Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PURE PROPAGANDA - THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE (Did GGWS present inaccurate information?)
Media Lens ^ | 03/13/2007

Posted on 03/25/2007 7:55:15 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-119 next last
To: PeaceBeWithYou
Notice most of it is "attack the messengers", not the science. If you can't refute it, obfuscate.

Funny you should say that. Ironic.
This article is a classic case of obfuscation; no refutation of facts; simply links to sites already known to be on the "socialist agenda" side of things.
Or trolling for grants.

Any fair minded individual with more than two brain cells to rub together would be unable to watch crap like Global warming, what you need to know without feeling embarrassed. All of the images shown for dramatic effect are totally unrelated to the words being delivered.

On the other hand, I have not heard a single reputable peer criticise the statements made by respected real scientists in the Great Swindle program.

51 posted on 03/25/2007 9:54:59 PM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
"Polar bears exist, therefore they survived much warmer temperatures than we are experiencing now. I don't want to hear about pretty white polar bears one more time, regarding this.

Polar bears are simply white bears. The polar bear alarmists conveniently leave out the fact that polar bear populations have exploded. They are more likely to die off from over population than from such idiotic claims as "global warming.

If you you were to listen to the claims of these "save the polar bear" fanatics, you'd think polar bears ate nothing but seals only a short part of the year (when they give birth on the pack ice) the rest of the time, polar bears eat nothing.
Nothing could be further from the truth. polar bears are like all bears in every way. The forage and eat whatever they can catch or find. They fish like grizzlies, eat more reindeer probably more than they do seal) ducks, geese, eggs berries etc.

It's all part of the global warming scam that the WWF is doing their fair share of promoting, politics this NGO shouldn't even be participating in. But of course, the WWF is managed by some of the worlds most Ultra-Marxist activists, like Maurice Strong, as are many other NGO's run by carefully hand picked (by strong) Marxist world government wanna be's.

52 posted on 03/25/2007 9:58:08 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Duke Nukum

It is a little boring at the beginning, but it gets much better later on with real facts, real graphs etc.

Be sure to watch the whole thing.


For those who missed the link:

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Complete)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU


53 posted on 03/25/2007 9:58:23 PM PDT by FairOpinion (Victory in Iraq. Stop Hillary. Stop the Dems. Work for Republican Victory in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
The Scientists Are The Bad Guys...

The Scientists?

Have the heretic researches all been excommunicated?

54 posted on 03/25/2007 10:02:23 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blind Eye Jones

I would like these "scientists" to explain how CO2 gets around the 2nd law of thermal dynamics too.

If co2 is such an efficient thermal energy gas, achieving over unity as they claim, ( by producing more heat than it can store and is released when co2 is formed) it could solve the whole worlds energy problems.

These "scientists" have some 'splainin' to do.


55 posted on 03/25/2007 10:06:51 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Turborules

Ww! I knew I should have saved that info. I'll have to look for it. I'm not even sure where I read it .. I just know I was really surprised by the large number.

You might check over at the Rush Limbaugh site - he has a lot of the global warming stuff.


56 posted on 03/25/2007 10:10:11 PM PDT by CyberAnt ("... first time in history the U.S. House has attempted to surrender via C-SPAN TV ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Sorry but I'm not seeing how their model violates the 2nd law or thermodynamics. Could you give me a quick summary.


57 posted on 03/25/2007 10:14:18 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
"By shielding some of the incoming solar energy, sulphate aerosols mask the underlying warming effect generated by rising levels of CO2"

-- So temperatures go down but, in effect, go up? Temperature was being masked for 40 years? And how do they explain the rise in temperature before the 1940s when there was no great out put of C02?

"Once that CO2 has been released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping properties as a greenhouse gas lead to even stronger warming: an example of positive feedback."

-- How can they prove this when, according to the movie, the weather balloons and satellites have indicated that there is no rise in greenhouse gas warming in the atmosphere? They don't address this major point.

I still believe that the correlation between sun spots and weather, as shown in the movie by the near perfect fit of the two graphs mapped out over a long period of time, explains a lot. It's a better fit that C02 and weather, which this article doesn't address.
58 posted on 03/25/2007 10:15:57 PM PDT by Blind Eye Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

59 posted on 03/25/2007 10:21:42 PM PDT by FairOpinion (Victory in Iraq. Stop Hillary. Stop the Dems. Work for Republican Victory in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

"He played on our fears" Al Gore and global warming


Marie Jon'
February 2, 2007


"He betrayed this country!" Al Gore shouted into the microphone at a rally of Tennessee Democrats "He played on our fears."

Some believe that Al Gore is using junk science for political traction, while frightening many school age children and adults. The agenda driven media is helping Gore spread his folly.

Gore's quotes against President Bush on an entirely different subject could most certainly be applied to Gore when he talks about global warming.

There are climate changes, but are they abnormal or just part of a normal earthly cycle? The changes can not be proven with junk science theories that blame man and his use of CO2 carbons.

If you want to join the George Noory Coast to Coast AM radio "Shadow people" believers then be a fool's guest. This is a radio show that discusses outrageous psychobabble. Global warming is a hot topic but unfounded truth. Noory also discusses the paranormal, including flying saucers and ghostly "Shadow people." Noory is merely another Art Bell. "Want to take a ride" with two men who doublespeak?

Henny Penny is an old fable of unknown origin about a chicken who believed the sky was falling. Those who tend to look at Al Gore's theories fall into the same category.

A new, IPCC report, is nothing more than guesses and theories. However, it was written by people with the same misguided mind set as Al Gore. An actual scientific report on global warming will be released in May. The scientific report will hopefully put an end to the all un-provable notions. However, Al Gore will use the attention given to him to further his politics. Mr. Gore is slated to receive the Nobel Peace Prize and has been nominated for an Oscar.

Whether you are a person of faith or not, it appears that, when all is said and done, true science will not support Al Gore's contention of global warming.

Unfortunately, the mainstream, far left media would rather promote falsehoods than give the truth. They would rather ramble on about ten years of make believe dire consequences as the world suffers from climactic changes. There are real problems this world is facing, including Islamic terrorism.

Excerpts from Associated Press:

"U.N. Climate Change Report Sparks Heated Reaction Among U.S. Lawmakers, Activists

"WASHINGTON — Despite a strongly worded global warming report from the world's top climate scientists, the Bush administration expressed continued opposition Friday to mandatory reductions in heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman warned against "unintended consequences" — including job losses — that he said might result if the government requires economy-wide caps on carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

" 'There is a concern within this administration, which I support, that the imposition of a carbon cap in this country would — may — lead to the transfer of jobs and industry abroad (to nations) that do not have such a carbon cap,' Bodman said. 'You would then have the U.S. economy damaged, on the one hand, and the same emissions, potentially even worse emissions. ' "

"President Bush used the same economic reasoning when he rejected the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, an international treaty requiring 35 industrial nations to cut their global-warming gases by 5 percent on average below 1990 levels by 2012. The White House has said the treaty would have cost 5 million U.S. jobs. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249822,00.html

Excerpts from ChristianAnswers.net:


© Copyright 2007 by Marie Jon'
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/jon/070202


60 posted on 03/25/2007 10:21:53 PM PDT by tman73 (GW has nuts...Dems don't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
The film’s claim that solar activity might account for recent warming is also without credibility. In September 2006, the Times reported the latest findings from researchers writing in the top journal, Nature:

“Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated with today's rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing. ‘The solar contribution to warming... is negligible,’ the researchers wrote in the journal Nature.” (Anjana Ahuja, ‘It's hot, but don't blame the Sun,’ The Times, September 25, 2006)

So, the Sun, our source of heat; our furnace, if you will; the thing that provides us with sufficient warmth that life may flourish on this planet and without which we would all freeze to death, couldn't possibly have anything to do with global climate change. Right. Talk about beggaring belief. Solar "proxies" were looked at over a period of 1,000 years. What does that mean? Satellites over the past 30 years? Which satellites? Communications? Spy? What? Add to this the fact that they simply dismiss it out of hand throwing out this quote and then quickly moves on to another topic.

What really convinces me that anthropogenic GW supporters are wrong, is their uncanny imitation of those in history who threw other scientists in jail or burnt them at the stake for disagreeing with the orthodoxy. Their arguments are highly emotional and utterly violate the Scientific Method. They shriek like the pod people from "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" when they discover someone who dares to question their conclusions. And then there's the fact that they all come up with the same solution: Government regulation. More money into their coffers. More taxes. The world's Capitalists are to blame!! We must punish the Capitalists!! We need more government control of the means of production! We need Socialism!! That is the consensus they're really talking about.

The above author claims that Channel 4's show contained "the language of polemic and smear." And yet, in the "scholarly" rebuttal that follows, the author relies heavily on just that kind of language, citing journalists and true believers in the Anthropogenic GW community whose chief argument against those who participated in the film is "they're paid off by Big Oil." Then, the author really tips his or her hat at the end when he or she claims that Blair falsified pre-war intelligence. That's an argument from the Left. No objectivity there. This is agenda driven science, which is no science at all. Rationality and reason indeed.

61 posted on 03/25/2007 10:26:56 PM PDT by Reaganesque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

I just had a "heated" debate with my daugher-in-law who watched the movie and whose first impression was that these guys are bitter. She took environmental science at college but couldn't really refute the movies claims, but said the scientists were nobodies or were wrong according to her textbook (which she will show me eventually). People can get very emotional about this stuff.


62 posted on 03/25/2007 10:28:04 PM PDT by Blind Eye Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Blind Eye Jones; Nathan Zachary; Ultra Sonic 007
"People can get very emotional about this stuff."

That's one of the things that puzzles me. The emotionalism.

You'd think the world was coming to an end or something.

Global warming will expand the temperate zone and the growing seasons. It will unlock glaciated areas to agriculture. It will allow freer navigation in the Northern Hemisphere.

It's true that wide areas which are low-lying will have to be abandoned, but we will have centuries to accommodate the migrations.

It's not the end of the world. It's just change.

63 posted on 03/25/2007 10:39:37 PM PDT by NicknamedBob (I know where I have gone wrong, and I can cite it, chapter and verse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Blind Eye Jones; xcamel
-- So temperatures go down but, in effect, go up? Temperature was being masked for 40 years? And how do they explain the rise in temperature before the 1940s when there was no great out put of C02?

It is BS, back then China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, etc weren't as industrialized as they are today, so there are actually more "sulphate aerosols" being released today in the world then there was back then when it was basically just us, yet the Earth isn't cooling.

THis photo was taken by NASA in 2005, of Aerosol pollution over Northern India and Bangladesh

64 posted on 03/25/2007 10:45:03 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Blind Eye Jones
"People can get very emotional about this stuff."

Clearly.

I mean I get emotional when people deny the moon landing say.

I am all for scientific process and proper handling of this issue, but many are quick to blame it on humanity and to jump to conclusions of future doom and demand drastic actions be taken. Or as with Gore, riding a political surfboard on the global warming caused by man wave. A wave he helps create and profits from. That is not science.

People with degrees hard earned can be quite condesending and judgmental when you challenge them.

I demand reasonable scientific proof humans cause it, and even then, nobody can predict the future, they cannot claim to know the things they do that have not happened yet. Nobody has that power. They cannot predict the next three days weather accurately, let alone 100 years. They blew the hurricane predictions last year too. How can we trust that crappy record of prediction?

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gore

"over-representation of factual presentations" is clearly NOT science and truly manipulative politics of fear.


65 posted on 03/25/2007 10:45:21 PM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: qam1

My mistake the photo is from 2001 not 2005. But the arguement still stands. Nothing in the 1940's-1970's approched anywhere near as bad as that.



66 posted on 03/25/2007 10:50:06 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

You got that right! This article is PURE propaganda. It is meant to deflect, and confuse the issue. What the Left does is try to confuse and bully. Look how they try to make it seem that they are pure and are not paid for their answers, and make a mountain out of a mole hill.
The following attacks Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels by mentioning some money they may or may not have gotten, meanwhile no mention is make of the BILLIONS spent by Socialist Governments to prove a manmade connection to global warming. “Journalist Ross Gelbspan noted that in May 1995, Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities”
Another explanation of the flowing “I don't know very many supporters of Mr Lindzen who are not in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby.” Is you don’t bite the hand the feeds you. If you’re getting BILLIONS to prove manmade global warming, you don’t attract or support those that disagree because you WILL get your funding close.

Like the other Manmade or Anthropogenic Global Warming pushers, this article STATES NOT FACTS. All it does is attack the messenger without substantiating there claims. When they can’t find a legitimate scientific fact they make one up. Look at this lie “In fact, as is well-known, the absence of a global rise in temperature between 1945-75 is explained by the release of large amounts of industrial pollutants, called sulphate aerosols, into the atmosphere.” WELL KNOW? BY WHO? The term “sulphate aerosols” is a new made up term by the Global Warming pushers, which you will not find in any publication prior to about 1995. The problem is that Sulfates are salts that contain a charged group of sulfur and oxygen atoms: SO , the basic constituent of sulfuric acid. The biggest contributor of Sulfur is Volcano’s, but if they said that then they could not blame man, and again any global warming would be natural. Also, funny how they start in 1945 with the sulphate aerosols. Let’s see what happened big in the world around that time. Oh yea, WWII. In which just about all the worlds manufacturing was destroyed except for those in the USA. So, you see again it’s only the fault of the USA for Global Warming. Funny how they did not mention the big coal mine fire in China that has been polluting for about 80 years. Could it be that one its not in the USA, and two its natural?

Notice that Al Gores film is the total truth and the Great Global Warming Swindle (GGWS) is “deeply deceptive”? At the beginning they talk about the polar bears, but never state that GGWS was correct and Al Gore had it wrong. No instead of arguing facts they state “interviewees had also been misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes” making the makers of the film appear to be unethical and therefore nothing in the film should be considered. This is right out of the STALINIST hand book, by making the scientist in the film to appear to be either mislead or tricked, or worse paid off by big what ever the evil corporations du jour is.
The writers should be subjected to ridicule, and the readers should start to realize when they are being played by this Marxist propaganda.


67 posted on 03/25/2007 10:55:28 PM PDT by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tman73

Thanks TMAN.


68 posted on 03/25/2007 11:13:29 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
These particles have a braking effect on global warming, known as “global dimming”. By shielding some of the incoming solar energy, sulphate aerosols mask the underlying warming effect generated by rising levels of CO2.

There's something about this that doesn't make sense to me.

Energy doesn't just disappear. These particles wouldn't be able to brake solar energy without getting hotter themselves. Since these partcles come in direct contact with either the rest of the atmosphere or with the the earth itself, the heat they absorbed would get transferred to the earth anyway. So it seems to me that whatever heat that's missing from the solar energy that was "braked" would be made up for by the heat from these very particles.

69 posted on 03/25/2007 11:40:01 PM PDT by Dave Olson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

Look at CO2 like a Stockmarket Analist would. It is a "trailing indicator". It confirms what HAS HAPPENED.

It has never been a valid PREDICTOR.


70 posted on 03/25/2007 11:44:04 PM PDT by PizzaDriver (an heinleinian/libertarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
This article is more than deceptive it is looney, with comments like :

“The supposed cooling looks rather less evident in this second graph.”

Or

“particles In the (atmosphere) have a braking effect on global warming, known as “global dimming”

Note they admit the data doesn’t show warming, even though they are arguing the data should show warming, and accuse the film maker as being deceptive, simply for pointing out the truth!

“We then come to one of the film's most misleading arguments. Antarctic ice cores show that rises in levels of CO2 have lagged 800 years behind temperature rises at specific times in the geological past.”


But in the the same paragraph it is stated

“the 800-year lag happened at the end of ice ages which occur about every 100,000 years”


Again they make the accusation that the film claim is deceptive, then they actually agree with the claim, there are 800 year lags between global temperature rise and CO2, which proves that in some cases temp rise could causes Co2 and not the other way around.

“Scientists believe that the end of an ice age is likely triggered when the amount of heat reaching the Earth rises as a result of a periodic change in the Earth's orbit around the sun.”


But they also say that the films hypnotists that global warming can be caused by the sun is deceptive

“The film’s claim that solar activity might account for recent warming is also without credibility”


So which is it , does the sun play a role in warming or not? Apparently they are very confused!

But here is the doozy:

” a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance.”


So If the relative masses of CO2 are irrelevant, assuming we can also talk about the additional gasses caused by humans, then what is all the fuss about? Laugh, You can’t make this stuff up, too funny, the mass of Co2 gasses which would have to also include those that are added by humans, are irrelevant now, only because it suits the relative goal to repudiate the movie, even thought it refutes their own claims at the same time?
71 posted on 03/25/2007 11:47:53 PM PDT by seastay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Semmens
The fact that this article cavalierly dismisses the idea that the sun may be the driving force in Earth's warming would seem to conflict with this more generally observed extra-planetary warming.

I am still trying to grapple with the fact that I am a member of a species that would even consider 'cavalierly dismissing' the sun.

Is our species really this dumb ?

72 posted on 03/26/2007 3:50:40 AM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

Thanks I will report back<;o))


73 posted on 03/26/2007 3:53:55 AM PDT by Turborules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: tman73

The quote below is from:
http://www.junkscience.com/
It was on the home page Feb 2 2007. They archive their articles so it is probably there now.

My comment in the article: This is remarkable. It, the IPCC Working Group, is stating that the actual report due in 3 months will be edited to agree with the summary issued today (Feb 2)!

Article:

"As everyone is probably by now aware, Friday, February 2, 2007 marks the release of the IPCC's political document: Assessment Report 4, Summary for Policymakers. The media seem to be operating under the misapprehension this is equivalent to the release of IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis -- this is regrettably neither true nor even close to the truth.

Bizarrely, the actual report will be retained for another three months to facilitate editing -- to suit the summary! IPCC procedures state that: Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter (Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15) -- this is surely unacceptable and would not be tolerated in virtually any other field (witness the media frenzy because language was allegedly altered in some US climate reports).

Under the circumstances we feel we have no choice but to publicly release the second-order draft report documents so that everyone has at least the chance to compare the summary statements with the underlying documentation. It should not be necessary for us to break embargo and post raw drafts for you to verify a summary of publicly funded documentation (tax payers around the world have paid billions of dollars for this effort -- you own it and you should be able to access it).

Reluctantly then, here is the link to our archive copy of the second-order draft of IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. The second-order draft was distributed in 2006, 5 years into what has so far been a 6 year process and these copies were archived last May."


74 posted on 03/26/2007 4:15:44 AM PDT by preacher (A government which robs from Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

reminds me of the great Dupont Freon Swindle of the 1980's......


75 posted on 03/26/2007 4:20:07 AM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

ggws left a mark!

now the charges of neo-conservative (what the phuck is that?) against the scientists

exactly as predicted - the left resorts to personal attacks and smears to support their lies

bury the cockroaches


76 posted on 03/26/2007 4:31:58 AM PDT by Enduring Freedom (now is the time to kill their leaders with extreme prejudice and plant the seeds of a hopeful spring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

class, each planet in the solar system is now reacting similar to earth
what is it that is common among all the planets in our solar system?
is their some kind of link, commonality, association, that all the planets in our solar system share?
anyone?
anyone?

77 posted on 03/26/2007 4:37:05 AM PDT by Enduring Freedom (now is the time to kill their leaders with extreme prejudice and plant the seeds of a hopeful spring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

this pig of an author is dripping with disdain for the iraq war, blair, and conservatives

the media is the enemy of truth, reason and freedom

this is war


78 posted on 03/26/2007 4:40:36 AM PDT by Enduring Freedom (now is the time to kill their leaders with extreme prejudice and plant the seeds of a hopeful spring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave Olson

About the only way the aerosol particles could contribute to cooling would be if they reflected light particles (solar energy) away from the planet. But as the earlier poster stated and demonstrated with an image, the Far East (population ~2 Billion) is pumping out more aerosol pollutants then us capitalistic Americans (200-300 million) did a few decades ago. So no warming should be occurring now if these aerosols caused cooling a few decades ago. Besides, if an increase in retained energy or heat was the primary affect we are currently experiencing, we should not be setting any new cold temperature records. Yet, we did here a few months ago. Also had snow on the ground for the first time in about 25 years. This was followed 4 weeks later by new heat records. Strange extremes indeed. My guess would be that energetic input is the primary current affect. Mostly caused by increased solar radiation along with some increase in human produced energy. So we have some general warming along with stronger extremes in winter and summer. I think in the short run perhaps dealing with the extremes is going to be more important then dealing with a slight warming trend which may not last very long.


79 posted on 03/26/2007 4:51:59 AM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Jackson Brown

media lens casts a jaded eye at corporations

corporations, you see, are the cause of human suffering

as much credibility as co2 causes global warming

we are at war freepers, and it is time to attack these scumbags with extreme prejudice, relentlessly

ridicule these fools at every turn with questions like:

if this is the warmest since the 1800's, what caused the rise in temperature then? they didn't have suv's, did they?

when i was in school, i was taught that glaciers once covered much of north america, and even created the great lakes when they melted - why did the glaciers form, and why did they eventually melt? how did that happen without man's intervention in the past?

if the planet is too hot, why are some places like china getting colder? what is the right temperature of the earth? who gets to control the world's thermostat?


80 posted on 03/26/2007 4:55:47 AM PDT by Enduring Freedom (now is the time to kill their leaders with extreme prejudice and plant the seeds of a hopeful spring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
The point is that there is a vast body of evidence that very strongly supports the hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions, of which CO2 is the most important, are primarily responsible for recent global warming.

???? What about all that water vapor? What about all those other so-called greenhouse gases of which C02 is one of the least percentage wise? How do they come to that conclusion.

81 posted on 03/26/2007 6:00:22 AM PDT by mc5cents (Show me just what Mohammd brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
A month or so ago an interviewer on TV asked someone, who was a proponent of the anthropogenic global warming theory, where all the snow in the northeast came from. She said something about the warming causing more moisture to be dumped into the atmosphere.

I wished that the interviewer had told her that you need cold to turn that moisture into snow. But alas, there was no such followup.

82 posted on 03/26/2007 7:58:06 AM PDT by Dave Olson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn
In other words, “CO2 adds to some mysterious warming trend.”

Much too gross an oversimplification. When a glacial-interglacial or interglacial-glacial transition is initiated, many factors are in place such that, when a trend is initiated, they have self-reinforcing feedbacks (positive or negative, depending on your viewpoint).

Leaving CO2 totally out of the discussion for a moment, the other main factor is the extent of continental glaciation. When the continental ice sheets start to retreat, Earth's albedo (reflectivity) decreases, allowing more solar radiation to "enter the system" and not get immediately reflected right back into space. And the exposure of land surface is one of the main ways it enters the system, because the land absorbs solar radiation and re-radiates it as longwave infrared. And we know what happens to that, right? Plus, warmer land surfaces adjacent to glaciers are likely to be wet, releasing water vapor into the atmosphere, increasing relative humidity.

So that's an example of a non-mysterious process that would augment an initiated warming trend. And I'm working in my profile to explain the CO2 feedback in detail.

83 posted on 03/26/2007 8:15:37 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: lafroste
What, I wonder, does he propose as the culminating event to this feed forward scenario?

Resolution phase. Y'know, I never looked at an ice core record that way before.

84 posted on 03/26/2007 8:19:47 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
like why for tens of thousands of years does CO2 increases always lag temperature rises, by significant amounts of time?

I'm working on that in my profile, point #5. Not finished yet.

85 posted on 03/26/2007 8:28:01 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Blind Eye Jones
how can they prove this when the weather balloons and satellites have indicated that there is no greenhouse gas warming in the atmosphere?

This point is outdated circa 1999. All weather ballon (radiosonde) and satellite (MSU) data records show tropospheric warming now.

86 posted on 03/26/2007 8:29:58 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque
Which satellites?

ACRIM I, ACRIM II, SOLSTICE on UARS, SORCE.

87 posted on 03/26/2007 8:38:21 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: seastay
So If the relative masses of CO2 are irrelevant, assuming we can also talk about the additional gasses caused by humans, then what is all the fuss about?

He means the mass of CO2 relative to major constituents like O2 and N2. In the whole atmosphere, there's also very little ozone, but despite the number of molecules in the stratosphere, and in particular the low number of ozone molecules, the UV radiation absorbing properties of ozone are very important up there.

88 posted on 03/26/2007 8:42:35 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: All
Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon.

Ooh. I guess I am persuaded!

89 posted on 03/26/2007 8:52:56 AM PDT by sionnsar (?trad-anglican.faithweb.com?|Iran Azadi| 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | UN: Useless Nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

Bumping.......again.


90 posted on 03/26/2007 9:03:20 AM PDT by BIGLOOK (Keelhauling is a sensible solution to mutiny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

And what of the satellites that have measured an increase in solar activity? What of the evidence that Mars and other planets in the solar system are also heating up? This is also evidence. And yet it is dismissed out of hand. That is unscientific in the extreme. All evidence must be considered, not just the evidence that supports your political beliefs.


91 posted on 03/26/2007 9:06:24 AM PDT by Reaganesque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque
And what of the satellites that have measured an increase in solar activity? What of the evidence that Mars and other planets in the solar system are also heating up?

For the latter question, see point #2 in my profile. For the former, which satellites and how much?

92 posted on 03/26/2007 9:26:45 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
The great thing about a misguided govt crusade is that the unintended effects present obvious, low risk profit opportunities.

They existed during the 1970s crusades (Nixon price caps, gasahol) and continue to this day. I know one guy who set up a tax subsidixed plant on a shoestring and made millions extracting the last 2% of moisture out of gasahol for two years of the tax subsidy.

Ethanol, global warming etc are just the latest examples.


BUMP

93 posted on 03/26/2007 9:30:17 AM PDT by capitalist229 (Get Democrats out of our pockets and Republicans out of our bedrooms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

I took the time to read your info on warming on other planets. Interesting. All the warming on other planets must be regional and yet the warming here must be global and man made. And all of this based on assumptions and nothing more. No data, just assumptions. You indicate that the sources saying that other planets are warming neither imply or claim linkage to solar variability. But is it not logical and scientific to ask the question if other parts of the solar system are showing evidence of warming, might there be a common cause for this? And what do all of the planets have in common other than the sun? So, no, the articles do not explicitly claim linkage but the reasonable reader and or scientist can. To ignore this(and other evidence) and then demand, as many AGW supporters have, that the opposition be silenced for the "good of humanity" smacks of what the scientific orthodoxy did to Galileo. True science weighs all the facts and does not, under any circumstances, demand the silence of critics.


94 posted on 03/26/2007 9:41:48 AM PDT by Reaganesque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
"This point is outdated circa 1999. All weather ballon (radiosonde) and satellite (MSU) data records show tropospheric warming now."

Are they showing it because they have to make adjustments due to some error in satellite or balloon distancing? I'm very skeptical about any of those "corrective" measures. Also, explain to me why these scientists would be in agreement about this dated data? Laziness to read the latest reports?
95 posted on 03/26/2007 9:50:24 AM PDT by Blind Eye Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
”When a glacial-interglacial or interglacial-glacial transition is initiated,”


By what Cogitator? A mysterious warming trend is all YOU said. Read what you just said!

Put it in the terms lafroste used. What beat the meat to start the ejaculation? What does it matter if you have some sex toy to enhance your orgasm?

96 posted on 03/26/2007 9:56:36 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* ?I love you guys?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon.

They always try to dismiss the findings of groups based on their 'associations' with right wing think tanks or oil companies, but you NEVER see the media doing any sort of research in the opposite direction. I would like to see some information about how many of the leading proponents of the idea that humans are causing global warming are funded by LEFT wing think tanks, or by groups having ties to LEFT wing organizations or by entities which will directly benefit monetarily from the flogging of the idea that because humans are causing global warming, governements around the world have to DO something about it, using taxpayer money or forcing companies around the world to purchase 'carbon credits' just to be able to operate.

97 posted on 03/26/2007 9:57:56 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
What we can say is that Durkin’s "four decades of cooling", implying a relentless temperature drop over 40 years, is not an accurate description of the trend over this period. There was some cooling for +part+ of this time but also some plateauing, with fluctuations up and down.

So, in other words, because it's possible that a viewer might 'infer' that there was relentless cooling, Durkin is wrong? I don't think so. What Durkin showed was that there was not relentless WARMING during that period, caused by increased CO2 emissions, which is what the GW folks have been pushing.

Since the scientists who made GGWS will not monetarily benefit from governments NOT forcing changes using taxpayer money, nor will they benefit from companies NOT having to pay to purchase 'carbon credits', I'm inclined to give more creedance to their data.

98 posted on 03/26/2007 10:03:59 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
TOMS-EP
"We're in the maximum phase of the solar cycle now," says Dr. David Hathaway, a solar physicist at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, "and it will probably persist for another year or more. This one is somewhat smaller than the last two maxima in 1989 and 1979, but it's definitely bigger than average."

SOHO
Something similar happens to Earth's atmosphere every 11 years when the sunspot cycle nears maximum. As solar activity increases, extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV) heats our planet's gaseous envelope, causing it to swell and reach farther into space than normal. While puffed-up marshmallows can lead to tooth decay, our puffed-up atmosphere vexes satellite operators with a different kind of problem -- orbit decay.

SORCE
Many researchers believe the steady rise in sunspots and faculae since the late seventeenth century may be responsible for as much as half of the 0.6 degrees of global warming over the last 110 years (IPCC, 2001).

Another trend scientists have picked up on appears to span several centuries. Late 17th century astronomers observed that no sunspots existed on the Sun’s surface during the time period from 1650 to 1715 AD. This lack of solar activity, which some scientists attribute to a low point in a multiple-century-long cycle, may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe. During this period, winters in Europe were much longer and colder than they are today. Modern scientists believe that since this minimum in solar energy output, there has been a slow increase in the overall sunspots and solar energy throughout each subsequent 11-year cycle.

Does this constitute evidence in your book?

99 posted on 03/26/2007 10:04:28 AM PDT by Reaganesque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
"The Day after Tomorrow"--an absurd science fiction fantasy about climate change with a Dick Cheney villain.

Yeah, their casting to have that character look like Cheney was about as subtle as a baseball bat. But, of course, he was humiliated in the end, so it was a win for the GW crowd.

100 posted on 03/26/2007 10:12:00 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-119 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson