Global cooling or global warming?

[SpidermanTuba]

in 1970s, there was "global cooling" consensus among scientists

wrong

 

[Old Rocks]

Glenn Beck, on a scientific issue? You are shitting me! I didn't think anyone was that stupid.

Few clips from him calling on an issue. What about scientists that were talking about the same issue? Oh, wait, they don't support your statement, so you ignore it. Anyways, who care what GB thinks, I am debating you... and if you do not respect my opinion, tell me why should I respect yours?

OK, here is on the same subject, and guess what... not from Glenn Beck. There are 8 parts, knock yourself out.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME]YouTube - The Man-made Global Warming Hoax (Part 1)[/ame]

Still waiting on answer:

Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?

Lindzen was paid $2500 a day by the energy companies to testify before Congress. He also is quite willing to tell you that tobacco is not harmful to your health. And MIT disavows his position, period.

 

[Old Rocks]

A consensus that exists because skeptics are silenced? There is no consensus.

In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."

Except, that is, when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.

Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.

The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." (Emphasis added.)

Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: "With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate." Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.

The emails were unearthed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Republican officials are calling for an investigation; House Energy Committee ranking member Joe Barton sent a letter with pointed questions to Mrs. Jackson, which she's yet to answer. The EPA has issued defensive statements, claiming Mr. Carlin wasn't ignored. But there is no getting around that the Obama administration has flouted its own promises of transparency.

The Bush administration's great sin, for the record, was daring to issue reports that laid out the administration's official position on global warming. That the reports did not contain the most doomsday predictions led to howls that the Bush politicals were suppressing and ignoring career scientists.

The Carlin dustup falls into a murkier category. Unlike annual reports, the Obama EPA's endangerment finding is a policy act. As such, EPA is required to make public those agency documents that pertain to the decision, to allow for public comment. Court rulings say rulemaking records must include both "the evidence relied upon and the evidence discarded." In refusing to allow Mr. Carlin's study to be circulated, the agency essentially hid it from the docket.

Unable to defend the EPA's actions, the climate-change crew -- , led by anonymous EPA officials -- is doing what it does best: trashing Mr. Carlin as a "denier." He is, we are told, "only" an economist (he in fact holds a degree in physics from CalTech). It wasn't his "job" to look at this issue (he in fact works in an office tasked with "informing important policy decisions with sound economics and other sciences.") His study was full of sham science. (The majority of it in fact references peer-reviewed studies.) Where's Mr. Hansen and his defense of scientific freedom when you really need him?

The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic - WSJ.com

Carlin is not a scientist, he is an economist. The EPA did not request a report from him on this subject, as he is not a scientist in this feild. They did look at and reveiw that paper and found it wanting. They gave him permission to publish it wherever he wished to.

In short, Carlin is just another huckster.

Denialist attack on EPA handling of Carlin global warming contrarian document– Pt 1: The document (posting from Climate Science Watch)

The report…has been posted on the websites of the Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and several other think tanks with a record of using any excuse to deny climate change science….

The person listed as the author of the report, Alan Carlin, is not a scientist, but an economist who works for National Center for Environmental Economics. But Carlin also had some help.

Several years ago, Ken Gregory of the Astroturf group Friends of Science compiled an eye-glazing compendium of pseudo science questioning climate change. Real Climate points out that Carlin has imported sections of this verbatim, crediting Gregory 20 times in the report.

Carlin also referenced Christopher Monckton and S. Fred Singer, a politician and a lapsed scientist, both of them darlings of the denial industry.

But what about un-referenced sources? Plugging Carlin’s report into Plagiarism Checker.com revealed a whole series of unreferenced sections lifted verbatim from one of the deans of the denial industry, Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute….

Plagiarism is a serious academic offence, particularly if it involves obviously biased sources. It is therefore ironic that Carlin’s unsolicited 85 page report, on a subject well outside his area of expertise, is devoted to criticizing the scientific community for their shoddy work.

This week an indignant Senator James Inhofe demanded an inquiry into this strange report. Maybe that’s not such a bad idea.

 

[elvis]

A consensus that exists because skeptics are silenced? There is no consensus.

In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."

Except, that is, when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.

Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.

The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." (Emphasis added.)

Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: "With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate." Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.

The emails were unearthed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Republican officials are calling for an investigation; House Energy Committee ranking member Joe Barton sent a letter with pointed questions to Mrs. Jackson, which she's yet to answer. The EPA has issued defensive statements, claiming Mr. Carlin wasn't ignored. But there is no getting around that the Obama administration has flouted its own promises of transparency.

The Bush administration's great sin, for the record, was daring to issue reports that laid out the administration's official position on global warming. That the reports did not contain the most doomsday predictions led to howls that the Bush politicals were suppressing and ignoring career scientists.

