EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming

[tigerbob]

The physics of Greenhouse gases have been known for over 100 years. The fact that Carlin dismisses those facts out of hand tells me that he is grinding the axe for somebody not at all interested in truth. How many scientific societies has he convinced of his nonsense?

That's so typical. Someone expresses an opinion that is inconvenient and you dismiss it as someone with an ax to grind. Yet the tens of thousands of scientists who make a very good living from climate science are somehow to be believed because they, of course, have no ax to grind and are only "interested in truth".

That dawg don't hunt. One rule for all.

Yes, one rule for all. The vast majority of climate scientists state that global warming is a fact, that it is causing a climatic change that will bode ill for most of us, and that we are the cause of it. No scientist, no matter how many degrees he has after his name can change the rules of physics. And the physics of CO2 have been well known for over a century. Here is where anyone can read what the physicists have found concerning CO2 and other greenhouse gases;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Thanks for the link, but I'm not arguing that there is no issue to be addressed here. What I am saying if that I find it annoying that anyone who questions any aspect of the climate change juggernaut is somehow assumed to have a hidden agenda.

 

[tigerbob]

Damn, Kitten, are you truly that stupid? Einstein was a well paid patent clerk for Switzerland at the time he published his Theory of Special Relitivity. After that, he was known worldwide. He was never a starving, ignored scientist.

Almost always, when a scientist buck the whole establishment, he is wrong. There are some notable exceptions, but their hypothesis did not fly in the face of known science, just interpreted the evidence in ways that had not been done before. Notably, in my field of interest, you have J. Harlan Bretz. But his opposition was based on their lack of observation, his hypothesis based on direct observations. This fellow that states that CO2 has little effect on atmospheric temperatures is flying in the face of known physics and direct observations.

He wasn't a paid scientist until after his great discovery though ...

He also was never a "peer pressured" scientist like all of yours ...

Also, he never endorsed certain products from very specific companies ...

Lastly, he came from a poor family not a privileged one ...

You do know that many of the global warming skeptics are funded by oil companies, yes?

Of course. And the global warming supporters have nothing to sustain them other than their zeal for the truth.

 

[Navy1960]

A second paper Cherry co-wrote, published recently in the Journal of Ecology, reveals similar results of an experiment testing how increased levels of carbon dioxide, which plants absorb, affect certain marsh plants faced with stressors associated with sea-level rise, including increased salt levels and flooding.

“CO2 can offset flooding and salt stress for some plants and, by stimulating plant growth and soil building, can help some marshes counterbalance sea-level rise,” Cherry says.

The results suggest that increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere may help some coastal marshes keep up with sea-level rise by stimulating belowground plant production, causing soil surfaces to rise. The rise in soil surfaces helps to mitigate the effects of a rising sea level in the short term, but continued increases in carbon dioxide will accelerate sea-level rise and overwhelm the potential positive effects of CO2 observed in these studies.

University of Alabama News » UA Researcher Explores Effect of Rising Sea Level, Carbon Dioxide Levels on Nation’s Coastal Wetlands

(CNSNews.com) - According to a new study on global warming, climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia found that the climate change models based on human influence do not match observed warming.

That is contrary to the views held by former Vice President Al Gore, who accepted the Nobel Prize on Monday along with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and who thinks that climate change is largely caused by human action.

Gore wants nations to tax carbon dioxide emissions and not build any new coal plants, among other steps. "It is time to make peace with the planet," Gore said in his Nobel speech, as reported by the Associated Press. "We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war."

The new report, which challenges the claims of Gore and the IPCC, was published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=23798

NEW YORK – Global warming is a natural process, not likely the result of human activities, argued more than 100 internationally prominent environmental scientists in papers presented at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, which concluded here today.

The conference, organized by the Heartland Institute, sought to refute the contention promoted by Al Gore and the U.N. that there is an "established scientific consensus" that human beings are causing the earth to warm catastrophically. The event attracted more than 500 people, including scientists, economists, policy experts and members of the public from around the world.

Scientists gather to challenge Gore, U.N.

These people are not crackpots to be dismissed out of hand, these people are noted scientists that have been in this field for many many years with literally thousands of peer reviewed articles. So to to just claim the debate is over is a fantasy in Al Gore's mind and those that do not believe in science.

