Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.
Earth’s environment has become a hot button issue; so much so, that it has stumbled into the political arena. Yet, when the layers are peeled away on this issue, critical thinkers ask if the sky is really falling or if the media is hyping the matter. Something is going on with Mother Earth’s climate; there is no doubt about that. Precisely what is going on is anyone’s guess and due to the planet’s dynamics, the reason can’t be pinned down to one primary cause. After all, it's been changing for 4.5 billion years and blaming it on the modern human industrial population has become the movement of the 21st Century.
It doesn’t take much for a rational minded person to soon realize that global warming, now called climate change and now being referred to as acid acidification (what'll they think of next?), is a religious movement of the far left; there always has to be some disaster looming and if we don’t change our ways or throw money at it we are doomed. The ice age scare of the 70’s comes to mind and we’ve seen where that went.
A Word About Consensus
A vast majority of these anthropogenic climate change doomsayers (some say all of them) claim that the debate is over, that scientists are in a consensus. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that the word consensus in the world of science is a foreign concept; indeed it’s a concept of politicians. People that make the assertion that scientists have come to a consensus do so out of laziness and ignorance. These people do not want to understand the science behind the issue and therefore takes the word of scientists at face value, never questioning it as long as it supports their movement.
Michael Crichton said it best:
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."
The AGW Movement, Carbon Credits and papal indulgences
Let’s face it. Environmentalists have found a new movement and some say that it’s even a religious movement. This farce has gotten so out of control that a blatant scam has emerged called “carbon credits” and it’s a way for the limousine and Learjet liberals to live their lavish lifestyle, while spewing their venomous bile and wagging their finger at the middle and lower class to conserve energy. In Roman Catholic theology, papal indulgences was the full or partial remission of temporal punishment due for sins (Carbon footprint) which have already been forgiven. The indulgence is granted by the church (Limousine and Learjet liberals) after the sinner has confessed and received absolution. The belief is that indulgences draw on the storehouse of merit acquired by Jesus' (Al Gore in this case, though some see him as the liberal party savior) sacrifice and the virtues and penances of the saints and are granted for specific good works and prayers. Carbon credits sounds strikingly similar, doesn't it?
If this isn’t enough, law firms are setting up shop to sue corporations for altering the micro climate around them. This will ultimately trickle down to the single family home owner and when the next hurricane strikes, who will these lawyers blame for it? Certainly not Mother Gaia. No, it's your fault because you weren't using highly toxic, mercury laced compact flourescent light bulbs or driving an SUV instead of a Prius or taking the bus. Sounds gloomy, does it? Well, it's far from over and it will only get worse if we keep bending over to these environmentalist's knee jerk demands. It would appear that John McCain, our next president, has been hooked and reeled into this nonsense. Let's hope that he will see the light and get in touch with his rational side.
Our Mission
The mission of Global Warming Skeptics is to keep visitors informed of the other point of view, that there isn’t a “consensus”. By searching the web for news articles and reaching out to other sources that questions the human induced aspect to this natural phenomenon, the casual visitor won’t get information that is skewed.
Recall the words of H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is often a false front for the urge to rule."
Membership is free and once registered, you can even submit any newsworthy information.
A Word About Consensus
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."
Michael Crichton
Kyoto Cost
ePetition
Don't forget, if you haven't already signed the ePetition you can do so by clicking on the
Demographic and Ecological Perspectives on the Status of Polar Bears Monday, May 12, 2008 @ 21:31:03 EDT by sunsettommy (10 reads)
Science & Public Policy Institute
Demographic and Ecological Perspectives on the Status of Polar Bears
Written by Dr. Mitchell Taylor and Dr. Martha Dowsley
Friday, 14 March 2008
EXCERPT:
Abstract
Although two polar bear subpopulations (Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea) no longer appear to be viable due to reduction in sea ice habitat, polar bears as a species do not appear to be threatened by extinction in the foreseeable future from either a demographic or an ecological perspective. Ecological perspectives that suggest the reductions to survival and recruitment rates for two populations (Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea) have occurred because of a long-term decline in sea ice due to climate warming. These populations occur where summer ice coverage is seasonal (WH) or divergent (SB). The perspective that the impacts of sea ice reductions experienced in WH and SB subpopulations can be generalized to the remainder of the polar bear subpopulations depends entirely on the IPCC GCMs that predict continued reductions to sea ice due to CO2 driven climate change. Current and historical polar bear subpopulation performance demonstrates that viable polar bear subpopulations have persisted and generally increased throughout the current period of climate warming. The mean generation time of polar bears as defined by the IUCN/SSC Redbook criteria and the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) is 12 not 15 years. The time-frame for three generations for polar bears is 36 not 45 years as indicated by the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialists Group. Based on the assumption of a linear relationship of population numbers to sea ice habitat, extrapolation of IPCC GCM sea ice predictions over a thirty-six year interval does not support the contention that polar bears are threatened with extinction over the next three generations. Extrapolation of IPCC GCM sea ice predictions over a hundred year interval does not support the contention that polar bears are threatened with extinction in the foreseeable future. Population viability analyses (PVA), using demographic estimates from polar bear populations where the data are sufficient, indicate that population status is affected by both anthropogenic removals and vital rates. PVAs that employ current demographic and removal rates indicate that most polar bear populations could sustain the current removal rate indefinitely. Management action for populations where removal rates exceed the estimated sustainable levels has occurred and is ongoing.
The popular notion that polar bears are declining or already expatriated worldwide has been initiated and perpetuated by environmental organizations and individuals who apparently believe that current subpopulation numbers and trends are an insufficient basis for an appropriate status determination. These individuals and organizations suggest that an ecological consideration constitutes more appropriate methodology to assess status of polar bears and presumably all species. Observations of natural mortality, intra-specific aggression, poor condition, and even healthy bears in good condition on ice floes have been cited as evidence of a population impacts on polar bears due to declining sea ice. Anecdotal information, although useful and interesting, is not equivalent to scientific information based on valid statistical analysis of sample data. Simultaneously, traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) from Inuit has been largely ignored because TEK is mostly oral, and because TEK generally does not support the assertion that polar bear populations are in general, or even local decline.
1Northern Associates, 66 Cottage Drive West, Neebing, ON, P7L 0A9. mktaylor23@gmail.commktaylor23@gmail.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
2Department of Geography, 705 Burnside Hall, 805 Sherbrooke St West, Montréal, QC H3A 2K6 marthadowsley@hotmail.commarthadowsley@hotmail.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteria Monday, May 12, 2008 @ 20:21:10 EDT by sunsettommy (12 reads)
Canada Free Press
The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteria
ByDr. Tim BallMonday, May 12, 2008
EXCERPT:
UN agencies, especially the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and its offspring the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), were orchestrated to achieve the goal of convincing public and policy makers that warming and climate change were a human created disaster. Manipulation of the process was first publicly exposed in the Chapter 8 issue (here). Sadly, it was just the first of several that established the pattern of IPCC behavior.
It was not the first time the unsupportable claim that humans were causing global warming had made the news. A major incident occurred in 1988 when James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), appeared before Senator Al Gore’s committee and said he was “99 percent” certain the Earth had warmed.
Few who study climate change denied warming even though many were accused. They knew that for 22,000 years the world generally warmed as it emerged from the last Ice Age and more recently it warmed from 1680 out of the Little Ice Age (LIA). However, Hansen then suggested the cause was likely an enhanced Greenhouse Effect due to human addition of CO2 from industrial activity what was to become known as the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory The problem is there was no proof and there were many other possible explanations. It was an untested theory that was accepted as fact by the IPCC.
By the time of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the politics and hysteria about climate change had risen to a level that demanded clear evidence of a human signal. An entire industry had developed round massive funding from government. A large number of academic, political, and bureaucratic careers had evolved and depended on expansion of the evidence. Environmentalists were increasing pressure on the public and thereby politicians. In addition, the bar of proof was raised by claiming the 20th century and especially the last decade had 9 of the 10 warmest years in history; warming beyond anything previous and therefore unnatural. These claims were to become their downfall because, as some climate experts knew, there were much warmer periods in the historic record.
There were hundreds of research papers from a wide variety of sources confirming the existence of a period warmer than today just a thousand years ago known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). Its existence is well documented in the work of Soon and Baliunas.
Soon, W., and S. Baliunas, 2003. Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1,000 years. Climate Research, 23, 89–110.
Multidecadal Ocean Cycles and Greenland and the Arctic Monday, May 12, 2008 @ 20:09:15 EDT by sunsettommy (10 reads)
This is good reading!
Intellicast.com
Multidecadal Ocean Cycles and Greenland and the Arctic
By Joe D'Aleo
Monday, May 12, 2008
EXCERPT:
The last two weeks we showed how the natural multidecadal cycles in the Pacific (called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO) and Atlantic(called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or AMO) affected the frequency of El Ninos and La Ninas and combined to correlate strongly with temperatures over the United States.
In early May, a paper appeared in Nature that created quite stir in the mediaby showing how by including long term ocean cycles in models the recent global cooling or at least lack of warming may continue to 2020.The same week, a story by NASA’s Earth Observatoryreported on the flip of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to its cool mode. “This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
You heard these first here on Intellicast (in fact even in the prior incarnation of Dr. Dewpoint, we often talked about the importance of these ocean cycles in climate cycles). This week we will talk about temperatures and ice in Greenland and the Arctic, topics sure to dominate the news this summer. Already recent media stories have some scientists predicting another big melt this summer. We will show how that is not at all unprecedented (happens predictably every 60 years or so) and is in fact entirely natural.
Figure 1: Greenland ice thickness changes as determined from NASA satellites
However, interannual variability is very large, driven mainly by variability in summer melting and sudden glacier accelerations. Consequently, the short time interval covered by instrumental data is of concern in separating fluctuations from trends. But in a paper published in Science in February 2007, Dr. Ian Howat of the University of Washington reports that two of the largest glaciers have suddenly slowed, bringing the rate of melting last year down to near the previous rate. At one glacier, Kangerdlugssuaq, "average thinning over the glacier during the summer of 2006 declined to near zero, with some apparent thickening in areas on the main trunk."
Many recent studies have addressed Greenland ice mass balance. They yield a broad picture of slight inland thickening and strong near-coastal thinning, primarily in the south along fast-moving outlet glaciers. AR4 assessment of the data and techniques suggests overall mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet ranging between growth by 25 Gigatonnes per year (Gt/year) and shrinkage by 60 Gt/year for 1961-2003. This range changes to shrinkage by 50 to 100 Gt/year for 1993-2003 and by even higher rates between 2003 and 2005.
Mantua found the Pacific Ocean temperature regime and overlying pressure patterns tended to persist in one mode (in terms of ocean temperature anomalies and overlying pressure and wind patterns) for two or three decades and then flip to very nearly the opposite mode for a similar period.
Posted By: Craig James on Friday, May 9, 2008 at 11:03 am
EXCERPT:
If you’ve read many of my past posts, you may remember that the main reason I (and many other meteorologists) disagree with the computer model forecasts of how much warming will occur due to an increase in CO2 is because of how those models handle water vapor. in this post written over a year ago, I included the following statement from the IPCC:
“Water vapour feedback continues to be the most consistently important feedback accounting for the large warming predicted by general circulation models in response to a doubling of CO2. Water vapour feedback acting alone approximately doubles the warming from what it would be for fixed water vapour (Cess et al., 1990; Hall and Manabe, 1999; Schneider et al., 1999; Held and Soden, 2000). Furthermore, water vapour feedback acts to amplify other feedbacks in models, such as cloud feedback and ice albedo feedback. If cloud feedback is strongly positive, the water vapour feedback can lead to 3.5 times as much warming as would be the case if water vapour concentration were held fixed (Hall and Manabe, 1999).”
There seems to be one question in which the green advocates and climate realists agree, and it is this. Green advocates are failing in the climate debate.
Mark Seal is concerned about the climate. So he decided to create the TalkClimateChange forums where all the fantastic green arguments will be collected. He was afraid that there would be no skeptics. Finally, he summarized his experience on La Marguerite.
When I launched the TalkClimateChange forums last year, I was initially worried as to where I would find people who didn’t believe in global warming. I had planned to create a furious debate, but in my experience global warming was such a universally accepted issue that I expected to have to dredge the slums of the internet in order to find a couple of deniers who could keep the argument thriving.
UN agencies, especially the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and its offspring the Intergovernmental Panel on 