The Carlin dustup falls into a murkier category. Unlike annual reports, the Obama EPA's endangerment finding is a policy act. As such, EPA is required to make public those agency documents that pertain to the decision, to allow for public comment. Court rulings say rulemaking records must include both "the evidence relied upon and the evidence discarded." In refusing to allow Mr. Carlin's study to be circulated, the agency essentially hid it from the docket.

Unable to defend the EPA's actions, the climate-change crew -- , led by anonymous EPA officials -- is doing what it does best: trashing Mr. Carlin as a "denier." He is, we are told, "only" an economist (he in fact holds a degree in physics from CalTech). It wasn't his "job" to look at this issue (he in fact works in an office tasked with "informing important policy decisions with sound economics and other sciences.") His study was full of sham science. (The majority of it in fact references peer-reviewed studies.) Where's Mr. Hansen and his defense of scientific freedom when you really need him?

The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic - WSJ.com

Carlin is not a scientist, he is an economist. The EPA did not request a report from him on this subject, as he is not a scientist in this feild. They did look at and reveiw that paper and found it wanting. They gave him permission to publish it wherever he wished to.

In short, Carlin is just another huckster.

Denialist attack on EPA handling of Carlin global warming contrarian document– Pt 1: The document (posting from Climate Science Watch)

The report…has been posted on the websites of the Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and several other think tanks with a record of using any excuse to deny climate change science….

The person listed as the author of the report, Alan Carlin, is not a scientist, but an economist who works for National Center for Environmental Economics. But Carlin also had some help.

Several years ago, Ken Gregory of the Astroturf group Friends of Science compiled an eye-glazing compendium of pseudo science questioning climate change. Real Climate points out that Carlin has imported sections of this verbatim, crediting Gregory 20 times in the report.

Carlin also referenced Christopher Monckton and S. Fred Singer, a politician and a lapsed scientist, both of them darlings of the denial industry.

But what about un-referenced sources? Plugging Carlin’s report into Plagiarism Checker.com revealed a whole series of unreferenced sections lifted verbatim from one of the deans of the denial industry, Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute….

Plagiarism is a serious academic offence, particularly if it involves obviously biased sources. It is therefore ironic that Carlin’s unsolicited 85 page report, on a subject well outside his area of expertise, is devoted to criticizing the scientific community for their shoddy work.

This week an indignant Senator James Inhofe demanded an inquiry into this strange report. Maybe that’s not such a bad idea.

If he comes from the "denial industry", I guess we could say people like you and that fat tub of shit al whore come from the terror industry.

 

[Ame®icano]

Glenn Beck, on a scientific issue? You are shitting me! I didn't think anyone was that stupid.

Few clips from him calling on an issue. What about scientists that were talking about the same issue? Oh, wait, they don't support your statement, so you ignore it. Anyways, who care what GB thinks, I am debating you... and if you do not respect my opinion, tell me why should I respect yours?

OK, here is on the same subject, and guess what... not from Glenn Beck. There are 8 parts, knock yourself out.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME]YouTube - The Man-made Global Warming Hoax (Part 1)[/ame]

Still waiting on answer:

Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?

Lindzen was paid $2500 a day by the energy companies to testify before Congress. He also is quite willing to tell you that tobacco is not harmful to your health. And MIT disavows his position, period.

Sooo... you keep avoiding to answer my question.

But let's compare Lindzen with Gore. You say Lindzen is paid $2500 by the energy companies to testify before Congress. You did not say that Gore was paid half a billion by the Congress after he testified for "global warming".

Which one of those two got more reason to lie?

Second, if you watch the movie, you would find plenty of PhD's, professors and scientist explaining all this scam on American people. You picked one name to accuse of bribe without posting any link of it as a proof.

Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?

 

[Ame®icano]

in 1970s, there was "global cooling" consensus among scientists

wrong

UNESCO simposium on "a reversal of the preceding (warming) climatic trend", where scientists from 36 countries were “physically” sure but “statistically” less certain about "global warming".

Rome Symposium organized by Unesco and the World Meteorological Organization.

January 30, 1961, Monday
After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.

NY Times - Archives

 

[FactFinder]

Global cooling or global warming?

World's climate could cool first, warm later - environment - 04 September 2009 - New Scientist

Why it is cooling of course....

Cold Atlantic
Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. "But how much? The jury is still out," he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a colder phase.

Latif said NAO cycles also explained the recent recovery of the Sahel region of Africa from the droughts of the 1970s and 1980s. James Murphy, head of climate prediction at the Met Office, agreed and linked the NAO to Indian monsoons, Atlantic hurricanes and sea ice in the Arctic. "The oceans are key to decadal natural variability," he said.

