Global warming hysteria: how the pendulum has swung

[kfrost06]

It has become commonplace knowledge, and is unchallenged, that global average temperature has not increased since 1998. This corresponds to a 9-year period during which the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast, did increase, and that by almost 5%.

The greenhouse hypothesis - which asserts that carbon dioxide increases of human origin will cause dangerous global warming - is clearly invalidated by these data.

As if that were not enough, a leading computer modelling team has recently published a paper in Nature which acknowledges what climate rationalists (the so-called “sceptics”) have always asserted. Which is that, contrary to IPCC assessments, any human influence on global temperature is so small that it cannot yet be differentiated from natural cycles of climate change. The same modellers have even predicted (after the start of the event, of course) that cooling will now occur for at least the next few years. Mortal strike two against dangerous, human-caused warming.

At this news, the rare balanced commentaries that hitherto have been but a trickle through cracks in the monolithic dam of climate alarmism have coalesced into a steady, fissured flow, and there is an imminent likelihood of total dam collapse. Interestingly, at the same time, the fierce discussion about the pros and cons of dangerous human-caused change that has formerly been conducted almost exclusively on the internet (including particularly blogs and video outlets like YouTube) is starting to spread to the more mainstream press.

For instance, critical analyses of global warming science reality and policy options have recently been provided by two leading articles in the National Business Review (editorial 1; editorial 2 ) and others on Muriel Newman’s Centre for Political Research website and in the NZ Herald, Christchurch Press, NZ Farmers Weekly and the U.K. Telegraph.

Finally, and most belatedly of all, even radio and TV commentators are now starting to provide a broader and better balanced perspective on the global warming issue.

Nzone Tonight is a nightly news and current affairs programme broadcast by Shine TV, a NZ Christian broadcaster that aims to provide a balanced and truthful review of all the day's news suitable for family viewing. In mid-April, Nzone broadcast a current affairs discussion about global warming between host Alan Lee and Professor Bob Carter. Since being posted on YouTube, this video has attracted 15,000 worldwide viewers, and during its first three weeks has become the most viewed, most discussed and most favorited - and the number two top rated - New Zealand News and Politics video clip of the month. Amongst other supportive comment, one US viewer noted that “I did enjoy the respectful nature of the interview. I do wish this interview was shown on every network in this country, and at every school!”

That these events represent a deep public demand for balanced presentations of the science of climate change is indicated by another Bob Carter video clip - this time of a lecture to the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) that was posted on YouTube just over 6 months ago. To date this video clip has achieved more than 100,000 viewers and lists as the 14th most discussed Australian News and Politics item of all time - a remarkable result, and by far the highest ranking that a fact-based lecture has ever achieved.

Comments made on the AEF video lecture have included:

“That was a superb set of videos. Very well done, and thank you, Bob Carter. Should be compulsory viewing for everyone who sees Gore's movie. Any chance of getting (it) into all British schools?”; and

“Watching Bob Carter's presentation, which he has articulated in a no nonsense manner, I am alarmed at how the so-called environmental movement, supported by sensational journalism, are promoting such an alarmist position on CO2 emissions. It is a frightening prospect that money which could be spent on far more sensible issues may well be wasted on carbon sequestration, which apparently will have little or even no effect on climate change”.

For a science lecture to receive comments such as these, and attain such a large number of viewings, is indicative of a great public hunger for accurate, well balanced information on the science of the global warming issue.

Perhaps, at last, the time has arrived when YouTube and blog discussions will now be supplemented by mainstream newspaper, radio and TV outlets providing the balanced news and documentary programs about global warming that have been so lamentably lacking for the last ten years. Keep your eye on that dam.

[spywizard]

You mean Al Gore was wrong?? the inventor of the INternet??

No way..

old news, more and more people are actually saying it..

