FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Latest on Global Warming Bunk
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 22, 23, 24  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8823

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Exactly. This is one of the key reasons for this 'Global Warming' diversion.

Suck away activists from real environmental causes into the establishment fake.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Climate chaos? Don't believe it
By Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:14am GMT 05/11/2006

Download Christopher Monckton's references and detailed calculations [pdf]

The Stern report last week predicted dire economic and social effects of unchecked global warming. In what many will see as a highly controversial polemic, Christopher Monckton disputes the 'facts' of this impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the truth

Biblical droughts, floods, plagues and extinctions?

Last week, Gordon Brown and his chief economist both said global warming was the worst "market failure" ever. That loaded soundbite suggests that the "climate-change" scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, "creating world government". This week and next, I'll reveal how politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St John the Divine than of science.

Sir Nicholas Stern's report on the economics of climate change, which was published last week, says that the debate is over. It isn't. There are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were, so the world should warm a bit, but that's as far as the "consensus" goes. After the recent hysteria, you may not find the truth easy to believe. So you can find all my references and detailed calculations here.

The Royal Society says there's a worldwide scientific consensus. It brands Apocalypse-deniers as paid lackeys of coal and oil corporations. I declare my interest: I once took the taxpayer's shilling and advised Margaret Thatcher, FRS, on scientific scams and scares. Alas, not a red cent from Exxon.

In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch). The UN set up a transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The UK taxpayer unwittingly meets the entire cost of its scientific team, which, in 2001, produced the Third Assessment Report, a Bible-length document presenting apocalyptic conclusions well beyond previous reports.

This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect.

Next week, I'll demonstrate the atrocious economic, political and environmental cost of the high-tax, zero-freedom, bureaucratic centralism implicit in Stern's report; I'll compare the global-warming scare with previous sci-fi alarums; and I'll show how the environmentalists' "precautionary principle" (get the state to interfere now, just in case) is killing people.

So to the scare. First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.

Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

So they did. The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey-stick. The wrongly flat AD1000-AD1900 temperature line was the shaft: the uptick from 1900 to 2000 was the blade. Here's how they did it:

They gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature 390 times more weight than any other (but didn't say so).

The technique they overweighted was one which the UN's 1996 report had said was unsafe: measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine-rings are also wider when there's more carbon dioxide in the air: it's plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilisation distorts the calculations.

They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data".

They used a computer model to draw the graph from the data, but scientists later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even if they fed in random, electronic "red noise".

The large, full-colour "hockey-stick" was the key graph in the UN's 2001 report, and the only one to appear six times. The Canadian Government copied it to every household. Four years passed before a leading scientific journal would publish the truth about the graph. Did the UN or the Canadian government apologise? Of course not. The UN still uses the graph in its publications.

Even after the "hockey stick" graph was exposed, scientific papers apparently confirming its abolition of the medieval warm period appeared. The US Senate asked independent statisticians to investigate. They found that the graph was meretricious, and that known associates of the scientists who had compiled it had written many of the papers supporting its conclusion.

The UN, echoed by Stern, says the graph isn't important. It is. Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.

The Antarctic, which holds 90 per cent of the world's ice and nearly all its 160,000 glaciers, has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, reversing a 6,000-year melting trend. Data from 6,000 boreholes worldwide show global temperatures were higher in the Middle Ages than now. And the snows of Kilimanjaro are vanishing not because summit temperature is rising (it isn't) but because post-colonial deforestation has dried the air. Al Gore please note.

In some places it was also warmer than now in the Bronze Age and in Roman times. It wasn't CO2 that caused those warm periods. It was the sun. So the UN adjusted the maths and all but extinguished the sun's role in today's warming. Here's how:

The UN dated its list of "forcings" (influences on temperature) from 1750, when the sun, and consequently air temperature, was almost as warm as now. But its start-date for the increase in world temperature was 1900, when the sun, and temperature, were much cooler.

Every "forcing" produces "climate feedbacks" making temperature rise faster. For instance, as temperature rises in response to a forcing, the air carries more water vapour, the most important greenhouse gas; and polar ice melts, increasing heat absorption. Up goes the temperature again. The UN more than doubled the base forcings from greenhouse gases to allow for climate feedbacks. It didn't do the same for the base solar forcing.

Two centuries ago, the astronomer William Herschel was reading Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations when he noticed that quoted grain prices fell when the number of sunspots rose. Gales of laughter ensued, but he was right. At solar maxima, when the sun was at its hottest and sunspots showed, temperature was warmer, grain grew faster and prices fell. Such observations show that even small solar changes affect climate detectably. But recent solar changes have been big.

