Liberal fantasies & the new global warming report

[red states rule]

The only thing flat around here is the liberal garbage flowing out on global warming

We have had record snows in the West, freezing temps in Flordia

Here is south centeral PA it is to get below zero as the air temp

Global warming my ass

Libs must always have a crisis to whine about. That is how they try to justify reaching into taxpayers pockets to steal more of their money for more insane programs and projects

 

[Hamiltonian]

There are thousands of scientists who believe in global warming who are never heard from

any real scientist would laugh thier ass of at that statement.

What, assuming you're an average citizen, who doesn't read scientific journals, how many of the scientists who believe in global warming can you name? How many can you name who don't believe in it? I bet you can name a higher percentage of the skeptics than than the believers. I certainly know a higher percentage of skeptics than believers.

Ahem. Funding of scientific research includes the researchers declaring the urgency of their research as a large part of the funding agent's decision-making (prioritization) process. If a researcher wants funding, they have to "sell" the hypotheses of their research to the bean-counters.

Moreover, the scientific community also relies on the "publish or perish" paradigm of academia. If the researcher doesn't produce results, then they not only lose funding, but they also tend to lose prestige in academia. So how better to gain notoriety for yourself and your work than to coat-tail politically hot topics?

If a scientist wants funding and wants to publish, he has to produce results. If he was naturally inclined to think that global warming was false, he wouldn't believe he could produce good results. Scientists not only prioritize by the impact of the results, but also by how likely they are to obtain results. Results are worthless if they are important yet unobtainable. If a scientist already didn't believe in global warming, he wouldn't consider researching it, since he wouldn't' expect results. I don't put scientists on a pedestal, but I don't think a majority of them who have attached their names to global warming don't believe in it.

 

[Hamiltonian]

The only thing flat around here is the liberal garbage flowing out on global warming

We have had record snows in the West, freezing temps in Flordia

Here is south centeral PA it is to get below zero as the air temp

Global warming my ass

Libs must always have a crisis to whine about. That is how they try to justify reaching into taxpayers pockets to steal more of their money for more insane programs and projects

You seem to not understand what global warming is. Global warming deals with climate, not weather. Climate is a 30 year average. You can't go "well it was colder today than yesterday, so global warming must be false." You similarly can't go "well it's colder this year than it was last year, so global warming must be false." Climate is a 30 year average. Dealing with global warming isn't done through reaching into taxpayer pockets.

 

[red states rule]

I understand very well what global arming is : another manufactured liberal crisis and the rest of us have to endure the rants form the kook left how capitalism is evil and destroying the planet

Of course the ONLY solution is for the rest of us to adjust how we live our lives (now the elite libs however) and oh, we have to fork over more money in taxes to solve the problem as well

 

[Hamiltonian]

I understand very well what global arming is : another manufactured liberal crisis and the rest of us have to endure the rants form the kook left how capitalism is evil and destroying the planet

Of course the ONLY solution is for the rest of us to adjust how we live our lives (now the elite libs however) and oh, we have to fork over more money in taxes to solve the problem as well

Capitalism is not evil, and I even proposed a regulations system on emission from companies that is not a tax on the American people and makes use of the free market to develop new technologies and reduce emissions. I haven't seen anyone here say how bad Capitalism is. Here is a solution that relies on Capitalism and doesn't tax the American people:

The government should distribute emissions credits to companies, where firms are only allowed to release a certain amount of pollution dependent on how many credits they own. Allow the firms to sell the credits between each other in a free market. The companies that develop new technologies that don't introduce greenhouse gases will be able to sell their product at a lower price and take control of the market since they can make extra money from selling their credits (which they don't need) to other companies, and the other companies will have a more expensive products because they'll have to buy extra credits.

 

[Merlin]

You can throw facts at this boob (<i>ScreamingEagle</i>) all day, and he will still deny it. There are nearly 1,000 peer-reviewed papers attesting to the influence of human activity and the emission of greenhouse gases on global warming. The UN report is but the latest and most comprehensive of those reports. And golly, Exxon/Mobil is offering a $10,000 bounty to any scientist willing to undermine the UN report.