[39+1]

global warming is nonsense. when we are all dead are heirs will be talking about global chilling

[kfrost06]

You know whats funny(and sad) is out here in SoCal we had a shark attack last week, it killed a 60+ year old man trianing in the ocean just north of San Diego. A week after he died they blamed the shark attack on global warming. Thay asked, when are we going to do something about global warming? Absolutely pathetic, how in the world is a shark attack related to global warming? Is there anything that can not be blamed for global warming? I swear everything is blamed on global warming, everything except for the unseansonable cold weather we are having???

[Act of God]

kfrost06, you always find great articles but you never post the link...which means I can't share them or use them in discussion on other boards. help a brotha out!

[kfrost06]

kfrost06, you always find great articles but you never post the link...which means I can't share them or use them in discussion on other boards. help a brotha out!

Global warming hysteria: how the pendulum has swung
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0805/S00122.htm


Surge in fatal shark attacks blamed on global warming
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange

Link between shark attacks and global warming dismissed
http://sciencedude.freedomblogging.c...ing-dismissed/

[Tock]

Global warming hysteria: how the pendulum has swung
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0805/S00122.htm

These people are: the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Who are they? According to
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ence_Coalition
they are " a now defunct industry-funded PR front group run by the APCO Worldwide public relations firm. It worked to hang the label of "junk science" on environmentalists. Created in 1993, TASSC began as a front for Philip Morris which was attempting to discredit ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) research as a long-term cause of increased cancer and heart problem rates in the community -- especially among office workers and children living with smoking parents. [1] It advanced industry-friendly positions on a wide range of topics, including global warming, smoking, phthalates, and pesticides. Later still, they extended the role of TASSC to Europe using Dr. George Carlo. [2]"

This doesn't smell good to me . . . I think this is some pretty slick Bollsheet, and I'm not buying it . . . not from these people, anyway . . .



I'd check out the other sources, but I don't have the time . . .

[Act of God]

These people are: the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Who are they? According to
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ence_Coalition
they are " a now defunct industry-funded PR front group run by the APCO Worldwide public relations firm. It worked to hang the label of "junk science" on environmentalists. Created in 1993, TASSC began as a front for Philip Morris which was attempting to discredit ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) research as a long-term cause of increased cancer and heart problem rates in the community -- especially among office workers and children living with smoking parents. [1] It advanced industry-friendly positions on a wide range of topics, including global warming, smoking, phthalates, and pesticides. Later still, they extended the role of TASSC to Europe using Dr. George Carlo. [2]"

This doesn't smell good to me . . . I think this is some pretty slick Bollsheet, and I'm not buying it . . . not from these people, anyway . . .



I'd check out the other sources, but I don't have the time . . .

Unfortunately, the only funding that is going to be available is from "industry". Governments are only granting money to further push AGW so only the private sector, "industry", really is going to have enough interest to fund these things.

Additionally, most environmentalists do practice "junk science". For example, we still have an Ozone layer and my house isn't underwater. The rainforests haven't disappeared (taught they'd be gone by now in middle school) either. Environmentalism = sensational science with an added dose of doomsday preaching.

[Tock]

most environmentalists do practice "junk science" . . . The rainforests haven't disappeared (taught they'd be gone by now in middle school)

That might or might not be, I don't know. I don't hobble with the environmentalist crowd.

As far as what you recall you were told about rainforest deforestation (what exactly were you told?), here's what I found on Wikipedia on the topic (does this seem unreasonable to you?)-- looks like half of the original rainforests are gone, and another huge chunk will be gone in 20 or 30 years. Some countries recognize it as a national problem. What do you think?

-----------------------------------------
Tropical and temperate rain forests have been subjected to heavy logging and agricultural clearance throughout the 20th century, and the area covered by rainforests around the world is rapidly shrinking. Biologists have estimated that large numbers of species are being driven to extinction (possibly more than 50,000 a year) due to the removal of habitat with destruction of the rainforests. Protection and regeneration of the rainforests is a key goal of many environmental charities and organizations. (It is doubtful that this rate will be sustained as the relative cost of logging rises with dwindling resources.[citation needed])
Another factor causing the loss of rainforest is expanding urban areas. Littoral Rainforest growing along coastal areas of eastern Australia is now rare due to ribbon development to accommodate the demand for seachange lifestyles.
About half of the mature tropical rainforests, between 750 to 800 million hectares of the original 1.5 to 1.6 billion hectares that once graced the planet have already fallen. The devastation is already acute in South East Asia, the second of the world's great biodiversity hot spots. Most of what remains is in the Amazon basin, where the Amazon rainforest covered more than 600 million hectares, an area nearly two thirds the size of the United States. The forests are being destroyed at an ever-quickening pace. Unless significant measures are taken on a world-wide basis to preserve them, by 2030 there will only be 10% remaining with another 10% in a degraded condition. 80% will have been lost and with them the natural diversity they contain will become extinct.
Many tropical countries, including Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka, Laos, Nigeria, Liberia, Guinea, Ghana and the Cote d'lvoire have already lost large areas of their rainforest. Eighty percent of the forests of the Philippine archipelago have already been cut down. In 1960 Central America still had four fifths of its original forest; now it is left with only two fifths of it. Half of the Brazilian state of Rondonia's 24.3 million hectares have been destroyed or severely degraded in recent years. Several countries, notably the Philippines, Thailand and India have declared their deforestation a national emergency

[kfrost06]

These people are: the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Who are they? According to
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ence_Coalition
they are " a now defunct industry-funded PR front group run by the APCO Worldwide public relations firm. It worked to hang the label of "junk science" on environmentalists. Created in 1993, TASSC began as a front for Philip Morris which was attempting to discredit ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) research as a long-term cause of increased cancer and heart problem rates in the community -- especially among office workers and children living with smoking parents. [1] It advanced industry-friendly positions on a wide range of topics, including global warming, smoking, phthalates, and pesticides. Later still, they extended the role of TASSC to Europe using Dr. George Carlo. [2]"

This doesn't smell good to me . . . I think this is some pretty slick Bollsheet, and I'm not buying it . . . not from these people, anyway . . .



I'd check out the other sources, but I don't have the time . . .

^^^As with most liberal arguements when you can not attack the science they attack the messenger. So allow me to give you another shot, please "debunk" this...

"It has become commonplace knowledge, and is unchallenged, that global average temperature has not increased since 1998. This corresponds to a 9-year period during which the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast, did increase, and that by almost 5%.

The greenhouse hypothesis - which asserts that carbon dioxide increases of human origin will cause dangerous global warming - is clearly invalidated by these data.

As if that were not enough, a leading computer modelling team has recently published a paper in Nature which acknowledges what climate rationalists (the so-called “sceptics”) have always asserted. Which is that, contrary to IPCC assessments, any human influence on global temperature is so small that it cannot yet be differentiated from natural cycles of climate change. The same modellers have even predicted (after the start of the event, of course) that cooling will now occur for at least the next few years. Mortal strike two against dangerous, human-caused warming."

You do realise the periodical Nature is the leading scientific Bible.

Again, Tock, try just try to go after the facts. Of course when you can not you can go back to what all liberals do, name calling.

[Kärnfysikern]

You do realise the periodical Nature is the leading scientific Bible.
.

I just looked at the nature article. Or atleast I hope its the one the article mentions because its the only one about climate that I could find in the may edition of nature.

The scientists has made a simplified model where they try to determine how what effect the temperature of the oceans have.

The climate of the North Atlantic region exhibits fluctuations on decadal timescales that have large societal consequences. Prominent examples include hurricane activity in the Atlantic1, and surface-temperature and rainfall variations over North America2, Europe3 and northern Africa4. Although these multidecadal variations are potentially predictable if the current state of the ocean is known5–7, the lack of subsurface ocean observations8 that constrain this state has been a limiting factor for realizing
the full skill potential of such predictions9. Here we apply a simple approach—that uses only sea surface temperature (SST) observations—to partly overcome this difficulty and perform retrospective decadal predictions with a climate model. Skill is improved significantly relative to predictions made with incomplete knowledge of the ocean state10, particularly in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific oceans. Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions.

Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.

[Tock]

^^^As with most liberal arguements when you can not attack the science they attack the messenger.

