Yup......Al Gore been hoodwinking you.

Most of you believe NASA.

Here is their take on the subject of CO2 and global warming.
It just ain't so.

It's an urban myth, my friends.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Yup......Al Gore been hoodwinking you.

Most of you believe NASA.

Here is their take on the subject of CO2 and global warming.
It just ain't so.

It's an urban myth, my friends.

Note:

"James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute"

Also, count the number of times the word "alarmist" is used. Completely unscientific language. Propaganda?...


The brief summary is that looks very suspiciously like Big-Oil money has sponsored an alarmist news headlines grabbing coup scam report to convince us all that burning more oil is fine and has no consequences.

Can you believe that?


Is this the beginning of a fight-back campaign after the big oil spill in the gulf?

It's our only planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

All I can say is that something sure has changed in 50 years. As a kid I could spend all day on the beach in swim shorts without any sunburn. Now, 5 minutes in the garden and I can feel the sun really burning my skin, and it isn't just old age!

We used to get proper winters and summers in their own seasons, not this mishmash of anything anywhere anytime, that we seem to have today. Man has sure done someething to this planet.

Don't know if the meteorologist were measuring UV during the 50's through to the 80's but they do today. Your experience then as a boy compared to today doesn't lie so you are proof of the certain increase in UV penetration occurring today. The proof of this increase in UV can be measured another way and not just through you getting more easily sunburned than you could back in the 60's. Grapes, to grow well, require high levels of UV as well as heat and the increase we now experience in UV is what is making it easier to grow grapes once again in the north of England. The last period in time when this occurred was back in the Romans times when they occupied this region and after the 800's when we entered a new global cooling phase grape growing in the north could not be achieved very well if at all. So the increase in UV penetration today can not be put down solely to that coming from human interaction with their environment.
We are though in the latter stages of a natural global warming phase that will possibly last for another 30 - 40 years. This current phase does not yet appear to have reach that level in temperature rise that was achieved back during the last warming phase's of 300 to 800 BC and 1100 to 1400 BC. They only have geological studies here to gain an idea as to the temperatures achieved back then plus old manuscripts too. Still, back in the 300's we had malaria as far up as Scotland...what does that tell you about our environment back then? So global warming is occurring, it's occurring naturally, but not because of the effects humans are having upon their environment.

---

So global warming is occurring, it's occurring naturally, but not because of the effects humans are having upon their environment.

I don't think we are helping. The Montreal protocol, and later the Beijing one, seem to think otherwise.

he ozone layer is expected to recover by 2050.

I don't suppose we are either, but to what degree ? Will takes years to discover this for someone would have to separate the natural warming data from the non-natural warming data. Who's going to be able to discern between the two ?...I don't think anyone can. Not enough is known about what occurred during the previous warming cycles to give anyone something substantive to work on today. Come then next warming cycle, some time around 2500 - 2600 AD, we will be in a much better position to be able to evaluate mans contribution to it's effects upon the associated climate change.
Too many people see us humans as a threat to nature when in reality we are only a challenge to her. In the end nature always wins, she is a far more powerful body than people seem to realise. Man occupies a very-very small space on this planet it's what he creates around him that gives all the impression that man is far bigger than he really actually is.

Mark would you care to come to Texas and claim their isn't anything wrong. The fields are fallow. water is becoming scarce. Ranchers have to haul water to their cattle because all their tanks(ponds) have dried up. If anything we are cycling through another dustbowl.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

If anything we are cycling through another dustbowl.

And that, I believe, is the contention exactly.
That the current changes in the world's weather and atmospheric patters ARE cyclical in nature, and are being affected far less by man's occupancy of the planet than some who have a stake in saying otherwise would have us believe.

And my Dad, who lives in Azel, TX sent me an email just about 5 minutes ago trying to sell me a Texas rain gauge.
It's a bottle cap flipped upside down.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Good grief.

One study is referenced in a libertarian propaganda rag claiming to contradict many years of cumulative research results. So what? I hate to break it to you, but this happens all the time. It's called scientific research. It PROVES absolutely nothing. What it does provide are additional tools and variables that scientists on future studies will need to factor when designing their research plans. Then, their research results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals to be evaluated by other scientists, then the process repeats itself. That's how knowledge is created. Now, when these results are 1) replicated in follow-up studies, and 2) factored in to provide greater accuracy to existing theoretical models, we MIGHT have something interesting to consider.

---

Join the PACK!

If you want the real data that has been confirmed, the NOAA and NASA sites are
excellent.

Forbes slant that they do not meet with "alarmist predictions" which alarmists?
Because saying it is not a problem does not match what is on the NOAA and NASA sites.

---

Janice

If you want the real data that has been confirmed, the NOAA and NASA sites are
excellent.

Forbes slant that they do not meet with "alarmist predictions" which alarmists?
Because saying it is not a problem does not match what is on the NOAA and NASA sites.

Just one more click in the Forbes article and you get taken to NASA scientist written paper.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
That is what makes this interesting. If there is an error in the computer models then what ... GIGO?
It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out there is a missing factor in the models, likely several missing factors. Let's do the research and find out what they are.

The true alarmists will scream it can't be right with ad-honimum's, the scientists will start building instruments and pouring over data to cross check, the anti-alarmists will scream I told you so.

---

If you want the real data that has been confirmed, the NOAA and NASA sites are
excellent.

Forbes slant that they do not meet with "alarmist predictions" which alarmists?
Because saying it is not a problem does not match what is on the NOAA and NASA sites.

Just one more click in the Forbes article and you get taken to NASA scientist written paper.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
That is what makes this interesting. If there is an error in the computer models then what ... GIGO?
It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out there is a missing factor in the models, likely several missing factors. Let's do the research and find out what they are.

I completely agree. This is very interesting. I think it's a stretch to completely dismiss the existing models as generating garbage, however. I also agree that more research is needed to identify the additional factors that affect the precision of the models.

I hope there will actually be money in Washington next week to continue payments to UA-Huntsville for the important research being performed under these DOE and NOAA contracts. Subcontracts are nice, too!

---

Join the PACK!

If you bother to go to nasa.gov, you can see what has survived peer review.
Errors/incomplete climate models? of course there are. But that still does not outweigh the avalanche of evidence on those sites that climate change

1: is largely man made/accelerated
2: occuring at an alarming rate.

Additional information is always useful, and input to the studies currently under way.

In the mean time, watch the ice caps vanish. If you want to go to florida now is a good time, while it is still above water.

---

Janice

If anything we are cycling through another dustbowl.

And that, I believe, is the contention exactly.
That the current changes in the world's weather and atmospheric patters ARE cyclical in nature, and are being affected far less by man's occupancy of the planet than some who have a stake in saying otherwise would have us believe.

And my Dad, who lives in Azel, TX sent me an email just about 5 minutes ago trying to sell me a Texas rain gauge.
It's a bottle cap flipped upside down.

The last dustbowl was in part a direct result of improper farming techniques for the soil being farmed. Aside from the drought you have enormous tracts of land with no wind breaks

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

In the mean time, watch the ice caps vanish. If you want to go to florida now is a good time, while it is still above water.

Hi Soft^spirit....

The more who contribute the better.

You statement above is most interesting for I wonder if this is more of a case of Florida sinking rather than the the sea level rising so much. Now I say this because water, (the sea), experiences an equal level of rise all over the planet in all oceans. So if the sea was rising fast around Florida then you would expect this same experience to be seen all around the worlds coast lines. This though seems not to be occurring and this could be down to several reasons. But out of interest the sea level rise around the UK has stayed constant at 200mm per century which equates to 20mm per decade. The measurement of sea level around the UK was first logged around the late 1700's and has been continually logged every year since. Since the level of rise around the UK has stayed constant yet around Florida this rise in sea level appears to be accelerating means that there are several probabilities causing this miss-match to occur.

1). The faster rise in sea level around Florida but not around the UK is that actually Florida is sinking but the UK is not.

2). The faster rise in sea level around Florida but not around the UK is due to the UK rising in equal amounts to that of the 'extra' rise in the sea level around it.

3). Florida is purely sinking faster than the UK, which is the reason I expect may be the cause.

Of course I could be wrong but when measuring sea levels with reference to the surrounding land you must also measure any land movement too. This is critical else any data extrapolated via sea level measurements may lead you to conclude that the sea level is rising because more water is entering the oceans. When in fact the cause of this measured increase in sea level was because the land referenced too was actually sinking at that point.

All these things need to be considered when scientists carryout their 'field studies' and did they do this with reference to Florida by measuring any land- mass movement? I for one would like to know for this would help me in evaluating this report regarding Florida.

Anyone living in Scotland need not worry about sea levels rising, Scotland is still rising back up after being pressed down by huge slabs of ice during the last ice age.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

I find this topic quite interesting. I have no political bias, but have been interested in knowing whether this particular warming event is man made, or not. I read through the pdf contained in the article, and it does address some of the ocean warming questions I have seen documented in Scientific American. My personal opinion is that it doesn't matter whether this is a man made event or not. We must adapt to it. If it is man made, then nothing we do will reverse it, aside from China and the US stopping their economies to near third world levels, and sustain that for at least 100 years. Clearly that is never going to happen. If it is not man made, then we are still in the situation, where human intervention will have no effect. I am truly interested in whether the warming is man made or not, but I still come up with the solution of we just need to adapt to what ever happens. Over history, there have been many warming events, some much worse that what we are going through. Life adapted to it. There were some extinctions, and some successes. If this is man made, or not, there will be other warming and cooling events as time progresses. We, as humans are experiencing a tiny window in geologic time. The only consistency is change.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

I find this topic quite interesting. I have no political bias, but have been interested in knowing whether this particular warming event is man made, or not. I read through the pdf contained in the article, and it does address some of the ocean warming questions I have seen documented in Scientific American. My personal opinion is that it doesn't matter whether this is a man made event or not. We must adapt to it. If it is man made, then nothing we do will reverse it, aside from China and the US stopping their economies to near third world levels, and sustain that for at least 100 years. Clearly that is never going to happen. If it is not man made, then we are still in the situation, where human intervention will have no effect. I am truly interested in whether the warming is man made or not, but I still come up with the solution of we just need to adapt to what ever happens. Over history, there have been many warming events, some much worse that what we are going through. Life adapted to it. There were some extinctions, and some successes. If this is man made, or not, there will be other warming and cooling events as time progresses. We, as humans are experiencing a tiny window in geologic time. The only consistency is change.

Steve

I concur..

If you want to go to florida now is a good time, while it is still above water.

That's right. Cite Peer Reviewed Science, and then make an Idiotic Alarmist/Extremist statement.

I am Null and Void

Sea levels are in fact rising. If the polar ice caps finish melting off, which they are well on the way to doing, what is going to keep it above water, or when is the melting predicted to stop?

---

Janice

my statement is purely as to ocean level rise. Several island nations are in the process of trying to buy land for when they are completely innundated. Most of florida is at most a few meters above sea level. As ice caps melt off, it is inevitable that it will in fact be under water.

There are other portions of the united states that would also be affected. The California central valley( a very large producer of food per square mile) New Orleans(already under water and an area that also sinking.. not a good measure)

There is little argument as far as "if" it will happen. "When" is quite another story.

I will cast in with science and say sooner than later.

---

Janice

"The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing."

Yet warmer and warmer temperatures are noted there as well.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm

interactive map available at
http://flood.firetree.net

---

Janice