The Global Warming Agenda

[Conan71]

"One of the world's leading polar bear experts has been told to stay away from an international conference on the animals because his views are "extremely unhelpful," according to an e-mail by the chairman of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, Dr. Andy Derocher.

The London Telegraph reports Canadian biologist Mitchell Taylor has more than 30 years of experience with polar bears. But his belief that global warming is caused by nature, not man, led officials to bar him from this week's polar bear specialist group meeting in Denmark.

Taylor says the polar bear population has actually increased over the last 30 years. He says the threat to them by melting Arctic ice — illustrated by a famous photo taken by photographer Amanda Byrd — has become the most iconic cause for global warming theorists. The photo is often used by former Vice President Al Gore and others as an example of the dangers faced by the bears. But it was debunked last year by the photographer, who says the picture had nothing to do with global warming, and that the bears were not in danger. The photographer said she just happened to catch the bears on a small windswept iceberg.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529493,00.html

Alan Carlin has 45 years experience working on the environment and policy.  He was purposely supressed by the EPA in the time leading up to the vote on cap and trade.  According to him, an evaluation process which should have taken years was condensed into weeks to make the case.  Sounds much like: "Bush lied to us".

Here's the claims to the flawed science being used to support the global warming agenda:

"Global temperatures have actually declined in the last 11 years, despite increases in CO2.

Increased tropical storm activity has repeatedly been cited as a sign of anthropogenic global warming and yet that has not occurred.

The IPCC in its reports has claimed that Greenland would shed its ice and that has not happened at all.

Recent studies have concluded that the Global Climate Models used by the IPCC are faulty and "not supported by empirical evidence."

Studies also suggest the IPCC dismissed the effect of solar variability based on faulty data and new research shows that "up to 68% of the increase in Earth's global temperatures" could be caused by solar variability.

Analysis of surface stations that monitor temperatures has shown that most fail to meet the most basic meteorological guidelines for proper sighting resulted in inaccurate measurements. The "Urban Heat Island" effect is considered key to this.

Satellite temperature measurements taken from 1978 to 2008 do not show an increased rate of warming over the 30 year period."

"The Obama Administration and new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson were anxious to render a decision on CO2 so as to move forward with the president's agenda. A review process that normally would take years was completed in weeks, contrary to Ms. Jackson's assurances after being nominated saying, "I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency."

Despite claims by Jackson and the administration of new transparency supposedly not seen during the Bush administration, emails obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) show a decidedly difference picture. Al McGartland, the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics Director, told a researcher via email that, "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."
In a statement the EPA said Carlin was not a scientist and not part of the group working on the carbon dioxide issues. However, McGartland told Carlin via email in March that, "I decided not to forward your comments... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." Further highlighting that Carlin was expected to remain silent, McGartland said, "Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc."

For his part, Carlin has said that he believed McGartland was acting on orders from others higher up in the agency and administration. He told CBSnews.com that, "It was his view [McGartland's] that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else. That was obviously coming from higher levels."

As the president's marquee climate change bill was being heard in the House last week, Republicans attempted to raise a flag in light of this new evidence. The bill however passed and is now in the Senate where Sen. James Inofe, R-Okla, is saying he is going to ensure the full details of the report see the light of the day."

http://www.examiner.com/x-219-Denver-Weather-Examiner~y2009m6d30-EPA-suppresses-report-calling-into-question-global-warming-science

Yep, that damn crazy whack-job Inhofe.  I'm glad he's a skeptic and cynic.  How can you sit back and not realize that the science of climatology has been at best politicized, and at worst, manipulated to politicize it?  If you read nothing but what I put in bold-face, it's obvious that scientists and others who have vast experience are being shunned if they do not back the global warming agenda.  Dissention is not being allowed, it would appear.  "Sorry we will not include your comments, it does not help our cause".

More reading if you don't find Fox or Examiner credible:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.5

[joiei]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeyjFikvahU

I am left breathless.

[Hoss]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeyjFikvahU

I am left breathless.

Wow.  Someone needs to tighten Dumbkoff's stitches...

Conan, you can't possibly agree to say that gas and oil don't pollute, can you.  You ain't drinkin' this KoolAid are you?

[Conan71]

Wow.  Someone needs to tighten Dumbkoff's stitches...

Conan, you can't possibly agree to say that gas and oil don't pollute, can you.  You ain't drinkin' this KoolAid are you?

Hoss, ostensibly my income over the next 20 years will largely depend on people reducing emissions.  I helped develop a technology which gets rid of a nuisance waste gas in NG plants, and cuts overall fuel use and increases air/fuel troughput efficiency.  Actually, I'm planning a disappearing act in 10 years to the beautiful Caribbean, but I digress, so perhaps one of my daughers will pick up the torch for the remaining 10 years on that declaration. 

I would guess more than anyone else on this forum, I could, and apparently, will benefit the most from this and from stimulus (porkulus) spending which is designed to cut fuel consumption and carbon output.  I'm an odd dichotomy, I guess.  I will benefit from the government's misguided efforts at rewarding special contributors to their campaigns, but as a taxpayer, I hate to see the fleecing taking place and do just fine without this global warming insanity.  I could promote it harder than anyone else because the more hysteria, the more myself and the company I work for and the companies I represent will profit but I don't because the "science" used to promote this hysteria is far from factual and sound (gotta sleep you know).

My company did well before.  I hate the concept of what our gov't is doing in wasteful spending, and I'm in a position to sincerely be able to question global warming and the crazy hysteria behind it.  It would be crass to speculate how much money "global warming" will enrichen me by, but I do well enough as it is without ripping off the rest of you taxpayers.

Not bragging, just saying: "I don't need it", but I'll take it if they are paying. 

[FOTD]

Hoss, ostensibly my income over the next 20 years will largely depend on people reducing emissions.  I helped develop a technology which gets rid of a nuisance waste gas in NG plants, and cuts overall fuel use and increases air/fuel troughput efficiency.  Actually, I'm planning a disappearing act in 10 years to the beautiful Caribbean, but I digress, so perhaps one of my daughers will pick up the torch for the remaining 10 years on that declaration. 

I would guess more than anyone else on this forum, I could, and apparently, will benefit the most from this and from stimulus (porkulus) spending which is designed to cut fuel consumption and carbon output.  I'm an odd dichotomy, I guess.  I will benefit from the government's misguided efforts at rewarding special contributors to their campaigns, but as a taxpayer, I hate to see the fleecing taking place and do just fine without this global warming insanity.  I could promote it harder than anyone else because the more hysteria, the more myself and the company I work for and the companies I represent will profit but I don't because the "science" used to promote this hysteria is far from factual and sound (gotta sleep you know).

My company did well before.  I hate the concept of what our gov't is doing in wasteful spending, and I'm in a position to sincerely be able to question global warming and the crazy hysteria behind it.  It would be crass to speculate how much money "global warming" will enrichen me by, but I do well enough as it is without ripping off the rest of you taxpayers.

Not bragging, just saying: "I don't need it", but I'll take it if they are paying. 

Wow. So, it's sulfer sniffing that did that?

[brianh]

Senator Inhofe is just playing us, kind of like a Borat thing or something; he just wants to see how far he can get people to go with his ideas.  At some point all the hidden footage will be made into a movie or something.

[FOTD]

Senator Inhofe is just playing us, kind of like a Borat thing or something; he just wants to see how far he can get people to go with his ideas.  At some point all the hidden footage will be made into a movie or something.

You are tripping. This is the only road to "power" Jimminy Imhofed has left before he's dead (not that he's not politically done already) . Take the high road with Jesus and squash any opposer's viewpoints with stupidity.
We got what we deserved. Senaturd Malarkey is Oklahoma's white knight in shining armor.

[cannon_fodder]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html

Geologist saying that:
1) Humans have no contributed a significant amount of CO2

2) CO2 levels currently in the atmosphere are at the lowest levels they have been at in 500,000,000 years. 

3) Ice caps are present in the history of the Earth less than 20% of geological time.  Their disappearance should not be surprising.

4) The Earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly with and without people.

5) Cooling period are associated in human history with famine, disease, and decline.  Warming period with prosperity.  We should be looking forward to the good times.
- - -

I remain unconvinced.  Pollution is bad.  Dependence on oil is bad.  But I still don't buy into anthropogenic global warming wholeheartedly.

[Wilbur]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html

Geologist saying that:
1) Humans have no contributed a significant amount of CO2

2) CO2 levels currently in the atmosphere are at the lowest levels they have been at in 500,000,000 years. 

3) Ice caps are present in the history of the Earth less than 20% of geological time.  Their disappearance should not be surprising.

4) The Earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly with and without people.

5) Cooling period are associated in human history with famine, disease, and decline.  Warming period with prosperity.  We should be looking forward to the good times.
- - -

I remain unconvinced.  Pollution is bad.  Dependence on oil is bad.  But I still don't buy into anthropogenic global warming wholeheartedly.

AMEN!
+1

[FOTD]

Amen if you pray at the feet of the oil industry....this demon prays at the feet of science....

Environment
Climate change
World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns
New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Niño southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics[/u]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study

" The analysis shows the relative stability in global temperatures in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases."

[nathanm]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html

Geologist saying that:
1) Humans have no contributed a significant amount of CO2

2) CO2 levels currently in the atmosphere are at the lowest levels they have been at in 500,000,000 years. 

3) Ice caps are present in the history of the Earth less than 20% of geological time.  Their disappearance should not be surprising.

4) The Earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly with and without people.

5) Cooling period are associated in human history with famine, disease, and decline.  Warming period with prosperity.  We should be looking forward to the good times.
- - -

I remain unconvinced.  Pollution is bad.  Dependence on oil is bad.  But I still don't buy into anthropogenic global warming wholeheartedly.

If it weren't for #2, perhaps this person's claims would bear consideration. Given that based on multiple forms of evidence it's a flat out falsehood, though, I'm not inclined to even care what else he's got to say if said geologist can't even accept facts proven by both polar and tropical ice cores, tree ring examination, and other forms of evidence of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.

As I've written before, it doesn't matter to me whether or not global warming is actually caused by man (although the evidence is strongly in favor of that conclusion). Nor does it matter to me if during most of geologic time there were no ice caps. (for most of geologic time there was no life on earth)

What matters to me is that the Earth's climate remain conducive to my species' survival. Arguing about cause is like arguing about why our boat is taking on water rather than starting to bail. Who cares if we ran into an iceberg or if a big wave cracked the hull? We gotta stay afloat regardless!

And warming is only good to a point. It stops being a good thing when it causes massive shifts in precipitation patterns and significant rising in sea levels.

BTW, I don't even care about the polar bears. I care about the disappearance of a large portion of our planet's fresh water resources. We're going to be stuck with energy intensive desalination. It's much cheaper to have glaciers feeding freshwater streams from which we can pump water.

[cannon_fodder]

Nathan, how is #2 dead wrong?  Based on the best available evidence, CO2 levels are very low.  The data also illustrate many heating and cool trends on a micro and macro level, largely not correlated to a change in CO2 levels at that.  Again, this is on the macro level of course.



I welcome data to the contrary.  I know the data in the near term show's a rise in CO2, but in the macro view we are still low in atmospheric CO2. 

Again, I'm not espousing this man's theories as my own, but using it as an illustration on why I have yet to adopt man made Global Climate Change wholeheartedly.

[nathanm]

I welcome data to the contrary.  I know the data in the near term show's a rise in CO2, but in the macro view we are still low in atmospheric CO2. 

Perhaps you misquoted him, but saying that co2 levels are the lowest they've been in 500,000,000 years is grossly inaccurate given that they are significantly higher than they were a hundred years ago.

And again, I know that co2 levels have historically been higher. Before I was around. Before my species was around. I want the earth to remain in a condition conducive to my continued existence. Continued co2 increases are detrimental to that. Call me selfish.

Also, it is true that there is not a direct correlation between co2 levels and temperature. It's close, but not direct. There are other variables involved including solar output, atmospheric methane levels, cloud cover, dust cover, and still other effects.

But since we're posting charts. How about the last 550 million years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

As you can see, choosing how to represent the data makes an enormous difference. Regardless of scale, the data represented in the chart I reference indicates pretty clearly that a rise in atmospheric co2 correlates reasonably well with rises in temperature and vice versa.

edited to add: blasted SMF doesn't play well with SVG files...

[Gaspar]

Some people are just meant to run around in circles screaming.

[Conan71]

Perhaps you misquoted him, but saying that co2 levels are the lowest they've been in 500,000,000 years is grossly inaccurate given that they are significantly higher than they were a hundred years ago.

And again, I know that co2 levels have historically been higher. Before I was around. Before my species was around. I want the earth to remain in a condition conducive to my continued existence. Continued co2 increases are detrimental to that. Call me selfish.

Also, it is true that there is not a direct correlation between co2 levels and temperature. It's close, but not direct. There are other variables involved including solar output, atmospheric methane levels, cloud cover, dust cover, and still other effects.

But since we're posting charts. How about the last 550 million years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

As you can see, choosing how to represent the data makes an enormous difference. Regardless of scale, the data represented in the chart I reference indicates pretty clearly that a rise in atmospheric co2 correlates reasonably well with rises in temperature and vice versa.

edited to add: blasted SMF doesn't play well with SVG files...

No one can possibly know any of that "for sure".  Determining CO2 levels from 500,000 years ago or even 100 years ago is purely based on whether or not current hypothetical criteria scientists use to arrive at this is accurate.  The study of climatological data isn't even in it's infancy compared to how long this planet has been around.  "Conception" would be a more accurate term for where we are at in studying the climate in detail.