Another favourite climate nostrum was upturned when Pope warned that the dramatic Arctic ice loss in recent summers was partly a product of natural cycles rather than global warming. Preliminary reports suggest there has been much less melting this year than in 2007 or 2008.

In candid mood, climate scientists avoided blaming nature for their faltering predictions, however. "Model biases are also still a serious problem. We have a long way to go to get them right. They are hurting our forecasts," said Tim Stockdale of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK.

 

[Old Rocks]

Few clips from him calling on an issue. What about scientists that were talking about the same issue? Oh, wait, they don't support your statement, so you ignore it. Anyways, who care what GB thinks, I am debating you... and if you do not respect my opinion, tell me why should I respect yours?

OK, here is on the same subject, and guess what... not from Glenn Beck. There are 8 parts, knock yourself out.

YouTube - The Man-made Global Warming Hoax (Part 1)

Still waiting on answer:

Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?

Lindzen was paid $2500 a day by the energy companies to testify before Congress. He also is quite willing to tell you that tobacco is not harmful to your health. And MIT disavows his position, period.

Sooo... you keep avoiding to answer my question.

But let's compare Lindzen with Gore. You say Lindzen is paid $2500 by the energy companies to testify before Congress. You did not say that Gore was paid half a billion by the Congress after he testified for "global warming".
Which one of those two got more reason to lie?

Second, if you watch the movie, you would find plenty of PhD's, professors and scientist explaining all this scam on American people. You picked one name to accuse of bribe without posting any link of it as a proof.

Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?

Just what the hell are you talking about here, asshole? Post proof of such a ridiculous accusation.

 

[elvis]

Lindzen was paid $2500 a day by the energy companies to testify before Congress. He also is quite willing to tell you that tobacco is not harmful to your health. And MIT disavows his position, period.

Sooo... you keep avoiding to answer my question.

But let's compare Lindzen with Gore. You say Lindzen is paid $2500 by the energy companies to testify before Congress. You did not say that Gore was paid half a billion by the Congress after he testified for "global warming".
Which one of those two got more reason to lie?

Second, if you watch the movie, you would find plenty of PhD's, professors and scientist explaining all this scam on American people. You picked one name to accuse of bribe without posting any link of it as a proof.

Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?

Just what the hell are you talking about here, asshole? Post proof of such a ridiculous accusation.

Aw, is someone being mean to Al, Rockhead? How dare anyone accuse the god of man-made global warming of anything?

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh yeah, it has really cooled this year.

Monitoring the Global Climate

 

[mdn2000]

I would make Old Crock look like an idiot in this thread but this activity has already taken up too much of my posting time.

Follow the links, follow the links, a wild goose chase for fools.

 

[KittenKoder]

I would make Old Crock look like an idiot in this thread but this activity has already taken up too much of my posting time.

Follow the links, follow the links, a wild goose chase for fools.

You don't like goose?

 

[JW Frogen]

Believe in global warming or not I do not believe there is a political-treaty solution to this problem; you can not bureaucrat your way out of this.

If we are determined to lower carbon emissions then no cap and trade agreement where the big boys (US, China, India) nod there heads but keep increasing carbon emissions while buying up the small players rights to increase theirs will work.

People will not be poor to be good. They will not do it writ large.

Best to do what humans have always done to survive, develop technology to adapt to or slow the warming.

 

[KittenKoder]

Believe in global warming or not I do not believe there is a political-treaty solution to this problem; you can not bureaucrat your way out of this.

If we are determined to lower carbon emissions then no cap and trade agreement where the big boys (US, China, India) nod there heads but keep increasing carbon emissions while buying up the small players rights to increase theirs will work.

People will not be poor to be good. They will not do it writ large.

Best to do what humans have always done to survive, develop technology to adapt to or slow the warming.

Exactly.

We can't stop the planet from turning ...

 

[Ame®icano]

Lindzen was paid $2500 a day by the energy companies to testify before Congress. He also is quite willing to tell you that tobacco is not harmful to your health. And MIT disavows his position, period.

Sooo... you keep avoiding to answer my question.

But let's compare Lindzen with Gore. You say Lindzen is paid $2500 by the energy companies to testify before Congress. You did not say that Gore was paid half a billion by the Congress after he testified for "global warming".
Which one of those two got more reason to lie?

Second, if you watch the movie, you would find plenty of PhD's, professors and scientist explaining all this scam on American people. You picked one name to accuse of bribe without posting any link of it as a proof.

Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?

Just what the hell are you talking about here, asshole? Post proof of such a ridiculous accusation.

Look, old fart, I was being polite and patient with you throughout the whole thread. I asked you several times the same question and you always refused to answer. Then when I asked you for proof on Lindzen, you ignore all that and now I am an asshole?

Well, until you apologize first and then answer what I asked you number of times, you won't get anything from me. How about that?!

 

[KittenKoder]

Sooo... you keep avoiding to answer my question.

But let's compare Lindzen with Gore. You say Lindzen is paid $2500 by the energy companies to testify before Congress. You did not say that Gore was paid half a billion by the Congress after he testified for "global warming".
Which one of those two got more reason to lie?

Second, if you watch the movie, you would find plenty of PhD's, professors and scientist explaining all this scam on American people. You picked one name to accuse of bribe without posting any link of it as a proof.

Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?

Just what the hell are you talking about here, asshole? Post proof of such a ridiculous accusation.

Look, old fart, I was being polite and patient with you throughout the whole thread. I asked you several times the same question and you always refused to answer. Then when I asked you for proof on Lindzen, you ignore all that and now I am an asshole?

Well, until you apologize first and then answer what I asked you number of times, you won't get anything from me. How about that?!

Give up being nice to him. Though I am amazed at how long you lasted.

 

[elvis]

Sooo... you keep avoiding to answer my question.

But let's compare Lindzen with Gore. You say Lindzen is paid $2500 by the energy companies to testify before Congress. You did not say that Gore was paid half a billion by the Congress after he testified for "global warming".
Which one of those two got more reason to lie?

Second, if you watch the movie, you would find plenty of PhD's, professors and scientist explaining all this scam on American people. You picked one name to accuse of bribe without posting any link of it as a proof.

Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?

Just what the hell are you talking about here, asshole? Post proof of such a ridiculous accusation.

Look, old fart, I was being polite and patient with you throughout the whole thread. I asked you several times the same question and you always refused to answer. Then when I asked you for proof on Lindzen, you ignore all that and now I am an asshole?

Well, until you apologize first and then answer what I asked you number of times, you won't get anything from me. How about that?!

you insulted the Prophet. That's an unpardonable sin to socialists like Rockhead.

 

[Ame®icano]

Just what the hell are you talking about here, asshole? Post proof of such a ridiculous accusation.

Look, old fart, I was being polite and patient with you throughout the whole thread. I asked you several times the same question and you always refused to answer. Then when I asked you for proof on Lindzen, you ignore all that and now I am an asshole?

Well, until you apologize first and then answer what I asked you number of times, you won't get anything from me. How about that?!

you insulted the Prophet. That's an unpardonable sin to socialists like Rockhead.

Telling the truth cannot be an insult. And you're right, enviromentalism became like religion. Big fat books with no solid proof, no consensus, hypocritical prophet that is getting richer by the hour, hard core followers and believers that won't even consider looking at anything that contradict their way... what's next? A tax on everyone who believe and more tax on those who doesn’t?

And irony is, that argument isn't whether the planet is in a warming trend, the argument is what exactly is the primary cause and to what degree each cause is responsible for. Idiots like Al Gore and alike, blame all of it on humans and don't take into account other variables. I said it several times above, humans do contribute to emissions but it's drop in a sea comparing to everything else.

If you look at the charts you can see the planet has been much warmer and colder than it is today. Trying to say it's the end of mankind if it warms one or two degrees is unfounded and downright disingenuous. If global warming is a problem, then why the need to make money off it? Look who is making money, and who is paying for it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Richard S. Lindzen - SourceWatch

This article is part of the Climate change portal on SourceWatch.

This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on SourceWatch, a project of CoalSwarm and the Center for Media and Democracy.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen ( b. February 8, 1940) is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1]
He is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center[1], a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil.[2] Writing in the Washington Post, Joel Achenbach wrote that "of all the skeptics, MIT's Richard Lindzen probably has the most credibility among mainstream scientists, who acknowledge that he's doing serious research on the subject."[3]

Lindzen has been a keynote speaker at media events and conferences of a range of think tanks disputing climate change including the Heartland Institute[4] and the Cooler Heads Coalition.
Fossil Fuel Interests Funding
In a biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007, Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies." (Emphasis added).[10]

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[11]

A decade later Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam reported, based on an interview with Lindzen, that "he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since."[

 

[Zoom-boing]

RealClearPolitics - Articles - A Convenient Lie

The scary claims about heat waves and droughts are based on computer models. But computer models are lousy at predicting climate because water vapor and cloud effects cause changes that computers fail to predict. They were unable to anticipate the massive amounts of heat energy that escaped the tropics over the past 15 years, forcing modelers back to the drawing board. In the mid-1970s, computer models told us we should prepare for global cooling.

The fundamentalist doom-mongers ignore scientists who say the effects of global warming may be benign. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas says added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season.

Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument?

"It's the money!" says Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."

And the politicians would have one less excuse to take control of our lives.

In a nutshell.