posted February 12, 2010 09:52 AM            

Another Blizzard: What Happened to Global Warming?
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1962294,00.html

Climate-Change Debate Is Heating Up in Deep Freeze
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/science/earth/11climate.html

EPW HEARINGS POSTPONED DUE TO WEATHER http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b3e826ad-802a-23ad-45b8-8fa00c661d62

OU Student Collecting Pictures of Snow in All 50 States
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=11973034

Hahaha , the federal government shut down for days in Washington with record snowfall, drifts up to 4 feet and snowplows unable to keep up with the snowfall; a government committee meeting on "global warming" canceled because of record snows in DC and.........it's still "global warming.

posted February 12, 2010 12:33 PM            

and have you never heard that the earth's response to warming seas is more precipitation - in fact that is where your ICE age comes from?

i'm with you on half the page here jwhop but snowy winters are actually considered to be a result of warming. or reaction to. it is the earth's way of reestablishing equilibrium...

posted February 12, 2010 01:46 PM            

To conduct its analysis, GISS uses publicly available data from three sources: weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world; satellite observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=249

posted February 12, 2010 02:37 PM            

the 14th c was a good deal warmer than we are now according to the scientists who have studied the remains of flourishing agricultural communities in greenland, winegrowing relics in england, etc...BUT IT IS NOT ON RECORD.

the earth's natural response, as going on now, is more precipitation which in turn takes the edge of the heating trend...and if it does NOT, then a PRECIPITOUS ice age can be triggered as in the 14th century when the ice moved so fast people couldn't even get all their stuff away with them...

and once again i am very skeptical of our ability to correct the workings of the universe or even earth without making something else worse in the process...

posted February 13, 2010 11:12 AM            

You reference an opinion from a source run by the thoroughly discredited Jim Hanson who routinely falsified data, made claims of calamity based on falsified data and then justified the falsification and false claims of calamity....because...false statements are necessary to scare the public into accepting the proposition that man is causing runaway temperature increases due to releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

Earth's climate has been in a "cooling trend" since 1998 and no amount of blithering, blathering, bloviating and bullshiit by Jim Hanson and other crackpot so called scientists is going to change the temperature record.

Hanson has even been caught attempting to substitute temperature data from the month of September to October in order to call October the hottest October on record. Easy to do when you simply carry over the temperature data from September and ignore the cooler temperatures from October....except that Jim Hanson has such a tarnished reputation for falsifying data that lots of people are watching him like a hawk...and he got caught and had to announce to the world...a revision of the temperature data...to his great embarrassment.

Further, you should take a look at the graph contained within the report you referenced. In that graph you will see 2000 as the last year denoted by the graph. You also would see annual mean temperatures falling since about 1998 as shown by the black line and a green marker which represents the "range of recorded temperature uncertainty". The bottom of that green marker shows temperatures well below the 5 year mean temperature represented by the red line.

Conclusions presented in that report that the decade beginning in 2000 is the hottest on record are fatally flawed, equally as flawed as the falsified data crackpot so called scientists used to create hysteria among the political and chattering classes....oh and also among the Kool-Aid drinkers of the left.

Saturday, January 12, 2008
NASA: 1934 Hottest Year on Record

NASA scientists this month corrected an error that resulted in 1934 replacing 1998 as the warmest year on record in the U.S.

posted February 13, 2010 11:21 AM            

Almost daily, we learn about new problems with the formerly respected UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): In their 2001 report, they claimed that the 20th century was "unusual" and blamed it on human-released greenhouse gases. Their infamous temperature graph shown there, shaped like a hockey stick, did away with the well-established Medieval Warm Period (around 1000AD, when Vikings were able to settle in Southern Greenland and grow crops there) and the following Little Ice Age (around 1400 to 1800AD). Two Canadians exposed the bad data used by the IPCC and the statistical errors in their analysis.

The most recent IPCC report of 2007 predicted the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers within 25 years; the imminent death of nearly half the Amazon rain forest; and major damage from stronger hurricanes -- all in contradiction to expert opinions offered by its appointed reviewers, but ignored by IPCC editors for mostly ideological reasons. More scandalous even, the IPCC based their lurid predictions on anecdotal, non-peer-reviewed sources -- not at all in accord with its solemnly announced principles and scientific standards.

