1. BillInStl | 03.18.09

What a relief to have people like Jim DiPeso who want to build on facts. And how sobering to think Gingrich was passed over in favor of Steele.
The U.S. faces an irreversable decline and we find our leaders stuck arguing and denying the obvious. Historically, maybe this is how our democracy has always operated, but it’s hard to understand how it can function in this manner.

2. Eve | 03.18.09

Everyone knows that Global Warming is a hoax for the purpose of making citizens pay more for heat and electricity. The idea that 18 years of warming in between two 30 year cooling spells could mean the end of the earth is too stupid to be believed. The worst that could happen is happening. One and a half Million Europeans a year are dying of cold because they cannot afford heat. The environmental groups and their lobbies have killed 200 Million people so far. The Medieval Warm period was warmer than now and the planet is still here. The Roman Warm period was warmer than that and the planet and the polar bears are still here. The IPCC and their 52 scientists are outweighed by the 131,000 American scientists who have signed a pettition stating that Global Warming is not real.
Climate Science should be left to climate scientists. That takes out Obama, Gore and Hansen,

3. Jay | 03.19.09

leave climate science to the climatologists? I guess your a climatologist right. or how about the other 99% of experts on the subject that push the agenda? No your not and neither are most people with lots to say on the subject. It has been getting colder for the last decade and Global Warming is a scam…

4. Leigh | 03.19.09

There is legitimate scientific dispute over EVERY single aspect of the global warming argument. You proponents always cherry-pick something obscure and hammer on it like you have accomplished something. Previous ice ages have all ended without any help from mankind or fossil fuels. CO2 lags temperature increases by 800+/- years - it does NOT lead the temperature increases. Global temperature readings have been obtained by satellite only since 1978 - a ridiculously short period of time to be forecasting temperature changes decades or centuries into the future. Global Warming PROPONENTS have been caught several times (accidentally or intentionally) falsifying data and reports to try and support their arguments. ONLY Global Warming proponents are obsessed with ending all debate and trying to declare a false ‘consensus’ as the final word. Lies and manipulation - proof that global warming is the greatest scam in world history.

5. tim in sk | 03.19.09

amen, Mr. DiPeso!

6. carefornature | 03.19.09

There is a lot of discussion going on over the topic that Global warming is happening or not.I think i n most of the region of US and Asia we can see the effect of global warming.Despite of everything we have to come forward to prevent it.
We’ve got to be united to save earth! Earth Hour is practiced at large scale in all developed and developing countries but there has been more publicity and awareness this year, as well as participation from large corporations like http://www.commit21.com/ which is a good sign - that there is still hope and that people still care!

Let’s all do this, no matter where you are! Saturday, 28 March 2009. Lights off from 8.30pm to 9.30pm!

7. tom | 03.19.09

I wonder about Mr. Steele’s children and grandchildren. If we start now reducing human impact to the environment and the climate models turn out to be false, what is the result? A cleaner environment. If we do nothing now and the climate models turn out to be correct, what is the result? We are not willing to take a chance on our children’s and grandchildren’s future and are willing to pay now rather than pay a lot more later. Evidently Mr. Steele does not have any concern for future generations but I also find that true of the current Republican party attitude toward the environment.

8. Joe | 03.19.09

Global warming is a religion. Even Mars was getting warmer for a while as the solar output peaked. It’s been getting steadily cooler for at least 10 years here on good old Earth. The Arctic sea ice is back to 1987 levels and it turns out even that was grossly underestimated. Vostok Ice core samples show CO2 levels lag temperature by at least 800 years. The greatest greenhouse gas is H2O, not CO2, and of the CO2 produced, man is by far the smallest source…of course, none of this matters to the religious.

To say we have nothing to lose by acting out of good intentions shows ignorance of unintended consequences. The result of banning DDT is that literally hundreds of millions of third worlders have been afflicted with and died from preventable diseases such as Dengue fever and malaria. But, at least the environmentalists in developed countries feel good about themselves. That’s the important part. So what if we buy CO2 offsets from more third worlders so that we can burn as much as we want while denying them the same resources?

9. Silvie Pearl | 03.19.09

Nothing has been proven. There are many facts, and many computer models. Computer models are often proven deficient. This is NOT to say that we should not be conservationists, and do everything we can reasonably do to clean up the environment. But the argument is far from ‘over’.

UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory
Scientists Claim Earth Is Undergoing Natural Climate Shift

http://www.wisn.com/weather/18935841/detail.html

10. J. Price | 03.19.09

The fact that the Christian Science Monitor is a radical left-wing political activist propaganda rag is “an emperically observed reality.”

11. beagleboy | 03.19.09

Beware! Global warming is now called climate change. Nothing about global warming is settled science unless you’re Gore and even he had to change his presentationt to accomodate the facts. Some of which are
(1) We are now nearing the end of a grand solar maximum which might explain why warmning is also oberved on other planets as well. Unless the greenies want to claim observed Martian warming is caused by SUV’s.
(2) In the early ’60’s the great mathemetician Lorenz published a proof why climate models will not work. That proof still stands.
(3) The greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics.
(4) The Met office so proudly qouted has been wrong in its cliamte predictions for over 10 years. A key point of a valid hypothesis is to predict future events. These goofy climate models can’t even predict the weather 3 months out.
Since we are dealing with a cult and not a science there is no point in going on.

12. George Bedway | 03.19.09

Recently, 31,000+ scientists, including 9,000 PhDs signed a statement that human-caused global warming WAS NOT proven and that, in fact, the earth was cooling over the last ten years and that CO2 in the atmosphere was helpful to vegetable and animal life. What’s next, a tax on exhaling and/or animal flatulence? If computer modelling supports this insupportable hypothesis, how do we account for long periods of global warming and cooling aeons before the Industrial Revolution? I would not rely on computer modelling to pick a horse race let alone a good day for a church picnic. This is more “feel-good” science, right along with the ice-age warnings so popular in the 70’s. Politics and science made a very bad mix.

13. David | 03.19.09

We would have more respect for the CSM and this author if they had simply taken the time to jump on the T and head over to MIT. Do they need directions? There, they could have elicited a response from Mr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science. He would have ’schooled’ the CSM in short order regarding the hysteria and overeraction regarding ‘global warming’. But that would make him a sacreligious heretic and that won’t be tolerated!

14. Rogue Wave | 03.19.09

Mr. O’Carroll apparently is a member in good standing of the cast of “Climate Flagellants” similar to those religious flagellants of the dark ages who sought to explain the black death plague by human sin to be cured by self-immolation and mortification of their own flesh, who now seek to explain climate fluctuation on human sin to be cured by penance of self-denial of benefits of fossil fuels. Like the penetents of the 12th century, present day practitioning adherents accuse anyone who does not join in the flagellation of “being in league with the devil” and a denier of the holy truth.

15. Mike From Cold Kansas | 03.19.09

And to think, with all the warming going on there are 3 explorers, with shorts on, skiing to the North Pole, have not hardly left the spot they were to begin from, running out of food and caught in a blizzard at -40F. Yep, global warming alright.

16. Steve | 03.19.09

“in opposition to empirically observed reality”? You’ve got to be kidding! Frankly, that describes the Global Warming True Believers, not the skeptics!!

There’s so much misinformation in this article, I’m not sure where to start. Did you not know that NASA admitted in 2007 to errors in its calculations of the “10 Warmest Years”? (Try google) Why does the false information keep getting repeated endlessly? It turns out that 3 of the 5 hottest years on record occurred before 1940.

As for Greenland, there were settlements that died out during the Little Ice Age. This is well known, as a quick check of Wikipedia will show.

There are hundreds of scientists of all sorts who are skeptical of manmade global warming. People who make the “consensus” argument have a fundamental understanding of how science is supposed to work. Can global warming be wrenched back from the realm of the political and religious to the realm of science? Probably not before we’ve wasted billions of dollars, and millions of lives have been lost due to problems, like access to clean water, that we should have addressed instead.

17. Joe | 03.19.09

You have it backwards.
“Empirically observed reality” provides no support for global warming. That hoax is based solely upon deeply flawed computer models.

18. steve | 03.19.09

That should be “People who make the “consensus” argument have a fundamental *mis*understanding of how science is supposed to work”, of course.

19. Carl | 03.19.09

This article is from an outfit (Christian “Scientists”) who believe that prayer alone can cure cancer. ‘Nuff said.

20. #1 Dad | 03.19.09

I wish the Christian Science Monitor would stop drinking the KoolAid and start thinking outside of the rhetoric of the greatest snake oil salesman of the century, Al Gore. He has made millions off his investments in the companies getting funded due to this unproven claptrap.

21. Not Chicken Little | 03.19.09

Read about the Lost Squadron and “Glacier Girl”:
http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl.htm

The squadron went down over Greenland in 1942, landing on the glaciers. About 50 years later they managed to recover ONE plane - it was covered with about 240 feet of “Global Warming”.

But the glaciers are all melting! It’s only an anomaly! Yeah, right…and you say you just want my money to fix it?

The Earth has been cooling and warming in cycles known and unknown since its creation and CO2 has been both higher and lower with no relation to temperature (except the CO2 concentration appears to go up AFTER a temperature increase), all without evil Mankind’s help. Those who place their faith in computer climate models and who think that Man is causing warming are fools - we have semi-accurate temperature records for only a small part of the Earth for barely 100 years, but we have geologic and proxy evidence showing cooling and warming for millions of years.

22. Daniel Muffoletto | 03.19.09

I ran against Mike Steele for Us Maryland Senate seat in 2006.
I ran for President in 2008.
I do not accept money from anyone.Period.
When I run I run as an Eco-Green Republican.
Eco=economy, Green = clean water, clean air, clean food.
I beleive in peaceful secure borders.
I beleive in health care for all, but not socialized medicine.
If you want to help clean up the politics, and the planet contact me.
winningatharvard@gmail.com

23. jim | 03.19.09

It would be so nice if just once in awhile “journalists” and editors would take the time to get informed on subjects such as this before they write this sort of column and spread even more disinformation. Remember Y2K!

24. Clear Thinking 123 | 03.19.09

Terrific article. Unbelievably depressing posts. Just like our disastrous march into Iraq, with the rest of the world astounded at our ignorance, the bloggers here extremely PROUD to deny the most accepted scientific fact shared unanimously among all of the world’s climate scientists.

My question to all the conservative posters here is: what’s in it for you? Why do you need to let Exxon get even more profitable? Why do you insist that our schools and health care should be abandoned? Why are you conservatives the ONLY people on earth who vote directly against your own interests! Who’s paying you to deny the great cost human waste is costing our environment? Look out your window: look at your endless expanse of sprawl, look at your waistlines, look at the US sinking into the 30s in intl. rankings for health, education, and environmental standards.

What’s in it for you? Why would you not want your leaders working around the clock to make it a better world rather then continue driving it into the ground?

25. wordwarrior | 03.19.09

Science is science and ignorance is bliss. Republicans know that the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. God said it, they heard it, they believe it.

26. Common Sense | 03.19.09

1. Computer models have NEVER been able to replicate actual historical weather/climate records, no matter how much they skew the data with illogical assumptions.

