LETTER: Climate running hot and cold

It has now been six years of recording the high and low, average high and low temperatures as reported by the Cleveland weather stat
Sandusky Register Staff
May 24, 2010

It has now been six years of recording the high and low, average high and low temperatures as reported by the Cleveland weather station. The deviations of each high and low from the average is calculated and recorded as a bit of data.

There were 2,192 days from Jan. 1, 2004, to Dec. 31, 2009, (2004 and 2008 were leap years). Each day the high and low deviations are recorded. Hence there are 4,384 bits of data. Only 174 of these bits were 20 degrees Fahrenheit or more, 132 of the 174 bits were 20 degrees F or more above average and 42 were 20 degrees F or more below average.

In 2009 when the 265 high deviations were summed, it came to +188 degrees F or +0.52 degrees F per day. The 365 low deviation came to +838 degrees F or +2.30 degrees F per day.

For the six year period the 2192 high deviations came to +1,605 degrees F or +0.73 degrees F per day. The 365 low deviations came to +5,600 degrees F or +2.56 degrees F per day.

Conclusion: Global warming can't be judged by what's happening today, last week, last month or even last year.

Ed Boose

Huron

Comments

goofus

Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars.net
March 30, 2009

A combination of interesting mainstream and alternative media reports reveal compelling links between president Obama and a privately owned carbon trading group, which also has direct ties with elitist groups such as the Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission.

Judi McLeod’s excellent article for Canada Free Press, which she expanded from a Fox News piece, highlights how years before he became president, Obama helped directly fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the proposed cap-and-trade carbon reduction program.

The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”

Essentially Obama helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he is now seeking to steer through Congress.

McLeod also notes that The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering.

Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

While Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.
While McLeod’s article highlights the cronyism and corporate dealings behind this set up, we should also add the fact that both Gore and Strong come from a stable of elite groups that have long sought to use the environmental movement to advance their agendas.

goofus

Blood And Gore – The Nickname For Al Gore’s Carbon Trading Firm That Is Poised To Make Billions Of Dollars From Carbon Credits
Posted by Admin | Posted in Corruption, Enviromental, Politics | Posted on 10-11-2009 1We all know how the mainstream media loves to portray Al Gore - the visionary "eco-prophet" who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his climate advocacy. But is Al Gore truly such a selfless do-gooder? What does it say about the motives of an environmental crusader when that person stands poised to rake in billions of dollars from the very carbon credit trading scheme that he is tirelessly advocating?

That is exactly the position that Al Gore finds himself in. The leading advocate of the theory of "man-made global warming" is also one of the people who would likely benefit the most financially from the implementation of a "cap and trade" carbon credit trading scheme.

You see, Al Gore is chairman of Generation Investment Management. David Blood, the former chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is the CEO.

Thus the nickname - Blood and Gore.

Wikipedia describes Blood and Gore this way.....

Generation Investment Management LLP (GIM) is a London-based investment management firm with an investment style that blends traditional equity research with a focus on sustainability factors, including social and environmental responsibility and corporate governance.

It all sounds very noble, doesn't it?

But the bottom line is that GIM is about making money. GIM owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange. The Chicago Climate Exchange owns half of the European Climate Exchange.

Thus if the United States and Europe adopt a "cap and trade" carbon credit trading scheme Al Gore could potentially rake in billions of dollars.

If they don't, Al Gore's investment in these ventures could end up being worthless.

When asked about the financial incentives that Gore has to promote carbon trading in an appearance before Congress, Gore did not back down one bit.....

"Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?" the New York Times quotes Gore as telling Congress. "I am proud of it. I am proud of it."

Gore insists that he is completely committed to solving the problems caused by "climate change" and that he is not ashamed of being ready to make tons of money off of those solutions.....

"I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it."

But is Al Gore ready to back real environmental solutions which would not make him money?

Apparently those kinds of solutions don't appeal to him as much. Just consider the following passage from a recent Newsweek article.....