Sami Solanki, a solar physicist, says that in the past half-century the sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years, contributing a base forcing equivalent to a quarter of the past century's warming. That's before adding climate feedbacks.

The UN expresses its heat-energy forcings in watts per square metre per second. It estimates that the sun caused just 0.3 watts of forcing since 1750. Begin in 1900 to match the temperature start-date, and the base solar forcing more than doubles to 0.7 watts. Multiply by 2.7, which the Royal Society suggests is the UN's current factor for climate feedbacks, and you get 1.9 watts more than six times the UN's figure.

The entire 20th-century warming from all sources was below 2 watts. The sun could have caused just about all of it.

Next, the UN slashed the natural greenhouse effect by 40 per cent from 33C in the climate-physics textbooks to 20C, making the man-made additions appear bigger.

Then the UN chose the biggest 20th-century temperature increase it could find. Stern says: "As anticipated by scientists, global mean surface temperatures have risen over the past century." As anticipated? Only 30 years ago, scientists were anticipating a new Ice Age and writing books called The Cooling.

In the US, where weather records have been more reliable than elsewhere, 20th-century temperature went up by only 0.3C. AccuWeather, a worldwide meteorological service, reckons world temperature rose by 0.45C. The US National Climate Data Centre says 0.5C. Any advance on 0.5? The UN went for 0.6C, probably distorted by urban growth near many of the world's fast-disappearing temperature stations.

The number of temperature stations round the world peaked at 6,000 in 1970. It's fallen by two-thirds to 2,000 now: a real "hockey-stick" curve, and an instance of the UN's growing reliance on computer guesswork rather than facts.

Even a 0.6C temperature rise wasn't enough. So the UN repealed a fundamental physical law. Buried in a sub-chapter in its 2001 report is a short but revealing section discussing "lambda": the crucial factor converting forcings to temperature. The UN said its climate models had found lambda near-invariant at 0.5C per watt of forcing.

You don't need computer models to "find" lambda. Its value is given by a century-old law, derived experimentally by a Slovenian professor and proved by his Austrian student (who later committed suicide when his scientific compatriots refused to believe in atoms). The Stefan-Boltzmann law, not mentioned once in the UN's 2001 report, is as central to the thermodynamics of climate as Einstein's later equation is to astrophysics. Like Einstein's, it relates energy to the square of the speed of light, but by reference to temperature rather than mass.

The bigger the value of lambda, the bigger the temperature increase the UN could predict. Using poor Ludwig Boltzmann's law, lambda's true value is just 0.22-0.3C per watt. In 2001, the UN effectively repealed the law, doubling lambda to 0.5C per watt. A recent paper by James Hansen says lambda should be 0.67, 0.75 or 1C: take your pick. Sir John Houghton, who chaired the UN's scientific assessment working group until recently, tells me it now puts lambda at 0.8C: that's 3C for a 3.7-watt doubling of airborne CO2. Most of the UN's computer models have used 1C. Stern implies 1.9C.

On the UN's figures, the entire greenhouse-gas forcing in the 20th century was 2 watts. Multiplying by the correct value of lambda gives a temperature increase of 0.44 to 0.6C, in line with observation. But using Stern's 1.9C per watt gives 3.8C. Where did 85 per cent of his imagined 20th-century warming go? As Professor Dick Lindzen of MIT pointed out in The Sunday Telegraph last week, the UK's Hadley Centre had the same problem, and solved it by dividing its modelled output by three to "predict" 20th-century temperature correctly.

A spate of recent scientific papers, gearing up for the UN's fourth report next year, gives a different reason for the failure of reality to keep up with prediction. The oceans, we're now told, are acting as a giant heat-sink. In these papers the well-known, central flaw (not mentioned by Stern) is that the computer models' "predictions" of past ocean temperature changes only approach reality if they are averaged over a depth of at least a mile and a quarter.

Deep-ocean temperature hasn't changed at all, it's barely above freezing. The models tend to over-predict the warming of the climate-relevant surface layer up to threefold. A recent paper by John Lyman, of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, reports that the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years. The computers didn't predict this. Sea level is scarcely rising faster today than a century ago: an inch every 15 years. Hansen now says that the oceanic "flywheel effect" gives us extra time to act, so Stern's alarmism is misplaced.