2. CO2 is NOT pollution! I fully agree that we should take care of the planet wee live on. We should not throw trash on the ground, reduce real pollutants as much as is practicable. But we do not breathe out pollutants!

3. Exactly from where does the so-called empirical data derive? The +/-2200 weather stations, 1500 of which are located within the USA. That means 95% of earth’s climate is recorded by 700 stations! And only recently have the oceans been included, but not overly covered. Then, consider also the environments around the weather stations. Many are located next to HVAC exhaust units, trash burning receptacles, roofs of brick buildings, adjacent to brick walls, in the middle of asphalt parking lots, et. al. So the empirical data is skewed at best.

27. dizizcamron | 03.19.09

Since it was mentioned:

“The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

The second law traces its origin to French physicist Sadi Carnot’s 1824 paper Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire, which presented the view that motive power (work) is due to the fall of caloric (heat) from a hot to cold body (working substance). In simple terms, the second law is an expression of the fact that over time, ignoring the effects of self-gravity, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how far along this evening-out process has progressed.

There are many versions of the second law, but they all have the same effect, which is to explain the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.”
-wikipedia.

how is global warming in violation of this law?

also, its completely correct that the globe has undergone massive levels of warming and cooling long before human intervention. in eons past, CO2 levels, and temperatures were much higher, and at some points there were no ice caps. when the current fossil fuel reserves which we use in abundance today were formed, a massive amount of CO2 was essentially removed from the atmosphere. this is because fossil fuels are made of dead plants, which extracted CO2 from the atmosphere to grow. since these decaying plants because coal and oil, none of that trapped CO2 re-entered the atmosphere. now we are burning all that fuel, which is releasing that CO2 back into the atmosphere at a rate much faster (on the order of millions of years) than it was removed. previous leads and lags of CO2 versus temperature are based on natural cycles of absorption and release, which I don’t believe characterizes the way CO2 is currently being released into the atmosphere.

The decade long warming and cooling trends discussed above are not significant time scales to be relevant, and probably are based on solar mins and maxes, which occur at 11 year intervals. however, ice cores provide temperature and other climate data which covers thousands and millions of years. those are the warming trends referred to in discussions of long term climate change.

regardless of global warming being fact or fiction. there is abundant other evidence that we’re not doing a good job taking care of the planet. the same coal plants that release CO2 are also the highest emitters of mercury, and radio active materials. even if global warming is patently false, it is still in everyone’s best interest to find new means of power production. CO2 from cars is irrelevant, as an electric car is as clean as the power plant that charges it.

28. dizizcamron | 03.19.09

Since it was mentioned:

“The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

The second law traces its origin to French physicist Sadi Carnot’s 1824 paper Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire, which presented the view that motive power (work) is due to the fall of caloric (heat) from a hot to cold body (working substance). In simple terms, the second law is an expression of the fact that over time, ignoring the effects of self-gravity, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how far along this evening-out process has progressed.

There are many versions of the second law, but they all have the same effect, which is to explain the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.”
-wikipedia.

how is global warming in violation of this law?

also, its completely correct that the globe has undergone massive levels of warming and cooling long before human intervention. in eons past, CO2 levels, and temperatures were much higher, and at some points there were no ice caps. when the current fossil fuel reserves which we use in abundance today were formed, a massive amount of CO2 was essentially removed from the atmosphere. this is because fossil fuels are made of dead plants, which extracted CO2 from the atmosphere to grow. since these decaying plants because coal and oil, none of that trapped CO2 re-entered the atmosphere. now we are burning all that fuel, which is releasing that CO2 back into the atmosphere at a rate much faster (on the order of millions of years) than it was removed. previous leads and lags of CO2 versus temperature are based on natural cycles of absorption and release, which I don’t believe characterizes the way CO2 is currently being released into the atmosphere.

The decade long warming and cooling trends discussed above are not significant time scales to be relevant, and probably are based on solar mins and maxes, which occur at 11 year intervals. however, ice cores provide temperature and other climate data which covers thousands and millions of years. those are the warming trends referred to in discussions of long term climate change.

regardless of global warming being fact or fiction. there is abundant other evidence that we’re not doing a good job taking care of the planet. the same coal plants that release CO2 are also the highest emitters of mercury, and radio active materials. even if global warming is patently false, it is still in everyone’s best interest to find new means of power production. CO2 from cars is irrelevant, as an electric car is as clean as the power plant that charges it.

29. Tom | 03.19.09

Global warming as presented by Gore, is piece by piece being picked apart as valid theory. Gore has made millions off of this business and inflated his vanity to blimp-like proportion. So his motivation is clear: He has become a Prophet of this religion as well as beautifully rich in way he could not manage by running a real business that requires profits. Time will finish it off if we do not let Obama and his money-printers (Hey, can the tree huggers protest the forests needed to print up the deficits? Just wondering.) institute an economy crushing tax in order to validate Gore’s self esteem and line his and others’ pockets.

Debate is the enemy of Global Warming. Michael Steele is to be praised for mocking this pseudo-science that is really a cult and should continue to mock it. Facts and time will debunk Gore just as time will show his hair plugs for what they are: vain cover ups.

30. bobiscold | 03.19.09

The questions are scientific, but the UN answers are political. The global warming debate is hardly about science. It has become a cause célèbre, championed by activists, politicians and celebrities. To deny their belief that humans are the cause of global warming, is to invoke their wrath. Science is not consensus; Science is theory, observation and measurement. Science is not, “let’s all take a vote on the speed of light and see what number we get.” Science is dictated by nature’s rules.

Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, “What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling, sharply declining temperatures the last couple of years, record setting lack of sun spots . . . failure of computer models to predict real climate, predictable warming and cooling climates for the past 500 years. The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!”

31. S. Sandlin | 03.19.09

No one wants to believe the earth is being damaged because of the lack of human responsibility to preserve what we still have. Personally, I believe the worst of this lack occurs in our belief that to procreate is not only our unrestricted right but even, in some cases, duty. The human race has had so much to be ashamed of, it’s a wonder it’s still around to see how it’s destroying not only itself, but all the other wonderful forms of life on this planet.

I would also like to say Thank You! to this newspaper which has displayed incomparable care “To injure no man, but to bless all mankind” as Mrs. Eddy intended. Unlike so many other sources of news around the world, this paper doesn’t coerce people to agree with all it reports but, rather, to pause and think and, hopefully, to be encouraged to learn more so they can form opinions that are based on the truth and not just that which is personally popular.

32. Steve | 03.19.09

“Clear Thinking 123″

I’m not a blogger, just a commenter. Unlike Al Gore, Hansen, and most researchers in the field, I have no financial interest in the field of global warming. However, I believe that the billions of $ about to be wasted on controlling CO2 emissions would be better spent for other purposes, such as our schools, health care, AIDS, cancer, malaria, etc. Where is the cost/benefit analysis for fighting global warming? There are better uses for our scarce resources - thankfully most of the public agrees, ranking GW dead last in a list of about 20 concerns recently. It may take a while for the politicians to catch on, since they see GW as a huge new source of tax revenue and control.

33. dizizcamron | 03.19.09

many people have sited petitions signed by scientists and professors and also individual professors who claim that global warming is trumped up pseudo science. these statements of belief are not a scientific argument. where are the scientifically accredited, peer-reviewed papers demonstrating empirically that global warming is either false or at least unproven? this is not a rhetorical question. I am honestly asking for those who don’t believe in global warming to site those journals and papers. I want to read them to have a better understanding of the scientific debate.

it is not joint statements, signed petitions, and drama queens like al gore that have built a large scale scientific consensus on the validity of global warming. Al gore is just a johnny-come-lately.

it is the large volume of scientifically accredited, peer-reviewed, independently verified articles by those within this discipline that have built the consensus for global warming. if global warming really is a hoax, and all of our efforts to fight it amount to wasted dollars and bad decisions, then it is important for scientific papers demonstrating this to be placed at the front of the counter-argument. not attacks on al gore or celebrities who believe the opposite view point, which will simply be viewed as blind hostility.

there are hundreds of science articles that support the theory of global warming. if there is still such rigorous scientific debate, where are the papers making the counter argument? or has scientific inquiry become a pro-global warming conspiracy as well?

34. Piper Foster | 03.19.09

Kudos to the Monitor for identifying that neither of Mr. Steele’s assertions are backed by science. As a professional in the climate and sustainability field, I’ve observed that the wiser course is not to name “global warming” a religion nor be stuck debating.

In the absence of certainty, we must act with conservatism and prudence.

Covering this issue, as the Monitor has with fidelity and integrity, demands a keen eye for complexity. Science is complex! Policy responses are equally complex!

Please continue your strong coverage, undaunted by criticism.

35. ren | 03.19.09

dear dizizcamron, for ’sited’ you need to use ‘cited’. in any case you make an excellent point which the anti’s have yet to counter in the wider debate with other than sensationalist petitions and talk show punditry. Pretty depressingly amazing amount of anti IPCC sentiment here, it suggests they were more than an isolated bunch of whackos. The filth of the 19th c industrial revolution we read about in the UK and the US forced us to clean up–we strove to and did what then needed doing but not without great resistance from the industrial capitalist. We are again being shown we are out of balance but on a broader, more dangerous scale–the same people who fought the previous clean-ups are fighting it now. Shame on them.

36. Ralph Hansen Ph. D. | 03.19.09

Interesting how the skeptics posting here cite specific examples of scientific evidence that supports their argument. Those who believe the AGW religion make ad hominem attacks on the authors or cite the authority of the government-funded scientists who continue to promote the alarm based on the virtual reality of their computer models. Global temperatures have indeed leveled off the past 10 years and appear headed for a cooling trend as one would expect with a shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Roy Spencer, Don Easterbrook, Joe D’Aleo and others have written extensively on the subject. CSM writers would be wise to read their work, and report on its obvious implications to readers. Bottom line, we should be preparing for more frequent cold, snowy winters like we’ve just experienced.

37. Orion | 03.19.09

“placed himself in opposition to empirically observed reality…”

I’m wrapped in a blanket reading this opinion piece - in Southern California, in mid-March. My “empirical reality” is that it was a cold winter and has been a cool spring thusfar. My actual reality is that thusfar only one of the many mathematical models being developed to describe climate change correctly tracks the last 30 years and it predicts continued COOLING for the next 20 years or so.

1998 was the 2nd warmest year on record, btw. 1938 topped it. Since 1998 temperatures have flatlined or declined a bit, most notably in the past 3 years. Meanwhile atmospheric C02 levels continue to rise steadily. The link between global temperature and CO2 is not proven even now and many scientists who signed onto “global warming” a few years back are quietly backing out to salvage their reputations.

38. David Dresser | 03.19.09

Where do these CSM readers come from? Such a collection of ignorance and denial is hard to duplicate. Bravo to CSM for this piece. We watch in amazement as the Republican party continues to self-destruct. Anyone can deny anything but saying that there is no global warming is not proof of global cooling. The huge preponderance of excellent data and research makes a case that is denied in peril.

39. Eoin | 03.19.09

Orion, where did you hear that 1938 was the warmest year?