The Bush administration stands not only accused of, but testimony has been provided before Congress that it did order the works of government scientists redacted and/or edited to minimize the threat of global warming and human influence upon that process. Even in the face of this latest report they still express a desire to stall rather than act. But that's sadly typical of the Bush administration in every area of policy they touch on, not just environmental policy.

I totally agree with ScreamingEagle. Until we start keeping records for a few thousand years we will not know the effects of man. I challenge ANYONE to prove man has an effect on global warming!!!!!!!!!!!! At this point in time it can't be done, PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hamiltonian]

I totally agree with ScreamingEagle. Until we start keeping records for a few thousand years we will not know the effects of man. I challenge ANYONE to prove man has an effect on global warming!!!!!!!!!!!! At this point in time it can't be done, PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!

We have not been keeping tabulated records, but we can read the statistics on how the climate has been through other means, like ice core data.

You can start by reading this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

 

[trobinett]

Bully posts:

The Bush administration stands not only accused of, but testimony has been provided before Congress that it did order the works of government scientists redacted and/or edited to minimize the threat of global warming and human influence upon that process.

You can of course provide proof of that statement?

Even in the face of this latest report they still express a desire to stall rather than act. But that's sadly typical of the Bush administration in every area of policy they touch on, not just environmental policy.

Excuse me, "stall rather than act"?

How disconnected are you sir?

President Bush is one of our most Pro-active presidents, I don't believe you know what "typical" is, when it comes to George W. Bush, you assign your OWN perceptions, nothing else.

As to the environment, I would rather our leaders take a long, read l-o-n-g, slow take on this issue, and NOT start making adjustments for problems that don't exists.

 

[Merlin]

We have not been keeping tabulated records, but we can read the statistics on how the climate has been through other means, like ice core data.

You can start by reading this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

What does this garbage have to do with anything???????????

 

[ScreamingEagle]

We have not been keeping tabulated records, but we can read the statistics on how the climate has been through other means, like ice core data.

You can start by reading this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Your government report (the latest IPCC report) is, of course, not conclusive. "very high confidence" and "very likely" do not equate to certain fact. And what is their "confidence" in exactly? That the climate is changing and getting warmer? Or that human used fossil emissions cause some warming? So what? Is that conclusive proof that mankind is the main cause of global warming? Of course not. A few measurements and limited data combined with modeling does not comprise fact but only hypothesis.

Many other factors may enter into global warming and need to be studied. 30 years of measured human emissions is a blip - less than a blip - in terms of planetary physical forces. Temperature measurements showing increases from 1850 (when temps were first widely recorded) does not mean that mankind is mostly responsible.

Some other potential factors:
1) Sunspot activity reaching a 1,000 year high http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm
2) Earth's molten core http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/core_cyclones_991110.html
3) Apparent reversal of Earths magnetic field http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2889127.stm
4) Cosmic rays http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6270

It's amazing to me how self-centered liberals are - they think the whole world turns on their dime, that they have all the answers, and that they control Mother Nature as much as they control the UN. Liberals do not really want to study all the facts or even wait till all the facts are in. For that matter, liberals only believe in politically correct science. They love to twist science to their political advantage. They'll jump on a few convenient limited reports that may fit their agenda. They love to make people feel guilty. Their anti-capitalist rhetoric just oozes all over this political frenzy and chicken-little science called "global warming" (all man-made of course).

Did you know that Mars is heating up too? Don't see any capitalist pigs living on Mars, do you? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

 

[Hamiltonian]

What does this garbage have to do with anything???????????

Considering it is the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change I would say it is quite relevant to the discussion.

Your government report (the latest IPCC report) is, of course, not conclusive. "very high confidence" and "very likely" do not equate to certain fact. And what is their "confidence" in exactly? That the climate is changing and getting warmer? Or that human used fossil emissions cause some warming? So what? Is that conclusive proof that mankind is the main cause of global warming? Of course not. A few measurements and limited data combined with modeling does not comprise fact but only hypothesis.

If it was a certain fact, it would be a Law and not a Theory. A number of things run on Theory rather than certain fact, like all of the nuclear reactors in the world, and any sort of medications you take. Did you not even read the report, since one heading clearly says that there is "very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities has been one of warming." That means that their confidence is that humans have been contributing to global warming, and they also state that virtually all of the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans. Your criticism can't be taken seriously unless you read the report closely.

Many other factors may enter into global warming and need to be studied. 30 years of measured human emissions is a blip - less than a blip - in terms of planetary physical forces. Temperature measurements showing increases from 1850 (when temps were first widely recorded) does not mean that mankind is mostly responsible.

Some other potential factors:
1) Sunspot activity reaching a 1,000 year high http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm

You'll have to link me to the actual paper, because it seems that they didn't take into account the fact that less of the isotope they're measuring in ice cores will have decayed the more recent they look, providing an illusion of increasing solar intensity recently. Also, that model is pretty suspect as it lacks a mechanism. Here's something to refute that model:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/C...s_Too_Weak_To_Explain_Global_Warming_999.html

2) Earth's molten core http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/core_cyclones_991110.html
3) Apparent reversal of Earths magnetic field http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2889127.stm

These articles don't even say that the core or field reversals are responsible for global warming.

4) Cosmic rays http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6270

As your article notes, the paper adjusted the data to enhance a spurious correlation.

It's amazing to me how self-centered liberals are - they think the whole world turns on their dime, that they have all the answers, and that they control Mother Nature as much as they control the UN. Liberals do not really want to study all the facts or even wait till all the facts are in.

Have you been closely reading articles in Science and Nature to understand what is going on? I doubt that you have considering you earlier claimed that there is a large amount of scientific disagreement on the topic.

For that matter, liberals only believe in politically correct science. They love to twist science to their political advantage. They'll jump on a few convenient limited reports that may fit their agenda. They love to make people feel guilty. Their anti-capitalist rhetoric just oozes all over this political frenzy and chicken-little science called "global warming" (all man-made of course).

This is relevant how? I haven't seen anyone here say "death to Capitalism."

Did you know that Mars is heating up too? Don't see any capitalist pigs living on Mars, do you? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

Mars is emerging from an ice age, it is going through one of it's natural warming cycles. The source of Global Warming on earth is anthropogenic.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Considering it is the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change I would say it is quite relevant to the discussion.

If it was a certain fact, it would be a Law and not a Theory. A number of things run on Theory rather than certain fact, like all of the nuclear reactors in the world, and any sort of medications you take. Did you not even read the report, since one heading clearly says that there is "very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities has been one of warming." That means that their confidence is that humans have been contributing to global warming, and they also state that virtually all of the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans. Your criticism can't be taken seriously unless you read the report closely.

You'll have to link me to the actual paper, because it seems that they didn't take into account the fact that less of the isotope they're measuring in ice cores will have decayed the more recent they look, providing an illusion of increasing solar intensity recently. Also, that model is pretty suspect as it lacks a mechanism. Here's something to refute that model:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/C...s_Too_Weak_To_Explain_Global_Warming_999.html

These articles don't even say that the core or field reversals are responsible for global warming.

As your article notes, the paper adjusted the data to enhance a spurious correlation.

Have you been closely reading articles in Science and Nature to understand what is going on? I doubt that you have considering you earlier claimed that there is a large amount of scientific disagreement on the topic.

This is relevant how? I haven't seen anyone here say "death to Capitalism."

Mars is emerging from an ice age, it is going through one of it's natural warming cycles. The source of Global Warming on earth is anthropogenic.

Who's to say that Earth, like Mars, is not also going through one of its "natural warming cycles"?

Regarding the IPCC report, if it was certain fact in ALL cases, then it would be considered a Law. Since it is almost impossible to prove something as absolute, science will typically favor calling it Theory over Law. However, the better question is whether to call the current global warming issue Theory or Hypothesis. The line between Hypothesis and Theory becomes quite blurry especially when dealing with NEW areas of science such as this is. I believe we are dealing more with a Hypothesis at this stage of the game. Not with regard to the fact that human activities can cause some atmospheric warming, but with regard to the "fact" that human activities are solely/mostly responsible for global warming as is being claimed today.