These events showed not only a general sloppiness of IPCC procedures but also an extreme bias -- quite inappropriate to a supposedly impartial scientific survey. By themselves, they do not invalidate the basic IPCC conclusion -- that a warming in the latter half of the 20th century was human-caused, presumably by the rise of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Yet all of these missteps pale in comparison to ClimateGate, which calls into question the very temperature data used by the IPCC's main policy result.

As the leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia (UK) reveal, this IPCC conclusion -- that Global Warming is anthropogenic -- is based on manipulated data and therefore flawed -- as are demands for the control of CO2 emissions, like the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accord. In my opinion, ClimateGate is a much more serious issue than simply sloppiness and ideological distortion; ClimateGate suggests conspiracy to commit fraud.

Let us recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.

Woe to these dissenting scientists, however. The younger ones were denied an opportunity to advance or receive academic tenure -- or were simply fired. The independent ones were maligned as "deniers" and ostracized. In many instances, commercially operated 'smear blogs' invented slurs; the most common ones being "tool of the oil industry" or "paid by the tobacco lobby." In my own case, my Wiki bio also carried additional malicious accusations; the most bizarre one was that I believed in the existence of Martians.

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

In this enterprise, the group was aided not only by environmental zealots, anti-technology Luddites, utopian one-worlders, and population-control fanatics, but also by bureaucrats, businesses, brokers and bankers, who had learned how to game the system and profit from government grants and subsidies for exotic schemes to produce "carbon-free" energy and from the trading of carbon permits. Hundreds of billions have already been wasted -- most of this in transfers of tax revenues to a favored few.

These sums pale, however, in comparison to the trillions that would have been spent in future if some of the mitigation schemes had come to fruition -- such as an extension and major expansion of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to control greenhouse-gas emissions. Fortunately for the world economy and for taxpayers in industrialized nations, these schemes collapsed at the Copenhagen climate conference in Dec 2009. Clearly, developing nations did not want to take on the sacrifices and restrictions on growth. There was little concern expressed about climate; Copenhagen was mostly about transfer of money from rich to poor countries - or more precisely, from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor ones.

Of course, this breakdown in negotiating global controls does not stop unilateral actions. Major developing nations, like India and China, have already refused to act. Australia's parliament has so far turned down attempts to impose limits on the emission of greenhouse gases, which many still believe to cause significant global warming -- in spite of contrary evidence. The European Union is likely to persist in its misguided efforts to continue and expand the Kyoto restrictions. In the US, the House has (barely) passed the calamitous Waxman-Markey "Cap & Trade" bill; the US Senate likely will not pass a similar bill in 2010, an election year.

There is still the US-EPA's drive to extend the Clean Air Act to include carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as "pollutants." But with the evidence of ClimateGate in hand, EPA's attempt to provide the necessary scientific justification for its "Endangerment Finding" will surely fail. Whoever leaked the incriminating e-mails deserves a medal for saving the US economy from certain ruin.

The writer, an atmospheric physicist, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service, is the organizer of NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) and coauthor of its reports "Nature, not human activity, rules the climate" [2008] and "Climate Change Reconsidered" [2009].

posted February 13, 2010 02:59 PM            

quote:

---

You reference an opinion from a source run by the thoroughly discredited Jim Hanson who routinely falsified data, made claims of calamity based on falsified data and then justified the falsification and false claims of calamity....because...false statements are necessary to scare the public into accepting the proposition that man is causing runaway temperature increases due to releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

---

So you're making the assertion that NASA holds on to it's scientists that have actually been thoroughly discredited? Yeah, I don't think so. He may err sometimes, but the errors don't add up to a discrediting of global warming. The scientific consensus remains the same.

Pew, while maintaining a formidable credibility in it's scientific endeavors, continues to discredit your opinions on things.

Highlighting the broad mix of approaches required to tackle the climate challenge, the Pew Center has produced nearly 100 peer-reviewed reports and a broad collection of white papers and briefs by noted climate experts covering a range of critical topics including economics, environmental impacts, policy, science, business, technology and solutions. The Pew Center regularly testifies before Congress and meets with other key stakeholders to share innovative ideas for addressing climate change. The Pew Center also is actively engaged with governments and business in exploring options for a post-2012 international climate agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Center_on_Global_Climate_Change

posted February 13, 2010 03:24 PM            

Well, we now know all about those scientific peer review institutions and all about how they cut out any who disagree with their faulty conclusions. We know all about them from the exposure of their fraud by emails circulated among British and American crackpot so called scientists and the means and methods they employed to perpetrate, perpetuate and hide their frauds in regard to global warming.

posted February 13, 2010 10:37 PM            

What we "know" about peer-reviewed scientific papers is that if peers DISAGREE, then the idea can be further vetted. Putting up papers for peer review in the scientific community would certainly NOT be a means of weeding out and marginalizing those that disagree. A concensus still remains on this particular idea.