40. AllisonNY | 03.19.09

I can’t believe how many seemingly intelligent people there are who completely ignore science. The fact is, the earth’s climate is warming. The so-called “debate” about global warming exists only in the newspapers because of a group of idiots who want to keep burning oil and driving their SUVs, and because newspapers feel they have an obligation to present everything as a debate. Not a single scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal has disputed global warming, because it is a scientifically proven fact. Get with the program before it’s too late.

41. AntonioSosa | 03.19.09

Steele is right. More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children.

The over 700 dissenting international scientists that just met in New York are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3

Additionally, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…” http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

“Progressive” (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the UN and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes, limit development, and enslave us.

If not stopped, the global warming scam will enrich the scammers (Gore and Obama’s Wall Street friends), increase the power of the U.N. and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and servitude for the rest of us.

42. Tim Jones | 03.19.09

Thank you for publishing Eoin O’Carroll’s riposte to Michael Steele’s abysmal misapprehension of the climate change crisis. In response to the misleading assertions some of your readers have submitted:

1) The planet has not cooled since 1998. The trend continues upward.
see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

2) The IPCC is composed of far more than “52 scientists.” “Experts from more than 130 countries are contributing to (the last) assessment, which represents six years of work. More than 450 lead authors have received input from more than 800 contributing authors, and an additional 2,500 experts reviewed the draft documents.” http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html

3) Al Gore shared the Nobel Prize with the IPCC. To claim he lacks the credentials to perform his role ridiculous.

Global warming, more accurately called climate change is not a hoax nor a scam nor a religion. Anyone delving into the preponderance of the empirical evidence as well as the science and physics of atmospheric CO2 can readily apprehend the truth of what the industrial revolution is doing to the planet.

43. AntonioSosa | 03.19.09

Steele is right and we thank him for having the courage to state the truth when Obama’s braiwashed mob is ready to burn anyone denying their dogma. More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. The over 700 dissenting international scientists that just met in New York are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

44. Laurie MI | 03.19.09

Why is it that when it’s hotter than hades in the summer or we get a warm day in the middle of winter the Global Warming kool-aid drinkers always say “SEE - GLOBAL WARMING” - but when we experience the coldest winters in years, or they discover that sensors in the arctic are broken and report back that what they thought was melted ice the size of California is actually thicker ice than before. they excuse it as “part of the cycle of Global Warming”. Al Bore won’t debate anyone, his “Climatologists/ Scientists” all have an agenda to get more and more funding on their hoax research. Can anyone honestly believe that these models they use are absolute when the weather cannot be forecasted correctly one or 2 days out?

45. Tim Jones | 03.19.09

Michael Steele is the perfect representative for how confused the Goofy Obstructionist Party really is.

Remember when he claimed that government work is not the same as a job? Which means that being a cop is like …a picnic?

How about how he insulted Rush Limbaugh, calling his show “incendiary” and “ugly.” Then groveled at Limbaugh’s feet for forgiveness claiming “I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh.”

Would that be: “…enormous fear of Rush Limbaugh?”

Then Steele says he’s pro-choice:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/03/republican-chair-michael-steele-is-pro-choice.html
“DePaulo: Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?”
“Steele: Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.”

Then falls into line a few hours later to say he’s against abortion.

Now we read he’s installed a BowFlex machine in his office. No doubt as a way to strengthen his mind.

46. Freedom | 03.19.09

Over 64,000 scientist say that global warming may happen as well as global coolng with mountains of real scientific evidence to prove that man has very little to do with it. But these facts are not excepted because they don’t follow the Al Gores of the world. These are real climatologists not fakes like Al Gore and others. These scientists actually monitor the weather and study the weather facts and do not use flawed climate data. However, I know that the “sky is falling crowd” only except certain data from flawed climate models which do not have the capacity to compute much of the important weather data. It is all about power girls and boys and don’t you forget it. Al Gore lost his presidential bid so he needs something to do and this is as good a anything. He needs the money and the power and he doesn’t care about the truth along with the so called climate experts who refuse to look at all the data.

47. Joseph | 03.20.09

Steele’s “assertion” that “humans have not been here very long” is also very much in line with the findings of paleontologists that life has existed on Earth for billions of years, while humans have only been here for anywhere from 100,000 years to 2,500,000 years, depending on the earliest fossil accepted as “human”.
Steele’s remarks contained absolutely NO suggestion WHATSOEVER that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Spare us the FLIMSY cheap shots, Eoin O’Carrol.

48. JER0ME | 03.20.09

Individuals CAN prevent Global Warming

I am not completely convinced CO2 has anything to do with Global Warming. That notwithstanding, I am certain that reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is both a good idea and necessary, for a large number of obvious reasons.

The good news is that we can all make a difference. It goes way beyond buying a few (polluting) low energy light bulbs, and will have a real impact if even half of those concerned about Global Warming follow the proposals. The beauty is that even if only half do this, it makes no difference what the rest do! Renewable energy will become cheaper than fossil fuels with enough investment in the technology, and everyone will move over naturally!

Firstly, buy renewable energy.

As far as I am aware, you have the choice to buy renewable electricity in all developed countries. If you cannot now, you should campaign for that inalienable right immediately. Currently our own household buys 25% of our electricity as renewable, costing us about US$33 extra per year. 100% would cost US$183)*.

Some argue that if millions of householders (and industries, I would hope) buy renewable energy, there will not be enough. If you do not buy it, there will NEVER be enough. If you do, the money will be used to INVEST in infrastructure for future renewable energy, so making the expense just as effective.

Merely by choosing to buy this, you are immediately and directly investing in the renewable energy industry, and sending a powerful and undeniable message to those who matter, the people who actually generate electricity, not environmentalists or politicians who may have different agenda.

Secondly, stop investing in ‘Big Oil’ and ‘Big Coal’.

It comes as a shock to many ordinary citizens to be told that the huge greedy corporations actually make money for THEM, not for some faceless consortium. Sure, corporate flunkies may make millions of dollars, but WE, as investors, make billions, and even trillions. Their huge payouts and massive junkets are insignificant compared to the profits the companies make for their investors.

You may well think that you do not invest in these companies, but if you have a pension or investment fund, you almost certainly do. These funds will, quite obviously, be invested in the very companies that make the most profits and returns for their investors. All these corporations are doing is actually acting effectively YOUR instruction, ie to get the best possible return. If WE stop investing in them, they fail, and will be forced to change their practices to survive in a capitalist environment.

The answer is to choose ethical investments (there may be different names). Talk to your financial adviser and make the switch now. ONLY YOU control your investments. Make the choice and stop letting others do it for you.

You control the future, not governments or environmentalists.

The message is that YOU control the future of energy production with your wallets. The bad news is that it will cost, but nothing the environmentalists or governments will ever do about this issue will cost you less than this, and most of what they want to do will take control away from you and waste most of your expenditure in bureaucratic bungling and misguided foolishness, in my opinion. This simple two-step approach has all the potential to work and with no complex side effects that I can see immediately. It has a direct and immediate effect.

It is so rare that we are able to do something so straightforward in this complex world. If Global Warming concerns you, I urge you to put your money where your mouth is, and make an immediate difference TODAY, before the power is taken away from you.

* Based on a usage of 5,000 kWh of electricity.
Source: http://www.originenergy.com.au/1142/Green-energy-FAQs#extracost

http://www.carbonclimate.info/2009/03/individuals-can-prevent-global-warming.html

49. eplus | 03.20.09

let me ask a simple question to anyone that believes in man made global warming, if co2 is so bad why would they still allow it to be emitted? i mean we are made of carbon and we exhale carbon dioxide all the time, every second of every day. should we stop breathing? are we going to start taxing volcanos and dead plants? do you know the ocean is the #1 emitter of co2?

ok i understand alot of people have been had and bought into this false science but at what point do you stop trying to be right and take an unbiased look at the evidence?

if you have any doubts and want the real truth go to youtube and type in “the great global warming swindle” this documentary gives proof positive that climate change is directly related to the sun. co2 levels dont dictate temperature, nope the opposite is true in fact co2 levels lag behind climate change.

you can stay in denial if you want but all its doing is keeping the 3rd world from developing.

50. Harald | 03.20.09

Wait a minute: as far as I remember, Al Gore did NOT receive a _scientific_ Nobel Prize, it was a peace prize only, wasn’t it?

I guess so, as he seems to not like debates of scientific issues:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/05/al-gore-turns-down-debate_n_172371.html

I also think that peer reviewed literature does not seem to dispute manmade global warming, however, in my view not because it is a scientifically proven fact, but rather because peer review currently doesn’t work properly in climate science. Even high profile journals as Science or Nature seem to not accept critical articles at present, despite there is a large number of open scientific questions still! See http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html for a few questions that need answers. Most badly, we need hard evidence for manmade global warming, all we have (and all IPCC claims) is rather weak probability claims produced by computer simulations, which I do not trust at all due to the model’s incompleteness and due to the non-linear dynamics of the natural climate system (hard to model, if at all!).

51. awbilinski | 03.20.09

I am constantly amazed at the virulence of this debate over whether global warming is actually happening or is a huge hoax brought on by some liberal/environmental/United Nations conspirators. Data is cited left and right and it seems impossible to know whom to believe. However, I do believe we are confronted with climate change. A great number of otherwise well respected scientists have signed on to this theory. I cannot help but notice that since the beginning of the industrial revolution and the discovery of oil we are approaching the point of having utilized one-half of known global oil reserves. Burning all those hyrdro-carbons (and lets not forget wood and coal) in a closed system has to have some effect. The earth currently has an ozone hole over a large swath of the sudden hemisphere caused by the release of chlorofluorocarbons (cfc’s) into the atmosphere. The Antarctic ice shelf is breaking down and the ice cap over Greenland is thinning. If these are not indications of global climate change, then what are they? Mankind’s stewardship of the earth is nothing to brag about. Is it really going to harm us as a species to stop a moment and look to slow down our depletion of global resources?

52. Jared S | 03.20.09

The article is a thinly veiled left wing diatribe. But it is not journalism.
Secondly, I am amused, as an energy professional, that hydro power generation is a renewable source of energy, but no major new hydro plants are being constructed or plan on being constructed. Why? Because of environmental impact concerns. It’s much easier to build gas fired plants; until their built, then the are the subject of the envirnomentalists’ wrath.
Can’t win.

53. lara | 03.20.09

I am pleased that Mr. Steele is showing some common sense. Don’t you people read the news. The “scientist” had mistakes in their data, “oops”. The earth is enterring a cooling phase. Look it up. Dr. Hansen from NASA is a fear monger and Al gore is a con artist with no moral values what so ever. Why would anyone take science advise from a lawyer with a $25,000.00 a month electric bill. This cap and trade BS pushed by Gore is a con job that is making AL Gore rich. Have you not seen the data that Mars and Pluto had been warming and are starting to cool as is Earth. This is a cyclical weather pattern that has happened over the ages. The Sun that warms this galazy had been going through an active sun spot phase that is now over. We now have a shotage of sun spots, again, cyclical and expected. I know nasa left that “suv” on mars but I don’t think that was enough to cause waring on Mars and we never touched Pluto. We definatley did not cause that one. If you want to run around the country prognosing doom and the end of the world as we know it you should be a scientist, not a lawyer that does not practice or an unsuccessfull politician. Al Gore wants so desperately to be somebody that he has perpertrating the largest scam in history. At least his name will make the history books under “the largest scam ever run by a failed politician” That really is quite an accomplishment.