The new 4th assessment report regurgitates basically more of the same info found in prior reports. It has some nice new climatic temperature and gas measurements plus some potential warming scenarios for the coming years. Nothing wrong with that. But can you point to me exactly in the report where they show conclusive proof that humans are the primary cause of global warming?

You talk about refuting other models&#8230;well, one thing I will agree on is that models are not evidence. That includes the IPCC models. Here's some facts which indicate refutation of anthropogenic global warming about which you hear very little in today's hyped-up liberal media:

The computer modelers who are driving this debate assume CO2 is the cause. Historically, CO2 concentrations track temperature fluctuations; temperature goes up, so does CO2. Oxygen isotope studies of really old ice cores appear to show that warming precedes increases in CO2 concentrations, meaning that it is an effect rather than a cause of warming. If CO2 increases are an effect of warming, the computer modelers' algorithms are ruined.

During the past 400,000 years, spikes of warming and CO2 concentrations occurring after long periods of gradual warming have signaled the beginning of ice ages. We are currently in the fourth interglacial period which began more than 10,000 years ago. Mankind did not cause the past ice ages or the warm interglacial periods that occurred between them.

The geologic record preserved in layer upon layer of rock across the globe displays ancient events such as tsunamis; floods; sea level changes (both lower and higher than current levels); species extinction and genesis; incredible volcanic eruptions (talk about greenhouse effect!); meteorite impacts (heads up, dinosaurs!); vegetation variations and changes; extensive glacial ice advances where life as we know it would have been impossible (overcrowding would truly be a problem with everyone living on the equator); and many other fascinating things, including climate variations.

All of these things happen due to a cause-and-effect relationship of some kind.

Some of these events are catastrophic and sudden, leaving little doubt what caused them. But most are gradual and subtle, being part of a complex system with multiple causes and effects.

The old adage of not being able to see the forest for the trees holds true in this debate.

It is imperative that scientists and politicians alike try to see the big picture first. Geology is a big-picture science, where time is the key factor enabling one to see a larger picture rather than the past 30 to 100 years upon which most of this global warming debate is focused.

It is irrational and inappropriate to make public policy based upon science that is still in question and even more so to base it on alarmist politics. Reducing pollution is a good thing, for sure, but we should not pretend we are saving the planet and mankind from global warming (or the next ice age!) by doing so.

http://www.amarillo.com/stories/020307/opi_6717751.shtml

Also, you think no one is saying "death to capitalism" - try reading this little gem:
http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2007/02/capitalism-creates-global-warming.html

 

[Hamiltonian]

Who's to say that Earth, like Mars, is not also going through one of its "natural warming cycles"?

Regarding the IPCC report, if it was certain fact in ALL cases, then it would be considered a Law. Since it is almost impossible to prove something as absolute, science will typically favor calling it Theory over Law. However, the better question is whether to call the current global warming issue Theory or Hypothesis. The line between Hypothesis and Theory becomes quite blurry especially when dealing with NEW areas of science such as this is. I believe we are dealing more with a Hypothesis at this stage of the game. Not with regard to the fact that human activities can cause some atmospheric warming, but with regard to the "fact" that human activities are solely/mostly responsible for global warming as is being claimed today.

Greater than 90% confidence is pretty high, which makes it a Theory, not a Hypothesis.

The new 4th assessment report regurgitates basically more of the same info found in prior reports. It has some nice new climatic temperature and gas measurements plus some potential warming scenarios for the coming years. Nothing wrong with that. But can you point to me exactly in the report where they show conclusive proof that humans are the primary cause of global warming?

The bottom of page 8 says that global temperature variation of the type we're seeing over the past 50 years can't be explained by natural causes. The chart on page 15 shows the radiative forcing of greenhouse gasses which caused the global warming.

You talk about refuting other models…well, one thing I will agree on is that models are not evidence. That includes the IPCC models. Here's some facts which indicate refutation of anthropogenic global warming about which you hear very little in today's hyped-up liberal media:

No, those models are not evidence, because they are not good models.

Also, you think no one is saying "death to capitalism" - try reading this little gem:
http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2007/02/capitalism-creates-global-warming.html

[/quote]

Nobody here is saying death to Capitalism. Many solutions to emissions actually take advantage of a free market. There are wingnuts on every side, but what they think is completely irrelevant, and introducing it is using a straw man based argument to defeat a caricature of your opponent's opinion.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Greater than 90% confidence is pretty high, which makes it a Theory, not a Hypothesis.

The bottom of page 8 says that global temperature variation of the type we're seeing over the past 50 years can't be explained by natural causes. The chart on page 15 shows the radiative forcing of greenhouse gasses which caused the global warming.

No, those models are not evidence, because they are not good models.

Nobody here is saying death to Capitalism. Many solutions to emissions actually take advantage of a free market. There are wingnuts on every side, but what they think is completely irrelevant, and introducing it is using a straw man based argument to defeat a caricature of your opponent's opinion.

'Should We Believe the Latest UN Climate Report?'
By Dennis Avery (02/05/07)


The UN Climate Change panel is asserting - again - that humans are overheating the planet. Again, they have no evidence to support their claim - but they want the U.S. to cut its energy use by perhaps 80 percent just in case. Stabilizing greenhouse gases means no personal cars, no air-conditioning, no vacation travel. Nancy Pelosi says one-third of the Senate want this too.

It&#8217;s a remarkably sweeping demand, given that the earth has warmed less than 1 degree C, over 150 years. This on a planet where the ice cores and seabed sediments tell us the climate has been either warming abruptly or cooling suddenly for the past million years.

The first long ice cores from Greenland and Antarctic were brought up in the 1980s. The ice layers showed the earth warming 1&#8211;2 degrees roughly every 1,500 years&#8212;usually suddenly. The natural warmings often gained half their total strength in a few decades, then waffled erratically for centuries&#8212;rather like our planet&#8217;s temperature pattern since 1850.

History tells us the coolings, not the warmings, have been the bad part. After the Medieval Warming ended about 1300, Europe was hit by huge storms, gigantic sea floods, crop failures, and plagues of disease.

My big gripe with the IPCC is that they&#8217;re still keeping this climate cycle a virtual secret from the public.

What does the IPCC say about hundreds of long-dead trees on California&#8217;s Whitewing Mountain that tell us the earth was 3.2 degrees C warmer in the year 1350 than today? In that year, seven different tree species were killed&#8212;while growing above today&#8217;s tree line&#8212;by a volcanic explosion. The trees&#8217; growth rings, species and location confirm that the climate was much warmer that of today, says C. I. Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, reporting in Quaternary Research, Nov. 27, 2006.

The new IPCC report warns us it can&#8217;t explain the recent surge of warming from 1976&#8211;1998. Therefore, it claims the surge must have been caused by human-emitted CO2. But the IPCC also can&#8217;t explain why more than half of the current warming occurred before 1940, before the Industrial Revolution improved global living standards and increased CO2 emissions.

Look at this interesting coincidence: The &#8220;inexplicable&#8221; l976&#8211;1998 surge in global temperature looks very much like the warming surge from 1916&#8211;1940. After 1940, we had a 35-year cooling&#8212;which the IPCC also can&#8217;t explain. But in 1996, researchers discovered a 50&#8211;60 year Pacific-wide climate cycle they call the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. This cycle caused the salmon decline in the Columbia River after 1977. It also causes shifts in sardine and anchovy catches all around the Pacific.

The PDO shifted into a cool phase in 1940, with lots of salmon in the Columbia, until 1977. That&#8217;s almost exactly the period of the 1940&#8211;76 global cooling. Then the PDO turned warmer and the Columbia salmon declined&#8212;until about 1999. That closely matches the 1976&#8211;98 surge in global temperatures.