When the "messenger" is routinely involved in distorting evidence and twisting facts, he becomes untrustworthy. These people are nothing but corporate PR prostitutes, paid to spread lies and disinformation. And they do so rather well, and do so without a moment of regret, even though their actions probably result in people taking up smoking and dying from lung cancer or emphezema.
Their only motivation is money.

F'in corporate lying prostitutes.

So, when they're called upon to write news releases about global warming, they don't deserve any credibility.



Look at what else they've been up to --

One of the forerunners of TASSC at Philip Morris was a 1988 "Proposal for the Whitecoat Project," named after the white laboratory coats that scientists sometimes wear. The project had four goals: "Resist and roll back smoking restrictions. Restore smoker confidence. Reverse scientific and popular misconception that ETS is harmful. Restore social acceptability of smoking."

To achieve these goals, the plan was to first "generate a body of scientific and technical knowledge" through research "undertaken by whitecoats, contract laboratories and commercial organizations"; then "disseminate and exploit such knowledge through specific communication programs." Covington & Burling, PM's law firm, would function as the executive arm of the Whitecoat Project, acting as a "legal buffer ... the interface with the operating units (whitecoats, laboratories, etc.)."

The effort to create a scientific defense for secondhand smoke was only one component in the tobacco industry's multi-million-dollar PR campaign. To defeat cigarette excise taxes, a Philip Morris strategy document outlined plans for "Co-op efforts with third party tax organizations"--libertarian anti-taxation think tanks, such as Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Citizens for Tax Justice and the Tax Foundation. Other third party allies included the National Journalism Center, the Heartland Institute, the Claremont Institute, and National Empowerment Television, a conservative TV network.

In one memo to Philip Morris CEO Michael A. Miles, vice president Craig L. Fuller noted that he was "working with many third party allies to develop position papers, op-eds and letters to the editor detailing how tobacco is already one of the most heavily regulated products in the marketplace, and derailing arguments against proposed bans on tobacco advertising." [8]

In April 1996, Milloy proclaimed himself a public health expert and began turning out a stream of anti-environmental, anti-public health commentary through his "Junk Science" homepage (www.junkscience.com). The site claims to debunk bad science used by lawsuit-happy trial lawyers, the 'food police,' environmental Chicken Littles, powerdrunk regulators, and unethical-to-dishonest scientists to fuel specious lawsuits, wacky social and political agendas, and the quest for personal fame and fortune. Although Milloy's Junk Science Home Page does not disclose its specific funding source, the website, Citizens for the Integrity of Science [in 1999], and the debunked TASSC share the same address at 1155 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300 in Washington, DC. [9]

The phone number for junkscience.com is registered to The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (a well exposed corporate front group and a former project of the EOP Group) at 1155 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 300 in Washington, DC. This is the same phone number and address Milloy has used for the Citizens for the Integrity of Science, Junkscience.com, NoMoresScares.com, and of course, the defunct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. The fax number used on numerous press releases over the years is "an interoffice fax" at 1155 Connecticut Ave NW,. according to a simple internet search.

[Tock]

a leading computer modelling team has recently published a paper in Nature which acknowledges what climate rationalists (the so-called “sceptics”) have always asserted. . . . You do realise the periodical Nature is the leading scientific Bible.

There is a big difference between the periodical Nature and an anonymous "leading computer modelling team." Just because a popular magazine publishes someone's contrarian view, doesn't mean it is valid.
I thought you knew that . . .

[kfrost06]

A British newspaper has linked the recent fatal shark attacks off San Diego County and Mexico to global warming — an inference that’s unfounded, according to a prominent California researcher.

In a widely-distributed story, the London Observer on Sunday quoted University of Florida shark expert George Burgess as saying “…as long as we have an increase in human hours in the water (through population growth), we will have an increase in shark bites.”

The Observer then said, “Another contributory factor to the location of shark attacks could be global warming and rising sea temperatures. ‘You’ll find that some species will begin to appear in places they didn’t in the past with some regularity,’ (Burgess) said. ‘”

The remarks appeared in a story headlined, “Surge in fatal shark attacks blamed on global warming.”

“Off San Diego, warmer waters would not increase the number of adult white sharks as they are really more temperate (water animals),” says Greg Cailliet, director of the Pacific Shark Research Center in Moss Landing.

“Even when they swim to Hawaii and the central Pacific over winter and spring, they tend to be in deep, cooler water. This is thought to be due to their internal circulatory mechanism for heat retention. They would probably have a much higher metabolism, and hence ‘burn up’ more easily, if they stayed near the warm surface very long …

“…If (the) water warmed, more tropical sharks, including the tiger shark, might come farther north. This sometimes happens, at least temporarily, with El Nino conditions. And, if it increased the number of humans swimming, surfing, etc. in the ocean, the likelihood of encounter would possibly increase. I do not know what warming might do to potential shark, especially white shark, prey.”

There’s a great deal of mystery about sharks. California Fish and Game, for example, says it doesn’t even have a reasonable estimate of the number of great whites in state waters — though the figure is thought to be low.

And shark attacks haven’t uniformly increased with the growth of California’s population, as this chart illustrates.

White shark attacks on humans in California

Decade Attacks Fatalities
1920s 1 0
1950s 13 4
1960s 11 0
1970s 20 0
1980s 18 3
1990s 26 1
2000s 7 3
Total 95 11

[SVTmuscle]

It's truley amazing how brainwashed such a large % of the population is after seeing Al Gore shit-film. Great post!

[Kratos]

stupid chubby al gore

[Kärnfysikern]

Its nice that media is finaly starting to become a bit more sensible when it comes to AGW.

[Kärnfysikern]

I suspect this has something to do with the lack of warming, no sun spots at all and there hasnt been any for quite some time.

[kfrost06]

First, I am impressed you get Nature. To rich for my blood, I used to just use the one in the science library at my school but now I don't even do that. I get Scientific American and a chess periodical and thats it. Nature is the best though and covers most science as you know. As for the Sun spot post, there has been considerable talk about the sun spots or lack there of and it is known that the Sun has cycles(though not fully understood) and when it goes through a decrease in sun spot activity there is a global cooling. The bottom line is there are sooooooooo many factors that to make a prediction on the weather in the long term future is asinine and the hysteria created by pseudo-scientist and magnified by politicians and the press is extremely detrimental to all of society not to mention grossly irresponsible. AGW causing increases in shark attacks? will lead to cannibalism? earthquakes? volcanoes? etc. etc. etc.

The main point of the article is in the last 9 years a 5% increase in atmospheric CO2 has not lead to an increase in global temperatures in fact a slight cooling has occurred and nobody's climate model predicted that!!! The same models we are to base life altering global policies on???

[Kärnfysikern]

Im still a student so I have acess to almost all the peer review journals online If you run into any article you would like to read just hit me with a PM and Il email it to you!

I think its time that climate scientist brings down the attitude a bit. They have been acting dishonest and been covering the weaknesses in the models. Its starting to piss me off because this will have a HUGE negative effect on science as a whole. If it turns out co2 is insignificant then nobody will ever belive what a scientists say again, just because the IPCC was to cocksure. Not to mention it will make a mockery out of the entire struggle to clean up the environment. If I hear "consensus" one more time Im going to chokse someone, because that is the word that has turned science into politics.

Some russian solar physicists are predicing exactly what you said btw.
http://en.rian.ru/science/20080122/97519953.html

By 2041, solar activity will reach its minimum according to a 200-year cycle, and a deep cooling period will hit the Earth approximately in 2055-2060. It will last for about 45-65 years, the scientist added.

"By the mid-21st century the planet will face another Little Ice Age, similar to the Maunder Minimum, because the amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth has been constantly decreasing since the 1990s and will reach its minimum approximately in 2041," he said.

[Kratos]

The problem I have with discrediting global warming is that it's a denyal of the inherent problem with oil. Yeah, global warming is overdone. If you don't go for the enviroment consequenses thing, focus on the economic impact, and the forgin policy decisions that are made in the name of oil.