 

[oreo]

Today--we have new scientific data regarding our evolution. It wasn't too long ago that we has humans were told by scientists--"that Lucy was it"--by Golly--we were told that for decades--well as it turns out--if you're into the science channel-- we have found other archeology that describes a much smaller version of man-that walked. And now up until a few weeks ago--they "believe" that they have finally found the missing link of man--which looks like a small lizard type dinasour.

SCIENCE changes all of the time--kind of like our climate. To put all your faith into what science tells you today is 100% CERTAIN is walking down a very faulty path that is capable of caving in on you at any time.

The point is ALL the evidence--including opposition to theories--should be put on the table for review instead of being purposely suppressed & ignored.

 

[Navy1960]

No one should approach the temple of science with the soul of a money changer. ~Thomas Browne
SEE AL GORE on the above...

A fact is a simple statement that everyone believes. It is innocent, unless found guilty. A hypothesis is a novel suggestion that no one wants to believe. It is guilty, until found effective. ~Edward Teller

Facts are not science - as the dictionary is not literature. ~Martin H. Fischer

I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.
Joe Biden

There are many who still do not believe that global warming is a problem at all. And it's no wonder: because they are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of disinformation lavishly funded by polluters who are determined to prevent any action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming out of a fear that their profits might be affected if they had to stop dumping so much pollution into the atmosphere.
Al Gore - Environmental - Profits - Problems - Fear - Determination


The point here is that when you pass a bill that is SOOO far reaching as this in one day when no one reads it and take it on "faith" rather than reading it and looking into the facts and hearing from all sides of the issue , you do a diservice to those you represent and the nation as a whole.

 

[Old Rocks]

But but but ... historically starving and ignored scientists have never been right ...

... you know Einstein was just batty, he didn't make enough money to be a REAL scientist.

Damn, Kitten, are you truly that stupid? Einstein was a well paid patent clerk for Switzerland at the time he published his Theory of Special Relitivity. After that, he was known worldwide. He was never a starving, ignored scientist.

Almost always, when a scientist buck the whole establishment, he is wrong. There are some notable exceptions, but their hypothesis did not fly in the face of known science, just interpreted the evidence in ways that had not been done before. Notably, in my field of interest, you have J. Harlan Bretz. But his opposition was based on their lack of observation, his hypothesis based on direct observations. This fellow that states that CO2 has little effect on atmospheric temperatures is flying in the face of known physics and direct observations.

He wasn't a paid scientist until after his great discovery though ...

He also was never a "peer pressured" scientist like all of yours ...

Also, he never endorsed certain products from very specific companies ...

Lastly, he came from a poor family not a privileged one ...

Kitten, you are being a silly ass. So all scientists come from privileged families? And all are endorsing products? And all are "peer pressured"? I know many scientists, and none fit your stereotype.

 

[Old Rocks]

That's so typical. Someone expresses an opinion that is inconvenient and you dismiss it as someone with an ax to grind. Yet the tens of thousands of scientists who make a very good living from climate science are somehow to be believed because they, of course, have no ax to grind and are only "interested in truth".

That dawg don't hunt. One rule for all.

Yes, one rule for all. The vast majority of climate scientists state that global warming is a fact, that it is causing a climatic change that will bode ill for most of us, and that we are the cause of it. No scientist, no matter how many degrees he has after his name can change the rules of physics. And the physics of CO2 have been well known for over a century. Here is where anyone can read what the physicists have found concerning CO2 and other greenhouse gases;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Thanks for the link, but I'm not arguing that there is no issue to be addressed here. What I am saying if that I find it annoying that anyone who questions any aspect of the climate change juggernaut is somehow assumed to have a hidden agenda.

If you check out the bona fides of all too many of the climate skeptics, you will find money trails back to Exxon, and big energy. And you will also find that many of them have testified before Congress at to the harmlessness of tobacco.

Lindzen at least had an interesting hypothesis with his "Iris Hypothesis". But it was completely falsified. When someone like Carlin ignores known physics, then I strongly suspect the influence of Mammon. He has the educational background to know that what he has said is completely false.

 

[elvis]

Al Gore wouldn't know anything about mammon.

 

[Old Rocks]

YouTube - Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (1/5)

I am constantly amazed by the sheer number of people who take on faith the climate predictions of Dr. Mann of Va. and the IPCC when there are just as many scientists, many in the IPCC, that completely have dubunked Dr. Mann's voodoo predictions. His "hockey stick" temp. curve has somehow become the alter in which some people worship. It reminds me of the middle ages when people refused to believe that earth was not the center of the Universe and no amount of science could convince them otherwise, their agenda's and blind faith kept them from opening their eye's to fact. Facts are that Dr. Mann's science cannot be proven and in a LOT and I do mean a LOT of cases it has been disproven. In fact and I know that many of you are aware of this, even some within the EPA call into question the whole conceptual basis for his assertions that Global Warming is a man made issue.

Want to see how this data gets mixed up Ill show you,, NASA models from 1880 show the sruface temp. rise from 1880 till now to be approx. 0.6 degree's . As you all know NASA is a gov. agency. Now published EPA reports state that the based on data the earth is warming at a rate of 3.2 degree's per century.

Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F.
The Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.32ºF/decade or 3.2°F/century.
The eight warmest years on record (since 1850) have all occurred since 1998, with the warmest year being 2005.
Recent Climate Change - Temperature Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

We find evidence of local human effects ("urban warming") even in suburban and small-town surface air temperature records, but the effect is modest in magnitude and conceivably could be an artifact of inhomogeneities in the station records.

Over the past century, global measurements of the temperature at the Earth's surface have indicated a warming trend of between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees C. But many - especially the early - computer-based global climate models (GCM's) predict that the rate should be even higher if it is due to the man-made "Greenhouse Effect". Furthermore, these computer models also predict that the Earth's lower atmosphere should behave in lock-step with the surface, but with temperature increases that are even more pronounced...

Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity


The fact's are the warming trends on this planet happen and have happened throughout it's entire history. In fact many noted scientists from MIT, to Harvard have data showing the earth has had periods in which there has been much more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have now. So what you all that are supporting this psedueo-science advocated by Al Gore and others are advocating, is a basic destruction of our society all in the name of a "greener planet". Well I have new's for you had the real goal of the environmental lobby been to get rid of Carbon producing plants like coal then they would have done so long ago with nuclear, However, I keep forgetting nuclear is bad because of the waste. However, what you don't seem to realize so is clean coal, each of the technologies that are put up as bad have environmental issues , so no this is NOT about a "greener planet" or " green jobs" it is about Money, Control, and political power.

Look, none of this is recent. Svante Arnnhenius predicted the present rise in temperatures in 1896 from his studies of CO2 in the atmosphere. In one of my early geology classes in the mid-60's a graduate student was invited to address the class on the subject of global warming and CO2. The professor prefaced his talk with a caveat that the students views were considered radical, but that he had good evidence. During the lecture, the student presented what was known at that time concerning global warming. Then he made some predictions for 2100. Afterwards, the professor stated that it was unfortunate that no one in the class would be alive in 2100 to check the predictions. Every one of the predictions has already come true.

Yes, there have been natural periods of rapid global warming. Caused by the rapid introduction of greenhouse gases, notably CH4 and CO2 into the atmosphere. Two of those periods are the P-T Extinction, and the PETM. Just what makes you think that because the cause of the present rapid rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is man caused that that will prevent the laws of physics from taking their course?

 

[code1211]

Yes, one rule for all. The vast majority of climate scientists state that global warming is a fact, that it is causing a climatic change that will bode ill for most of us, and that we are the cause of it. No scientist, no matter how many degrees he has after his name can change the rules of physics. And the physics of CO2 have been well known for over a century. Here is where anyone can read what the physicists have found concerning CO2 and other greenhouse gases;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Thanks for the link, but I'm not arguing that there is no issue to be addressed here. What I am saying if that I find it annoying that anyone who questions any aspect of the climate change juggernaut is somehow assumed to have a hidden agenda.

If you check out the bona fides of all too many of the climate skeptics, you will find money trails back to Exxon, and big energy. And you will also find that many of them have testified before Congress at to the harmlessness of tobacco.

Lindzen at least had an interesting hypothesis with his "Iris Hypothesis". But it was completely falsified. When someone like Carlin ignores known physics, then I strongly suspect the influence of Mammon. He has the educational background to know that what he has said is completely false.

What do you suspect when the global temperature ignors known physics?

 

[tigerbob]

Yes, one rule for all. The vast majority of climate scientists state that global warming is a fact, that it is causing a climatic change that will bode ill for most of us, and that we are the cause of it. No scientist, no matter how many degrees he has after his name can change the rules of physics. And the physics of CO2 have been well known for over a century. Here is where anyone can read what the physicists have found concerning CO2 and other greenhouse gases;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Thanks for the link, but I'm not arguing that there is no issue to be addressed here. What I am saying if that I find it annoying that anyone who questions any aspect of the climate change juggernaut is somehow assumed to have a hidden agenda.

If you check out the bona fides of all too many of the climate skeptics, you will find money trails back to Exxon, and big energy. And you will also find that many of them have testified before Congress at to the harmlessness of tobacco.

Lindzen at least had an interesting hypothesis with his "Iris Hypothesis". But it was completely falsified. When someone like Carlin ignores known physics, then I strongly suspect the influence of Mammon. He has the educational background to know that what he has said is completely false.

Interesting parallel. Let's see if I can rephrase that...

If you check out the bona fides of all too many of the anti tobacco lobby, you will find money trails back to GlaxoSmithKline, and big pharma.

If an oil company promotes a view that climate science may not be as cut and dried as it appears everyone scoffs and says "Well, they would say that". But when a company that makes a fortune from Nicotine replacement products supports anti tobacco lobbyists nobody says a frigging word.

It's the double standards at work here that I find galling.

 

[Chris]

Thanks for the link, but I'm not arguing that there is no issue to be addressed here. What I am saying if that I find it annoying that anyone who questions any aspect of the climate change juggernaut is somehow assumed to have a hidden agenda.

If you check out the bona fides of all too many of the climate skeptics, you will find money trails back to Exxon, and big energy. And you will also find that many of them have testified before Congress at to the harmlessness of tobacco.

Lindzen at least had an interesting hypothesis with his "Iris Hypothesis". But it was completely falsified. When someone like Carlin ignores known physics, then I strongly suspect the influence of Mammon. He has the educational background to know that what he has said is completely false.

What do you suspect when the global temperature ignors known physics?

The global temperature is not ignoring physics.

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and in the last two weeks we have seen record highs across the southern states, and the arctic ice continues to melt.

Why?

 

[code1211]

YouTube - Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (1/5)

I am constantly amazed by the sheer number of people who take on faith the climate predictions of Dr. Mann of Va. and the IPCC when there are just as many scientists, many in the IPCC, that completely have dubunked Dr. Mann's voodoo predictions. His "hockey stick" temp. curve has somehow become the alter in which some people worship. It reminds me of the middle ages when people refused to believe that earth was not the center of the Universe and no amount of science could convince them otherwise, their agenda's and blind faith kept them from opening their eye's to fact. Facts are that Dr. Mann's science cannot be proven and in a LOT and I do mean a LOT of cases it has been disproven. In fact and I know that many of you are aware of this, even some within the EPA call into question the whole conceptual basis for his assertions that Global Warming is a man made issue.

Want to see how this data gets mixed up Ill show you,, NASA models from 1880 show the sruface temp. rise from 1880 till now to be approx. 0.6 degree's . As you all know NASA is a gov. agency. Now published EPA reports state that the based on data the earth is warming at a rate of 3.2 degree's per century.

Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F.
The Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.32ºF/decade or 3.2°F/century.
The eight warmest years on record (since 1850) have all occurred since 1998, with the warmest year being 2005.
Recent Climate Change - Temperature Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

We find evidence of local human effects ("urban warming") even in suburban and small-town surface air temperature records, but the effect is modest in magnitude and conceivably could be an artifact of inhomogeneities in the station records.

Over the past century, global measurements of the temperature at the Earth's surface have indicated a warming trend of between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees C. But many - especially the early - computer-based global climate models (GCM's) predict that the rate should be even higher if it is due to the man-made "Greenhouse Effect". Furthermore, these computer models also predict that the Earth's lower atmosphere should behave in lock-step with the surface, but with temperature increases that are even more pronounced...

Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity


The fact's are the warming trends on this planet happen and have happened throughout it's entire history. In fact many noted scientists from MIT, to Harvard have data showing the earth has had periods in which there has been much more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have now. So what you all that are supporting this psedueo-science advocated by Al Gore and others are advocating, is a basic destruction of our society all in the name of a "greener planet". Well I have new's for you had the real goal of the environmental lobby been to get rid of Carbon producing plants like coal then they would have done so long ago with nuclear, However, I keep forgetting nuclear is bad because of the waste. However, what you don't seem to realize so is clean coal, each of the technologies that are put up as bad have environmental issues , so no this is NOT about a "greener planet" or " green jobs" it is about Money, Control, and political power.

Look, none of this is recent. Svante Arnnhenius predicted the present rise in temperatures in 1896 from his studies of CO2 in the atmosphere. In one of my early geology classes in the mid-60's a graduate student was invited to address the class on the subject of global warming and CO2. The professor prefaced his talk with a caveat that the students views were considered radical, but that he had good evidence. During the lecture, the student presented what was known at that time concerning global warming. Then he made some predictions for 2100. Afterwards, the professor stated that it was unfortunate that no one in the class would be alive in 2100 to check the predictions. Every one of the predictions has already come true.

Yes, there have been natural periods of rapid global warming. Caused by the rapid introduction of greenhouse gases, notably CH4 and CO2 into the atmosphere. Two of those periods are the P-T Extinction, and the PETM. Just what makes you think that because the cause of the present rapid rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is man caused that that will prevent the laws of physics from taking their course?[/QUOTE]


Maybe because in 4 billion years, you can point at two examples where this might have happened and in all of the other examples, every one of them, in 4 billion years have acted differently.

One might suppose from this that the laws of physics that you site are somehow negated by some or all of the other factors at play in this.

Then again, one might not. Still, 2 out of 4 billion is a pretty good percent to bet on.

 

[elvis]

If you check out the bona fides of all too many of the climate skeptics, you will find money trails back to Exxon, and big energy. And you will also find that many of them have testified before Congress at to the harmlessness of tobacco.

Lindzen at least had an interesting hypothesis with his "Iris Hypothesis". But it was completely falsified. When someone like Carlin ignores known physics, then I strongly suspect the influence of Mammon. He has the educational background to know that what he has said is completely false.

What do you suspect when the global temperature ignors known physics?

The global temperature is not ignoring physics.

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and in the last two weeks we have seen record highs across the southern states, and the arctic ice continues to melt.

Why?

People would take you a lot more seriously if you didn't say the same thing over and over again.

 

[code1211]

If you check out the bona fides of all too many of the climate skeptics, you will find money trails back to Exxon, and big energy. And you will also find that many of them have testified before Congress at to the harmlessness of tobacco.

Lindzen at least had an interesting hypothesis with his "Iris Hypothesis". But it was completely falsified. When someone like Carlin ignores known physics, then I strongly suspect the influence of Mammon. He has the educational background to know that what he has said is completely false.

What do you suspect when the global temperature ignors known physics?

The global temperature is not ignoring physics.

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and in the last two weeks we have seen record highs across the southern states, and the arctic ice continues to melt.

Why?

Um... It's summer?

 

[Navy1960]

YouTube - Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (1/5)

I am constantly amazed by the sheer number of people who take on faith the climate predictions of Dr. Mann of Va. and the IPCC when there are just as many scientists, many in the IPCC, that completely have dubunked Dr. Mann's voodoo predictions. His "hockey stick" temp. curve has somehow become the alter in which some people worship. It reminds me of the middle ages when people refused to believe that earth was not the center of the Universe and no amount of science could convince them otherwise, their agenda's and blind faith kept them from opening their eye's to fact. Facts are that Dr. Mann's science cannot be proven and in a LOT and I do mean a LOT of cases it has been disproven. In fact and I know that many of you are aware of this, even some within the EPA call into question the whole conceptual basis for his assertions that Global Warming is a man made issue.

Want to see how this data gets mixed up Ill show you,, NASA models from 1880 show the sruface temp. rise from 1880 till now to be approx. 0.6 degree's . As you all know NASA is a gov. agency. Now published EPA reports state that the based on data the earth is warming at a rate of 3.2 degree's per century.

Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F.
The Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.32ºF/decade or 3.2°F/century.
The eight warmest years on record (since 1850) have all occurred since 1998, with the warmest year being 2005.
Recent Climate Change - Temperature Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

We find evidence of local human effects ("urban warming") even in suburban and small-town surface air temperature records, but the effect is modest in magnitude and conceivably could be an artifact of inhomogeneities in the station records.

Over the past century, global measurements of the temperature at the Earth's surface have indicated a warming trend of between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees C. But many - especially the early - computer-based global climate models (GCM's) predict that the rate should be even higher if it is due to the man-made "Greenhouse Effect". Furthermore, these computer models also predict that the Earth's lower atmosphere should behave in lock-step with the surface, but with temperature increases that are even more pronounced...

Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity


The fact's are the warming trends on this planet happen and have happened throughout it's entire history. In fact many noted scientists from MIT, to Harvard have data showing the earth has had periods in which there has been much more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have now. So what you all that are supporting this psedueo-science advocated by Al Gore and others are advocating, is a basic destruction of our society all in the name of a "greener planet". Well I have new's for you had the real goal of the environmental lobby been to get rid of Carbon producing plants like coal then they would have done so long ago with nuclear, However, I keep forgetting nuclear is bad because of the waste. However, what you don't seem to realize so is clean coal, each of the technologies that are put up as bad have environmental issues , so no this is NOT about a "greener planet" or " green jobs" it is about Money, Control, and political power.

Look, none of this is recent. Svante Arnnhenius predicted the present rise in temperatures in 1896 from his studies of CO2 in the atmosphere. In one of my early geology classes in the mid-60's a graduate student was invited to address the class on the subject of global warming and CO2. The professor prefaced his talk with a caveat that the students views were considered radical, but that he had good evidence. During the lecture, the student presented what was known at that time concerning global warming. Then he made some predictions for 2100. Afterwards, the professor stated that it was unfortunate that no one in the class would be alive in 2100 to check the predictions. Every one of the predictions has already come true.

Yes, there have been natural periods of rapid global warming. Caused by the rapid introduction of greenhouse gases, notably CH4 and CO2 into the atmosphere. Two of those periods are the P-T Extinction, and the PETM. Just what makes you think that because the cause of the present rapid rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is man caused that that will prevent the laws of physics from taking their course?

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. General scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.[1]

There was a paper by S. Ichtiaque Rasool and Stephen H. Schneider, published in the journal Science in July 1971. Titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate," the paper examined the possible future effects of two types of human environmental emissions:

greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide;
particulate pollution such as smog, some of which remains suspended in the atmosphere in aerosol form for years.
Greenhouse gases were regarded as likely factors that could promote global warming, while particulate pollution blocks sunlight and contributes to cooling. In their paper, Rasool and Schneider theorized that aerosols were more likely to contribute to climate change in the foreseeable future than greenhouse gases, stating that quadrupling aerosols "could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 C. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!"
Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rocks that was the main stream thinking in the 70's so now that we have the IPCC and of course Dr. Mann's "hockey stick" no other scientist could possibly be correct when it comes to man made Global Warming could they! Al the scientists that I have shown you have published peer reviewed articles as recently as this year , so dismiss this as old data or somehow outdated thinking is the same thing I hear all the time, when I hear the debate is over, well the only saying that are people unwilling to actually look at the real science of the issue and stuck in a pattern of belief that has nothing to do with science but more to do with promoting an agenda. These are just a few people in the scientific community that have called into question the IPCC..

Patrick J. Michaels, PhD, Research Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia, Robert Balling, PhD, Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, and Dr. Yuri Izrael, Science Advisor, President Vladimir Putin, Russia....


Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.

Man’s contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn’t change the climate if we tried, he maintained.

“We’re all going to survive this. It’s all going to be a joke in five years,” he said.

A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.

“It is time to attack the myth of global warming,” he said.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

“If we didn’t have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time.”

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

Another Smackdown on Gore: New Zealand’s Augie Auer Debunks Global Warming « Flaggman’s Canada

So to dismiss this data out of hand as old when I even posted NASA's global temp. chart from 1880 that is current to 2008 that shows a mean change of .044 degree's in the last 129 years and 2008 being the the 7th to 10th warmest in that period does not support the CO2 theory. Fruther, Dr. Mann's "hockey stick" omitted large sections of temp data.. and in the 4th report from the IPCC the only graph that shows now is from 1800 to 200*..

It was claimed that the rapid increase in global temperatures since 1900 was clear and irrefutable evidence of the consequences of human activities. There was an uproar when it was discovered that this was a fraudulent graph. The graph failed to show the well-known ice age and warm periods during the past 1000 years. The IPCC offered no apology or explanation for this deliberate mistake.

This graph no longer featured in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report that was distributed in 2007 but a graph for the period 1800 to 2000 remained.

In this memo I describe for the first time, yet another fraudulent error that demonstrates the dishonesty of the whole IPCC process. It relates to the Hurst Phenomenon that climate alarmists deliberately ignore, and its linkage with periodic variations in received solar energy which they also refute.