Does the Pacific climate cycle explain the last two short-term blips on the world&#8217;s temperature chart better than humanity&#8217;s small contribution to the CO2 that makes up only 0.03 percent of the atmosphere? It is certainly worth exploring more carefully before we make huge changes in our standards of living world-wide.

Past climate warmings haven&#8217;t correlated with CO2 changes. The Antarctic ice cores show that after the last four Ice Ages, the temperatures warmed 800 years before the CO2 levels increased in the atmosphere. The Warming produced more CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around.

It&#8217;s worth noting that the environmental movement and the politicians also blamed human activity for the salmon decline. Farming, fishing, and logging were reined in, sending the Pacific Northwest&#8217;s rural economies into despair. Now we&#8217;ve found the PDO. Is a natural cycle also the answer for the UN climate change panel?

http://www.americandaily.com/article/17564

 

[Merlin]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

 

[glockmail]

....Climate is a 30 year average. ......

If so then how come there is any cold (or hot) wether condition the libs all cry "global warming". It's not science: it's religion to these loonies.

 

[glockmail]

My slam-dunk reply to a global warming alarmist is: "so, that means we can count on you to support nuclear power, right?"

If their answer is yes, then I'm willing to err on the side of caution. Besides, I'd like to replace my gas hog with a hygrogen hog anyway, and watch the Arabs all cry.

If their answer is no, then the gig is up, as their real socialist agenda becomes clear- punish the US for being sucessful.

 

[Darwins Friend]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/?postversion=2007020306

Exxon linked to climate change pay out: Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans.

*Why would you pay somebody to say something unless you wanted to hide the truth?*

 

[Hamiltonian]

If so then how come there is any cold (or hot) wether condition the libs all cry "global warming". It's not science: it's religion to these loonies.

Many times after a hot day someone will make a joke about global warming. I haven't seen anybody here cry global warming after any certain weather condition, so I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Sorry Hamiltonian, meant to answer your responses in earlier post.

Greater than 90% confidence is pretty high, which makes it a Theory, not a Hypothesis.

Confidence not based on fact is nothing more than science by consensus.

The bottom of page 8 says that global temperature variation of the type we're seeing over the past 50 years can't be explained by natural causes. The chart on page 15 shows the radiative forcing of greenhouse gasses which caused the global warming.

Page 8. How do we know that it can't be explained by natural causes? We know so little about this subject that to come to that conclusion is absurd. So we are experiencing some warming these days....great! Things have been much warmer in the past. Did you know that in the past they even used to grow wine grapes in England? Was that not a natural occurrence?

Page 15. The charts indeed show increased measurements of CO2 and associated radiative forcing but this does not necessarily equate to causation of global warming. The last couple articles I posted dealt with the CO2 issue. And according to Singer/American Geophysical Society CO2 concentrations have been at least 20x higher in the past than today. So today's increases are not out of historical norm.

No, those models are not evidence, because they are not good models.

Agree with you there.

Nobody here is saying death to Capitalism. Many solutions to emissions actually take advantage of a free market. There are wingnuts on every side, but what they think is completely irrelevant, and introducing it is using a straw man based argument to defeat a caricature of your opponent's opinion.

OK, let's stay away from the wingnuts (does that include Al Gore?). Here is a much more rational article on the subject:

Science and Politics Fighting to the Death
By Kevin Roeten (02/05/07)

No one ever thought that politics had higher priority than science. But with 'global warming'(GW) it seems many have chosen that route. And now the UN, made up of policymakers(input from 13 scientists), has written policy claiming 90% probability that GW is 'manmade'. The policymakers have gotten most input from environmental organizations such as the Pew Center, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund. Incredibly, many of these organizations were once warning us of the perils of 'global chilling' back in 1974.

One side insists you cannot ignore the recent warming of the earth. The other says data shows the earth has actually warmed only 0.8oC in the last 100 years. In fact, Dennis Avery and Fred Singer[Adjunct Scholars with the National Center of Policy Analysis(NCPA)] concludes that &#8220;Within the 90,000 year ice age cycles, global warming and cooling seem to be part of a 1500 year cycle of moderate temperature swings&#8230;&#8221; Scientific analysis of ice cores from the seabed of the Atlantic, Pacific, Arabian Sea, and three others, have revealed the same unmistakable 1500-year cycle. Data was also taken from past climate cycles documented from around the world from tree rings, ice cores, stalagmites and dust plumes, prehistoric villages and collapsed cultures, fossilized pollen and algae skeletons, titanium profiles, and niobium ions.

One side reports that temperatures haven&#8217;t been this warm in the last 12,000 years. But the thermometer wasn&#8217;t invented until 1714. One side insists that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen over 50%. But past data indicate that CO2 changes over a million years do NOT correlate with temperature increases. Actually, CO2 concentrations have been at least 20x higher in the past than today(Singer/American Geophysical Society).

Some claim that huge ice sheets are melting, and breaking off the polar continents. Actually, Greenland is gaining ice mass, and satellites measuring Antarctica&#8217;s ice have found it to be gaining 45 billion tons/year. One side claims that sea levels will eventually cover populated areas. Actually, sea levels have been rising since the last Ice Age(20,000 years ago), but there is no evidence of any acceleration.

People seem to have ignored very recent scientific data proving that cosmic radiation from deep space directly increases cloud formation, which directly impacts warming. The sun&#8217;s magnetic field fluctuates, and when it is stronger(as it is now) tends to protect the earth and reduce cosmic radiation. The sun&#8217;s radiant heat and cosmic ray levels affect planetary warming and cooling as well. Multiple scientific studies(NASA & California Institute and Jet Propulsion Laboratory) show that Mars and Pluto are also undergoing &#8216;global warming&#8217; at coinciding times. They&#8217;re pretty sure manmade influences there are not the culprit.

Rational people understand that the earth has a finite amount of CO2, and that total CO2 on earth eventually never changes. Most also understand that the major influence of &#8216;warming&#8217; is water vapor(clouds), not CO2(<5%). Hence, radiation affecting cloud formation is the driving force behind any warming.

Unfortunately, mainstream media&#8217;s latest campaign is to stampede Americans into accepting higher taxes and rigid restrictions. Government and private studies have both calculated the Kyoto Protocol could cost the US $348 billion by 2012, would destroy 1.3 million jobs, and &#8220;substantially affect&#8221; standards of living. The Department of Energy estimated that Kyoto would cause gas prices to rise by 52%, and electricity by 86%. In fact, the Administration has already been spending >6 billion/yr on the promotion of technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the Senate communications Director, Weather Channel&#8217;s Heidi Cullen has been violating their guidelines against political involvement. Recently she stated TV meteorologists who voice skepticism about &#8216;global warming&#8217; should be decertified. Her documentary (Everything&#8217;s Cool) accuses the government of &#8216;criminal neglect&#8217;. Her co-host says any climate skeptic has no &#8216;validity&#8217; or &#8216;credibility&#8217;. The Director also says that in the process, the Weather Channel has abandoned its commitment to &#8220;open, balanced dialogue&#8221; regarding global climate change.

It&#8217;s interesting to see that &#8216;sides&#8217; to this debate seem to follow party lines. If you follow global warming debates, you&#8217;ve heard how activists and their media allies predicted &#8216;global cooling&#8217; in the 1970&#8217;s, only to change their story in the 1980&#8217;s. Actually, Russian scientists predict[motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/peer-reviewed-global-cooling.html] global cooling to start about 2055 and last about half a century. But some Chinese scientists disagree, and say the cooling will start sooner&#8212;about twenty years from now. [www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/fulltext.pdf]. It&#8217;s also interesting to note that Galileo, considered a social dinosaur, said &#8220;The crowd of fools who know nothing is infinite.&#8221; For Christians, it should be easy to dismiss those who scream about the end of the world from manmade global warming. Revelations states that when the &#8216;end&#8217; comes, it will be by God&#8217;s hands&#8212;not man&#8217;s.
http://www.americandaily.com/article/17554