Finally, the UN's predictions are founded not only on an exaggerated forcing-to-temperature conversion factor justified neither by observation nor by physical law, but also on an excessive rate of increase in airborne carbon dioxide. The true rate is 0.38 per cent year on year since records began in 1958. The models assume 1 per cent per annum, more than two and a half times too high. In 2001, the UN used these and other adjustments to predict a 21st-century temperature increase of 1.5 to 6C. Stern suggests up to 10C.

Dick Lindzen emailed me last week to say that constant repetition of wrong numbers doesn't make them right. Removing the UN's solecisms, and using reasonable data and assumptions, a simple global model shows that temperature will rise by just 0.1 to 1.4C in the coming century, with a best estimate of 0.6C, well within the medieval temperature range and only a fifth of the UN's new, central projection.

Why haven't air or sea temperatures turned out as the UN's models predicted? Because the science is bad, the "consensus" is wrong, and Herr Professor Ludwig Boltzmann, FRS, was as right about energy-to-temperature as he was about atoms.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8823

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:25 pm    Post subject: SKEPTIC'S GUIDE TO DEBUNKING GLOBAL WARMING Reply with quote

Senator James Inhofe has just published a skeptics guide to
global warming. Naturally, for a lot of people, the fact that
Inhofe rejects global warming is enough to convince them
that it must be real. Caution.

I haven't had a chance to peruse the arguments yet, but
here's the press release:


DECEMBER 08, 2006

Washington D.C. - Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the outgoing Chairman of Environment & Public Works Committee, is pleased to announce the public release of the Senate Committee published booklet entitled “A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism. Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge To Journalists who Cover Global Warming.”

Click here to download the "Skeptic's Guide"
( http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6341044%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf )

The color glossy 64 page booklet -- previously was only available in hardcopy to the media and policy makers -- includes speeches, graphs, press releases and scientific articles refuting catastrophe climate fears presented by the media, the United Nations, Hollywood and former Vice President turned-foreign-lobbyist Al Gore.

The “Skeptic’s Guide” includes a copy of Senator Inhofe’s 50 minute Senate floor speech http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759 delivered on September 25, 2006 challenging the media to improve its reporting.

The ‘Skeptic’s Guide’, which has received recognition by the LA Times and Congressional Quarterly, is now available free for international distribution on the Senate Environmental & Public Works Web site
( http://epw.senate.gov/w_papers.cfm?party=rep )

The book, which features web links to all supporting documentation, also serves as a handbook to identify the major players in media bias when it comes to poor climate science reporting. The guide presents a reporter’s virtual who’s-who’s of embarrassing and one-sided media coverage, with a focus on such reporters as CBS News “60 Minutes” Scott Pelley, ABC News reporter Bill Blakemore, CNN’s Miles O’Brien, and former NBC Newsman Tom Brokaw.

Senator Inhofe’s “Skeptic’s Guide” also includes hard hitting critiques of the New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Associated Press, Reuters, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Post.

Senator Inhofe has challenged the media in a series of speeches and hearings to stop the unfounded hype.

“The American people are fed up with the media for promoting the idea that former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific “consensus” that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a 'climate emergency' that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve,” Senator Inhofe said in October.

Skepticism that human C02 emissions are creating a “climate catastrophe” has grown in recent times. In September, renowned French geophysicists and Socialist Party member Claude Allegre, converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics.

Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism. See: ( http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777 )

Related Links:

12/06/2006 - Inhofe Says Global Warming Media Hearing Exposed Alarmist Media
( http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=266540 )

10/17/2006 - Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics
( http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777 )

10/30/2006 - “I Don’t Like The Word ‘Balance’’- Says ABC News Global Warming Reporter
( http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=265464 )

10/24/2006 - Senator Inhofe Credited For Prompting Newsweek Admission of Error on 70's Predictions of Coming Ice Age - In Case You Missed It....
( http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=265087 )

09/25/2006 – Senator Inhofe Speech: “Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming”
( http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759 )


Now if the likes of Inhofe are not enough to sway people towards
belief in global warming, the sponsorship of the skeptics by
Exxon Mobil should convince. After all, they are the "nasty guys".
If Big Oil and the GOP oppose the global warming paradigm,
people reason, then it must be for real.

Less well known is that Phillip Morris also sponsored anti global
warming propaganda as part of their effort to convince people that
the science behind passive smoking was as facile as that underpinning
climate change. As George Monbiot reported in the Guardian:

The denial industry

For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story

Tuesday September 19, 2006 - The Guardian

ExxonMobil is the world's most profitable corporation. Its sales now amount to more than $1bn a day. It makes most of this money from oil, and has more to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle climate change. To safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow doubt about whether serious action needs to be taken on climate change. But there are difficulties: it must confront a scientific consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer or that HIV causes Aids. So what's its strategy?

The website Exxonsecrets.org, using data found in the company's official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from the company or work closely with those that have.....

Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-known websites and lobby groups as TechCentralStation, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation.....

By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging the consensus....

All this is now well known to climate scientists and environmentalists. But what I have discovered while researching this issue is that the corporate funding of lobby groups denying that manmade climate change is taking place was initiated not by Exxon, or by any other firm directly involved in the fossil fuel industry. It was started by the tobacco company Philip Morris.

FULL ARTILCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875760,00.html

SEE ALSO: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/

And so, with the help of prompting by the stances of the "bad guys",
many people buy into the Global Warming paradigm.

But it's interesting to see the involvement of Phillip Morris in the
climate change issue. What's going on here?

Maybe it's worth checking out our interview with Carol AS Thompson,
as linked in the "anti-smoking / big tobacco" topic here:


Our strings are being pulled in regards to AIDS, Climate Change,
and Smoking & Cancer. Is it the same people? And why?
Carol AS Thompson points us to the Skull & Bones.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 140

PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The link to the "Skeptics Guide" in the above post doesn't work. You can find a functional link to it (and to other papers) at:


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:49 am    Post subject: end game? Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
Our strings are being pulled in regards to AIDS, Climate Change, and Smoking & Cancer.

To what end?
Back to top

Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 2570

PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Our strings are being pulled in regards to AIDS, Climate Change, and Smoking & Cancer.
To what end?

For your answer all you need to do is FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL.

For AID$ it is pretty self-evident - a multi multi billion $$$ money machine held together by fear, ignorance, intimidation - but most importantly by the $$$ extracted at gunpoint from stupid complacent and frightened US tax-slavers.

The smoking/cancer hysteria has resulted in a new, very slimy class of billionaires in America: The trial lawyers - who were, btw, the single largest contributors to Bill Clinton's presidential election campaigns. And slickwilly repaid his friends in spades!

But as far as the climate change bs, i haven't a clue yet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hocus Locus

Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 850
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In Antarctica the panic regarding extremely rising ocean doesn't really relate to accelerated calving at the edges -- it is the prospect of the Ross Shelf becoming itself disconnected from land that is the genesis for the ~20 feet magnitudes, think displacement, lotsa ice currently 'suspended' in water at a point above that to which it would settle if floating. But even if this would happen the most reasonable non-hysterical estimate I've seen is that it might take around a hundred years to occur.

It's not some Crack! Plop! thing, it would be an escalating series of seismic events over time -- which gives you a mixture of chaotic possibilities, since some events in the sequence might actually relieve pressure along the ridges and retard the process. It's not unlike rock-geology, for all intents you can think of 'blue ice' as a substance with rocklike properties. But shearing and crystalline structure make it interesting, think lead crystal and the way it can shatter explosively under localized heat.

And global climate change is only one possible trigger. A pretty tame one. Even a small asteroid impact might trigger massive shock waves. And Michael Crichton in his book State of Fear poses another, extremely disturbing scenario involving human-induced trauma to the Ross Shelf with the use of harmonically reflected induced pressure waves generated by a line of precision timed subsurface charges. His hero thwarts the plan not by disabling all the devices (there's no time!) but by disabling some of them all along the line in pseudo-random fashion, disrupting the resonance effect. A pretty thinky thing to do.

With computer modelling, and knowledge of geological properties, and better understanding of earthquake dynamics than ever before, resonance techniques and timing, I believe we do currently have the technological ability to trigger catastrophic events by 'multiplying' the force of timed explosives. We're certainly stupid enough. It's just there. And I'm glad Crichton brought it up first.

Think undersea landslides where such things are bound to happen soon anyway. Or the Ross Ice shelf. Or Yellowstone. It is implausible to think that even our atomics could create natural upheaval, but not so outlandish to think we could deliberately trigger events that are already imminent.

We've been triggering snow avalanches since ancient times, to mitigate catastrophe. Just think a little bigger.

If you think it's unthinkable, you're probably not the first. Food for thought.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8823

PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:51 pm    Post subject: Global Warming Is Bunk! Reply with quote

"This data suggests global warming might have stopped
eight years ago, in line with what might be expected
from the natural cycles of warming and cooling that
are common features of climate"

-Professor Augie Auer,
Chairman, scientific panel,
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.'

BreakForNews Xtra

Global Warming Is Bunk!
Latest Satellite Data Confirms

DSL Mp3 Audio

Dialup Mp3 Audio



View Earth Temperatures from Satellites Yourself!

Here's a Graph prepared by BreakForNews from the publicly available
Satellite Data quoted by Prof. Carter and the NZ Climate Science Coalition:

The graph is accurate, but our trend lines are approximations.
However you can see that global warming probably peaked
in 1998 and has been moderating since.


Here's the Press Release from
the NZ Climate Science Coalition:

Global And NZ Temperatures Are Cooling, Not Warming

Wednesday, 10 January 2007, 4:31 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

Figures just released by the U.S. National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) show that mean global temperature for 2006 was 0.24 deg C cooler than it was in 1998.

The seven years 1999 to 2005 were also cooler than 1998.

Unlike air temperature measured by thermometers on the ground, NSSTC data comes from highly accurate measurements by satellites, correct to one tenths of a degree C.

NSSTC is a research organization partnership between NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama universities, US federal agencies and industry. click here

"This data suggests global warming might have stopped eight years ago, in line with what might be expected from the natural cycles of warming and cooling that are common features of climate" said Professor Augie Auer, chairman of the scientific panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

"It comes two days after the statement by the NIWA National Climate Centre that New Zealand can expect cooler but drier than average conditions over the next three months. This prompts the question: how much more cooling will have to occur before NIWA will admit that global warming is not happening.

"We know that emissions of carbon dioxide are still occurring, which prompts a further question: for how much longer can NIWA support claims by the present government that CO2 causes catastrophic warming, and needs to be curbed by the imposition of special taxes or emission charges. Surely it's now time to put a stop to these sensationalist claims, which are not supported by verifiable scientific data" said Professor Auer.


Thanks to Rolf Martens for the tip on the NZ Climate Group


Last edited by Fintan on Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:05 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Awesome interview, Fintan. I certainly feel this is a much stronger guest than Ken Ring...this stuff is, like you say, great ammunition in the debate.

It makes loads of sense to listen to geologists in the climate change debate, because they have the long term data.

I'm glad he brought up David Suzuki. He's someone I grew up with in Canada on the long running TV show "The Nature of Things". I credit him as one of the people with fueling my interest in science, and I had a lot of respect for him. That's now been shaken in the last few years. I attended a lecture of his and he argued that if scientist's were wrong about the green house effect, shouldn't we be cautious just in case they are right? At the time I totally agreed with that logic, but now I see the damage that the hysteria is doing. Certainly, anyone whose lived in a smoggy city would agree that getting rid of smog would be a good thing, and emissions should be reduced or made cleaner, but whether that's going to cause the apocalypse is another matter......Now I want to look more into Suzuki's political ties, which I've never examined before......

And Al Gore.....I believe everything he says....I hear he invented the internet Very Happy

Again, great guest and interview.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The psychology of this is fascinating, isn't it? The belief systems and memes we pick up from others are so much more influential than facts. Like your guest I'm amazed at how many scientists are pulling the party line, because there must be many good scientists out there....but few original thinkers who are willing to stick their neck out. The green house emissions theory does seem to be the scientific version of original sin. It's starting with a belief and cherry picking the data to fit the belief, which is so natural for human beings to do. I wonder if someone has written a book on the topic, like how our belief systems color our models of the world. For example, when a society is optimistic they will lean toward a steady state model of the universe, and when they are pessimistic they will lean toward a universe that will die out, or a world that will destroy itself. How long has there been a vocal group in society that shout "The end is nigh!"? Thousands of years. It seems easier to believe in that than believe that the world will continue. Perhaps it takes more courage and effort to make the world work, to evolve and go through growing pains, then to give it all up and welcome destruction and death. Maybe that's why so many accept the green house emissions theory.....lack of vision and spiritual laziness.

Hope I haven't strayed too much from the thread, but I'm just thinking out loud.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
and i

Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 302

PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I haven't listened to the new audio yet, but I look forward to doing so after I can digest what Milo Wolf is talking about... But I do have one very big beef with this graph you've presented. It only shows 35 years of data! How can trends in 35 years of temperature data on a planet that is billions of years old have any relevance whatsoever?! I don't mean to pass judgment on that which I have not yet heard, but this graph is just silly...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's the satellite data....which obviously we don't have billions of years of. By itself it's not conclusive, but it is another piece of the puzzle.

My only minor gripe with the graph is that the x axis is uneven, ie. some of the years are repeated (more data in that year?) and this can appear a little misleading, making some hot and cold spells appear longer or shorter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 22, 23, 24  Next
Page 3 of 24

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.