Pew has everything, you mean. They've got the science, the data, and the ears of people looking for credible information. The people who have nothing are those that rely on blogs for information, and try to call climate change fraud.

posted February 14, 2010 12:01 AM            

Yes, getting control of peer review institutions to stuff any unfavorable reviews of faulty data and faulty process...
is perfectly acceptable...to Kool-Aid drinking leftists.

The proof man made global warming due to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations is a hoax is found in declining global temperatures while at the very same time atmospheric CO2 concentrations are INCREASING.

Further proof of the hoax is found in ice core samples going back 650,000 years which show cycle after cycle where temperatures rise first and CO2 concentrations rise later...averaging 800 years later.

The last warm cycle...known as the Medieval Warm Period lasted from about year 1000 to year 1300 where temperatures were about 2 degrees warmer than the warmest years of the 20th Century.

If you can do the math....you will find year 2000-800 years = year 1200..right in the middle of the Medieval warm Period.

posted February 14, 2010 12:21 AM            

U.N. climate panel admits Dutch sea level flaw
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61C1V420100213

posted February 14, 2010 04:01 AM            

quote:

---

The United Nations has said errors in the 2007 report of about 3,000 pages do not affect the core conclusions that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are warming the globe. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61C1V420100213

---

You're trying to claim that because errors are made that the science is wrong. The science is right. It's merely stated or related incorrectly. The global warming remains despite how anyone talks about it. Just because someone conveys information wrong, or gives the wrong impression doesn't mean the facts that they're trying to convey are wrong.

(It's interesting to know that the Bush Administration was in office during the review period for the 2007 report, and had not one, but two chances at using any experts it could find to dispute what was included within it. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm)

You can view how the IPCC solicits for its experts: http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.htm
http://tiny.cc/C3hZK

quote:

---

The Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors are responsible for drafting the chapters and revising them taking into account comments submitted by reviewers during the two IPCC-mandated reviews, namely the expert review and the second review by governments and experts.

---

That would be IPCC scientists in addition to ALL the member nation's scientists. That's a lot of concensus.

quote:

---

The role of the IPCC is to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information, based on peer reviewed and internationally available literature. Therefore, the IPCC requires that the
nominee(s) have appropriate expertise.

---

This must be one hell of a conspiracy for all of these peer-reviewed scientific papers from around the world to be informing the IPCC incorrectly.

Occam's Razor: the simplist answer is usually the correct one.

quote:

---

To facilitate the selection of suitable candidates and to respond to the guidance provided by the Panel on the selection of authors, in particular the need for openness and transparency, and to aim for geographical balance, involvement of new authors and expanding the range of disciplines, a standardised nomination form has been prepared.

---

Not exactly the terminology I'd expect from a group attempting a political scam that holds only one opinion on global warming as correct.

It's simply science versus conspiracy theory.

If real experts that disagree with the science that proves global warming/climate change sought the most effective means of conveying their message they'd seek employment with the IPCC. Why wouldn't they want to put their voices in the most effective arena? Any real scientist would. The only rational reason to stay out is the knowledge that your hypothesis is wrong. If any of us were a scientist who believed we could prove something unequivocally we'd seek the best venue to pass the information. We'd seek the detractors who'd debate us. Why not? If we're right, why would we be afraid of peer review? It's the same with the IPCC. If there are no global warming skeptics in the IPCC it's only because the global warming skeptics aren't really confident in their position/competency.

What makes sense is that no matter what argument exists against global warming, the bulk of evidence available makes the argument against global warming moot. Frankly, I don't believe there will come a time when global warming skeptics have more of a scientific basis for their beliefs than the concensus of experts that collect and process data regarding the climate [that believe in global warming].

So again...what's the issue with the weather during these olympics?

posted February 14, 2010 06:45 AM            

Exactly what did you expect these clowns to say? Did you actually expect these crackpots and power grabbers to admit the plans they've been pushing for at least 15 years are a total hoax. Move along, nothing to see here!!

31,000 real scientists most of whom work in the various fields of climate science and more than 9,000 of whom are Ph.D.s refute the block head Algore and the crackpot scientists of the IPCC.

31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming
Monday, 19 May 2008 04:24 PM
http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/al-gore-global-warming/2008/05/19/id/323712

posted February 14, 2010 06:57 PM            

Like I said, if any scientist were truly interested in disputing the global warming that's happening they'd seek employment with the IPCC, and duke it out scientifically. If they're not, the most likely reason is THEY CAN'T.

The OISM study hasn't been verified by anyone, though critiques of it have emerged. No signatories give their professional affiliation. There are repeats. There are dead people. There are people who signed after just a cursory look at the bologne the OISM gave them (which was designed to appear as if it was from the National Academy of Science, though the NAS denies that the OISM materials were ever a part of an NAS scientific paper). It's ridiculous.

Here's Scientific American's 2006 take on the petition:
http://tinyurl.com/57j32t

quote:

---

Arthur Robinson, a physical chemist from Cave Junction, Ore., who circulated the petition by mail among scientists, said questionable names were added to the petition by pranksters.

The petition urges rejection of the accord signed last year in Kyoto, Japan, which sets procedures for dramatically lowering carbon dioxide emissions - the principal greenhouse gas. The petition maintains the growth of carbon-dioxide emissions, in fact, may be beneficial to plants and humans.

While the petition has been portrayed by global-warming skeptics as authoritative evidence that many scientists reject the catastrophic scenario of global climate change, Robinson acknowledged that little attempt was done to verify credentials of those who responded. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308

---

Earth to Fantasyland indeed.

The statement from the National Academy of Sciences regarding the bogus petition:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998

posted February 14, 2010 09:04 PM            

Something else you know nothing about.

posted February 14, 2010 11:09 PM            

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010

posted February 15, 2010 04:38 AM            

quote:

---

From the tone of your response, you seem to be denying that 31,000+ real scientists 9000+ who are Ph.D.s signed a petition basically saying man made global warming is a crock of crap. So acoustic are you denying it?

---

Considering that the group is completely unvetted, and includes "scientists" like veternarians...of course I'm denying the viability of the petition. Who wouldn't?

It's really quite absurd to believe that petition or its signatories means anything. I couldn't dream of a more flimsy way of attempting to discredit global warming. Now if you had 31,000 scientists from around the world who'd authored papers that were peer-reviewed and found valid, well, then you'd have something.

quote:

---

Hahaha, scientists don't work FOR the IPCC. They work for various organizations and universities around the world.

---

posted February 15, 2010 10:09 AM            

Moonbat Lunacy, like the heartbreak of psoriasis is so debilitating. In most cases sufferers of Moonbat Lunacy remain unaware they are suffering from a mental illness. Perhaps one day medical science will discover a cure.

"Considering that the group is completely unvetted, and includes "scientists" like veternarians...of course I'm denying the viability of the petition. Who wouldn't?

It's really quite absurd to believe that petition or its signatories means anything. I couldn't dream of a more flimsy way of attempting to discredit global warming. Now if you had 31,000 scientists from around the world who'd authored papers that were peer-reviewed and found valid, well, then you'd have something."

katatonic, do you actually believe the "Daily Mail" would dare publish a lying article using "phony" direct quotes from a prominent individual and risk being denounced by that individual the next day in every other newspaper in Britain and the United States...most of which are in the bag for the crackpot science of man made global warming? AND katatonic, did you not notice that it was not the Daily Mail which conducted the interview with Phil Jones but rather the BBC itself?

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website....

posted February 15, 2010 10:17 AM            

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

posted February 17, 2010 05:05 PM              

when i walk outside
my hot hot sun
melts the coldest of places
iceburgs turn to puddles of water
that evaporate and humidify the spaces

sparks with the electricity my being creates
undeniable searing heat of the sun
must impact the environment surely
clearly we undersestimate the power of one

add to this the fact that my dog expels gas that actually makes paint run down the walls in fear and fumage, then you know my dog created global warming and should have come with warning labels, febreez and tunage (?)...

i conclude that my hotness could have been a factor, although it was stronger in the 90's..... and my dogs ass does more damage to the environment than 10 diesel trucks and could probobly by herslf heat a small home with her natural gas.

i am sun.

posted February 17, 2010 07:42 PM              

who is going to be around to say...yeah they were right.. or boy were they wrong..

posted February 18, 2010 12:29 PM            

__________________________