The American Spectator : Global Warming Flaks Reduced to a Strategy of Denial

Text Size

Special Report

Global Warming Flaks Reduced to a Strategy of Denial

By Tom Bethell on 3.4.10 @ 6:07AM

For the well-funded true believer, climate change means never having to change, no way, no how.

Recently, the Washington Post published an editorial, "Climate Insurance," insisting that "the Earth is warming," and that humans have been partly responsible. There are "few reputable scientists who would disagree," the paper said.

The Post was displaying its continued fealty to the official story. Nothing had changed, the paper was telling us. It would be ignoring the accumulating snowball of reports from news media around the world that have cast more and more doubt on the official theory.

A few days earlier, on a National Public Radio program in Washington, John Broder, who covers global warming for the New York Times, metaphorically raised his right hand and proclaimed his own loyalty to the warmist faith. When Diane Rehm asked him directly Broder said: "I believe there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate is warming, and that humans are responsible."

After the Post editorial appeared. I sent a letter to the paper, asking them to identify a few scientists who believe in man-made global warming and who are neither employed by government agencies, nor are members of university departments that receive climate-change grants from government agencies.

Jane Lubchenco, the administrator of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (a part of the Department of Commerce), averred on the same Diane Rehm program that "the planet is warming." I'm quite sure that all the scientists who work under her at NOAA agree. Ditto all the scientists who work under James Hansen at the Goddard Institute for Space Science (GISS), a NASA institute.

I want to try to get this idea across. Climate change alarmism has been promoted by government-paid scientists whose promotion of these scares has done wonders for government agency budgets. In requesting $5.6 billion for NOAA's 2011 budget -- up from $4.3 billion in FY 2009 -- Lubchenco said that the recent budget request "reflects the commitment of the President and the Secretary of Commerce to job creation, science and the environment."

Job creation! Who at NOAA or NASA or GISS is going to jeopardize his or her job, or the government mission of job creation, by challenging the climate-change gravy train? Why is oil-company money said to subvert science, but not government money?

Government agencies have spent over $30 billion pursuing and promoting the global warming scare that keeps so many scientists and bureaucrats fully employed.

Meanwhile, Phil Jones, the University of East Anglia scientist at the center of the leaked emails, told the BBC recently that there hasn't been any statistically significant global warming since 1995.

How can the Washington Post or the New York Times make decisions about the truth of global warming without relying on the claims of government-funded scientists? They can't.

James Hansen was the crucial originator of the global warming scare and I imagine that in the years to come awe-filled books will be written about the scam that he came so close to pulling off. His goal was nothing less than bringing an end to the industrial age. Recently, his political agenda has become more and more extreme and blatant. He flew to Europe to testify in defense of Greenpeace eco-terrorists, and has referred to trains carrying coal to power plants as "death trains."

I believe that Hansen's science is inseparable from his politics and it's an extraordinary scandal that the head of a government institute should be engaged in blatant political agitation on behalf of the "science" that he himself largely cooked up. But the one thing that he has never had to worry about is that reporters in the mainstream media will ever ask him an awkward question.

Here is one report you will not have read about. Neither the Post nor the Times has covered it. At the end of January two meteorologists names Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts put out a 110-page report titled "Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?" It is available on the web. Here is what it says in a nutshell.

Global temperature cannot be measured at one place, obviously. You have to take readings at many different locations around the world; then you go back year after year and compile a lengthy record to see if the average temperature has been increasing with time. What D'Aleo and Watts tell us is that the government agencies compiling this data kept changing the places where the surface temperature was measured. Here is a quote from page 6 of their report:

Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world.… It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Tom Bethell is a senior editor of The American Spectator and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages, and most recently Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary? (2009).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (129) | Leave a comment

Brian Mc| 3.4.10 @ 6:49AM

It does not matter.

The media will continue to 'report' about the inconsequential voice of dissensions at the bottom of the fourth column of page seven and liberal elitists will smuggly claim that all dissent is in denial of the 'truth' which they obviously have a monopoly.

Joseph Goebbels would be so proud.

Kenny| 3.4.10 @ 7:21AM

"It does not matter"

Ah, but it does matter.

It matters because the MSM no longer is the only source of information. The American Spectator web site you're now reading is but one example of a tide of new sources of information.

The man-made global warming hoax is dying, and when the cause of death is listed, it will say, 'sunshine.'

Brian Mc| 3.4.10 @ 7:39AM

I'm sorry, Kenny but I lament that as long as ignorance is given a vote, the liberals will always win. I could refer to "The Fall of Democracy" but you have probably already read it since you refer to this website for information as I do.

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 8:57AM

It would be quite a stretch to call what the Spectator offers "information."

OPINION, certainly--lots of it, and the louder and more ignorant, the better. But information? Not so much.

Which, of course, explains why the right-wing fringe flocks to it. They don't want facts or evidence; they want to have their own prejudices confirmed. And thanks to the Internet, they can find it!

Meanwhile, back in reality....

oof oof| 3.4.10 @ 10:28AM

Dave Matthews, is that you hiding under the name copyleft? I thought they banned you. The lame stream media reports about a woman using her dead sister's false teeth, and you believe that, but what is on American Spectator you write off as lies. Go back to Democratic Underground, KOS , or the HuffPo where you can be with your brainless comrades

Doorgunner| 3.4.10 @ 12:59PM

Meanwhile, back in reality....

Leftists, such as this tool, have their lies exposed on a daily basis... thanks to the internet.

Marc Jeric| 3.4.10 @ 12:59PM

Another ignoramus sorry to see this 40-year conspiracy dying. And we are not confusing weather with climate. See Internet for "Global Warming Petition" to read the names of 31,478 indpendent American scientists (including 9,029 with PhD's) who state that there is no human-caused global warming. As for the conspiracy, it started with
1) Global cooling scam in the 1970's; that did not catch up and so was replaced by
2) Global warming hoax in the 1990's; after 11 years of cooling this was replaced by
3) Climate change flimflam; being somewhat vague (you know - whether it's cooling or warming we have to tax energy and nationalize everything) it was now replaced by
4) Cap & trade power grab; again nationalize everything, put the far-left government-paid drones in charge, tax and nationalize, introduce UN world government, distribute wealth, etc.
Now Mr. Copyleft - take this and eat it. I am one of the signatories of the GWP - MS, PhD, Engineering, UCLA, retired.

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 1:16PM

Ha! I LOVE it when the deniers bring up their beloved "Petition Project," as if science were done by majority vote.

And to have a SIGNATORY to it here--what an honor! You're right up there with Homer Simpson and Daffy Duck and similar esteemed signatories!

But let me take a wild guess... you're NOT a climatologist, are you? No, of course not. And neither were any of the other signers of that silly "petition." None of them know diddly about climatology, but they're all 100% certain that current climatology is bunk! Why? Because it HAS to be--it just HAS to.

Very credible. I give you bonus points for trotting out the old "scientists in the 70s believed in global cooling" lie. You've obviously studied all the denialists literature and committed it to memory.

Norman Conquest| 3.4.10 @ 2:00PM

Typical tactic of the left, attack instead of discuss. The petition is not “science done by vote” any more than it is a lie to point out the easily provable fact that many scientist were saying that the earth was cooling back in the 1970’s. Also, as for signatories to the petition, the cartoon characters that were mentioned, aside from their no doubt being the acme of entertainment to this Copyleft specimen, are utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Finally, for Al Gore and his acolytes such as this Copyleft person, all one needs to do is change the word “bunk” to “truth” and this sentence, uttered by the utterly witless Copyleft applies to them splendidly. “None of them know diddly about climatology, but they're all 100% certain that current climatology is bunk! Why? Because it HAS to be--it just HAS to.”

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 2:28PM

Actually, I did include a fact, Norman--I noted that NONE of the petition signers were actually qualified to pass judgment on climate science. (Hint: Engineers are not climatologists, any more than a dentist is an architect.)

Now, do you have any facts to the contrary?

Norman Conquest| 3.4.10 @ 2:39PM

Or anymore than an ex-vice president and failed presidential candidate is an expert on climate science.

Copyright| 3.4.10 @ 2:46PM

Speaking of signatories, let's have a look at the Byrd-Hagel Resolution of 1997. Who were some of the senators who voted for it? Oh, let's see, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Tom Harkin, Dick Durbin. Democrat hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Troll Watch| 3.4.10 @ 3:26PM

Typical fascist. He thinks he can buy his science with government money.

Chemman| 3.4.10 @ 7:49PM

In that case there are no real climatologists. Such a degree is only now being offered at a few Universities. Also you mean to say that the Laws of Thermodynamics, Fluid Chemistry and such do not apply to Climatology. The only uneducated one here is you.

Dai Alanye| 3.4.10 @ 3:21PM

>>Ha! I LOVE it when the deniers bring up their beloved "Petition Project," as if science were done by majority vote.

Dai Alanye| 3.4.10 @ 3:22PM

>>Ha! I LOVE it when the deniers bring up their beloved "Petition Project," as if science were done by majority vote.

Chemman| 3.4.10 @ 7:52PM

So 200 or so researchers who agree with AGW makes a consensus but 30,000 mean nothing. What are you smoking?

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.6.10 @ 9:40PM

Stop pestering copyleft with things like history, facts and logic. Climatologists??? What a pathetic worm you are, your comments are ridiculously ignorant and would be better suited for myspace or the like. You are way out of your league here.

BA Cyclone| 3.6.10 @ 11:05PM

Copyleft: "as if science were done by majority vote."

You said it, not I. Every person that quotes anything about "consensus", we can then agree, is not using science to bolster their argument...but politics.

SC Mike| 3.4.10 @ 8:08AM

Bethell’s done a great job of summarizing the controversy and identifying the key resources available for further research. I would only add two points.

The first is that the warmists’ conspiracy appears to have started in earnest around 1990. That’s when the great die-off of surface temperature stations occurred (the number of weather stations whose data were used in temperature reconstructions shrank from >6,000 to

SC Mike| 3.4.10 @ 8:08AM

Not sure what happened. Here goes again:

Bethell’s done a great job of summarizing the controversy and identifying the key resources available for further research. I would only add two points.

SC Mike| 3.4.10 @ 8:10AM

shrank from >6,000 to

JP| 3.4.10 @ 8:32AM

I get your drift. For the record, there are around 1700 reporting stations (give or take a dozen or so) worldwide that the USHCN uses. But not all of these stations are used by the Big 3 (NOAA, HadCrut, and GISS). As a matter of fact, scientists have waited for years to get the exact data that is used by these 3 organiztions. Slowly the data has been coming out and the results are not pretty.

Busbar Processor Machine| 3.4.10 @ 8:14AM

Fivestar Tools,Manufacture Busbar Processor Machine,With busbar cutting tool,bending tool and punching tool.

John W.| 3.4.10 @ 9:28AM

Tom,

If any readers go to RealClimate.org, they should keep in mind that it is a George Soros site, funded most proximately through Fenton Communications. They should also be aware that two of the principal, Mann and Schmidt, have been among the most prominent in perpetrating the AGW fraud through their global climate "model" (which has the same scientific basis as a palm reader’s predictions for wealth and true love).

Richard Baker| 3.4.10 @ 9:29AM

Don't confuse them with the facts. They know what they know.

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 10:02AM

Agreed. You have encapsulated right-wingers perfectly.

Dissatisfied with REAL reporting because it wasn't telling them what they wanted to hear, they flocked first to talk radio, then to the Internet to find validation for their curiously ignorant beliefs.

bob s| 3.4.10 @ 12:52PM

Copyturd- it seems you have learned your Alinsky well- always accuse others of what YOU are guilty of.

Warrior| 3.4.10 @ 5:59PM

Mr. Left: I am willing to buy into AGW if you can scientifically answer one question. What temperature is the earth supposed to be?

When the arctic ice is melting, the underlying plants and animals decompose and give off methane. What's puzzling, is when did man cause the earth to warm so much that plants and animals were able to live under what we now consider to the arctic. I know, all this is silly.

Chemman| 3.4.10 @ 7:56PM

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but Journalism changed in 1963. At that point the Schools of Journalism began teaching that Journalists needed to interpret the facts not just give them. So while the news is telling you what you want to hear it is no guarantee it is true.

Maxwell| 3.4.10 @ 10:10AM

Let me ask a simple question, nothing to hard but a question none the less. I'm a programmer and have been since computer logic boards were hard wired. Now when I write or modify a program I have data which I use to test all parts of my programs. This data comes from production so as to reflect the real world. If the program blows up in test I make the corrections. Most of the time I have my bases covered. In the case of something going wrong when everything goes live, well, I add that to my test case and make the corrections. This is not rocket science! Anyone can look at my test data and say it was good or you need to make this addition or correction.

So, after all of that, why is NASA and all of the others that say we are getting warmer not say, 'Here is our data and proof, review our findings!'

John W.| 3.4.10 @ 12:20PM

Because of pre4cisely what's happened. They don't have the data to prove their case. In fact, the available data tends to disprove their case. They succeeded in keeping that concealed until the UAE hack/leek.

moonhoaxer| 3.7.10 @ 9:10PM

Actually, all the raw data that NASA use in their models is freely available on their website. Clearly, Maxwell, you never bothered to check your claims.

Lots more data and code for the climate models can be accessed from the "Data sources" page of realclimate.org. By the way, John W's attempted "debunking" of the realclimate.org site would get an F-grade if it was assessed: he's playing the man (George Soros, and Mann and Schmidt) and not the ball: the ball was dropped long ago. I challenge him to debunk the arguments that they use.

Surely, the freely-available data is being analysed ad-nauseum by the denialist camp, but they can't come up with anything to demolish the scientific orthodoxy (a few non-peer reviewed emails and a typo in the WG2 synthesis report do not disprove a theory that has been built on evidence and scientific reasoning over many decades).

I find it hilarious that hard-right conservatives try to demolish an established scientific theory with amateurish high-school science arguments, without realising that they are making such silly arguments in the first place because they don't understand anything about the theory, except that it threatens the little self-important existence that they are used to.

To most conservatives: I suggest you stay away from science - it is clearly not your thing. Neither is logic. Neither is reason. Go back to the hole where we keep all the creationists.

owyheewine| 3.4.10 @ 10:43AM

The warmers may have received a boost to their warming case from a true global warming event, the massive Chilean earthquake. The energy released by the movement of the earth's plate did not just disappear. By the second law of thermodynamics, it just changed form, in this case from kinetic energy to heat.
The Sumatran earthquake in 2004 released as much energy as mankind uses in a thousand years according to geophysicists. That means that Chile may have liberated maybe 300 years worth of human usage. Now, how the heat generated manifests itself is beyond my level of expertise, but it likely was absorbed mostly in the Pacific Ocean. In any case that heat is in the earth somewhere.
On a slightly picky point. A single equation with ten variables has a huge number of solutions. The analogy is still good though, because a solver can essentially pick the answer he chooses.

Chemman| 3.4.10 @ 7:58PM

No boost to the AGW case whatsoever. It does boost the skeptics case that the changing climate is a result of natural forces and variability.

Hardcard| 3.4.10 @ 10:50AM

Stop Senator Lindsay Graham's tampering in the US Senate ie green progressive B/S. South Carolinians make him stop.

Richard Baker| 3.4.10 @ 10:53AM

Copyleft:
I was referring to the global warming/climate change hoaxmeisters. Do you get out often?

Dein| 3.4.10 @ 11:14AM

I have yet to see in any media an explanation for the coming "ice age"that was also consensus in the 70's.Remember how the cold was going to destroy agriculture,starve millions if not billions of people,animals,cause mass displacements, extinctions bla bla bla ... u know the drill. You have a50% chance of GUESSING if the climate is going to get warmer or colder;no one has PROVEN that .0015% annual increase in co2 has caused anything except an increase in co2 .Why did the issue change from agw to "climate change"and now "ocean acidification"What exactly is the climate "supposed" to look like in 50-100 yrs compared to what the alarmists say it's going to be?What are the answers to a "problem" that cannot be identified OR verified?The real problem is that the warmers,politicians,academia,and those with vested interests,have so polluted the issue with cultism,fraud, alarmism and exaggeration[all of this observable or proven] that now the credibility of those involved and the WHOLE SUBJECT itself [agw,cc,oa,etc.] if it does exist,HAS BECOME HIGHLY DOUBTFUL,and best of all,HIGHLY IRRELEVANT.

TexasChile| 3.4.10 @ 11:43AM

CopyLeft: You are not very smart if you think there is some "REAL" reporting out there in the media. All news and all reporting is just an opinion from someone. Even a history book is just someone's opinion of what happened. All reporting has information, including this website. I love how you lefty's try to discredit anything that is not your version of what happened. I guess you believe Michael Moore provides good information too. LOL.

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 12:54PM

Amazing, Chile; you'd fit right into a Postmodern Academics program at any liberal college in the country!

"All knowledge is relative... there is no objective truth... history is pure opinion..." well done! How long have you been a leftist?

GW| 3.4.10 @ 5:31PM

Where did he say there is no objective truth? Human objectivity is a myth, not objective truth.

This article presents web sites readers can visit from both sides of the argument. I doubt any leftwing site would ever do that.

Sceptic3| 3.4.10 @ 11:59AM

The whole warmist scam was dreamed up to facilitate the redistribution of wealth via carbon credits. Which means that working people in the west pay tax to line the pockets of third world brigands, especially those affiliated to the U.N

But even the vegetarians have jumped on the band wagon claiming livestock for consumption contributes to climate change. Trouble is our idiot politicians in Great Britain believe it and have taken meat of the menu in our National Health hospitals.

A word of warning from this side of the pond. Do not let the left wing gain control of your country. They will create turmoil in a country that used to know where it was at. And they do not believe in democracy.

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 12:57PM

Aww, you still miss Thatcher, don't you? And hey, that British National Party had some spiffy ideas too, didn't they?

Vinnie| 3.4.10 @ 1:45PM

In a foul mood today, eh, Copyleft?

Relax. Obama is here to save the day!

mmm-mmm-mmm

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 2:30PM

Nope... I'm just more amused by the fact-free vapidity of the fringe right than usual!

Sadly, Obama can't save the day--because he's no liberal, which is what America REALLY needs.

Jeremiah| 3.4.10 @ 7:21PM

Copyleft, yours is about the only stuff on this thread that is fact-free.

What is happening, people, is what always happens when utopians' schemes start collapsing. The left, like most reigning establishments in history, indulges itself in the vanity that it is intellectually superior and that it's ideological preferences are self-evident. As evidence punctures these vanities over time, they become shrill. The reason is twofold. First, their notion of intellectual superiority, though contradicted by evidence and reason, is not a quality they use to seek after truth. Rather, it is a means by which they attempt to club evidence and reason into submission. It becomes an article of faith to them that they are intellectually superior - a facet of their own perception of their identity.

Second, they are long accustomed to getting their way through intimidation. They use that tool by long-standing inclination. But the truth is, their intellectual arteries have so hardened that they are no longer capable of rational discourse. All they have left is the insult, the smear, the attack. The more they use thoswe means, the more clear it becomes how fraudulent their claims to intellect at all become (much less intellectual superiority). Thispainfully erodes their own identity and the howls become ever louder.

This is why Copyleft and others like him become more heated in their rhetoric even as the emptiness of their intellectual larder becomes obvious. Pity the poor soul. He can't make an argument using fact and reason. Like the wicked witch of the west in the Wizard of Oz, all he can do is stand screaming, "I'm melting, I'm melting." At least the witch knew it was not global warming that was melting her.

Sadly, Copyleft will undoubtedly continue to try to convince himself and us that a horse chestnut is actually a chestnut horse. But it's too late. He and his kind are melting - right in front of God and everyone.

Jon B| 3.4.10 @ 12:09PM

It's not this complicated. Do science models exist that prove CO2 contributes to warming? Yes.

At the risk of sounding ridiculous, temperature measurements are not an indicator of whether or not CO2 contributes to warming since orbits and many other variables also affect temperature changes. The Milankovitch cycles, for example, are orbits we've entered regularly every 100,000 for at least the last 1 million years that bring on a mild ice age. We're on track to enter this orbit right now.

There are so many side affects from increased CO2 levels as well as a group of positive feedback loops enhancing warming. I would rather err on the side of caution at this point.

John W.| 3.4.10 @ 12:24PM

I would rather err on the side of caution at this point.

Not a problem. I'll support every program that you, personnally, want to pick up the complete tab for.

Crustacean| 3.4.10 @ 12:32PM

Yes, CO2 traps solar radiaton, and yes, the bandwidths in which it performs this feat are overlapped by those in which water vapor, a vastly more potent greenhouse gas, does the same thing. Hence, as the late Reid Bryson, known by many as the father of the modern science of climatology, told me in an interview a few years ago, "You could go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling CO2."

Oh, and it's "flack," not "flak." One is a huckster and the other is anti-aircraft fire.

FTM| 3.4.10 @ 11:22PM

Actually it's "Flug Anti-Kannon. The word Flak is actually an acronym.

thor| 3.5.10 @ 3:51AM

Close. FLAK is a German acronym for Flugabwehrkannone which translates to anti-aircraft cannon or a literal translation would be anti-flight cannon.

FTM| 3.5.10 @ 10:30PM

Once more, close but no ccigar, day late and a dollar short. My lot in life.

Tom Bethell| 3.4.10 @ 12:33PM

I am the author of the article you are commenting on. I was wondering if it's possible to discern the balance of political sentiment about global warming by analyzing the the online comments on various websites.

At the American Spectator, one would expect most comments to be opposed to the pro-warming consensus of government-paid science. So it would not be a fair test to judge based on the responses here. I would not judge by "Watts Up With That?" either--one of the leading skeptic sites. But how about some other, perhaps more neutral site?

Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial very much like the Washington Post's above, telling us that global warming is real and urging us to get behind the program, etc. [Getting Global Warming Right," L.A. Times March 3, 2010]

The LAT is a liberal paper, and so I guess are most of its readers. What was the response to the paper's editorial?

I just checked. There were 45 replies, according to their website. I went through them all, and counted 5 responses pro-global warming, 5 neutral, and 30 opposed. (I know, that adds up to 40, so maybe the paper deleted some replies).

But even at the LAT website, the balance of sentiment seems to be running 6 to 1 against the argument that humans are causing global warming, and against the paper's own editorial. Certainly the skeptics have the energy and enthusiasm on their side right now. And that is good news.

The science--let me put it politely--is extremely murky and at best inconclusive. As far as legislation in Washington is concerned, the issue will be decided by voters, not by scientists with government jobs or government grants.

So keep it coming! -- TB

Brian B| 3.4.10 @ 1:07PM

Tom, Just wanted to thank you for all you've written over the last many years. Have been reading your great stuff at AmSpec since the "Alternative" days.

Jon B| 3.4.10 @ 12:39PM

I'd also like to comment on the main point in the article. The author explains how complicated it is for scientists to measure temperatures, and how the data may be manipulated. True, but missing from his analysis is the fact that we've lost records amount of ice in the Arctic, and even more ice in the Antarctic even though surface temperatures in the Antarctic are cooler than normal and there is more surface ice as a result. This of course means that warmer ocean temperatures are causing the melting. It can be determined that we are warming from that alone.

At some point, John W, you might want to draw a line between $'s and possible extinction of life as we know it/ health concerns from excessive CO2. As CO2 levels increases, the pores on leaves close slowing photosynthesis, causing a greater increase in CO2 levels since we dump, what is it? 90 million tons a day into the atmosphere. In other words, even if increased CO2 levels aren't as significant of a contributor as MMGW scientists think it is, it's not good in other ways.

blackwatch| 3.4.10 @ 3:42PM

and when the ice melts in Greenland and Canada and the scientists find tree stumps below the glacier what are we to think about how they got there?

obviously the earth was warmer before the snow built up into a glacier.

there is no "CORRECT" temperature for the earth you idiot. just because you were born in the last few years does mean that you know spit about the climate. please explain how there used to be a mile thick sheet of ice over most of North American and how that ice disappeared.

It's all about a power and wealth transfer and you are too thick to see that. Grow up and be a man and think for yourself. Quit playing video games too. That crap rots your mind.

MikeBee| 3.4.10 @ 8:42PM

Excellent, Blackwatch! In my state of Michigan, there are very big sand dunes on the eastern shores of Lake Michigan, at times 400 feet high overlooking the lake. Geologists tell us that these sand dunes were formed by glaciers moving slowly over the earth at those points. How is it that the state of Michigan was under ice? Was Michigan once near a different North Pole? The point is that the Earth changes all the time; there are warming periods and cooling periods. All of this occurs simply to renew the Earth, to continue life on Earth. I sure wish man COULD affect the earth's climate. If it were possible, I would have bought cartloads of aerosol spray cans a long time ago, put my arm out the window, and emptied all of them. Then, Michigan's climate would be like South Carolina's. Man-caused global climate change: what a bunch of hogwash!

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 12:36AM

Interesting comment. No one's saying we were not hot before. What they're saying is that we've never heated up this fast before, and it coincides with the massive coal burning started during the Industrial Age. Why not try reality, Blackwatch?

blackwatch| 3.8.10 @ 12:51AM

wow--we have never heated up this fast before. never is a supremely long time. kinda a big number. So all of this unforeseen rapid warming all started during the "industrial age" did it? uhh? was that before or after 1939 and did it end before 1995? My recollection of the industrial age is that it started in the middle of the 1800's and has continued until right about...now.

Face it Jon you don't have enough data points to make exaggerated claims about trends in the surface temperature of a planet the size of earth. And the miserable data you have is so corrupt that its worthless.

Oh course that would require you to visit the zip code known as "reality." How old are you anyway? Do you realise in the 1970's there was a big scare about the impending ice age?

Please try to think this through--man kind is not as smart as you think we are. the planet and the universe are way to big and way too old for us to matter much. CO2 is not a pollutant. There is more H2O in the atmosphere and it does have an affect on temperature. Are we going to ban water next? Or just tax its usage?

Chemman| 3.4.10 @ 8:06PM

The pores on leaves close to slow down transpiration and does not affect the movement of CO2 into cells.

John W.| 3.5.10 @ 2:27PM

I have. Given the probability that AGW is correct, the expected value of every $trillion spent on AGW abatement is roughly $0.01.

And, please, stop making up biology. We live on Earth, not Pandora.

Pat| 3.4.10 @ 12:40PM

Global Warming is one of the finest money laundering schemes yet devised by our political masters. A Congressman’s chief of staff shares a rib eye steak and a Bombay Sapphire and tonic with a lobbyist at a Georgetown bistro, shortly thereafter a line item is inserted within the Federal budget to include an additional $10 million dollars payable to a federally funded entity, say the National Institutes of Health. The NIH then awards $5 million of the gift to another foundation which pays its Director an annual salary of $250,000, provides him a company car at no expense, awards him a generous annual travel allowance and a budget for “office expenses” such as young, female administrative assistants.

The foundation’s Director then steers $2 million towards an internationally recognized university to study the effects of man-made climate change on the long term health of those with respiratory illnesses. Per their stated policy, the university’s administrators direct the money towards a university department headed by a professor who also happens to be a member of the IPCC, a separately funded, independent committee which advises national leaders on climate change issues. The university reserves 15% of the grant money or $300,000 for “general and administrative overhead expenses”, nothing unusual about that practice, they do the same with every grant they receive per university rules. But, the general and administrative overhead category also happens to pay their generous annual salaries and provides funding for their lucrative pension plans while doing the same for that famous professor who heads the department.

Unlike Columbian drug lords laundering their drug profits, none of these people have committed a crime, everything they have done is perfectly legal. Each step along the way, someone receives a payoff from money taken from taxpayers like yourself. And there is very little you can do about it, next election you can vote against your Congressmen, that politician may fail re-election and, assuming he or she had something to do with awarding future taxpayer funded grants, it might slow the process slightly until new arrangements are established with other Congressmen.

This laundering operation has been going on for several years and is actually what Global Warming is all about. The media does their part and keeps the citizenry distracted through debating the causes and related politics of Global Warming – and the media seldom mentions the money involved and then only in a vague and general way. Global Warming is very “real”, just ask those folks receiving the money.

Kenny| 3.4.10 @ 12:45PM

Hi Tom,

Here's a blog to chew on. It's by Walter Russell Mead, and he's taking in the New York Times (and journalists in general) to account for ignoring ClimateGate and the implications therein.

http://blogs.the-american-inte.....#more-3119

Of course what makes this significant is that Mead is the quientessential establishment insider.

I'd love to hear your views on Mead's analysis.

Tom Bethell| 3.5.10 @ 2:45AM

Agree, Walter Russell Mead is well worth reading. To me he was also an unexpected ally of the skeptic cause. WRM comes from the heart of the Establishment.

Brian B| 3.4.10 @ 12:52PM

--Do science models exist that prove CO2 contributes to warming? Yes.--
That's not true. The GCMs vary widely in their projections, are based on what we are learning more and mor is a corrupted data base, are only adept at hindcasting and are a vastly simplified and incomplete model of the climate, a fact which even the modelers concede.
The models have not yet been disproven, but that is hardly the same as saying they have proven anything. Their projections appear to be diverging more and more from satellite records so they are not at this point reliable whatsoever as far as telling us what the side of caution acutally is.

John W.| 3.4.10 @ 2:58PM

One correction: The last I heard, the GCMs fail completely at hindcasting. Has something changed?

Brian B| 3.4.10 @ 1:04PM

--True, but missing from his analysis is the fact that we've lost records amount of ice in the Arctic, and even more ice in the Antarctic even though surface temperatures in the Antarctic are cooler than normal and there is more surface ice as a result. This of course means that warmer ocean temperatures are causing the melting. It can be determined that we are warming from that alone. --

First, the assertion that there is more surface ice (presumably you're talking sea ice) in the Antarctic but less overall is not true.
Second, the assertion that any melting is attributable to warmer overall ocean temps is also not true. SSTs appear stable and are on a par with the 1940's and late 1800's.
Far more important are probably ENSO, PDO and other naturally occuring oscillations in sea current, temps and winds.

Dagny Taggert| 3.4.10 @ 1:06PM

Here is the money line from the Post Editorial:

"The first is to acknowledge a level of uncertainty in the predictions and make the case for taking out an insurance policy, as would any prudent homeowner. It's true that we don't know for sure how many degrees warmer the Earth will be, on average, by 2050 or what effect this will have on the ferocity of storms or coastal flooding or starvation-inducing drought. But it's also true that, as the science has progressed, the predictions have become more dire, not less -- "

Two gems in there:
1) Just as in healthcare, the lefties can't comprehend how insurance works. What "prudent homeowner" would buy insurance where they a) they don't know what they're insured for (not knowing the "effects" AGW will have on storms, floods or droughts) or b) when they don't know how much their premiums will be (uncertainty in predictions is the equivalent of the insurance co. not knowing how to price the risk.)

Copyleft, do libs just think insurance companies are a black hole of money that makes evil profits ready to be robin-hooded by politicians?

2) I've noticed as long as this thing has gone on that the that the predictions ALWAYS get more dire. How else do they keep it front and center to keep the grants going? If this was being done honestly, don't you think we'd see an occasional headline that didn't one-up the last dire prediction?

These are the "facts" copyleft must be referring to in the "news."

Jon B| 3.4.10 @ 1:17PM

Just curious, why did Health insurers pour over $1 billion into political coffers and lobbyists in the last 2 years? How is it that wasting 31% on HMO administrative costs & 11% on their profits "conservative?" It's waste, period. You can save $400 billion a year alone by eliminating the middle man here. It's the true conservative thing to do. But I fear my brethren have drifted off into political ideology falsely labeled these days.

Jon B| 3.4.10 @ 1:11PM

My comment is that we've lost more ice in the Antarctic than the arctic due to melting. It was not in relation to anything you indicated. The point is that to lose record amounts of ice in both poles speaks more accurately to overall temperatures more-so than inconsistent temperature measuring methods.

Here's another one for you. CO2 levels are the highest where there is the most surface warming, and they are the lowest where there is the most surface cooling. Some might say that CO2 levels follow temperature changes, but we're at 650,000 year CO2 highs and not even close to estimated temperature highs in the last 4,000 years.

Dein| 3.4.10 @ 1:26PM

We know c02 acts as a ghg.If this is not complicated,why has billions in research not proven that a 1.5ppm /annum rise of such a such an insignific.ant piece of the gh effect has any influence on climate compared to all the other variables .Are these the same models that predicted the new ice age[ not ]the catastrophic sea rise[not],the loss of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 [not]loss of 50�rican agriculture[not],melting polar ice caps,[not],increased #of hurricanes[now its the intensity]not the#,Holland under water[its been below sea level] .Do u get the point?This is alarmism,not science,all intended to promote a political agenda imho.How will u err on the side of caution?Cfl bulbs?,a green car?ethanol?Algores movies?THere r much bigger REAL PROBLEMS THAT NEED OUR TIME AND ENERGIES...Islam,debt,unemployment,socialism,inner city [lack of] education,50%grad rates,economy,foreclosures etc. Ican't wait for the perpetrators of this issue are exposed once and for all so we can get done what needs to be done

Barbarian Heretic| 3.4.10 @ 1:26PM

Doesn't the Warmist argument hinge upon the premise that 'change is bad'? If so, who has been authorized to determine that our current climate is optimal?

If the Earth warms, that will be good for some, bad for others. Some places will improve, others will be less hospitable. If the coasts flood- I guess we'll need to move. That's what the term 'adaptation' is all about.

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 2:32PM

When change occurs too rapidly for the affected species to adjust, it's called a "natural disaster." Followed by "extinction."

THAT'S why it matters, Barbarian.

MensaMensaMan| 3.4.10 @ 3:05PM

Hey Copygenius,
So what?

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 4:06PM

Because we'e a species, MMM... at least, some of us are. I'm not too sure about the alien spores that occupy the minds of the fringe right to drive their curious and logic-free ideas....

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 4:06PM

Hmm, another typo: "WE'RE a species."

MensaMensaMan| 3.4.10 @ 6:18PM

Come on, CopyLeft. So we're a species. So what?

gypsie| 3.4.10 @ 5:16PM

we will survive. your kind won't.

and that's just fine with me. one less mouth breathing freeloader living in his mommies basement with waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyy too much time on his hands

Manphibian| 3.4.10 @ 1:53PM

Well, if Dawrinism were true, we would have evolved and grown fins to adapt to the melting ice caps that will be soon covering more and more land.
Dont'cha think?

Brian B| 3.4.10 @ 2:37PM

--My comment is that we've lost more ice in the Antarctic than the arctic due to melting.--

My comment is that's a load of crap. Give a citation.

--Here's another one for you. CO2 levels are the highest where there is the most surface warming, and they are the lowest where there is the most surface cooling.--

So you're saying that mere contact with it causes instant heating? Again, citation please.

--Some might say that CO2 levels follow temperature changes, but we're at 650,000 year CO2 highs and not even close to estimated temperature highs in the last 4,000 years.--

This is not an argument that supports your position.

Jon B| 3.4.10 @ 3:30PM

Ah, feel the anger w/o backup. So many emotions to deal with instead of straight forward logic...Either way, whether CO2 is a significant cause for warming, or not, pollution is killing us. After enforcement of 3 crucial laws that helped regulate mercury emissions ended in 2001/2002, the EPA found that 1 in 6 US babies were at risk for brain damage due to high mercury levels in fish their moms ate-540,000 every year. Prosecutions for airborne pollution dropped by 80% in 2001. At the same time, premature deaths from airborne illnesses increased by 15,000/year. Irregardless of the effect CO2 has on warming, it's not good in other ways. I want to conserve the planet, not liberally waste it on a for-profit ideology.

blackwatch| 3.4.10 @ 3:53PM

Man you really are way too left for your own good. For-profit ideology has given you everything you own or touch on a daily basis.

without the profit motive you would have nothing. go read about the history of any communist state. they start fine and then the shlubs figure out the the new boss is same as the old boss. Only by then the new boss has a uniform and gun and true believers like YOU to bash in the brains of anyone who disagrees with you.

IF you tried to be more pathetic I don't think you could do it.

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 4:08PM

The virtues (and vices) of capitalism are irrelevant to this issue. It's a matter of scientific fact.

Whether industry LIKES or HATES the conclusions of science, they remain true. And our only choice is to accept the facts and plan accordingly... or deny them and expect to pay the price for stubborn ignorance.

MensaMensaMan| 3.5.10 @ 2:03PM

Actually copygenius,
Science means knowledge. It's actually in the book called the dictionary, and it's filled with science, that is knowledge for you to learn. Like what the word science means.
Now, taking that just one step further, or farther if you prefer, I don't know you will have to consult the dictionary to see which one of those words would be the correct usage in this case, but I digress. So, science may be knowledge but that doesn't mean that all knowledge is correct, now does it there, my friend?

IntelluctuallySuperior | 3.4.10 @ 6:15PM

Actually Jon B., Irregardless isn't a word. It's been scientifically proven beyond a doubt.

Jon B| 3.7.10 @ 11:39AM

Irregardless is a word. You can look it up. The most common comment about irregardless is that it isn't a word though, in your defense.

IntellectuallySuperior| 3.7.10 @ 6:07PM

Yeah but did you have to go and look it up? You smarty pants you. And besides, it's not really SUPPOSED to be a word. So there!
From the dictionary:
"Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : regardless
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 12:39AM

Of course I looked it up....awhile ago the last time someone told me it wasn't a word, lol!

Bob| 3.4.10 @ 3:32PM

Again, we see the scientifically illiterate people of AmSpec make statements and not show the data. Here is a chart of the direct measurements and satellite data of the past 30 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....atures.png

You can certainly see the rise in temperatures. Note that none of either the right wing or left wing extremists will give you links to the data because they know they are speaking to idiots.

From a purely mathematical standpoint, you can use selected periods and regression analysis to come to virtually any conclusion to make your point. Because of the global temperature anomaly of 1998, if you chose the period of 1995 to present, the regression would show a decline. But if you go back all of the way to 1980, you see an increase. This is how statisticians fool you and why you need to actually look at the data. This type of data has significant variability which is why you must look at long periods of time.

By the way, Marc Jeric is correct that there is no causal proof of the correlation between the rise in CO2 levels and global warming which means that it is difficult to blame the bulk of the rise on man. That said, the data shows the following:

1. Longer term, there is certainly global warming.

2. There has been a shorter, decade long decline in global temperatures for the last 10-15 years. This has occurred in our past in the early 1900's and the mid-1900's -- about every 50 years.

3. From a mathematical perspective, the longer term trend has a higher probability of continuing than a reversal of the trend over the last decade as evidence by previous decade long downturns. If there had not been evidence of this occurring before, the probabilities would be less so.

4. There is absolutely no evidence that the bulk of the rise over the past 30 years is due to manmade activity given the rather low absolute CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

From a non-partisan perspective, while there could be some alarm, making radical changes in our spending on global warming activities is not warranted. However, more research is warranted on CO2 causality and alternative energy sources that are less polluting. In the big scheme of things, research is cheap while implementation is expensive.

pointyheadedliberal| 3.4.10 @ 6:12PM

Bob,
Do you always have a pencil behind your ear? And do you always wear button down shirts, like even when you're relaxing at home?

Troll Watch| 3.4.10 @ 7:43PM

Bob needs to contact Phil Jones immediately. He has been saying that there is no statistically significant warming since 1995. I guess he can't afford to hire a statistician as good as Bob. I wonder if Bob wears clown shoes?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....nised.html

Read this story and remember this is the kind of significant scientist that Copyleft would bet the farm on.

blackwatch| 3.4.10 @ 11:51PM

My god, NASA has 30 years of data and you think that you can statistically make any realistic predictions about the dynamic fluid we call the atmosphere? Do you have any idea how complex the atmosphere is and how big our planet actually is? The climatologists have no chance in hell in getting it right so they make "models" to create predictions which are crafted to create the expected result. This is the opposite of science this is a oujia board. This is "climatology" is not hard core physics which is what you need to build a model of a dynamic fluid. The climatologists are environmental science students, sorta like a being a greeny economist. No a real science--just playing the system for grant money and hoping to get it right.

According to your last paragraph atleast it seems that you finally realize how pointless it is to back any policy other than further research at this time and for say the next 50 to 100 years.

Co2 emmissions--what a load of dingos kidneys!!

JimInIndy| 3.4.10 @ 3:33PM

Jon B; Check the current Arctic ice status @ WUWT: http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Simple research, which I'll leave to your skills, will reveal that the Antarctic has been gaining ice mass for the past ten years. The Northern peninsula is shedding ice, but the South Pole base has been raised twice in recent years to stay above snow/ice accumulation. Give us a cite for your asserted ice losses.

Jon B| 3.4.10 @ 3:39PM

I did say that there was an increase of ice on the surface, not the surface area, but that the Antarctic lost more ice than the Arctic due to warmer ocean currents. You're repeating what I said and acting like there's a contradiction...I agree with Bob's response just above yours.

Ms. Hennypecker| 3.5.10 @ 1:58PM

JiminIndy,
Now seriously. Don't you think we ought to confer with Chicken Little before we go saying such hereticlical things? And before you go pecking on me, I know I just made up a new word.

voted against carter| 3.4.10 @ 3:48PM

WOLF!! WOLF!! OH NO!! THE SKY IS FALLING!! oh wait,... it's not. Never mind.

owyheewine| 3.4.10 @ 4:09PM

The lefty agents that muck up these discussions appear to be among the huge majority that don't even understand what the mechanism is for so called global warming.
They seem to think that those evil CO2 molecules can of their own free will trap heat and cause this catastrophic temperature change referred to as global warming.
In fact the temperature of the air is determined by an energy balance. Sunlight mostly travels uneffected by the atmosphere and strikes the surface of the earth. Some is absorbed and some reflected and or reradiated. Here is the key point. The amount of energy reradiated doesn't change. The energy reradiated either returns to space or is absorbed by the atmosphere. Remember that amount of energy is constant. Now CO2 has a slightly higher specific heat than oxygen and nitrogen, so it takes more heat to raise the temperature of a CO2 molecule than other air components. Now if total input is constant, increased CO2 would mean that air does no get hotter with increased CO2, it is cooler. When the sun goes down and the atmosphere cools, the heat is not trapped, it is released from CO2 just the same as the rest of air.
The models that predict how heat is released from the atmosphere back to space are based on a set of differential equations that have been shown to be wrongly derived, and show increased temperature whatever the atmospheric composition, and it is these bad equations that the warmers rely on.

John W.| 3.5.10 @ 2:34PM

How dare you introduce thermodynamics, Conservation of Energy and basic chemnistry into this! You must be a skeptical denialist!

8^)

ACynuc| 3.4.10 @ 4:58PM

Let's see now.

Phil Jones of East Anglia University, probably the most zealous AGW proponent says,

" that there hasn't been any statistically significant global warming since 1995."

And the response from the AGW pseudo-religious fanatics is ??? .............. AGW is real.
Oh well, goes to show that the facts are irrelevant, and all that matters is the political ideology of AGW proponents.

Paul from SA| 3.4.10 @ 5:12PM

We don't have reliable, accurate surface instrument data, not in the late 1800's, not in the mid 1900's and not even now.

We can use satellite data from 1979 and ocean data from the ARGO network which began several years ago.

The proxy data is bogus.

Surface temp. collection is bogus.

One single number cannot be assigned to be the temperture of the entire planet.

Dein| 3.4.10 @ 6:48PM

See what I mean about agenda?How does someone make the logical jump from a discussion about false agw claims to insurance co. profits?Besides,I'm still waiting to hear about the "ice age" from the climate models of the 70's;you know the one that never showed up.Sorry,I can't let it go...

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.4.10 @ 7:08PM

Thank you guys..............but......

The skinny little asses that argue with you...have never... and will never ....accomplish anything!

They will build nothing...energize nothing ...do nothing, but hold their hand out for money you have earned.

The only problem with that is that the hand they hold out has a gun in it.
Shoot the little twits....on sight. They make great rabbit stew. heh.
They do not realize yet that they have picked the wrong side.

jeans| 3.4.10 @ 10:47PM

A HOT new pair of True Religion Jeans is the quickest way to update your look without overhauling your entire wardrobe.Shopping online with great discount for the Seven jeans now. Seven for mankind this season is designed for you.Get it now. http://www.jeans-classic.com

blackwatch| 3.4.10 @ 11:57PM

So the next philisopical discussion should be what kind of jeans would Jesus where? "True Religion Jeans?" I kinda doubt it. Probably more like New Testament brand.

hubel458| 3.5.10 @ 11:36PM

The 10,000 year warming trend is only
the northern hemisphere, due to coming out
of the ice age. During the time of glaciers
covering parts of the northern hemisphere, the
southern hemisphere was much warmer, so it
all balanced out, an equilibrium. Southern
hemisphere was so warm that Antarctica was
tropical and no ice, in fact it its island features
were visible to ancients who mapped them.
The maps are in ancient documents in Europe.
It is a bunch of islands in a circle with a mile or
more of ice piled on them now. And when our
scientists figured out the island layout by
core driling, etc, it mayched the old maps.
And the cores showed tropical plants had
grown there before.

On the whole globe average there isn't a change,
as the source of our heat is the stable sun and
the hot core of the earth. Weather will shift
around, but averages of the whole globe
won't change much. Ed Hubel.

John Blake| 3.5.10 @ 9:55PM

As Lorenz's Chaos Theory shows (1964), linear extrapolations of complex dynamic systems such as Earth's atmosphere are mathematically impossible due to sensitive dependence on initial conditions (the Butterfly Effect). Cyclical patterns may resolve periodic peaks and troughs, whereby one may project recurrent waves in terms of amplitudes and frequencies, but that is all. Moreover, open systems are necessarily subject to Boltzman's thermodynamic Law of Entropy that prohibits "runaway Greenhouse Effects" due to heat-engines' intrinsic inefficiency. To suggest otherwise, as Warmists ignorant of physics do, is to embrace perpetual motion-- a "flat earth" notion if ever there was one.

"Climate studies" is not an empirical discipline subject to experimental falsification of hypotheses, but a post hoc exercise akin to botany. By nature, neither can project even near-term outcomes, for non-random but indeterminate contingencies render this mathematically as well as physically impossible. No wonder Climate Cultists such as the Green Gang of Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. have notoriously resorted to deceit, manipulation, arguments from authority by stipulation ("it's true because we Ascended Masters say it is")-- their conclusions are mere propaganda exercises delivered in bad faith under false pretenses, as anyone who cares can now definitively verify.

"Post-normal science" is absolutely no such thing, but a pure political power-play made genuinely sinister by its implications for contemporary industrial/technological energy economies. As a class, CAGW proponents are nihilistic Luddite sociopaths (see Ehrlich, Holdren, latterly one Keith Farnish), death-eaters with pronounced miscreant profiles (think their peculiarly irresponsible and destructive Cap-and-Trade). The sooner Marx's "dustbin of history" engulfs 'em all, the better.

hubel458| 3.5.10 @ 11:07PM

Hey ole copyleft, you say in a post above
we must accept facts.
That is great.

Fact 1- The head warming honcho says there is
no significant warming in last 15 years, after he
gets caught. ....Now think of what this means.
IE, that is with their fudged science/fugures,
there is no significant warming...........

So leading to fact two that their fudged figures
ended up that way as they removed cooler
stations, in rural and higher elevations which
would be cooler than stations they kept near
heat islands. And they also discounted the
coldest half of Russia, the Russians complained.
And they only had half dozen stations around
the outside of Antarctica, next to the ocean they
used, and none in the interior which is as big as the US(with 3 dozen stations), and scientists
working in the interior of Antarctica have shown
that in many places, the temperatures have dropped about 15 degrees in 30 years.

So this leads to fact three- that if the crooks
bemoan the lack of significant warming with
their fudged, crooked science and figures,then
if an accurated compilation was taken of the
globe, with the cooler places I just listed,
we would have slightly significant cooling.

Glad to be of help....
I love facts---- Ed Hubel

Ragnar| 3.6.10 @ 7:38PM

Can somebody explain how Artic ice melts at -36 F ? March 6, 2010 weather report for
POND INLET, NUNAVUT, CANADA
March 6, 2010 weather report for(arthropolis.com)
Weather report as of 30 minutes ago 7:03 EST:
The wind was blowing at a speed of 2.6 meters per second (5.8 miles per hour) from South in Pond Inlet, Canada. The temperature was -36 degrees Celsius (-33 degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was 1,013 hPa (29.90 inHg). Relative humidity was 73.5%. The sky was clear. The visibility was 14.5 kilometers (9.0 miles).

Ragnar| 3.6.10 @ 7:42PM

Oops: actually -33 degrees F.

Timerover| 3.7.10 @ 5:23AM

In about 986 AD, Eric the Red lead a colonizing expedition from Iceland to Greenland, which the Icelanders of the time viewed to be as good if not better than the poorer areas of Iceland. Based on the Norse cemetery burials at Herjolfness, an island off of the southern tip of Greenland, there was no permafrost with a minimum of 6 feet from the surface, as the Norse burials were that deep and the caskets when examined by archaeologists had tree roots in them. Currently, permafrost exists to within a few inches of the surface. Clearly, Greenland was considerably warmer for an extended period of time prior to the Norse settlement. About 1200, the conditions worsened, and permafrost became a greater and greater factor, as the burials became shallower and shallower. Estimates place the temperatures of Greenland at the time of the Norse settlement at between 2 and 4 degrees Celsius warmer than present. This was followed by a much colder period sometimes referred to at the Little Ice Age. Neither the warmer period, nor the colder period is reflected in Mann's Hockey Stick. However, the individual who made those temperature estimates was H. H. Lamb, the English climatologist whom the Climate Research Unit's building is named after. Much of Europe's weather develops or passes over Greenland, while weather systems crossing the US often sweep to the northeast to the area of Greenland. It appears safe to say that the US, Canada, Greenland, the North Atlantic, and much of Europe were considerably warmer within the past 1000 years, and also considerably colder. Some warming has occurred in the past roughly 200 years, apparently developing sometime between 1800 and 1850, considerably before any major release of fossil fuel CO2 by man. Looking at climates records of the US over the past 200 years, what I see is a roughly 30 year cycle of warmer then colder temperatures. Based on that, we are approaching the end of the current warmer period and about to start another colder period. I will be interested to see to what extent that cycle holds up.

Jon B| 3.7.10 @ 11:49AM

Another variable: The Milankovitch cycles.

HankSloan| 3.20.10 @ 1:04PM

Mr. Bethell starts from a dubious position that there is a grand conspiracy of academics and journalists to make money from scaring folks about why the ice is melting at the North Pole, etc. Underlying that position is a quasi-religious belief in the sanctity and wisdom of free-market absolutism. Everything, then, is perceived through the filters of that belief system. Hence a panoply of iconoclastic theories--that the theory linking HIV and AIDS is a hoax; that evolutionary theory is a hoax, and "intelligent design" is somehow scientific; and this one--that global warming is a hoax hatched for fame, glory, filthy lucre. Chasing such dreams must provide ample impetus for rising each morn.

سوريا| 6.25.11 @ 12:54AM

http://www.soryh.com

yanyan| 10.10.11 @ 3:46PM

I see others feel the same way! Congratulations on a very popular blog.
mesothelioma attorneys

L Tod Schlosser| 11.4.11 @ 12:26PM

Really your post is really very good and I appreciate it. It’s hard to sort the good from the bad sometimes, but I think you’ve nailed it. You write very well which is amazing. I really impressed by your post
L Tod Schlosser

malibu real estate| 10.11.11 @ 2:06AM

Hi there, just became alert to your blog through Google, and found that it's truly informative. I’m gonna watch out for brussels. I will appreciate if you continue this in future. A lot of people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!

yaz class action| 10.22.11 @ 2:29PM

YES THIS IS REALLY INFORMATION, BUT HOW WILL I KNOW YOU THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT ABOVE TOPIC?

yanyan| 10.11.11 @ 1:15PM

i will cheer for that thats very awesome i love it man thanks for your comment..i like this blog and very understanding writings
mas200

yanyan| 10.11.11 @ 2:33PM

It's understandable to me now, the usefulness and value is tremendous. Thank you once more and good luck!zoloft lawsuit

balcuizar62| 10.12.11 @ 8:44PM

If possible, as you gain expertise would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me.
Yaz lawyer

ruth| 10.17.11 @ 10:11AM

this is good really good i finally got it thanks for posting and sharing this a great blog..

silver spot price

fiance visa| 10.17.11 @ 8:58PM

I sincerely got a kick from your article. I really do not truly have much to say in response, I only wanted to comment to reply great work.

fiance visa

creamer| 10.19.11 @ 8:24PM

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about information and love learning more on this.
actos lawsuit

love| 10.20.11 @ 5:41AM

PickedI have been following your blog for a month or so and have picked up some good data as well as enjoyed the way youve got structured your site.
Actos side effects

accident attorney dallas| 10.20.11 @ 2:21PM

accident attorney dallas

devourment| 11.4.11 @ 1:16PM

its useful information, I read this whole and carefully. This article covers the all required thing. I can say that you did your best

L Tod Schlosser

PIERCE| 11.8.11 @ 2:53AM

You have made the right points there. I did specific searches on the stock market and found plenty of people will trust your blog site.
filipina girls

chester| 11.11.11 @ 1:28AM

Nice blog, thank you for sharing this post with us.. This is useful information for people who still are beginners.. Thanx again

zoloft lawsuit

Perfect !!!| 11.14.11 @ 3:56AM

A very good and informative article indeed.I am very much satisfied for the great technology is visible in this blog.Nice and informative website by the way.
mesothelioma lawyer