the rotation of the Earth, gravitational pull of the moon and tides and water currents all affect its flow. Certainly a volcanic eruption or other massive natural event will alter its course. Now how do we know the thing will continue to flow from west to east? Maybe the atmosphere will spontaneously and ever-dynamically rearrange so that it flows more from north to south or south to north or even east to west. It is not at all impossible to imagine. Obviously the climate would change drastically, orders of magnitude above what is predicted by the "warmers".

Let us not ignore the fact that man, with his ever-amazing wisdom and instinct for self-preservation, has polluted this globe. It is a shame of course, but not a definitive cause of global warming (if it does in fact exist). The planet is highly dynamic and self-regulating. How can the "experts" who can barely tell you the temperature for tomorrow within a few degrees or the amount of precipitation within an inch be able to predict a fraction of a degree in a decade? Averages? What fraction of the Earth’s area is computed in those averages? A very small amount. Maybe if we measured 100 times as many geographic points, the data would show a global cooling. It happens over periods of 10,000s of years anyway. Glaciers were in the Southeastern USA. It is not logical to give merit to the warming predictions. And do not confuse the political scientists by giving them all the facts, they have already made up their minds, and their conclusions will bring them fortune and fame. Just look at Al Gore’s Oscar! Hollywood has become both honest and sincere (NOT).

The main point is that it is important to collect as much of the available facts as possible before making any conclusions about a phenomenon. Listening to Al Gore or the mainstream media will certainly lead most to believe we are doomed by our own actions. Considering only the opposition will determine that there is nothing to worry about. However, if both arguments are considered objectively, one might conclude that there is no overwhelming evidence either way about man-made global warming. And that man’s contribution to climate can be snuffed in no time by Mother Nature herself. In fact, the planet has hosted a plethora of species that have come and gone as a result of natural weather deviations. Life goes on and the world adapts as it would with or without any contribution from Homo sapiens. The fallacy widely accepted up until the 1600s was that the Earth is the center of the universe and the latter revolves around the former. This same ignorance leads people today to still believe that the Earth was made for man and he is its master. Anyone who has experienced a tornado or earthquake or hurricane or tsunami might question this. Mark Twain said that if the Earth were the Eiffel Tower, man would be the top coat of paint at the very tip. We need to put things in perspective. It gives a warm feeling to accept Hollywood’s depiction of global warming and its noble efforts to save us all from ourselves – this echoes big brother’s intents exactly. And the Oscars went green! How many of the stars walked or rode the bus or their bicycles instead of taking limos or Hummers? Have a look at their electric bills. It is reminiscent of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh who collected the fortunes of educated and affluent people on the belief that material possessions were evil, yet he had fleets of private jets and Rolls Royce cars. How many actors or politicians or academics would be willing to give up their comforts and live in rustic cabins to save the human race? Who in Hollywood is ever concerned with the facts, other than in their own financial and career advancements?

We will never become enlightened and free to experience life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness until we learn to think for ourselves and reject the sensational generalizations of the ruling class. Thomas Jefferson said, "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." Americans of all sects should learn about the logical thought process and the scientific method. It will help in all aspects of life and lead to a real understanding of the world. And then maybe we can pull together and fix the true problems that we face. It is unlikely that our "leaders" will solve these problems; it is their mindset that created them.

Source