The Hurst Phenomenon
You may recall that in my memo on the Joseph Effect I described how, given a long record of river flow, the minimum capacity required to sustain the specified demand from a dam without interruption is determined. A little thought will show that this depends on the most severe drought sequence (the Joseph Effect) in the period of record.
THE HURST PHENOMENON by Professor Will Alexander « An Honest Climate Debate

I'm sorry but the science of "Global Warming" does not support the conclusions that this cap and trade bill is based on and as such destroying and entire economy on incomplete science or science that is unproven is a sure way to take this nation further down the road to economic disaster...

 

[Old Rocks]

Thanks for the link, but I'm not arguing that there is no issue to be addressed here. What I am saying if that I find it annoying that anyone who questions any aspect of the climate change juggernaut is somehow assumed to have a hidden agenda.

If you check out the bona fides of all too many of the climate skeptics, you will find money trails back to Exxon, and big energy. And you will also find that many of them have testified before Congress at to the harmlessness of tobacco.

Lindzen at least had an interesting hypothesis with his "Iris Hypothesis". But it was completely falsified. When someone like Carlin ignores known physics, then I strongly suspect the influence of Mammon. He has the educational background to know that what he has said is completely false.

What do you suspect when the global temperature ignors known physics?

I see no evidence that they have. The temperatures of the last 20 years have been well within the predictions of global warming. The melt of the north polar ice, and the melting of the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica have all exceeded the predictions.

 

[Old Rocks]

Navy, first let me address the myth of the fear of global cooling in the seventies. The paper that made this a major concern, was a 1975 article from the National Academy of Sciences. Here is an excellant paper that addresses that myth.


http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html
The 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report
UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE: A program for action
Review by W M Connolley
This little-read report appears to serve as a useful summary of the state of opinion at the time (aside: I was prompted to read this by someone who thought the report supported the ice-age-was-predicted threoy [1]: as all too often happens, the report when actually read does no such thing...), which opinion was (my summary) "we can't predict climate yet, we need more research".
I know of only two places where this report is referred to in "current" debate (you know others? good: mail me: [email protected]): the page from the Cato Institute (discussed on the main page, the main quote from which is "There was even a report by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reaching its usual ambiguous conclusions"), and in a page from sepp [remember, children, a link from this page does not imply endorsement of the contents...], an excerpt from which is below:

From http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/sciaddheat.html http://www.sepp.org/key issues/glwarm/sciaddheat.html:


But this exaggerated concern about global warming contrasts sharply with an earlier NAS/NRC report, "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action." There, in 1975, the NAS "experts" exhibited the same hysterical fears—-this time, however, asserting a "finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years."
The 1975 NAS panel claimed to have good reason for their fears: Global temperatures had been in steady decline since the 1940s. They considered the preceding period of warming, between 1860 and 1940, as "unusual," following as it did the "Little Ice Age," which had lasted from 1430 to 1850.


This is a gross misrepresentation of the 1975 NAS report; the Cato summary is more accurate.

But anyway, what about the report itself...?
Ah yes, I'm glad you asked. OK, the SEPP stuff about hysterical fears is nonsense, the report is a calm, mannered assessment of the science.
Let's write its ISBN, so you can find it: 0-309-02323-8.

From the foreword (by V E Suomi, Chair of the US Committee for GARP):

"...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate...".

I believe that this is an accurate assessment of the state of knowledge at the time.

From the preface (by W L Gates and Y Mintz):

"Our response to the concerns [about climate variations [WMC]] is the proposal of a major new program of reseach designed to increase our understanding of climatic change and to lay the foundation for its prediction".

So far so good: the report doesn't believe prediction can yet be done, and its response is to recommend more research, not to make predictions.

From the start of the Introduction:

 

[Old Rocks]

Now I will address your other points. You predicted that within five years global warming will be a joke. Very simply, if, within five years we see major records set by high temperatures and other effects caused by warming, then you have been proven absolutely wrong. If, on the other hand, we see an increased cooling, with tempertures declining to the point of the '50s, then I am absolutely wrong. For I predict that within 3 years we will see far higher temperatures than we saw in 1998. The only caveat would be a Tambora sized eruption.

 

[elvis]

Now I will address your other points. You predicted that within five years global warming will be a joke. Very simply, if, within five years we see major records set by high temperatures and other effects caused by warming, then you have been proven absolutely wrong. If, on the other hand, we see an increased cooling, with tempertures declining to the point of the '50s, then I am absolutely wrong. For I predict that within 3 years we will see far higher temperatures than we saw in 1998. The only caveat would be a Tambora sized eruption.

what if they stay the same?