Greenland Ice Find Debunks Al Gore’s Global Warming Theories

http://newsbusters.org/ ^ | July 7, 2007 | Noel Sheppard

[denydenydeny]

The findings, published today in the journal Science, indicate Greenland's ice may be less susceptible to the massive meltdown predicted by computer models of climate change

If this is so and the Greenland and Antarctica ice shelves are stable even in major warming periods, then the global warming movement's primary means of terrifying people--"rising sea levels that will inundate the planet"--disappears.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

[angkor]

Greenland really was green, before Ice Age glaciers enshrouded vast swaths of the Northern Hemisphere.

I'm pretty sure we were taught exactly that in elementary school back in the late-60's, while studying the Vikings. Because I've grown up always believing (knowing) that Greenland was once green.

I haven't read the collected works of Al Gore or seen his fictomentaries, has he been asserting that Greenland was always and forever covered with ice?

Seems like the kind of statement that even a 6th grader might find odd. "Then why is it called Greenland, Mr. Gore?"

[Sacajaweau]

Just imagine if Al was around for the last ice age. He could have saved us. We would have had to "fa**" at least 10 times a day because we didn't have cars??

And God forbid...the dinosours were no more. (They f*** a lot.) Save the dinosours!! They take a lot of space so they'd get a designated USA area from the 38th meridian to the 50th.

The whole idea that we can stop the natural workings of the universe is an absolute absurdity.

[rottndog]

"Then why is it called Greenland, Mr. Gore?"

This is the simplest way to debunk the GW Hoax...ask a Goron that question...they will put themselves into a box they can't explain their way out of.

[John Cook]

rottndog, why was Greenland green? It certainly wasn’t because the ice shelf had melted. The study just mentioned shows the ice shelf has been around for half a million years. The reason is because Erik the Red was a great real estate agent. He figured out that persuading all his friends to migrate to “Freezingcoldiceshelfland” was hardly going to attract big buyers. :-)

Okay, I’m being slightly facetious (although there is a myth that Erik the Red did over-exagerate Greenland’s lushness). There was a warm medieval period back around 900 years ago. Climate does change naturally - the sun was warmer back then, it got colder during the 1800’s when the little ice age hit us, then got warmer in the early 20th century. The sun has been the major driver of temperature over the past 1000 years.

But the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended in 1975 when temperatures started rising - solar levels have been steady since the 1950’s. So the question isn’t ‘has climate changed naturally in the past?’ but ‘what’s causing global warming now?’ The usual suspects - solar variations, volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles - are conspicuously absent.

[Sawdring]

If I remember correctly, when scientists first started measuring the hole in the Ozone Layer they came to the conclusion that the hole was getting larger because of HCFC’s and CFC’s. The hole started to close and it appears it is a natural phenomenon producing variations in the layer. Scientists jumped to false conclusions and brought the Politicians and Journalists with them. The next thing you know you cannot purchase certain chemicals without a license, some chemicals like refrigerant 12 and others are outright banned via the Montreal Protocol and when the hole started closing these CFC's were categorized as chemicals that added to global warming instead of those that made the hole in the Ozone layer.

While the destruction of the environment is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, the people that preach to us are living the most opulent lifestyles that kings and tyrants from long ago could not even dream of. Their industries pollute and use massive amounts of energy and the cash they rake in comes directly from the cultures that burn oil and coal by the tanker load.

[John Cook]

Sawdring, I make it a point to listen to what the scientists (and more to the point peer reviewed journals) are saying about global warming rather than be distracted by politicians or their lifestyles. The question of what’s causing global warming is a purely scientific question.

[Sawdring]

It is a purely scientific question, but many of these pure scientists are funded by these politicians who have an agenda of social change through confiscation and redistribution of wealth.

[John Cook]

Sawdring, maybe that’s the case. I’ve tried to steer away from the ad hominem arguments that seem to pervade global warming discussions. This guy was funded by big oil, that guy was funded by left wing socialists. You get nowhere attacking the person. If you’re genuinely interested in finding the truth of the matter, discuss the science, not the people and read the peer reviewed scientific papers. If you’re keen and absolutely paranoid about a scientific conspiracy, download the data and look at it yourself. The data for solar activity (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html) and global temperatures (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) are easily downloaded and you can quite clearly see the close correlation between temperature and solar activity over the past 100 years and crucially, the lack of correlation after 1975. If you are interested, I’d be happy to email you an Excel spreadsheet of the data (including a nifty little graph).

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Truth bump. Globaloney bump. Green heresy bump.

[gathersnomoss]

Unless you have prayed at the foot of a new Philips EcoBulb floor lamp, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Amen...../s