54. Sam | 03.20.09

There is no consensus on Global warming that is just the mantra uttered by people who do not like discussion and debate. It appears like the earth has been cooling for several years now and the warming we had been seeing was the result of a flurry of sun spots. The sun is now enterring a phase of little to no sunspots and it will likely continus to cool moderatly for several years. It is insane to assume that humans could so vastly affect the climate on this earth. The Sun is much bigger and more powerfull that the human population on this earth. I would advise that people shoule be reluctant to take climate advise from a man with no science degree that has apparently failed at everything he tried to do. He does not pravtice as a lawyer and was aa miserable politician. He invented the intenet, go ahed, call CERN and ask them who invented the internet. It was not Al Gore who is the biggest liar in the entire country. I hate to break it to you but the “love Story” was not based on Al Gore, that is just another on of his lies. It’s easy to spot his lies, just watch to see his lips moving and you will no he is lying.

55. Jim Smith | 03.20.09

The pack of conservatives who ran up the string of head-in-the-sand posts seem to be ignorant of the PROVEN rise in sea level recently.

Also the PROVEN decline of glaciers on every continent.

Also the PROVEN drastic reduction in arctic pack-ice - soon to lead to ice-free arctic seas in summer.

I could go on but why bother - conservative global warming deniers are unreachable, illogical and close-minded. They invent or cherry-pick evidence (zeroing in on somewhat subjective things like “warmest years”) yet ignore contrary evidence that does not jive with their preconceived notions.

Jim.

PS Hey conservatives - the U.S. Navy (and the rest of the military) says global warming is true and they are making detailed plans on how to cope with it.

Support our Troops! - by admitting to (and starting to plan for) global warming

56. Joseph | 03.20.09

Harold, it was “peace” prize, and awarded by the same commie die-hards who bestowed it on Yassir Arafat.

57. eplus | 03.20.09

yes lets all ignore what the actual scientists say on this subject.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3&Issue_id=

Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Outpouring of Skeptical Scientists Continues as 59 Scientists Added to Senate Report

‘The ­science has, quite simply, gone awry’

58. Brian | 03.20.09

Two thoughts:

We don’t need to worry about “saving the planet”; whatever we do to ourselves and the rest of life on earth, the planet will still be here, and it won’t care.

Secondly, now we know what became of the offspring of the peculiar individuals who fought fluoridation of water supplies on the basis that it was a communist plot.

59. Tim Jones | 03.20.09

Even the right wing’s hero and Republican presidential candidate recognized the truth regarding climate change and promised action to combat it. Democrats Al Gore and Barack Obama are bashed for pushing kool-aid when the right wing’s own guy is doing the same thing. Except it’s not kool-aid when John McCain says so - right?

Regarding # 55, you’ve hit the nail on the head. One link for the 2007 report, “National Security and the Threat of Global Climate Change,” by the Center for Naval Analyses is: http://securityandclimate.cna.org/ update:
http://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2009/02/18/Intel_chief_Climate_change_threatens_US_security/UPI-14021234988045/

Climate change denialists are addicted to unsustainable lifestyles and are howling down to their last gasps for a way of life that’s fading into the past. Most of them, especially Senator Inhofe are financed by fossil fuel industries trying to preserve their niche in the economy. They’re cherry picking the data, grasping at straws and passing off outright lies to make their case. It’s a case that can’t be, and hasn’t been made to most rational people.

For what it’s worth I have compiled pages of hundreds of informative links regarding the science and recent findings on climate change.
http://groundtruthinvestigations.com/climate_change.html

60. mattl | 03.20.09

Some of the responses from the global warming skeptics here are simultaneously pathetic and comical in their ignorance. I can only imagine where some of these people get their information. Ostensibly those in denial have access to better information than the global scientific community, not to mention top officials at the defense department and intelligence agencies who view climate change as a top global security threat. Concerns in the military and intelligence communities have existed for years, including during the George W. Bush administrations. A report published by the Pentagon in 2004 found that climate change poses one of the greatest security threats to the U.S. and our interests abroad in coming decades.

But, hey, what do those wacky liberals at the Pentagon know, anyway?

61. Jim Berry | 03.20.09

I’m still waiting for the news media to use their normal journalistic skepticism in reporting on global warming.

More than 90% of the peer reviewed scientific papers addressing global warming and the effects of man made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere published in the last 10 years, that are based on actual data (ice core samples, historical temperature records and proxy data, studies of lake sediments, sea temperature measurements, studies of the impact of CO2 on coral, measurements of the amount of sea level rise, negative feedback mechanisms countering the action of CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 impact on desserts, response of the tundra to warming, the very positive effects of CO2 on plant growth, etc.) do not support the global warmests theories and predictions. However, it is also true that about 90% of the papers based on climate models do support their position. But when tested the climate models can’t even predict 10 years into the future. A good example is the 10 year global cooling trend that we are in now was not predicted by their models. What this means is that their theories are not supported by the evidence but only by climate models, which are built based on their theories.

One of the key arguments of the global warmests is that the warm temperatures that occurred 10-15 years ago were “unprecedented”. But in the last 10 years over 300 scientific papers have been written showing that there were 2 periods in the last 2000 years in which it was warmer than the current warming period and the rate of temperature rise (how quickly the temperature rose over time) was greater. And these warm periods lasted for hundreds of years and were global in nature, and with the CO2 content of the atmosphere less than half of what it is today. And the polar bears survived!

This is not to say that it isn’t getting warmer. It has been getting warmer with various ups and downs since the end of the last ice age. It isn’t getting warmer faster. The warming in all likelihood will continue unaffected by increasing or decreasing CO2 (that’s what the evidence shows) until the beginning of the next ice age. However, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere will make plants much better able to withstand the warming (hundreds of papers have also been written on this subject).

It is quite different to question Darwin’s work, which has been proven by observation, or for that matter Einstein’s theory of relativity, also proven by actual experiments. To question the global warmests theories is reasonable since the theories are not proven, and the facts are in opposition to the theory.

It takes a scientist to gather, and interpret the data but the average person can understand the results of these scientific studies. These studies are easily accessible. I would appreciate it if someone at The Christian Science Monitor would do some independent reporting rather than mimic what a few alarmists keep repeating.

Beware of the environmental-government complex.

Jim Berry

62. Why | 03.20.09

Steele and the republicans will wait until all of the U.S. is head deep in water and then their response will be My Bad.

Mother earth should be treated will kindness and be respected. Republicans never think ahead just for the moment.

63. Tim Jones | 03.20.09

#61 makes all of his assertions without citation or reference to any specific work of any sort. The reason for this is that he can’t do it, or if he did the source material would be debunked with ease. “90% of the peer reviewed scientific papers…” blah blah blah. “…over 300 papers” blah blah. #61 must take CSM readers for fools.

Try this for temperature comparisons in the last 1000 years:
“This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 1000 years.”
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

How about 2000 years?
“This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 2000 years.” http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

All of these graphs show the last 30 years to be warming at least as fast and much higher than it ever has in the last 2000 years. Where’s your peer reviewed rebuttal, Mr #61?

Mostly the only thing wrong with climate scientists predictions is that they have underestimated the speed and severity of climate change.

To wit: (03-20-09) USGS at Annual Association of American Geographers Meeting
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2167
(excerpt)
“A geospatial model that suggested all glaciers would be gone from (Glacier National) park by 2030 has proven to be too conservative. Accelerated glacier shrinkage since the model was developed has mirrored an increase in actual annual temperature that is almost twice the rate used in the model.”

By the way, what is the impact of CO2 on dessert?

64. Jim Berry | 03.21.09

In response to #63’s comments about my #61.

Here are a few citations with respect to the Medieval Warming period being warmer than the recent warming period:

Scientific Papers Confirming the Medieval Warming Period
1. Journal of Coastal Research 24(5):1092-1109. 2008
doi: 10.2112/08A-0003.1
High-Resolution Foraminiferal, Isotopic, and Trace Element Records from Holocene Estuarine Deposits of San Francisco Bay, California
Mary McGann
U.S. Geological Survey, Coastal and Marine Geology, 345 Middlefield
2. http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/newsletters/2009-1/special%20section/science%20highlights/Gajewski_2009-1(11-13).pdf
3. http://mayanewsupdates.blogspot.com/2007/09/maya-news-updates-2007-no_27.html
4. http://www.cen.ulaval.ca/paleo/Publications/Articles/Hay.2007.pdf
5. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~carbotte/2004carbotte-gml.pdf
6. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/millar/psw_2006_millar027.pdf

These are all with respect to North America.But I can continue to site papers on the same subject relating to all the continents. And of course with respect to desserts, Global Warming makes ice cream melt faster. With respect to deserts, the higher CO2 content of the air is resulting in vegetation encroaching desert areas (there are a few papers on this subject too).

In any case I wasn’t disputing the global warming theories,I was questioning them and saying that there are enough scientific papers written with other views that it is not unreasonable to question the theory. But no point in you and me arguing; we need the scientists with different view points to be meeting and discussing these issues.

I did not show 300 hundred scientific papers but they are there. It took about 15 minutes to find the above papers using Google. Pick a continent and I’ll find a half dozen more.

Jim Berry

65. JP | 03.23.09

Wow, it’s really amusing how articles like this attract so many deniers who trot out the same worn-out lines debunked time and time again by rational observers and actual climate scientists. Witness the dying throes of a deluded group of political hacks and Rush Limbaugh ditto-heads being thrashed by logic and reason. Sorry, I know that’s not the way to bring you to the table, but your group is so small and irrelevant that it doesn’t matter.

66. Steve H. | 03.23.09

Any Republican who endorses the left wing global warming movement is unfit for any elected office. Period.

Global warming is a fraud. A complete fraud with a broad array of left wing causes attempting to utilize the alarms to advance their support and agenda.

Any Republican helping them has failed to grasp this now very obvious fact.

They should resign, switch parties, shut up, go away and stop helping to destroy our country.

it’s easy to get it

http://www.icecap.us
http://www.whatsupwiththat.com
http://www.claimateaudit.org

67. Tim Jones | 03.23.09

I’ve been wondering why temperatures since the El Nino temperature anomaly give some people the impression we’ve entered a period of cooling, thus rendering anthropogenic climate change theory false.

Has it occurred to anyone else that the ascendence of the economy in China has utilized enormous coal resources to fuel the surge in manufacturing in the last decade? This fossil fuel burning, especially dirty coal has elevated SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere to a level where sunlight for the last decade has been reflected back into space so much that the increased warming due to the increasing concentration of CO2 has been offset by the global dimming effects of the aerosols.

The drop in the rate of warming after WWII until the Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970 the US has been explained as the result of coal burning and the increase in manufacturing during that period. After 1970 temperatures increased precipitously until the surge in the economies of Asia put huge brown clouds of pollution into the air after the turn of the century. Asia’s pollution hasn’t been sufficient to cause cooling, but it has masked the warming somewhat.

I don’t think rendering the air unfit to breathe is the answer to climate change. And we’re still acidifying the oceans
if we keep up our emissions.

On another note, this explains some of the other posts:

“An Army of Lobbyists Readies For Battle on The Climate Bill”
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2131
(excerpt)
“A Center for Public Integrity analysis shows that, by the end of last year, more than 770 companies and interest groups had hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence federal policy on climate change. That’s an increase of more than 300 percent in just five years, and means that Washington can now boast more than four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress.”

It’s all about the money.

68. Geoff Pohanka | 03.23.09

Michael Steele wasnt far off the mark, he just lacked enough info.

1. The USA has some of the longest temperature records on earth. In the
USA the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year 1934 (NASA data)

2. five of the ten warmest years in the USA were before 1940. It has cooled
in five of the last seven decades

3. According to the national climate data center temperatures in the USA in 2008 were at about the average of the last 115 years, and many areas were below the average (so where is the warming?)

4. 1998 was the second warmest year after 1934, but it has been cooler in the past 11 years since.

5. according to NASA, global temperatures in 2008 were signficantly cooler than 2007, the coolest since 2000, and below the average of the last 30 years. We only have 30 years of satellite tracking of temperatures, this is the best source of data, from the troposphere

6. According to NASA the amoung of global sea ice is about the same today as 30 years ago when measurement began, there is virtually no loss of sea ice, while it it true the arctic sea ice is melting more in summer, the antarctic is growing by a like amount. The rate of arctic sea ice change this winter was the fastest ever recorded, either growing or shrinking, and it was growing. Arctic sea ice is also thicker this year, ice breakers from russia are measuring this, also the US has floating sensors that measure this. Expect less melting this summer, there was 8% less melting last summer than the one earlier.

7. The antarctic had the most sea ice in 2008 than was ever recorded, over 1,000,000 square kilometers more ice than the last 30 years!

8. if the entire arctic sea ice melted the ocean would not rise even an inch. the melting of sea ice cant raise sea levels.

9. the antarctic has 90% of the earths land ice, temperatures have been cooling in most areas of the antarctic the last 50 years, and as I said, it has the most ice ever recorded in 2008.

10. CO2 by itself can not raise temperatures over 1.2C no matter how much there is, doubles. tripples etc. Its ability to absorb heat is logarithmic, in that the more there is the less it can absorb heat. Rising levels of CO2 must rely on positive feedback to cause more warming, such as causing high level clouds that trap heat. Studies show rising temperatures cause fewer high level clouds to form, and this cools. There is no positive feedback from CO2

11. CO2 is less than 4/100ths of one percent of the atmosphere, it is a trace gas. it has increased as a percentage of the atmosphere less than 1/10,000th since 1750, hardly enough to cause the end of mankind.

12. CO2 is about 3% of the greenhouse gases and man contributes only 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, the rest is from natural sources. so man only contribures .117% of the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year.

13. the seas are cooling, they work on a 30 year cycle, they are the great drivers of temperature, so expect a cooling effect for the next 30 years or so.

14. periods of low solar activity have always coincided with colder temperatuers. there is a 300 year long record of this. todays solar activity is the lowest since the 1790s, which predated the dalton minimum, a very cold period, and the last time the Thames froze over in London. Today the sun has the lowest solar winds ever recorded.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I expect anyone who challenges this will say I am paid by the fossil fuel industry, which is rubbish. Any challengers must be paid by the carbon cap and trade people (the new wall streeters).

Any of these facts can be easily and independently verified.

check my website, http://www.isthereglobalwarming.com

check the facts first before attacking me. they are 100% accurate.

69. Geoff Pohanka | 03.23.09

and another point.

Global hurricanes are at a 30 year low

There are three times more polar bears than the 1950s, polar bear populations
are at an all time record today

Coral reefs do quite well with higher levels of CO2, they prospered when there was ten times more atmospheric CO2 than today and temperatures were 10C warmer

There were three ice ages when there was more CO2 than today, one ice age had ten times more CO2, either CO2 doesnt cause much warming or the natural cycle was so strong that it overcame it.

Climate models dont work because they dont include the natural forces that change climate

Climate models dont work backward, and they have not predicted recent trends

Those who think that man is driving the earths climate have completely discounted natural forces. in 1980 natural forces stopped working, and manmade climate change took over (right).

Over 80% of the people who worked on the UN IPCC had no prior climate experience, the head of it was trained as a railroad engineer.

70. Geoff Pohanka | 03.23.09

Oh, one more thing, while I am at it.

Using the 400,000 year record of Vostok ice core samples, never once did a rise in CO2 preceed a rise in temperature. Temperature always rose before CO2 levels increased, or temperatures declined before CO2 levels declined.

Why is this, the seas absorb CO2 when they cool and they release it when they warm. So if temperature always changes before CO2 levels, CO2 can not by itself cause temperature change. Temperature changes from natural causes warm or cool the oceans and they cause the CO2 level change.

Al Gore goes around making speaches and showing his chart that shows CO2 changes come before temperature change. Newly enhanced procedures in 1998 demonstrated that temperature change comes before CO2 change. The statements he makes about this are almost criminal in their inaccuracy.

71. Tim Jones | 03.23.09

#s 68, 69 &70 comprise one of the most lengthy litanies of outright lies, half truths and cherry picking the data to come down the pike.

On his website Geoff Pohanka provides links, but most of the ones I found do not go to the source data but to skeptic sites where they take the data out of context or tell you what you’re supposed to see.

The statement: “Al Gore goes around making speaches and showing his chart that shows CO2 changes come before temperature change. Newly enhanced procedures in 1998 demonstrated that temperature change comes before CO2 change. The statements he makes about this are almost criminal in their inaccuracy.”

In the first place Al Gore makes no such claim regarding the chart of ice age temperatures and CO2. I watched “An Inconvenient Truth” before it was a film. His claim was that rising CO2 following the rise in temperatures at the ends of ice ages (due to Milankovitch Cycles), recorded in Antarctic ice, amplifies the warming. The criminal inaccuracy is Pohanka’s!

Please see: “Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming” http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659

Here’s the chart similar to Al Gore’s:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11659/dn11659-2_738.jpg

Earth’s orbital changes and the way they effect climate are powerful natural forces. No climate scientist denies this.
But nothing I know of indicates that we’re in for more warming due to an orbital change by this planet.

The giveaway regarding Pohanka is: “I expect anyone who challenges this will say I am paid by the fossil fuel industry, which is rubbish. Any challengers must be paid by the carbon cap and trade people (the new wall streeters).”

Well Geoff, you’re quite wrong in assigning any allegiance I may have. I’m not paid for my views. But why don’t you reveal who you are and who pays you for such a misleading effort?

The posts by Geoff Pohanka are clearly part of a deceptive propaganda campaign on the part of fossil fuel exploiting industries and supporting think tanks opposed to meaningful climate change legislation.

But do try to evaluate his assertions. You’ll find the exercise to be quite educational - especially in how sneaky these people really are.

72. Tim Jones | 03.24.09

I believe the issue here is global warming or more correctly global climate change.

The writer of post # 68 asserts:
3.” According to the national climate data center temperatures in the USA in 2008
were at about the average of the last 115 years, and many areas were below the average
(so where is the warming?)”
and
4. “1998 was the second warmest year after 1934, but it has been cooler in the past 11 years since.”

1934 was NOT the warmest year worldwide, only in the United States.

Two graphs found on the Goddard Institute for Space Studies site make this clear.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif

The explanation for the phenomena is:
Whither U.S. Climate?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999

Global temperatures during the US dust bowl years were not higher than the current decade.

On the Wikipedia website one can see the NOAA Temperature Record since 1880.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880
“Each of the last 12 years (1997-2008) was one of the warmest on record.”

The NOAA graph “Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global-blended-temp-pg.gif

This graph in no way indicates any kind of global cooling trend. The warm years in the 1930’s in the US do not measure up to the global warm years world wide by any stretch
of the imagination.

see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Surface and Satellite Temperature graph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

So where is the cooling?

The Short Instrumental Temperature Record does indicate a very slight
decrease in global temperatures when the annual average is considered.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

From what I see, in comparison to other deviations from the general upward trend
the downslope is not nearly of the magnitude of previous years and can hardly
indicate a global cooling trend.

Sulphate aerosols from China’s coal burning are probably reflecting sunlight
which would be converted into infrared radiation trapped by increasing levels
of CO2. I would suggest that without this pollution temperatures would be even
higher and the trend would be more noticeably upward.

See:
Global Dimming?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105

See also:
Aerosols, Cloud Nucleation and Global Dimming
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Atmosphere/aerosol_cloud_nucleation_dimming.html

73. Tim Jones | 03.24.09

A reliable announcement and analysis of year to year global temperature research
is found on the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) as well as the NASA
websites.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/
&
http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html

Here we find:
2005 Was Warmest Year in Over a Century
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060124/
Jan. 24, 2006
The year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world.
[…]

Also reported here:
2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html
&
2005 Was The Warmest Year In A Century
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=2006012421540

We also find:

2007 Was Tied as Earth’s Second-Warmest Year
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/
Jan. 16, 2008
Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century.
[…]

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the “El Niño of the century”. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.
[…]

Finally:

2008 Was Earth’s Coolest Year Since 2000
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20090223/
Feb. 23, 2009
Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. The GISS analysis also showed that 2008 is the ninth warmest year since continuous instrumental records were started in 1880.
[…]

With the highest global temperature being in 2005, the second highest being in 2007 it’s impossible that the 2008 temperature anomaly can be legitimately construed to indicate
a global cooling trend.

Many skeptic websites have contrived to exhibit US temperatures as global by submerging important distinctions in the body of text while making misleading assertions bullet points.
To wit:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=14894
This is the fraudulent and dishonest way climate change denialists like “National Center for Policy Analysis are swaying public opinion to fall into confusion and complacency highly contrary to the public’s interest.

74. Tim Jones | 03.24.09

I guess that as long as this thread is open I may as well add to as accurate an understanding of global climate change as I can find. I hope the compilation of research and rebuttals are helpful. The exercise is intended to bring you up to speed regarding current developments as derived from as close to the actual scientific literature as one can find on the Internet.

Note: To avoid a suspicion of plagiarism I should note that in my previous posts, if text falls between a url and “[…]” (meaning snip) it is an excerpt. I’m putting quotes around excerpts now to avoid confusion as to who wrote what.

Despite my allusions to aerosols and global dimming, 2008 temperatures are more likely mostly due to a “moderate cooling effect of reduced solar irradiance” combined with a strong La Niña in the tropical pacific. I posted the link but I should expand on the point.
To wit:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20090223/
(excerpts)
“Most of the world was either near normal or warmer in 2008 than the norm. Eurasia, the Arctic, and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm (see figures), while much of the Pacific Ocean was cooler than the long-term average.
The relatively low temperature in the tropical Pacific was due to a strong La Niña that existed in the first half of the year, the research team noted. La Niña and El Niño are opposite phases of a natural oscillation of equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures over several years. La Niña is the cool phase. The warmer El Niño phase typically follows within a year or two of La Niña.”
[…]
“”Given our expectation that the next El Niño will begin this year or in 2010, it still seems likely that a new global surface air temperature record will be set within the next one to two years, despite the moderate cooling effect of reduced solar irradiance,” said James Hansen, director of GISS. The Sun is just passing through solar minimum, the low point in its 10- to 12-year cycle of electromagnetic activity, when it transmits its lowest amount of radiant energy toward Earth.”

For more understanding of 2008 global temperatures see:

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
(excerpt)
“Summary: The Southern Oscillation and increasing GHGs continue to be, respectively, the dominant factors affecting interannual and decadal temperature change. Solar irradiance has a non-negligible effect on global temperature [see, e.g., ref. 7, which empirically estimates a somewhat larger solar cycle effect than that estimated by others who have teased a solar effect out of data with different methods]. Given our expectation of the next El Niño beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance.”

75. Huang Di | 03.25.09

First of all, a semantic point : climate “warming” exists no longer … only climate “change” remains, but you seem to have not received the memo !

“The scientific consensus” ??
There is no such thing : respectable scientists discuss the merits of theories, while media hammers in an hypothetical consensus !

“Samples of prehistoric DNA have revealed …” ???
So, now, DNA would record temperature … I’d really like to look at the PROVEN SCIENCE behind those mere words !

“Computer models predict …” ???
First show a meteorological forecast that is right at least 70% of the time 30 days in advance, then we can discuss meteorological computer models spanning years (would it be Silicon Gazing that gives those predictions ?).

“.. moderately representative of his party” ???
Galileo was moderately representative for the scientific consensus of the time … but THE EARTH IS ROUND !!
Those that opposed the “Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction” dogma where moderately representative for the US administration a while ago … but they where right !!

“The UK met office” ?
What is wrong with the US one ? Data-fixing is harder with so many people looking ?

“Humanity is not young” ?
First, you have an internal contradiction : “anatomically modern humans” (**** Sapiens Sapiens, a distinct Specie, as far as SCIENCE is concerned) are here since 130′000 years … then, “humans [did] develop over millions of years” (Neanderthals ? Make that Billions, when counting Algaes as human ancestry).
130′000 years (Human specie) versus 4.5 Billions of years (the Earth) … if for you, it is not young ? What is, then ?

If you’re so concerned about CO2, why do you keep breathing it out while at the same time ADVOCATING for a market (look at how efficient the market is really working, outside of your building!), instead of ranting against deforestation, or better yet, planting trees.

If Michael Steele’s arguments where flawed, why did you use demonstrably WRONG arguments against him, hereby definitely convincing readers he is RIGHT !!!

76. Geoff Pohanka | 03.25.09

Ok, as expected, my information was called propoganda and I was accused of being paid by fossil fuel companies. This is rubbish. Those who support the AGW theory just use ad hominem attacks, attack the person, and hope people like me just go away.

If anyone is giving misleading information and facts, it is James Hansen and GISS. He, they, have been forced to retract inaccurate information several times.

The facts stand by themselves and can be easily verified. Mother nature is weighing in and the AGW theory is going up in smoke.

global temperatures are overall cooling (cooler in the past 11 years)
US temperatures are cooling
oceans are cooling (for the next 30 years)
solar activity is the lowest since 1790, which predated a very cold period
CO2 has only increased 1/10,000th as a percent of the atmosphere since 1750
man only contributes .117% of greenhouse gases every year into the atmosphere
there is little loss of global sea ice when you add both poles together
there is no warming of the southern hemisphere
the arctic sea ice grew at a record rate in the Fall
according to nasa 2008 global temperatures were below the average of the last 30 years
antarctica had the most sea ice ever recorded in 2008
antarctica has been cooling in most areaa the past 50 years
studies of US weather stations show that 80% have a 1 to 3 degree warming bias due to the urban heat island effect
there is no record the past 400,000 years that changes in CO2 came before temperature
CO2 by itself can not cause temperatures to rise above 1.2C, they must cause some other event to occure
The UN IPCC, 80% of the members had no prior climate experience

There is nothing wrong with any of this material, this information is 100% correct, and is an excellent indicator that the theory of man made global warming is incorrect.

To spend trillions of dollars on something that will do nothing, is an incredible waste. Why spend money controlling CO2 when it is essential to life, we can not live without CO2 yet many want to label it a dangerous pollutant.

Who is behind all this. Some perhaps just read the headlines, and dont want to mess up the earth, that is logical. Some know better but they are attracted by the idea of global governance, and want to control what people are allowed to do, these people want the power over people. Some want to go to a more primitive existance, a return to the agrarian past, (unfortunately life expectancy was about half that of today when we were), some think we just have too much stuff, too much abundance, and want a simpler life style, some think we need to give our stuff to the third world, who dont have as much stuff, some will make a lot of money from the new currency of carbon cap and trade (Al Gore is one of these). Many also think there are too many people and population must be controlled. I just wonder who will decide who stays and who mutt go.

These folks want to put down the oppostion, they dont want any controversy. They say there is scientific concensus (science is not supposed to have consensus, this is a political term). They call opponents crazy, paid by the fossil fuel companies, flat landers, mentally ill etc.

I think the 1930s in germany was like this, the AGW supporters are using strong arm tactics and attacks on the opposition, similar to those who got power in Germany, by whatever means necessary. This is dangerous stuff.

77. Geoff Pohanka | 03.25.09

US temperatures in 2008 were mostly below the 115 year average
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/dec/01_12_2008_DvTempRank_pg.gif

global temperatures in 2008 were below the average of the last 30 years
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/24739/Global_Cooling_Continues.html

global temperatures are falling (due to natural forces) even though CO2 levels continue to increase
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/10/here-it-comes/#more-6136

Global sea ice levels are little changed in the past 30 years according to NASA http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/global-sea-ice-nasateam-algorithm-area.jpg

according to NOAA sea temperatures are cooling and are entering a 30 year la nina period http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/hydro/hydrosphere/latest/avhrr_sst/avhrr_ssta.html

here is a list of 700 internationally recognized scientists who have come out against the global warming theory and why http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

James Hansens former supervisor says he is an ambarrassment to NASA and that climate models are useless http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/

global hurricane levels are at a 30 year low
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/12/global-hurricane-activity-has-decreased-to-the-lowest-level-in-30-years/

temperaturs cooled in five of the last seven decades even though CO2 was increasing the entire time http://icecap.us/images/uploads/USHCNvsCO2.jpg

How much more do you need to see through this hoax.

78. Tim Jones | 03.25.09

“How much more do you need to see through this hoax.”

I guess you mean other than your own.

That would be a helluva lot more than you and your deceptive and misleading so-called “skeptic” associates (who are without doubt financed by fossil fuel interests) stick up on the Internet to fool the unwary.

To discount the findings of literally thousands of World Meteorological Organization, American Institute of Physics, EPA, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), NASA, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), National Academies,NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research, UK Met Office, US Global Change Research Program, World Watch Institute and the innumerable university climate scientists including Harvard Medical School in favor of what a few fraudulent apologists for the fossil fuel, energy and transportation industry throw up on the web to provide as propaganda would be simply stupid beyond belief.

To say all these Institutions in concert are perpetrating some colossal left wing hoax on the public is also ludicrous beyond belief!

79. Tim Jones | 03.25.09

Al Gore and James Hansen have been given some pretty bad raps. Here’s something you should know about the man who’s doing this and calling climate change a hoax.

“Inhofe is the most aggressive opponent of the environment in Congress today, and has led the Neocon war against crucial forms of environmental protection such as the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and Superfund legislation.”
http://www.impactpress.com/articles/winter06/bestwinter06.html

James Inhofe is an extreme right wing, militant Bible thumping anti-science and venomous anti-environmental politician and pro-corporate climate change denialist.
He’s a major purveyor of anti-climate change legislation propaganda aimed at stopping important climate change initiatives in the US Senate - to the benefit of transnational oil and coal and associated industries. He’s a corrupt demagogue who’s received the most oil money of any member of the US Senate.

Follow the money:

Jim Inhofe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
(excerpt)
“Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry than Inhofe in the 2002 election cycle. The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.”

Oil and Coal Money in Politics
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_M._Inhofe#Oil_and_Coal_Money_in_Politics
“James M. Inhofe has accepted $311,800 in oil contributions during the 110th congress. $160,800 of those dollars were from industry PACS. In total, Inhofe has received $662,506 from oil companies since from 2000 to 2008, which makes him a top recipient of oil money. In addition to oil, Inhofe has received $152,800 in coal contributions during the 110th Congress. $94,500 of those dollars were from industry PACS.”

Here’s the kind of guy he is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
(excerpts)
In a July 28, 2003, Senate speech… Inhofe also claimed that, “satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century.” However the satellite temperature record corroborates the well-documented warming trend noted in surface temperature measurements. Additionally, the satellite record begins in 1979 and the balloon record effectively in 1958, so it is unclear what Inhofe means by “last century”. Inhofe’s views have been opposed by climate scientists.

Inhofe had previously compared the United States Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo and he compared EPA Administrator Carol Browner to Tokyo Rose. He had also made allegations that the Weather Channel is behind the alleged global warming hoax, so as to attract viewers. Inhofe had previously claimed that Global Warming is “the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state.”

During the 109th Congress, Inhofe voted to increase offshore oil drilling, to include provisions for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the House Budget Amendment, and to deny funding for both low-income energy assistance and environmental stewardship. As of 2006, the League of Conservation Voters has given Inhofe the lowest possible score on environmental issues.

Sen. Inhofe is one of a small minority of senators opposed to expanding access to students by lowering interest rates. According to the Claremore Daily Progress, Inhofe was one of 12 senators who voted against a 2007 bill to cut interest rates on student loans in half from 6.8% to 3.4%. The bill passed 79-12

Inhofe is in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes, and voted against prohibiting job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Inhofe, an initial supporter of Senator Jim Webb’s “Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008,” was the first member of Congress to withdraw support for the legislation.

Citations for the observations above can be found in the notes.

http://www.impactpress.com/articles/winter06/bestwinter06.html
(excerpt)
“Inhofe sponsored the Religious Freedom Amendment that would allow government to promote religious beliefs and permit prayer in schools and other institutions, while adding that he considered Christianity alone to be a “real religion.” Shortly after 9/11, Inhofe strode into the Senate chamber to proclaim that God allowed the terrorists to attack the U.S. on 9/11 because the U.S. was not lending sufficient support to Israel. Leaning on a literal reading of the Bible, Inhofe decreed that any accommodation to Palestinians in the West Bank violates God’s will that only his chosen people inhabit the land.”

People will say, ” Yes, but Inhofe is an elected Senator, he must be onto something.” I would reply that if we didn’t have fools in the Senate it wouldn’t be a representative body.

80. Geoff Pohanka | 03.26.09

One of the real problems is the lack of reliable data on the climate.

take a look at this chart, global temperatures jumped when 50% of the earths weather stations stopped reporting with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990. Many of these stations were in Siberia, the cold weather stations being dropped caused average temperatures to go through the roof with the loss of this data.

http://www.abd.org.uk/images/graphs/stations_v_temp.gif

Most of the earth has less than a 100 year record of temperature tracking, here is a chart of weather stations with a 100 year continuous record.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/GHCN-1900.gif

this is why USA data is the best, the most stations with at least 100 years of record keeping. most areas on earth have a few decades of data.

81. Tim Jones | 03.27.09

“One of the real problems is the lack of reliable data on the climate.”

Perhaps. It sure seems there’s enough to make climate change skeptics insist it was warmer
in the middle ages than it is now! Or for a downturn in Pacific sst to establish a global trend.

You write about weather stations lacking. But what about all the satellites collecting temperature
data during that ten year period?

No reasonably reliable global surface temperature graph such as:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif
shows the sudden jump in 1990 that http://www.abd.org.uk/images/graphs/stations_v_temp.gif
does. Just the opposite, actually.

Seems to me the correlation between a drop in weather stations in Siberia and thereby a
reported 2.8 degree C rise in global average temperature is totally ridiculous.
The rise was actually a little over .2 degrees C from the start to the end of the ten year period.

Meteorological stations average global surface temp has increased less than 1ºC in the
last 100 years! http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif

ABD is the Association of British Drivers. Their climate change denial agenda is clear.
There’s no telling where the graph they use originally comes from.

Much of ABD’s point of view reflects the hooey in “The Great Global Warming Swindle.”
This film has been thoroughly debunked.
see:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
&
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled
&
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

I actually watched the film during a sea day on an expedition ship to Antarctica. After watching
the polemic and smears in the film for awhile I told one of the expedition leaders I felt like the
commentator was taking a **** in my head.

It would be nice if one could provide a verifiable link regarding numbers of weather stations by year.
You know, the real deal?

The second image (url) in #80 is also unverifiable. It would be nice to see verifiable references.

Despite all the hullabaloo about global cooling, measurements show that natural influences,
(my, my, climate change scientists actually recognize natural forcings!)
mostly lower sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean due to a strong La Nina are the cause
behind lower temperatures. Solar irradiance is at a low point in the cycle.
Land temperatures were either about normal or higher.

see: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20090223/
“Most of the world was either near normal or warmer in 2008 than the norm.”

I posted on this in much more detail in # 74.

“…USA data is the best.” Is it possible that perhaps the people who collect and interpret the
data these days are the best too?

But yes, I’d also say there is not enough reliable data. We need to push the effort. Maybe this would be
a meaningful item in President Obama’s stimulus plan to create jobs. Why don’t you send him a note?

82. Geoff Pohanka | 03.27.09

I guess if you want to believe in man made global warming after all I have written, then I suppose you have the right to believe anything you want to.

All my facts disagree with yours. My facts can be easily verified by multiple sources, you only rely on one or two, from sources such as GISS that have made several errors, and have had to retract information and statements they have made.

I will ask one last and final question.

If it cools for the next 30 years, do you believe that this will only be temporary, and that it will get even warmer 30 years after it due to CO2? So we must get ready for the coming global warming even though it will be getting cooler the next 30 years?

To me the AGW theory has become a hedge, if it gets warmer it is because of man made global warming, if it gets cooler it is because of man made global warming.

83. Geoff Pohanka | 03.28.09

According to satellite data global temperatures have dropped .6 degrees since 1998 and are now .2 degrees above the mean average.

They are just normal.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/10/here-it-comes/#more-6136

84. Tim Jones | 03.28.09

Not so fast Mr. All you’re trying to do is prove that the carbon dioxide spewing out of smokestacks and tailpipes is perfectly okay - that the impact of 150 years worth of industrial and transportation pollution has had no impact on our atmosphere at all. The facts demonstrate exactly the opposite. The effects of AGW are documented all over the place in newspaper accounts published almost every day. The accounts are backed up by the science - much of that brought to the public by such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration - you know the same agency that manages to land spaceships on Mars?

I’ve demonstrated over and over again that your so-called “facts” are nothing but easily disproved speculation and conjecture. And the way you’ve backed up your so called facts, such as:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/temp-vs-co2.png
leaves a lot to be desired.

The graph is a great example of cherry picking. It starts at the El Nino temperature anomaly of 1998. (What’s with the double dates at the bottom of the chart?) Even then, if you choose the black line from 1999 and go peak to peak to the end of the graph you’d have to conclude that temperatures are still rising. If you go valley to valley you’d have to conclude the same.

This means you have a one year temperature anomaly defining your whole theory of global cooling. The pink curve shows the same thing.

In any case your statement is: “According to satellite data global temperatures have dropped .6 degrees since 1998 and are now .2 degrees above the mean average. They are just normal.”

You are in error. The second part of 2008 is missing on the chart as well the the first part of 2009. Your “now” is off by more than a year. To cherry pick a one year anomaly,1998 as the start of a trend is just plain cheating.

I’ve already explained (twice) that LAND temperatures in 2008 were higher than the norm. The reading that made last year cooler were from the Pacific Ocean, the current EL NIÑO/SOUTHERN OSCILLATION (ENSO) (La Nina) weather pattern that was causing cooler than normal temperatures.

We think La Nina is tapering off and much warmer temperatures over all will be registered for 2009. We are NOT going into a period of global cooling! http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html

Despite global warming, natural variability still has it’s place. It always will.

If you want to consider last month’s temperature anomaly, here is HadCRUT3 dataset for February 2009
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/
As you can see most land temperatures are considerably warmer than the 1961-1990 average.
Not Normal!

Here are recognized graphs of surface and satellite temperatures since 1975.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png
Every trend is toward higher temperatures despite down dip monthly anomalies.
&
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
The annual average shows a slight downward trend the last year or so, but nothing like after 1990 or 1998. After each of those drop offs in warming it got warmer. Why should it be any different in 2009?
&
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
once again we see natural variability with an underlying upward trend.

See also: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.svg
This image shows the instrumental record of global average temperatures as compiled by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office. Data set HadCRUT3 was used.

Notice that variation since 2000 is much less than previous years where people could have shrieked “global cooling, global cooling! The five year average trend is virtually ALWAYS upward since 1980.

We are NOT going into a period of global cooling. Global warming will persist no matter how you twist the “facts”
until CO2 emissions stop adding 8 or 9 gigatons of the anthropomorphic greenhouse gas into the air. Even if we could do that it would take decades if not centuries for temperatures to return to any semblance of “normal.” Since, because of people like you, greenhouse gas emissions will be very difficult to attenuate, climate change as global warming will be the fate of the planet until well after fossil fuels are completely depleted.

85. Geoff Pohanka | 03.29.09

I’ve demonstrated over and over again that your so-called “facts” are nothing but easily disproved speculation and conjecture.

This is very true of the man made global warming theory.

If temperatures are cooler in the last 11 years then this alone is a strong indicator that the CO2 theory is false. The theory that as CO2 levels rise temperatures will also increase, but this is not happening. Clearly there are natural forces at work that are not accounted for in the man made global warming weather models.

Here are several very large problems with the man made global warming theory.
And please explain these since you are such an expert. Please dont accuse me of cherry picking, or somehow wanting to cause pollution.

1. the Vostok ice cores going back 400,000 years do not show one instance where temperatures increases after increases in CO2, or visa versa. This is proof alone that CO2 cant cause temperatures to rise. It doesnt matter what the source of CO2 is, man or nature, it is the same CO2. So why would rising CO2 levels today trigger temperatures to increase when they have not done so in the past 400,000 years (I hope I am not accused of cherry picking here).

2. There is scientific concensus that CO2 by itself can not cause temperatures to rise above 1.2C, it can not absorb heat above this level no matter how much there is, doubles, tripples etc. This is supported by 100% of scientists. So it must cause other things to happen, can not by itself cause warming. So what is the trigger, please explain your proof and evidence.

I agree the earth warmed in the second half of the 20th century, easily explained by increased solar activity, sun spots were recorded at twice the number in the second half of the 20th century as compared to the first, the sun has now the fewest sunspots in a century and it is cooling. The warming of the oceans can be explained by the change in solar activity, there is a 300 year record that shows as the sun changes so do global temperatures, there is no deviation. The theory is that when there are less sunspots more cosmic rays hit the earth, they cause more cloud formation, and the earth cools.

3. The southern hemisphere shows little if any signs of warming the last 30 years according to satellite date. Antarctica has a record amount of ice.
There is no global warming since half of the globe shows no warming. the warming was all in the northern hemisphere

Climate models can not be accurate unless they take into account natural forces. since we do not understand these natural forces, these models are not accurate, they do not work backwards, and they have not predicted recent conditions (such as 11 years of cooling).

Those who believe in man made global warming call those who dont believe it a lot of names, cherry pickers, people for pollution, paid by fossil fuel companies.

When I give all the facts I have done, that are easily verified from multiple sources, I can say only one thing about global warming alarmists.

There is absolutely no proof, none whatsoever, that supports your theory, None. While it is true the earth has warmed some this is now reversing, jus because CO2 is also increasing at the same time does not mean it is causing warming. The earth has been warming since 1850. The oceans have been rising for 10,000 years.

So, in one line, I will characterize global warming alarmists who continue to just call names and make silly statements and provide no evidence whatsover (besides flashing charts)

you are cool-aid drinkers and are beyond hope.

86. Tim Jones | 03.29.09

It looks like one of the lynch pins of Pohanka argument against global is his assertion that the climate has cooled in the eleven years following 1998. I’d like to put this to rest.

The year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html
“…2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists. 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004 followed as the next four warmest years.”
[…]
“Some other research groups that study climate change rank 2005 as the second warmest year, based on comparisons through November. The primary difference among the analyses, according to the NASA scientists, is the inclusion of the Arctic in the NASA analysis. Although there are few weather stations in the Arctic, the available data indicate that 2005 was unusually warm in the Arctic.”

2007 Tied as Earth’s Second Warmest Year
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=2008011626028
January 16, 2008
2007 WAS TIED AS EARTH’S SECOND WARMEST YEAR
Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century.
[…]

The claim: “If temperatures are cooler in the last 11 years then this alone is a strong indicator that the CO2 theory”
has no merit.

I posted a list of websites for recognized scientific organizations to help with understanding the nuances of the science of climate change. For reasons unknown to me it hasn’t appeared today.

87. Tim Jones | 03.29.09

Regarding:’There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming’
From Grist.org
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84
“Answer: There is no “proof” in science — that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.”
“In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate’s behavior over the last century.”
“On the one side, we have peer-reviewed research, the findings of which have been multiply confirmed and stood the test of time to become the widely held consensus of the relevant scientific community.
On the other side we have your, random internet dude, who would have us believe that all of those thousands of scientists are blind to rudimentary empirical, logical, and methodological flaws.”

For a layman’s grasp of the science of CO2 induced climate change I’ve found these sources to be the most reliable for understanding the theory as well as the evidence. Use the drop down menus as necessary for specific inquiries.

American Geophysical Union
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA)
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/

World Meteorological Organization,
http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

American Institute of Physics,
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

US Global Change Research Program
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/default.php

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

The Cryosphere Today
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

National Academies Book on Climate Change
Radiative Forcing of Climate Change - 2005
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309095069/html/R1.html

PhysicalGeography.net
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/whatsnew.html

California Institute of Technology NASA Jet propulsion Laboratory
http://www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/

National Center for Atmospheric Research
http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
https://eed.llnl.gov/

National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC),
http://nsidc.org/
http://www-nsidc.colorado.edu/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html

National Academies
http://nationalacademies.org/
spec.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

The Colorado Climate Center
http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/

Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research,
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html

UK Met Office, US Global Change Research Program,
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/B2000/causes.html

The Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE)
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/news.htm

World Watch Institute
http://www.worldwatch.org/features/climate/resources/

Harvard Medical School
http://chge.med.harvard.edu/

Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/index.cfm?pageID=27

University of Arizona
THE ASTRONOMICAL THEORY OF CLIMATIC CHANGE
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/21climastro.html

Kool-aid, anyone?

88. Tim Jones | 03.30.09

Global cooling?
How is it that if more cosmic rays are hitting the planet (they are) and if the sun is at a low ebb in sunspots,
the Dec-Jan-Feb temperature anomaly for 2008-09 is higher than for winter of the previous year?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.lrg.gif
from:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Looks like any cooling has turned back into warming to me.

This just points to how relying on small data sets to establish a trend is a mistake. I could be wrong in two months.

Note: I wrote “”The claim: “If temperatures are cooler in the last 11 years then this alone is a strong indicator
that the CO2 theory”
has no merit.

The quote was accidentally contracted in transferring from a text edit I’d saved.

It should read: the claim “If temperatures are cooler in the last 11 years then this alone is a strong indicator that the CO2 theory is false”
has no merit.

89. Geoff Pohanka | 03.30.09

Ok, I give up. You guys are right, Al Gore and James Hansen and all. 100% correct. The debate is over, there is 100% consensus of all scientists.

The seas will rise 20 feet in the next 90 years.
All the polar ice will melt.
The temperatures will rise 10 degrees.
Man’s survival is in jeopardy.
It is probably too late, we are passed the tipping point.
We must immediately shut down the global economy in order to survive.
Coal trains are trains of death.
Coal powerplants are factories of death.
There are more hurricanes than ever.
There will be billions of climate refugees
the two billion on earth who have no electricity, well, they wont get any
we can create millions of green jobs
we need global governance
The UN is always right, they are looking out for our best interest

This is thrilling, this is exciting, I cant wait.

90. Tim Jones | 03.30.09

I’ve found this to be an interesting and informative debate.

I’m not sure about the severity of change you describe. I think
it will depend on the climate feedbacks - loss of albedo, melting
tundra releasing huge amounts of CO2 and CH4, deforestation
due to insect infestation, amount of Greenland’s & Antarctica’s
glacial melt, the ocean’s inability to absorb half of AGW CO2
emissions, etc, etc.

If US conservatives and businessmen had listened to James
Hansen and AL Gore at the beginning of the Clinton
administration it might not have been so tough to take on the
attenuation of AGHG emissions. Unfortunately anti-science
Republicans have made protecting the environment a political
issue. Their chickens will come home to roost on climate change
and peak oil just as they have with deregulation of the banking
industry.

I guess what you need to do now is find a niche within which
to cope with the new global economy. You may have to be doing
this anyway, first as the economy tries to recover from 2008
banker’s bust, then as you cope with the coming effects of
Peak Oil.

Yup. The party’s over. Now it’s time to clean up the mess.

91. Geoff Pohanka | 04.01.09

I was merely kidding.

I believe some just prefer to live in the Matrix, you feel safer there.

Clouds are a negative feedback so CO2 cant raise temperatures

http://www.uah.edu/news/newsread.php?newsID=875

Monkton shreds global warming theory

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html

12 facts about global warming you wont read in the press

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=970

The 35 inconvenient truths, falsehoods of Al Gore’s claims

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Cognitive Dissonance is one explanation why global warming alarmists continue to hold onto their beliefs

http://www.avantnews.com/news/863318-cognitive-dissonance-may-provide-cure-to-non-existent-global-warming

Fake but accurate, the strategy used by global warming alarmists to support their theories

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/10/fake-but-accura.html

Good luck, thats about enough on this subject.

92. John | 04.02.09

Fantasy solutions to fantasy problems is the way forward.. I dont know what wrong with you people.. Dont you understand that Bush was in office for (count em) 2 terms and we have bondless energy and resources.. Its our turn to start a war (based on faulty intell) that costs trillions.. isnt that the game? or did I miss something.

93. Tim Jones | 04.02.09

I’m tiring of being bludgeoned by phoney facts and ad hominems on real climate scientists and Al Gore.

The general debunking for most of the previous writer’s sources is here;

The Monkeys and Their Organ Grinders
http://www.prwatch.org/node/8258

94. Tim Jones | 04.05.09

seems to be coming apart pretty fast down there.

“New evidence on Antarctic warming”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7843186.stm
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
By Richard Blackcts
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
“The continent of Antarctica is warming up in step with the rest of the world, according
to a new analysis. Scientists say data from satellites and weather stations indicate a
warming of about 0.6C over the last 50 years.
Writing in the journal Nature, they say the trend is “difficult to explain” without the effect
of rising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.”
[…]

And now…
“Ice bridge ruptures in Antarctic”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7984054.stm
Sunday, 5 April 2009 08:13 UK
“An ice bridge linking a shelf of ice the size of Jamaica to two islands in Antarctica has snapped.
Scientists say the collapse could mean the Wilkins Ice Shelf is on the brink of breaking away, and
provides further evidence or rapid change in the region.”
[…]

95. Tim Jones | 04.06.09

Anybody see a parallel here?

Italy muzzled scientist who foresaw quake
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L6566682.htm
06 Apr 2009 11:22:00 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Gavin Jones

ROME, April 6 (Reuters) - An Italian scientist predicted a major earthquake around L’Aquila weeks before disaster struck the city on Monday, killing dozens of people, but was reported to authorities for spreading panic among the population.

The first tremors in the region were felt in mid-January and continued at regular intervals, creating mounting alarm in the medieval city, about 100 km (60 miles) east of Rome.

Vans with loudspeakers had driven around the town a month ago telling locals to evacuate their houses after seismologist Gioacchino Giuliani predicted a large quake was on the way, prompting the mayor’s anger.

Giuliani, who based his forecast on concentrations of radon gas around seismically active areas, was reported to police for “spreading alarm” and was forced to remove his findings from the Internet.

Italy’s Civil Protection agency held a meeting of the Major Risks Committee, grouping scientists charged with assessing such risks, in L’Aquila on March 31 to reassure the townspeople.

“The tremors being felt by the population are part of a typical sequence … (which is) absolutely normal in a seismic area like the one around L’Aquila,” the civil protection agency said in a statement on the eve of that meeting.

“It is useful to underline that it is not in any way possible to predict an earthquake,” it said….

[…]

Perhaps the exact timing cannot be predicted. But I suspect some folks owe Gioacchino Giuliani their lives.

Will so called climate skeptics have blood on their hands too? Or will we act in time to respect the science
supporting action to prevent even more serious consequences than already in the pipeline?

96. jan | 04.26.09

The Christian Science newspapers[ see your archives] in the 70’s had lots of articles re the world concern about”Global Cooling”…what happened?…now it is global Warming…something fishy here! This so called new science of global warming is scaring people especially children being forced to watch Al Gores’ movie[ in schools] How about some common sense here…there are still a lot of REAL scientists who do not believe in the man made CO2 theory re climate changes.

97. Dr. Bob | 05.04.09

Let me state that I used to believe man-made global warming was fact. Then I decided to do what ever scirntist do is base decisions on science. When I sorted the hypotheticak global warming facts from thwe scientific proven facts I found DATA IS DATA and doesn’t lie. When I started looking at more and more historical data from different studies, my skepticism grew. Perhaps I am ignorant in my observations, and I am surely not aware of all the research that exists on climate change. So I propose this: I will list the data / research that has influenced my current position, and perhaps others can post reasons / links that discredits this research.
1. Vostok data: to me, it looks like we are in an upwards swing of a warming pattern up to the year 2007 and then it eventually turn the other way. albeit we are talking in 10k’s of years.
2. Temperature data from the NOAA (I use to work there) (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/briffa2001/briffa2001.html): In both plates 2 & 3, many of the trendlines don’t show anything different from what we see over the last 1000+ years. While some do, it hardly seems conclusive. Am I missing something?
3. Other things such as the earth’s orbit, tilt, and electromagnetic fields also can play into global temperatures, along with volcanic eruptions, solar events, etc. Have these all been ruled out? And if not, isn’t it possible that temperature increases caused by these factors also increase greenhouse gas levels, ala the “lag theory”?
4. How do we know at what point temperatures will level off, even with a continual increase in greenhouse gases? Will it increase linearly forever? And how can we really measure this, given all the elements at play?
5. Assuming humans are creating an increase in greenhouse gases, isn’t it possible that the earth will counter balance these actions? For example, there is a theory that an increase in CO2 would cause an increase in plant life, which then reduces the CO2, etc. Is this not realistic?
6. Large volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa in the late 1800’s reduce temperatures by a signifcant amount for several years, but temperatures right themselves shortly thereafter.. Hence, the argument that by slightly affecting temperatures over a period of several hundred years humans could cause long term damage to the earth seems less plausible to me.
8. From a philosophical perspective: if the goal of fighting global warming is to help mankind live well on planet earth, wouldn’t we be better off using our economic, political, and scientific resources to fight the preventable diseases that cause the deaths of millions of chilldren every year

98. Chips | 05.07.09

A year or so ago I happened to see a denial of Al Gore’s assertion that his (what I assume to be) infamous graph comparing historical CO2 levels with global temperature prove that the latter follows from the former. This is a poignantly significant claim, since if a rise in global temperature causes a rise in CO2 level rather than vice versa, it would appear on the surface to deal a virtual death blow to Gore’s claims.

Shortly thereafter I happened to catch two global warming protagonists - ostensibly experts - being interviewed on C-Span’s Washington Journal. I called in and posed the question of the validity of Gore’s chart. To my surprise, they both in essence agreed that yes, it’s true that the chart data, when painstakingly analyzed, does show that global warming causes an increase in CO2 levels. However, they said, other data, too meteorologically sophisticated for me, a layman, to understand, does show that manmade global warming is a reality.

For this and a multitude of other reasons - not the least of which is that the thought of a global agency collecting trillions of carbon footprint dollars and inevitably, if not corrupt from the outset, being corrupted by it, sends shivers down my spine, and should down yours - I cannot disagree more with the entire global warming concept.

1. Topics about Climate » Archive » GOP chair denies global warming | csmonitor.com | 03.19.09

2. Climate Change in the News, Week of March 21, 2009 « Fresh Air. The Scent of Pine. | 03.21.09

3. Around the Basin–March 24, 2009 | Big Water, Small Boat | 03.24.09