Oops!

"Two researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee say natural forces in the Earth's climate have conspired to end a recent period of global warming, and they predict that temperatures will change little or drop over the next decade or more." JSOnline

Well if this is true then why do we need Cap and Trade? I mean I thought the debate was over, I thought there was a consensus? I thought man was causing the earth to burn up?!?

Liberals!

Just when I get use to the idea that Wisconsin is turning into Arizona, I find out that the desert is turning into the frozen tundra! All I can say to my friends in Tuscon is...

Ah Ha!!!

Comments

[Billiam]

What's it going to take before you realize that it's NOT really about GLobal Warming or dependence on foreign oil. Those are just marketing phrases to keep the lemmings and the sheep in line. It's really about power and control. Obama and his evil minions are going for it all now. Looks like they've thrown off the veil of incrementalism and shown their true colors.

[Derek]

Mathematicians...

Seriously? I like the fact that the article's lead is the more misleading "researchers."

There is like 3 climate scientists in america that don't believe in global warming. I mean that literally. One dude's name is Fred Singer, another is Richard Lindzen. Every other person quoted is guaranteed to not know anything about climate. Lo and behold, James bowing to the prognostications of Mathematicians.

What's next, you going to find me some psychologist "researcher" that says it's going to get cooler?

[James T.]

Over 17,000 scientists have signed a petition saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/most-scientists-dont-believe-humans-threaten-earth-s-climate

Dude! What a piker!!!

[Derek]

That petition was made TWELVE years ago, and if you look, the vast majority of signers aren't in climate science. Just like your article, it's a bunch of engineers and biologists etc.

TWELVE YEARS AGO.

Same stuff different day.

[Derek]

I forgot the funniest point about that oregon petition. The guy that did the research for it... never studied climate at all. He's a chemist.

[Derek]

Ah, here we go:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308

"Robinson, who acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming, said the petition includes thousands of people "qualified to speak on this subject" including biochemists, geophysicists and climatologists."

So, a guy that knows nothing about the subject he's trying to influence people about, gets a bunch of signatures from people, most them shady, most from people that don't deal with climate research...

and that's supposed to be what persuades me. what i like about global warming debates is that you never run into anything new. always the same crap.

[DavidB]

Dude JT. C'mon stop referencing that Oregon petition. You loose credibility...

Background on the Oregon Petition

The Oregon Petition has been used by climate change deniers as proof that there is no scientific consensus, however they fail to note the controversy surrounding the petition itself.

The Oregon Petition was initiated by an individual named Art Robinson in April 1998 under the auspices of Robinson's so-called "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine." [picture above] Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson and his Institute published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science . They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz a notorious climate change denier (and former tobacco company scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science. Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled: "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal.

The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

Oregon petition and big tobacco
It’s interesting to note that Fred Sietz, the author of the cover letter is also the former medical advisor to RJ Reynolds medical research program. A 1989 Philip Morris memo stated that Seitz was: “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” However, 9 years later, it seems that he was “sufficiently rational” to lead the charge on Robinson’s Oregon Petition. It also seems that Seitz is still “sufficiently rational” to sit as the Chair of notorious climate change denier, Fred Singer’s, Science and Environmental Policy Project.

Oregon Petition and the Spice Girls
According to the May, '98 Associated Press article , the Oregon petition included names that were intentionally placed to prove the invalid methodology with which the names of scientists were collected. The petition included the names of "Drs. 'Frank Burns' 'Honeycutt' and 'Pierce' from the hit-show M*A*S*H and Spice Girls, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as 'Dr. Geri Halliwel' and again as simply 'Dr. Halliwell.' " Of the fake names, Robinson is quoted as saying: "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake."

[James T.]

Holy overkill, Batman! You mean none of the 17,000 scientist form a decade ago are real?

Here are 70 more. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=439146

And only being a "Climate scientist" qualifies you to criticize?

Derek, you sound like a communist! Oh, wait a minute... you are!

[thebigshmoog]

Recommended read: State of Fear by Michael Chrichton.

[maddypie2]

IMO If you are over 50(and I am) you don't need to be a scientist to know that "global warming" is a fraud. I have lived through the cycles.
Now there may be some "feel good" non-radical things we can do for our earth. But recycling our TOILET PAPER is not one of them.
When the gullible young on this site are over fifty will they finally concede that the earth hasn't melted away, or will they hang their commie heads and wish they could turn back the hands of time?

[Davidb]

To deny that man has the ability to impact our planet negatively or positively is ignorant at best and downright irresponsible at worst.

Having said that, the crap I read last night about CA banning beach fires and black cars is bordering on lunacy.

I am all for moving away from fossil fuels to cleaner and renewable energy sources. It will keep the planet clean and help solidify our national security.

I wish conservatives would start to at least acknowledge that the planet is not invincible and god does not provide some kind of magical halo around our planet. We do have the ability to ruin our home or destroy it.

[thebigshmoog]

BTW, James...

It's 67, sunny, and supposed to be high 70's through the weekend here...

Great golfing weather!

[James T.]

DavidB,

Man does not have the ability to impact our planet negatively or positively. Maybe the surface of the planet, for a time... I guess it depends on how you define "impact."

Now, in your mind, I may be "ignorant or downright irresponsible for believing that but I ask you, based on what criteria?

My question is, at what stage in our evolution (he he he) did the created become more powerful than the creator?

As I told you way back when you were in BDHS. "The earth is a big girl. We can't break it or fix it because we didn't make it."

Bigshmoog,

Sigh. I wish Al Gore was right.... They're talking 6 to 8 inches of snow this weekend!

[LegioNofZioN]

DavidB, thanks for the input, I appreciate it. As for ACC, our Canadian skeptics have credentials, and I have yet to see a compelling argument to buy into the globalist view of attacking ACC. That said I am a Canuck and we are sensitive to our impact on the environment around us. I wouldn't consider myself an environmentalist by any stretch, but I do what I think is reasoned in terms of not being wasteful or using harsh chemicals if I can avoid it. I don't believe in anthroprogenic climate change, but I understand that polluting the world around me is foolish. the same way printing all that money now and placing the burden on future generations is morally wrong, so too is pollution of the same environment future generations will be forced to live in.

The biggest fear I have of the current group think about climate change, is that when people can finally discredit Al Gore and James Hansen's theories (which is all they are) people may swing too far to the other side and forget conservation and being mindful of their environment. A balance needs to be struck and I fear that task is beyond us.

[LegioNofZioN]

James I am with you on the impact issue, we can have some impact, but the kind required to shift weather patterns I do believe is beyond man at this stage in our development. When that volcanoe erupted the other day do you have any ideas how much CO2 was released ? Man has to have millons of cars and tech in order to produce an amount that is dwarfed in seconds by nature and God's hand.

[Davidb]

JT, man can create weapons capable of completely destroying the planet. Man can send probes to other planets and soon they will be able to travel to other planets themselves.

There is a whole world of science, physics, quantum mechanics, etc out there. Is that all satanic fakery?

I won't question your religious beliefs as you are entitled to them.

However even the bible says that man was given free will and created in God's image. Don't you think God gave man the power to control his own destiny, advance himself, and impact the universe around him?

I do not necessarily share your beliefs(I personally believe that religion was man made and is poison. I consider myself spiritual. Even Albert Einstein believed in God. Just not religion.)

I just don't feel either of our beliefs rule out Man's ability to interact with the universe in ways we have not even concieved of yet.

If God does exist he didn't just create Earth. He created the entire universe for us(and possibly others) to explore and interact with. Man can drastically impact anything just as we can boil a pot of water. We just haven't learned how yet.

Heck we can clone life. Not that we should be we are able to. If God gave us that ability don't you think it is within our power to destroy ourselves and our planet?

[TerryN]

There is no correlation between earth's atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature. CO2 is a trace element.

You will not find one climate scientist who will refute these two statements, because they are true.

However you will find many IPCC climate scientists that can prove that increasing CO2 levels cause increasing temperatures in global computer models. Like they say, GIGO.

If anything, we now have about 8 years of solid real world proof that Al Gore is full of S*it.

[Joyce]

So nice the lefties want higher energy costs to "save the planet"... just to appease the lunacy. Even Congress is admitting to higher costs: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=45698

Too bad the great O is said otherwise recently... aren't they using the same talking points?

[Derek]

"Recommended read: State of Fear by Michael Chrichton."

A novelist? and the hits keep on coming?

"There is no correlation between earth's atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature. CO2 is a trace element."

It's like 30 percent of the earth's atmosphere... how is that "trace?" CO2 has increased in the same time as the earth's average temperature. THAT is correlation.

"If anything, we now have about 8 years of solid real world proof that Al Gore is full of S*it."

We HAVE eight years of some of the hottest years on record. That's apparently just coincidence though.

[Cookers]

Derek

As I have in past Global Warming discussions, I will beat you down again if you continue your misinformation regarding Global Warming.

The composition of our atmosphere is 78.03% nitrogen, 20.99% oxygen, 0.94% argon and 0.03% carbon dioxide.

And of the CO2, the vast majority of it is from natural sources.

You disqualify yourself from the conversation due to your ignorance. Please stop.

[TerryN]

Derek, Lesson #1 on your long way to being a climate scientist.

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/atmosphere/older/Atmospheric_Gases.html

30%? Is that what Al Gore is saying?

[Cookers]

To the unititiated, Global Warming is a forensic science. In other words, it is like a CSI investigator putting together historical analyses to try and develop an understanding of what happened historically to our climate.

Typical science is to hypothesize, test, analyze results, refine your hypoethsis and test some more.

Global Warming scientists take their historic data and develop a model to try and predict future temperatures. The problem with their models is that when they are applied to some of the historic data we have to which we know the results, the model results are significantly off. In addition, there are so many variables that affect the earth's temperature it becomes such a complex model that it is almost worthless in its application.

In fact other, more simple models have shown to be much more accurate. The influence of solar activity, solar dust, and the resulting cloud cover have shown high correlations.

And some data analyses indicate that the CO2 increases may actually be caused BY the increased earth temperature as opposed to causing the temp increase. The solubility of CO2 in the oceans and its temperature dependence is a very simple, yet elegant explanation.

Don't get pulled in to the hooey that is posed as science as many of these "scientist" rely on the global warming grants to make their money. If global warming goes away, so does their funding.

[LegioNofZioN]

Derek, you got spanked.

Cookers, glad to see you again, and thanks for contributing your expertice in this matter.

[Derek]

I'll take the L on the CO2 composition, must have missed the decimal. Although that still doesn't really change much. This trace gas is still enough to fuel all plant life on earth. Not exactly an insignificant amount.

"The solubility of CO2 in the oceans and its temperature dependence is a very simple, yet elegant explanation."

It's not an explanation if you fail to have a cause for the rising temperature.

It's literally a guess, absent any sort of cause effect mechanism. i.e. we know humans put CO2 in the atmosphere so there is a reason for it increasing... you still haven't told me what would make temps go up if the correlation between CO2 and temp went the other way.

[Cookers]

Derek, remove youre CO2 blinders and please read more carefully. The correlation of solar activity to earth temperature has shown a high correlation over most of the known earth temperture/solar activity cycle. You do remember the sun right? The source of of our heat and light on this planet?

Isn't it interesting that the polar caps on Mars also retreated when those on earth did? Which theory does that little piece of evidence point to and support?

Also, no one has ever answered my question as to what is the optimum earth temp. How do we know we won't be better off with more of the earch being able to be farmed due to warmer temps?