The Climate Change Climate Change

[rushmc 18]

No wonder Obama is in a hurry

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.


Associated Press

Steve Fielding
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.

Write to [email protected]

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,478]

There's only one thing wrong with global warming - it ended in 1998!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

There's only one thing wrong with global warming - it ended in 1998!

Yes, it did. I wish I had posted that first!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,478]

>I wish I had posted that first!!

You did! The only problem is you KEPT posting "this is the end of global warming," year after year. Why, only last year you posted a thread entitled "2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved."

And yet here it is 2009, and nothing has changed. How many times would you listen to someone cry wolf before you started to think they were full of it?

[downwardspiral 0]

I like how the article points out some prominent (seemingly) scientists who are not so sure about global warming yet you choose to attack rushmc.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[billvon 2,478]

>I like how the article points out some prominent (seemingly) scientists
>who are not so sure about global warming. . . .

Yep. It is about the tenth Oregon Petition he has posted. The "petition against global warming signed by XXX scientists" is one of the oldest denier angles going, akin to the many 9/11 conspiracy theories who list the many talented architects and engineers who claim an airliner could not possibly have knocked down a building.

But no matter. Let's see what the first scientist on their list says:

"In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable."

If that's what constitutes "proof of a change," and is indicative of a scientist who opposes global warming mitigation, then somehow I can't take this latest cry of "WOLF!" seriously.

[downwardspiral 0]

what would it take for you to take it seriously?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

what would it take for you to take it seriously?

What? The scientists or Marc?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[rhys 0]

Quote

There's only one thing wrong with global warming - it ended in 1998!

you guys are counting your chickens before they hatch.

Go ahead and drive an oversized behemouth vehicle, throw away your polystyrene cups and use as much packaging as possible, our actions have no consequence, we can destroy all other living beings with our frivilous activity because everything was created for us to use.

right?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[mnealtx 0]

Are you still burning gas skydiving? Yes?

That's what I thought...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,478]

>what would it take for you to take it seriously?

What's "it?" Political denialism? I'll never take that seriously. Nor will I take its opposite, alarmism, seriously. Both are political positions, staked by people with votes to garner and power to accrue.

Climate science? I take that pretty seriously. Nature is a good journal in which to read about climate science. There's a good article this month on the proportionality of CO2 emissions and transient climactic response.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

There's a good article this month on the proportionality of CO2 emissions and transient climactic response.

Is it leading the temperature curve, yet? Has the IPCC or the 'consensus' found the little ice age or medieval warming period?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,478]

>Is it leading the temperature curve, yet?

No, never has.

>Has the IPCC or the 'consensus' found the little ice age or medieval
>warming period?

Yes, they have. Have you discovered Uranus yet?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Is it leading the temperature curve, yet?

No, never has.

So, CO2 still isn't driving temperature - that's good to know.

Quote

>Has the IPCC or the 'consensus' found the little ice age or medieval
>warming period?

Yes, they have. Have you discovered Uranus yet?

Yup - it stays cool because I go commando.

Is the rover still causing the temperature increase on Mars?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,478]

>So, CO2 still isn't driving temperature . .

CO2 is only one of the great many things driving temperature on this planet. (That is often overlooked on denier websites.)

>Is the rover still causing the temperature increase on Mars?

Nope! Again, although denier websites claim perfect understanding of the Martian weather, us mere mortals don't think we understand it as well as we do the climate here on Earth.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>So, CO2 still isn't driving temperature . .

CO2 is only one of the great many things driving temperature on this planet. (That is often overlooked on denier websites.)

Cool - let me know when the IPCC quit's using Mann's CO2 chart, will you? (you know - the one that DOESN'T show the MWP?)

Also, you might want to let the IPCC know that CO2 isn't the main culprit, then - does that make it a 'zealot' site?

Of course...they (the IPCC, that is) don't seem to agree with you on that point.

Quote

Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic
greenhouse gas

Quote

The equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the
climate system response to sustained radiative forcing.
It is not a projection but is defi ned as the global average
surface warming following a doubling of carbon
dioxide concentrations.

Quote

>Is the rover still causing the temperature increase on Mars?

Nope! Again, although denier websites claim perfect understanding of the Martian weather, us mere mortals don't think we understand it as well as we do the climate here on Earth.

Odd... the zealot websites (you know - like the IPCC?) seem to claim to know Earth's weather well enough to claim that CO2 is causing the increase. They can't seem to explain how the temp increase on Mars has pretty closely matched the increase on Earth, both in amplitude and duration.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Go ahead and drive an oversized behemouth vehicle, throw away your polystyrene cups and use as much packaging as possible, our actions have no consequence,

You forgot riding super otters or casa that suck massive amounts of Jet-A

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Go ahead and drive an oversized behemouth vehicle, throw away your polystyrene cups and use as much packaging as possible, our actions have no consequence,

You forgot riding super otters or casa that suck massive amounts of Jet-A

Those are on order of a gallon per jump.

It's 3-4 gallons of gas each way for me with a 26mpg car. The oversized SUV would therefore burn, rather needlessly, 6-8 extra gallons of fuel. And never mind the rest of the year.

The hypocrite would be the skydiver who proudly declares he doesn't own a car at all. You're trying to defend wasteful SUVs and other short minded practices by insisting that those who think about it at all can't skydive in good conscious.

The evolution we need to make is not to become pious bike monks, but to identify and discard the clearly wasteful practices. The US uses 20 or 25% of the energy while being closer to 5% of the population. Even with our more luxurious standard of living, it would seem likely that we could live well on half that use.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>I wish I had posted that first!!

You did! The only problem is you KEPT posting "this is the end of global warming," year after year. Why, only last year you posted a thread entitled "2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved."

And yet here it is 2009, and nothing has changed. How many times would you listen to someone cry wolf before you started to think they were full of it?

You are one funny and desperate person sir.

Please, respond to the fact that this post references peer reviewed research. Or do you dare.

One thing is for sure, I DID make a prediction of the beginning of the end now didnt I.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

>I wish I had posted that first!!

You did! The only problem is you KEPT posting "this is the end of global warming," year after year. Why, only last year you posted a thread entitled "2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved."

And yet here it is 2009, and nothing has changed. How many times would you listen to someone cry wolf before you started to think they were full of it?

You are one funny and desperate person sir.

Please, respond to the fact that this post references peer reviewed research. Or do you dare.

No, you are mistaken as usual. The article is an opinion piece, not a scientific article, and there is not a singe bibliographical reference to peer reviewed research.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[billvon 2,478]

>One thing is for sure, I DID make a prediction of the beginning of the
>end now didnt I.

You did! And you'll probably making it for the next 20 years or so.

I can just see a thread you start in, say, ten years - "2019 was the year man-made global warming was disproved!"

[rhys 0]

Quote

Are you still burning gas skydiving? Yes?

That's what I thought...

Considering turbine engines (and piston for that matter) are capable of burning a plethora of different substances, that is hardly my fault now is it.

You can blame your mates (that you probably voted for) and thier high roller friends, that are holding back such technology for the benifit of thier own pockets.

We could be running our cars on salt water right now if it wasn't for them, but you are probably too blind to know about such things.

Planes and oil are not attached at the hip, there are alternatives, but changing the fuel is not in the interests of those that horde the majority of the global finances/power.

So I will continue to jump from planes, knowing one day we will not be burning oil in them, but only when those 'in charge' decide they can make a $ out of it.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

You forgot riding super otters or casa that suck massive amounts of Jet-A

As above, but stacking 22 people in an otter is hardly as frivilous as the tools you see driving thier F350's with nothing but thier own stupid ass and thier lunchbox on board!

They could drive a 4 cylinder engine but thats not cool in these parts huh?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

You forgot riding super otters or casa that suck massive amounts of Jet-A

As above, but stacking 22 people in an otter is hardly as frivilous as the tools you see driving thier F350's with nothing but thier own stupid ass and thier lunchbox on board!

They could drive a 4 cylinder engine but thats not cool in these parts huh?

Yet another" I guess me (you) and the government are going to have to tell you (someone you dont agree with) how to live and what to drive cause I (you) am smarter and someone has to straighten your (rushmc for an example) dumb ass out cause you (me) are to damn stupid to know any better" arrogant type post.



Made my Sunday!! Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

I know I know, you must be unable, too lazy or just troll so, I thought I might help you look at some, not all, of what was metioned. Your welcome

http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/

Some other printing regarding the lies of the Obama Admin on this topic. It it is so true, why lie?
Got an idea?

http://gardenstatepatriot.blogivists.com/tag/joanne-simpson/

It seems even the much praised Hansen is changing his tune now

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

And how about some links to some of the peer reviewed stuff all you alarmists are so quick to use

Links to the papers are in the reports

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

Have I read all of this stuff? No, not yet but, I have links saved and am starting too.

How about you? Do you dare?

Or is it just easier to try and point out you know best yet again.

It has been hard , for years, to find the rebute to the man made climate change hype. Why? because the media dominate the info. Their hype comes up first.

But, now that names are starting to come out, this site is interesting.

http://www.scitopia.org/scitopia/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=peer+reviewed+papers&utm_campaign=Scitopia-+Peer+Review

Oh, and billvon, I was wrong, man made global warming did not end in 1998. In order for that to have happened, man would have had to have started it to begin with

Climate changing? Ya, daily, man the cause. I doubt it...../

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln