Political Crossfire Forums

[John Galt]

Interesting article on the enviornmentalist church and it's belief's being at odds with the facts.

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
(Filed: 09/04/2006)

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

[GTTofAK]

Yes there is a great deal of hypocrisy in the global warming debate. The same people who tell you that you cannot point to this years long cold winter as evidence against global warming are the same ones who will point to one hurricane as support for global warming.

[Canadian_Patriot]

What is happening with the weather has everything to do with polar shift and the loss of our magnetic sheild.

[David]

Now they are complaining about clean air contributing to warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4880328.stm

[Kindred]

Hey look! Global warming actually stopped in the mid forties!............

[Random Evil Guy]

bob carter is also a w**** for oil money...
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1134

not to mention, i don't see a single reference to any peer-review articles in respected scientific journals in that article. can he prove that the temperature didn't increase?

btw, there is a difference between climate and weather. look it up...

[Random Evil Guy]

David wrote: Now they are complaining about clean air contributing to warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4880328.stm

'complain'? it's just science telling you what's probably happening.

[Random Evil Guy]

GTTofAK wrote: Yes there is a great deal of hypocrisy in the global warming debate. The same people who tell you that you cannot point to this years long cold winter as evidence against global warming are the same ones who will point to one hurricane as support for global warming.

prove it.

[jasonireland]

i have said it before and i will say it again "people will believe whatever is in their interest to believe"

so it does not matter what graphs you have, what scientific study is done, what book you read, if it does not suit you, you will choose to disregard it.

the concept of global warming does not suit the ideals and on-going exploitation of the capitalist agenda. it does not suit right wing philosophy to pay any attention to environmentalists.

the Belief that global warming is a threat, that it is "mother natures backlash" suits people who believe "our time on earth is to serve it as it serves us" and not plunder natural resources and animals for own benefit, as if mankind had any right to do so.afterall, civilisation is almost an accident................

If you know anything about science or the history of the universe( a good start is read "A short history of nearly everything" by Bill Bryson) you will have read about how it was a completely against all odds that any life ever started on this planet. It was almost a mistake, the odds were so unbelievably stacked against the conditions that were needed for life to begin.Or for the Earth to be the right distance from the sun(1% further or 5 % nearer would of bred no life) If you can begin to comprehend this you will understand how fragile the Earth is and how unnatural mankinds "progress" into civilisation was. You could even consider the "success " of human beings as mistake, we just happened to rise above the animals. This is my belief and therefore i regard global warming as the inevitable result of mankinds ignorance of the fragility of nature and our planet, and the completely arrogant attitude of our species in regard to relationship with the planet. And if global warming is not a reality, something will take its place because we are just a blip in history that has to be removed or corrected.

These are my beliefs there is no point arguing with me or there is no point pushing the right - wing philosophy, no objective will be attained, not in this thread or anywhere else.

therefore there is no debate.it depends on how you view your relationship with the planet, and the future of mankind. end of discussion

[mathurin]

A.D wrote:

Hey look! Global warming actually stopped in the mid forties!............

hrm, lets look at the range

looks like the increase has been roughly 1 degree celcius for 140 years, omg!
1 degree over that time could even be a matter of measurement method change


not to mention, how did they take the temps in the 1860s, or is that an estimate?



now here is some relevant data, NASA satellites have been recording temps since 1979
http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/
you can even poke around different times and such, its a kewl little program
1 degree variance shows ups and downs over the past several years, but spikes and drops still show little total change overall

my conclusion
the climate is not constant

[ieatfood]

Bottom line--you people need to trust scientists

Fact #1: scientists know more about global warming than you
Fact #2: any "logical" argument that you can come up with against global warming is likely naiive and stupid, compared to what a scientist knows.
Fact #3: there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming occurs
Fact #4: there is no scientific consensus on what impact this global warming will have on humans
Fact #5: global warming may be disastrous or it may be not so bad--we just don't know

These are the facts. You can decide for yourself what your position is. But facts are facts. Sorry.

[Kindred]

ieatfood wrote: Bottom line--you people need to trust scientists

Fact #1: scientists know more about global warming than you
Fact #2: any "logical" argument that you can come up with against global warming is likely naiive and stupid, compared to what a scientist knows.
Fact #3: there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming occurs
Fact #4: there is no scientific consensus on what impact this global warming will have on humans
Fact #5: global warming may be disastrous or it may be not so bad--we just don't know

These are the facts. You can decide for yourself what your position is. But facts are facts. Sorry.

I'm a scientist...

[George W Bush]

one thing i respect about science is that it admits "WE DONT KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS"

yet, you get some peope who put these claims like a pure verdict, set in stone and there should NO debate.

real science shows the overall picture, and you conclude what you will.

I think global warming gets its bad rap from the people who attempt to define what global warming is.

how can we know what global warming is if we havent experienced it yet?

to say that ITS NOT HAPPENING, well how do you know?

[George W Bush]

I also think theres an industry of people who have a need to turn off alarms for the emotional well-being of those that panic.

Theres a basis for this especially if global warmings affect on individuals will not be life-threatening.

Is there cause for alarm for our generation? or is the cause for alarm based on future generations?

[Headrattle]

ieatfood wrote: Bottom line--you people need to trust scientists

Fact #1: scientists know more about global warming than you
Fact #2: any "logical" argument that you can come up with against global warming is likely naiive and stupid, compared to what a scientist knows.
Fact #3: there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming occurs
Fact #4: there is no scientific consensus on what impact this global warming will have on humans
Fact #5: global warming may be disastrous or it may be not so bad--we just don't know

These are the facts. You can decide for yourself what your position is. But facts are facts. Sorry.

Exactly.
Don't go to Environmentalists.
Don't go to Politicians.
Don't go to Priests.
If you want information about Climate Change, consult a Climatologist. And a majority of Climatologists believe that there is climate change and that it is caused my humans. They don't know excatly what will happen, but they are certain that we have an effect upon the climate. How far they understand that effect is currently up inthe air. However, we are learning more and more everyday.

You shouldn't discount scientific information just because you don't like it. I used to think that there was no such thing as Global Warming. But as more and more information comes out, I am more and more convinced that there is Global Climate Change. There is simply a point when you hve to accept the evidence.

[Random Evil Guy]

A.D wrote: ieatfood wrote: Bottom line--you people need to trust scientists

Fact #1: scientists know more about global warming than you
Fact #2: any "logical" argument that you can come up with against global warming is likely naiive and stupid, compared to what a scientist knows.
Fact #3: there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming occurs
Fact #4: there is no scientific consensus on what impact this global warming will have on humans
Fact #5: global warming may be disastrous or it may be not so bad--we just don't know

These are the facts. You can decide for yourself what your position is. But facts are facts. Sorry.

I'm a scientist...

ok, then. a scientist in that particular field...

[Kindred]

Random Evil Guy wrote: A.D wrote: ieatfood wrote: Bottom line--you people need to trust scientists

Fact #1: scientists know more about global warming than you
Fact #2: any "logical" argument that you can come up with against global warming is likely naiive and stupid, compared to what a scientist knows.
Fact #3: there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming occurs
Fact #4: there is no scientific consensus on what impact this global warming will have on humans
Fact #5: global warming may be disastrous or it may be not so bad--we just don't know

These are the facts. You can decide for yourself what your position is. But facts are facts. Sorry.

I'm a scientist...

ok, then. a scientist in that particular field...

Yeah, well, I'm an environmental science, but I must admitt I am not a climatologist.

[ieatfood]

I'd like add another fact:

Fact #6: According to best estimates, global warming will likely affect developing countries a lot while affecting developed countries not so much.

I dunno if that changes things. But just wanted to put that fact out there.

[liford]

Global warming's a crock.

[W.J. Wilczek]

deleted