"If we feed the biology and manage grasslands appropriately, we could sequester as much carbon as we emit," says Timothy LaSalle, CEO of the Rodale Institute, who presented at two summits. The political clash is this: if you tell people soils can be managed to s'ck up lots of our carbon emissions, it sounds like a get-out-of-jail-free card, and could decrease what little enthusiasm there is for reducing those emissions—as one of Gore's assistants told LaSalle in asking him to dial down his estimate. (He didn't.)"

One of Gore's assistants actually asked LaSalle to "dial down his estimate"?

What in the world?

Perhaps LaSalle's idea could really work.

But apparently since it would not make Al Gore any money it is not as good as the "cap and trade" carbon trading scheme which would dramatically raise energy prices for American consumers and which would further wreck the U.S. economy.

The truth is that Al Gore is going to keep positioning his money to take advantage of "green" legislation and he is going to keep using his political clout to tirelessly advocate for that same legislation.

As Al Gore's firm, Blood and Gore, starts to rake in billions of dollars as middle class Americans struggle to pay their power bills, perhaps it will be then that many Americans will finally learn the true meaning of this Al Gore quote.....

"Reality does have a way of knocking on the door."

Share and Enjoy:

6079 Smith W

In it’s history, the Earth has experienced at least five known ice ages.

The last one ended approximately 10,000 yrs. ago when humankind was a minor species who had just recently discovered fire.

So what ended that ice age woolly mammoth flatulence?

6079 Smith W

@ goofus:

Gore’s father, Al Gore, Sr. practiced law with Occidental Petroleum, became vice president and was a member of its board of directors.

Gore is rich only because his daddy made money in oil.

Typical rich Democrat – I’ve got mine and so scr*w the little people.

goofus

While there are big research grants available to climate scientists who peddle the politically correct theory of man-made global warming, researchers who dare to question the sacred dogma are dismissed as "deniers' and virtually cut off from funding.

The gravy train of research riches for the global warming doomsayers shows no sign of running off the rails, despite the exposure last month of hacked e-mails (or was it the work of a whistleblower?) from Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU) revealing efforts by top climate scientists to fudge temperature data, finagle computer models and blackball critics.

In one of the e-mails, a frustrated computer programmer named "Harry," after trying to un-knot CRU's tangled temperature databases, sent the following message to fellow researchers:

"I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . So we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

He continued:

Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by [sic] head hurts and I have to stop. . . I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections.

As the eminent British economist Ronald Coase once quipped, "If you torture data long enough, it will confess."

The CRU fiasco, now referred to as Climategate, unmasked the junk science behind much of the man-made global warming hypothesizing. It comes as no surprise that some of the same researchers mentioned in the e-mails also played a role in making the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period disappear from climate history.

When inconvenient climate facts failed to match their pre-conceived theory of anthropogenic warming, they simply manipulated the raw temperature data to smooth out the warm peaks and cold valleys. When other researches asked to see the raw data, they were told to get lost. Now the data has suspiciously disappeared.

But global-warming research funding hasn't. One of the biggest beneficiaries is CRU Director Phil Jones, at the center of the Climategate controversy, who received $19 million in research grants between 2000 and 2006, six times the amount doled out to him during the previous decade.

In December, the Wall Street Journal reported that the European Commission appropriated nearly $3 billion for climate research, an amount that doesn't include grants from EU member governments.

U.S. government agencies also are dishing out the dough.

According to the same Journal article, "The House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California - apparently not feeling bankrupt enough - devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal."

In 2001, James Hansen, chief climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, won a $250,000 Heinz Award "for his exemplary leadership in the critical and often-contentious debate over the threat of global climate change." He also was co-winner in 2007 of the $1 million Dan David Prize for his contributions to climate research.

In spite of his accolades, Hansen has been rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA, Dr. John Theon, who publicly disagreed with his sky-is-falling global warming predictions and suggested that "some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results."

Government agencies are not alone in the campaign to pump lots of loot into climate-change research. During the past decade, big corporations have upped the ante, channeling billions of dollars into climate studies.

According to The Boston Globe, ExxonMobil in 2002 doled out $100 million to establish a Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University tasked with studying climate change. In 2006, Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Atlantic Airways, pledged $3 billion to fight global warming. He also has promised to pay $25 million to anyone who develops a method to cleanse at least a billion tons of CO2 annually from the earth's atmosphere.

The money pouring into the global warming camp is "huge," says Professor Ross McKitrick, a professor of environmental economics at Britain's University of Buckingham.

"Institutions like the CRU have a very large budget, but that would disappear if global warming ceased to exist. Scientists are enjoying a funding gravy train. There is so much money in climate research. Lots of areas of science are short of money, but not climate change."

With so much money at stake, researchers and their contingent of green supporters have turned their verbal daggers towards anyone who threatens to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, told Britain's Daily Telegraph that he has been the target of five death threats since openly questioning the man-causes-global-warming doctrine.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a skeptic because all scientists should be skeptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."

How nasty?

"Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees [with global warming]," said Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist. "Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

The global warming camp often wags its collective finger at dissenting scientists, demonizing them as allies of big energy conglomerates. But skeptics such as James Spann, a meteorologist in Alabama, claim they have been unfairly criticized and, in truth, the only the people cashing in are those who peddle the global warming orthodoxy.

"Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon … Nothing wrong with making money at all. But when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab."

Even some long-time environmentalists bemoan their peers' addiction to the almighty dollar. David Crowe, founder and former president of the Alberta Greens political party in Canada, said he has stopped funding environmental organizations whose focus is climate change.

"There is a lot of evidence that the activity often called science, and the scientists who practice this activity (as opposed to those few who have a monk-like dedication to the scientific method), are not trustworthy. Peer review is a bankrupt process . . . It is lousy at detecting fraud, but very good at suppressing innovative thought.

"Financial conflicts of interest are frequent and rarely disclosed. Scientists often fall into the trap of focusing on their next grant rather than what important questions need to be asked (including questioning their own assumptions and biases)."

Kirk Myers' Examiner column appears several times weekly.

6079 Smith W

Read what American Farm Bureau president Bob Stallman recently had to say about the Democrats' climate change programs and how it will devastate the American farmer and the future of farming:

"At the very time we need to increase our food production, climate change legislation threatens to slash our ability to do so. The exact level of land that will shift to trees will depend on the price of carbon – a number nobody knows at this point – but USDA suggests we could easily be talking about 59 million acres."

Stallman noted in today's terms that means eliminating about 130,000 farms and ranches that grow food and crops.

"The United States would be less able to provide the world a viable hunger safety net. Food prices here at home would shoot up. The result? Less food security and our climate would not improve, not even by one degree. That is not the kind of American agriculture I want to leave behind for future generations."

Read:

http://mobile.michiganfarmer.com...

brutus smith

I see the crazy train is up and running this morning.

Duhast

Oh, Sorry! You global warming deniers must be right… Please continue to burn massive amounts of hydrocarbons and pollute the atmosphere. It’s all fake anyway. Go about your business. While you’re at it, enjoy your spotted owl egg omelet served on ivory plates. We didn’t need those animals either…

BTW, cancer cluster in Clyde is just a fluke. No way any man made pollutants could make those children sick. Perhaps they should quit inbreeding so much? Humans can’t affect the environment after all. It’s just the natural progression of things. Darwinian if you will…

goofus

'Poster Child' for Obama hypocrisy on green jobs?
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
01/15/10 7:43 AM EST
In a city full of conflicts of interest, this one ranks near the top of the "Most Blatant Ever." Robin Roy is a senior executive of Serious Materials, a California-based windows maker that was virtually unknown within its industry until last year when President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden began praising it as, in the latter's words, the "poster child of green industry."

Actually, Serious Materials is at the center of a grubby new conflicts of interest scandal in the White House because Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi, Roy's wife, just happens to be the Obama appointee in charge of the government's crash weatherization program.

The Freedom Foundation of Minnesota and its investigative reporter Tom Steward has been looking into the Zoi-Roy connection for several months. Here's what they found:

"Last year Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA or the so-called Stimulus Bill). The U.S. Department of Energy’s office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) received $16.8 billion of those ARRA funds to be used to promote green energy and conservation programs including the popular $1,500 tax credit for homeowners who install energy-efficient windows. The Assistant Secretary of Energy, Cathy Zoi, is responsible for oversight in disbursing these stimulus funds.

"Ms. Zoi is married to Robin Roy, a top executive at Serious Materials, a privately held manufacturer of 'sustainable green building materials' located in California. On the Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure submitted by Ms. Zoi to the White House Ethics office as part of her confirmation, Ms. Zoi disclosed ownership with her spouse of 120,000 vested and unvested stock options in Serious Materials, a company her office regulates and that she may profit from."

In other words, Zoi complied with the letter of the law by disclosing her interest in her husband's employer. But has she observed the spirit of the government's ethics laws, which are intended to prevent conflicts of interest, real and apparent? Well, the White House has specifically praised Serious Materials in an official news release, and the company chairman has participated in a 22-minute news conference with Obama. The company is also the recipient of a special tax break and the government has ordered so much of its products that the firm can't keep up with demand.

John Stossel of Fox Business News, whose nationally syndicated column begins in The Washington Examiner in February, calls Serious Materials and its relationship with the Obama administration an illustration of "crony capitalism." Stossel's report aired last night.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.co...

goofus

Monday, January 18, 2010
Muslims Light Church on Fire With Christians Inside
The Religion of Peace continues to spread its special love, tolerance and exceptional pluralism in the same compassionate way as it has for 1,400 years as prescribed by the koran. Obama says, respect it!

Nigeria: Muslims Light Church on Fire With Worshippers in it!
The recent list of Churches under attack by Muslims is as follows. Algeria, Egypt, and Malaysia. Today we unfortunately get to add Nigeria to the list. This will only get worse, as Islam is a religion of war.

WORLD BRIEFING | AFRICA
Nigeria: Religious Violence Kills 27
Published: January 18, 2010

Angry Muslim youths set fire to a church filled with worshipers, starting a riot that killed at least 27 people and wounded more than 300 in Jos, in northern Nigeria, officials said Monday. Sani Mudi, a spokesman for the local imam, said 22 people died in fighting between Christians and Muslims after rioters set fire to a Catholic church on Sunday. Five others died Monday from their wounds. More than 300 people were killed in inter-religious violence in Jos in 2008.

goofus

Kumbaya my lord kumbaya

goofus

Since measurements began in 1979 antarctic sea ice has continued to expand, contrary to what the news media would have you believe. We bring this information to you month after month and still there is no sign of the main stream media picking up on the story. They continue to discuss the relatively small areas of the Western Antarctic Peninsula that are melting due to changes in ocean currents.

You may have heard that some of the “computer models” predicted increases in antarctic ice, but they predicted increased “interior ice” due to increased snow fall. None of the models predicted increased sea ice around the antarctic. Yet that is what we have, more sea ice in November of 2009 than what we had in November of 1979 when measurements began. This is highly significant yet hardly anyone in the main stream media (MSM) is talking about it.

Sea ice is much different than interior ice. Some of the computer models predicted increased ice over the interior of antarctic. If you've ever lived in the extreme cold temperature regions you already understand the reason why. When it gets very cold the air become drier and it snows less, as the temperature warms towards freezing it actually snows more. Since the antarctic rarely even gets close to freezing its understandable that warming would cause more snow fall. Over time compacted snow would lead to more ice. But that is not what is happening here. We're seeing increases in “sea ice”, this ice is over the ocean. Sea ice is caused by colder temperatures, not by increased snow fall. But we hear nothing from either the MSM or the scientific community. Especially compared to the out 6%-7% decrease at the arctic (this isn't year over year, this is a 6% decline since 1980!).

Antarctic Sea Ice for November

Extent Concentration2009 16.3 million sq km 11.6 million sq km1995 16.0 million sq km 11.4 million sq km1979 15.9 million sq km 11.2 million sq kmThis continues a long trend of increasing sea ice that has been noted here for several months.

Interior ice is also increasing but not due to warming as the models have predicted. According to NOAA GISS data winter temperatures in the antarctic have actually fallen by 1°F since 1957, with the coldest year being 2004. All the while global CO2 levels have gone up and the main stream media has been reporting near catastrophic warming conditions. They regularly show Antarctic sea ice shelves breaking apart, which is an entirely normal process (though they never tell you that part). The main stream media and certain segments of the scientific community truly must have no shame.

Duhast

Mr. Boose. I don’t think applying high school statistics to 6 years of Cleveland weather data adds much to the scientific discussion. The earth is 4.54 billion years old and you have taken data from 6 years of The Weather Channel.

goofus

An editorial by Mark Johnson, Meteorologist AMS CBM/NWA. Reprinted with Permission.
--
I talk about the fallacy of Man-made Global Warming to whomever will listen. I talk to many groups, large and small about how AGW is just bad science. I tell them that study results are hand-picked and modified to fit a pre-determined conclusion. That is: Man-made carbon emissions are responsible for accelerated, dangerous global temperature rises.

Many are enlightened by my graphs disproving the fictional Hockey Stick. They are amazed when I cite peer-reviewed studies that prove Polar Bears aren’t drowning and that arctic sea ice and glaciers are actually increasing in size. They laugh in disbelief when I flash photos of official surface stations next to air conditioners and barbecue grills. And then there’s the icing on the cake: I bust out IPCC’s failed computer model plots that show world temperatures going up. The room goes quiet. “But notice,” I say to my audience, “how the actual temperatures over the last decade are going down!” I then crumple up a copy of of the IPCC’s 2001 Report and pitch it into the trash in dramatic triumph while shouting, “The Man-Made Global Warming Hypothesis is pure HOGWASH!”

Applause, applause, applause. Some shake their heads in disbelief. Many more, though, smile and say, “I thought so!”

Its a great feeling for me. Another seemingly successful presentation. Another positive attempt to correct the mis-information spread by the AGW alarmists.

Still, there is always at least one person in every group who raises a hand and asks that haunting question, “But shouldn’t we want to save the planet?”

“Hey,” I think to myself, “Weren’t you listening to me?” Maybe, this person wasn’t paying attention while I was showing off all of my pretty-coloured charts and graphs. Or maybe, I, as a scientist, am only seeing this issue through proxies, homogenized data and hand-picked correlations. Maybe, to the average, non-science person, Global Warming is a much simpler issue. Maybe the AGW boils down to a moral responsibility. As one middle school student told me last week, “If we are hurting the planet, then we should do something about it!”

As I have learned through conversation, other colleagues hear the same statement. This is an issue all of us in the scientific community need to address everytime we speak about Man-Made Global Warming. So lets, start now! I will begin the journey here:

Listen up, Folks: Reducing man-made CO2 emissions will NOT save the planet! The Man-Made Global Warming Theory that the UNIPCC hangs its hat on, states that increasing amounts of man-made carbon dioxide will trap more of the sun’s heat in the atmosphere. This will then increase the water vapor content of the atmosphere. According to the IPCC, the two greenhouse gases will combine their super powers to increase earth’s surface temperatures to dangerous levels.

But, my friends, carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring trace gas essential to life on earth. Simply reducing CO2 levels does nothing to reduce real pollution. It does nothing to clean up our streams and rivers from dangerous mercury contamination. It does nothing to prevent sewage from polluting our drinking supplies. It doesn’t fix holes in the ozone layer, nor does it stop landfill chemicals from leaching into ground water. Even if CO2 levels plummeted in the next 20 years, we’d still have pollution problems.

My “Facebook” buddies are much more esteemed scientists than I. I asked them for their responses to such a question. Here’s what Geologist Don Easterbrook, of Western Washington University told me in a recent e-mail:

“CO2 is not a pollutant and reducing emission of it does nothing to abate the real pollutants (sulphur, particulates, metals, etc).” He adds emphatically, “We can’t afford to waste trillions of dollars needlessly chasing the CO2 fantasy.”

In 2001, Don predicted the start of a cooling cycle in or around the year 2007 (spot on, I must say!). “We are just starting several decades of global cooling, which directly kills twice as many people as warming and many times more indirectly, ” he adds. “If we needlessly blow trillions of dollars trying to reduce CO2, we will have significantly reduced our ability to deal with global cooling and all it’s attendant problems (crop failures, reduced food supply, increased energy costs, increased transportation costs and interruptions, etc), all during three decades when global population will increase by 50%!”

Professor Geoff Duffy, a Chemical Engineering expert from The University of Auckland in New Zealand adds this, “Caring for the environment is one very important issue, (but) it has little to do with climate change.” Excellent point, Dr. Duffy!

“Carbon dioxide is but a trace, and mankind’s CO2 footprint is a trace- of-a-trace.” He continues, ”CO2 is not a pollutant; it is a valuable feedstock for all plant and vegetable life on which we depend; and the bi-product is oxygen! The atmosphere and the sea buffer all changes. History alone shows that mankind can do virtually little to change climate: but we can keep our local environment clean!”

Atmospheric Scientist Tim Minnich holds a masters degree in meteorology and taught courses at Rutgers University and University of Michigan. He is passionate about the issue. “To accuse one of being unconcerned about the environment simply because they reject the AGW “pseudo-science” is not only illogical – it’s patently absurd.” He goes on, “It’s like suggesting the person who rejects capital punishment advocates murder!”

Tim specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone, “I firmly believe that each of us has a moral responsibility to be a vigilant steward of our planet and environment for future generations, and that the reckless spending of energy and resources on a scientifically unsubstantiated fad like AGW is deplorable.” Tim, I couldn’t agree more!

Dr. William Briggs, Meteorologist & Adjunct Professor of Statistical Science, Cornell University, shares a similar sentiment: “The answer is OF COURSE we should “save” the planet and “protect” the environment, but in this case there isn’t anything to that needs saving or protecting.” The probability of catastrophic warming is so low, and the costs to protect against radical climate change are so high, that we are better off being reasonably prudent and not panicking by adopting burdensome—and unproven—new rules and regulations.”

Professor Robert Carter runs the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia.
“Spending money on cutting back carbon dioxide emissions in the hope that it will prevent hypothetical warming will be no more effective than peering into the entrails of chickens to the weather!”

Incredibly funny, Bob…and absolutely true!

“Meanwhile, in the real, measurable scientific world,” He adds, ”there are a number of urgent environmental problems where spending significant money would produce a significant result.”
Bob’s short list include:
Cheap (probably coal-fired; alternatively nuclear) energy for 3rd world countries, to minimise wood-burning and charcoal fire cooking, and generally allow them to lift themselves out of poverty.

Clean water and sanitation for the same.

Healthy research funding for additional/new sources ofenergy generation, and transport fuel substitution.”

Contrary to popular belief, not ALL politicians support the Man-Made Global Warming frenzy. Marc Morano, sent in these comments from Senator James Inhofe’s Office. Inhofe is the ranking member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee.

“A cleaner environment can be accomplished through technology, not command and control regulations. Saddling our economy with UN mandates and new layers of federal bureaucracy will only make us poorer and not solve the alleged climate crisis.”

by: Mark Johnson, Meteorologist AMS CBM/NWA

You can read more from Mark Johnson at his blog Power Of 5 Weather Blog

Kumbaya

Duhast

Goofus, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make with your “cut-and-paste” posts as I’ve completely skipped over them. I can assume you are trying to post information to discredit global warming. You have convinced nobody and proven nothing. It hardly matters what you think or if the theories are correct or not. Humans produce about 28 billion metric tones of carbon dioxide every year. Most comes from burning fossil fuels. This is not being good stewards of our planet.

Just because our massive carbon emissions may or may not contribute, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address the problem. Your twisted logic is like someone saying we should let children eat lead paint because lead has not been shown to cause cancer.

goofus

Funny but CO2 is vital to the function of the planet. If you would like to cut down the CO2 please refrain from breathing and read my posts

Duhast

To the tune of 28 billion metric tonnes???

Sunlight is vital to the function of the planet too. To much of that and we’re all crispy critters!

By testing ice core samples from glaciers (using trapped bubbles) we are able to see a HUGE spike in CO2 ppm after 1900 AD.

6079 Smith W

duhast wrote on Jan 19, 2010 9:01 AM:

‘BTW, cancer cluster in Clyde is just a fluke.’

Possibly.

In nature sometimes what is thought to be causality is instead mere correlation.

That goes for 'climate change' as well.

Humans like to fit the world into understandable patterns and will invent them if necessary (Astrology for one).

As a skeptic, you should know that. :)

Anyone for a nice juicy tautology?

6079 Smith W

duhast wrote on Jan 19, 2010 9:01 AM:

‘Oh, Sorry! You global warming deniers must be right…’

The Soviets had Trofim Lysenko and we have Al Gore – what goes around, comes around.

brutus smith

goofus, nobody reads those long cut and pastes, and besides I could get 10 cut and pastes that say the exact opposite. Save the cut and pastes for actual history.

goofus

Keep on putting your faith in failed and scammed global warming research. All you have to do is follow the money right to the global warming scam. GO SCOTT BROWN!! DRIVE THAT TRUCK TO WASHINGTON LT COL. BROWN

brutus smith

How can any patriotic American be against getting off foreign oil? As for Brown, one elitist beating another.

Duhast

Winston,
The Skeptics view of Global warming is that we accept it is happening. There is sound evidence that global temperature averages are increasing. So, you have an observable phenomenon with repeatable tests to confirm. Global warming is happening. Silly people with the weather channel have no clue as to how it’s actually calculated.

Now, we understand that there are several paradigms to explain why this is happening. As I explained earlier about glacier ice bubble testing we can also observe massive increased in C02 ppm since the industrial revolution. As a skeptic, I also understand correlation does not always equal causation. If scientists come up with a valid scientific evidence to the contrary, I’m completely open to it. Now I really mean VALID. Many of the global warming deniers use data and articles from studies paid for by oil companies. Then they refuse to publish their evidence and papers in peer reviewed journals such as “Nature”.

That being said; Perhaps global warming is man made, perhaps not. It’s still a really really really bad thing to burn this many hydrocarbons and pump them into the atmosphere. There was a point in earths early history where massive volcanic emissions pumped CO2 into the atmosphere turning the planet into another Venus. Not good.

Here’s an idea. The next country the republicans invade, they should turn it into a forest and see of global atmospheric C02 reduces. Hmmmm?

goofus

You are invited to vote on the global sysops proposal. Click here for more information. [Hide]
[Help us with translations!]

Scientific consensus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method. [1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the process of publication, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation where those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating that to outsiders can be difficult. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside". In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward. Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution.[2][3]
This is the basis for global warming, not a fact as Duhast would have you to believe. He mentions the temperature is rising was he using the Hadley Climate Research Unit russian studies? The Moscow based Institute of Economic Analysis has stated that only25% of the temperature stations were used. The 25% were in urban areas subjected to the urban warming effect, and certainly none from Siberia.

goofus

Posted three hours ago in the Gaurdian U.K. the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations climate science body admitted that in the 2007 stated that the Himalyan Glaciers would melt away in 2035 was unfounded. Global Hoax and Change

Duhast

Still not OK to pump all the hydrocarbons into the air.

brutus smith

Gee goofus, can we borrow the crystal ball that you and the rest of the crazies are using?

Chung Lee

Goofus clearly learned everything he needed to know in kindergarten....... Cut and Paste. Does he have any of this own ideas? The anti-islam posts sound strangely like the material that was put on the hacked Erie County Health Department website. Maybe somebody should check and see if there is a connection,

goofus

Now that all the intellectual liberal scientists have weighed in on global warming, I have one question concerning physics. What is the maximum attainable velocity that Chung Lee must maintain after the end of the Glenn Beck Show and the beginning of happy hour at Club X.

Duhast

How did you know happy hour was after Beck??

Pages