3 New Studies question climate 'consensus' - UN ignores climate gender

3 Significant New Studies on Climate (Mark August 3, 2007 as key date in climate science)

Society of Environmental Journalists called Global Warming Propaganda Factory Excerpt: In January of this year, the SEJ published what they call Climate change: A guide to the information and disinformation. The guide is neatly organized into twelve chapters. Except for the seventh chapter titled with the freighted descriptive: "Deniers, Dissenters and Skeptics", the guide is a one sided presentation that resoundingly affirms global warming and puts down anyone with a different point of view. The site is a virtual digest of the global warming industry. If you're looking for a road map to the special interest groups behind the hysteria, this is the place to go. The journalist members of this association have obviously abandoned all pretense of objectivity. The site is largely a compendium of links to global warming promoters. Many of the links use adjectives like prestigious, best respected, and reputation unrivaled to burnish their credibility. The so-called deniers on the other hand are described with adjectives like, highly polemical, outright false, and deceptive partisan attack dogs. The description of the Competitive Enterprise Institute is especially derisive, citing the often leveled false accusation that they the tool of Exxon Mobile. And this is journalism at its finest? The SEJ is supported mainly by foundation grants from many of the places that fund Bill Moyers and PBS. The remaining revenue is generated from membership dues and conference fees. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/global_warming_propaganda_fact.html

STUDY # 1: "Belgian weather institute (RMI) study dismisses role of CO2" http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelid=B18307176070801 (Translation) Excerpt: "Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it", climate scientist Luc Debontridder says. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." said Luc Debontridder. "Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2. (Belga) Translation provided by Theo van Daele http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/nieuws/wetenschap/540607?wt.bron=homeArt2

STUDY # 2: Surface Warming And The Solar Cycle Excerpt: To accurately assess the effects of human-induced climate change, scientists must be able to quantify the contribution of natural variation in solar irradiance to temperature changes. The existence of a long-term trend in solar output is controversial, but its periodic change within an 11-year cycle has been measured by satellites. To assess how this less-controversial oscillatory forcing affects climate on Earth, Camp and Tung compare surface temperature measurements across the globe between years of solar maximum (with higher heat output) and years of solar minimum. They find that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2º C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle, the authors note. Title: Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection. Authors: Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung: Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.Source: Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2007GL030207, 2007 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801174450.htm

STUDY # 3: New Study: Global warming over last century linked to natural causes (Below excerpt clarifies study’s conclusion) Excerpts: It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols [Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event Figure 3. Same as Figure 1 but for a control run of GFDL CM2.1 model with 1860 pre-industrial conditions. See text for discussion.L13705 TSONIS ET AL.: MECHANISM FOR MAJOR CLIMATE SHIFTS L13705 4 of 5 in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm

Harvard Physicist Lubos Motl reacts to new climate change study linking temps to natural causes (Study # 3 above) Excerpt: If you are interested in their predictions, a 0.2 Celsius cooling between 2005 and 2020 should be followed by a 0.3 Celsius warming until 2045 or so and by cooling in the rest of the 21st century. 2100 is seen as more than 0.1 Celsius cooler than 2005. While they admit the possibility that their curves should be superimposed with contributions such as the enhanced greenhouse effect, they have a very different explanation for the climate shift in the late 1970s that has nothing to do with aerosols or greenhouse gases. http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/mechanism-for-major-climate-shifts.html

UK Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn Debunks recent ‘No Solar-Climate Link Study’ (Corbyn heads the UK based long-term solar forecast group Weather Action) Excerpt: In desperate attempts to shore up their crumbling doctrine of man-made climate change, Professor Lockwood and Henry Davenport (Letters, July 14) themselves cherry-pick data. Prof Lockwood’s “refutation” of the decisive role of solar activity in driving climate is as valid as claiming a particular year was not warm by simply looking at the winter half of data. The most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the world’s temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the sun’s activity. So what does he do? He “finds” that for an 11-year stretch around 1987 to 1998 world temperatures rose, while there was a fall in his preferred measures of solar activity. A 22-year cycle and an 11-year cycle will of necessity move in opposite directions half the time. The problem for global warmers is that there is no evidence that changing CO2 is a net driver for world climate. Feedback processes negate its potential warming effects. Their theory has no power to predict. It is faith, not science. I challenge them to issue a forecast to compete with our severe weather warnings - made months ago - for this month and August which are based on predictions of solar-particle and magnetic effects that there will be periods of major thunderstorms, hail and further flooding in Britain, most notably July 22-26, August 5-9 and August 18-23. These periods will be associated with new activity on the sun and tropical storms. We also forecast that British and world temperatures will continue to decline this year and in 2008. What do the global warmers forecast? http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002191.html (Links to discussion blog with Corbyn’s comments reprinted)

More No Solar-climate link debunking Excerpt: Solar activity is higher than it has been for at least 1000 years. IPCC AR4 rates the ‘level of scientific understanding’ of ‘solar irradiance’ as ‘low,’ other solar factors have a LOSU of ‘very low.’ The emphasis is always on irradiance rather than eruptivity, which I believe is much more important. Small solar changes seem to have a much larger influence on climate than expected, suggesting an unknown amplification mechanism. Global mean surface temperatures have leveled off since the 1998 El Nino, and there has been little or no ocean warming for the past 5 years according to the ARGO network. Solar cycle length, sunspots, irradiance, are general indicators of solar activity. Nir Shaviv sees no reason why the length of the solar cycle should be related to solar activity – it could be a coincidence, and it is largely a phenomenon of the Northern Hemisphere. That said, the correlation between solar cycle length and a long mean surface temperature series has also been observed at Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland. http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002198.html

More on Outrageous Temperature Surface Station Problems Excerpt: A very embarrassing chapter for our nation's scientific establishment has been unfolding, including on line and much or it at the new website, www.SurfaceStations.org run by Anthony Watts. Mr. Watt among others in the field had noticed a preponderance of ridiculously sited surface temperature measuring apparatuses such that an obvious warming bias must be reflected in ours, the world's most reliable network of surface measuring stations (see below for examples). It seems that siting thermometers in Arizona parking lots, amid California black asphalt, cell towers and air conditioning vents, next to trash burn barrels or, humorously, attached to a chimney, overhanging a Weber grill in Hopkinsville, KY, corrupts the data upon which our policymakers desperately seek to base an energy scarcity regime. In apparent response, the National Climatic Data Center suddenly pulled the location addresses from publicly available resources. We are not amused! Mr. Watts took them to task, and now the locations http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/07/noaa_and_ncdc_restore_data_acc.html are again publicly available . There are fewer than 1000 left to photograph, so enterprising shutterbugs, snap-to. [BTW, let me be the first, so far as I know, to predict that the alarmists will do http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=2748308&date=19980501&query=jokers+petition what they've done with other http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm legitimate enterprises debunking their hysteria, and submit phony photos to the effort in order to discredit the entirety]. http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzQyZWVkYWQ0NjlhNTEwZWIzYzdmNjUxMTQwOWZiNDU

UN criticized for ignoring global warming's 'gender perspective' Excerpt: UNITED NATIONS, Aug 2 (IPS) - When the United Nations concluded a two-day debate Thursday on the potential devastation from climate change, it covered a lot of territory: deforestation, desertification, greenhouse gases, renewable energy sources, biofuels and sustainable development. But one thing the debate lacked, June Zeitlin executive director of the New York-based Women's Environment and Development Organisation (WEDO) told IPS, was a gender perspective. "Women and children are 14 times more likely to die than men are during a disaster," she said. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38770

NYC Mayor Bloomberg Caught In SUV-Sized Snafu Excerpt: When the mayor leaves his East Side brownstone it's only a four-block walk to 77th and Lex, but he bypasses that subway stop and also one at 68th. Instead, MetroCard Mike is driven in two huge SUVs 22 blocks so he can catch the express at 59th Street. Now, about his SUVs, they're not the greenest cars on the block. Federal figures say the mayor's Chevrolet Suburbans put out 9.2 tons of greenhouse gas emissions with a tank of ethanol, 11.4 tons with gas. Your average Ford Explorer puts out 12.2 tons, but a Lexus hybrid SUV puts out just 7.1 tons. The mayor at first tried to joke about the story. "We'll take a couple of questions about other subjects and then anyone who wants a ride to the subway I'd be happy to give it to them," Bloomberg said. http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_213184504.html

Eco-chic nightclubs put energy into conservation Excerpt: The most eco-chic clubs offer everything from dance floors that generate electricity to stationary bikes that power the DJ booth. The rest have barely tapped the keg, using recycled goods and energy-efficient lighting. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202303.html

I object to global worming... (your way under the skin of single or multiple society(ies) in order to propagandize the masses for your own polical gain)

But one thing the debate lacked, June Zeitlin executive director of the New York-based Women's Environment and Development Organisation (WEDO) told IPS, was a gender perspective. "Women and children are 14 times more likely to die than men are during a disaster," she said. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38770

More cuckoo than a Black Forest clock.

I suspect that this stat (if it has any truth at all) comes from falsely grouping women and children together. I have no doubt that children are most affected during a natural disaster. But what if you separate women, men and children into separate groups? Are women statistically more affected than men? Could you say "men and children are 14 times more likely to die than women during a disaster"?

“Chevrolet Suburbans put out 9.2 tons of greenhouse gas emissions with a tank of ethanol, 11.4 tons with gas”

Was there some weird translation going on?

A tank of gas can’t put out more weight of “greenhouse gasses” than the fuel weighed to begin with...

Well, it can if you add the mass of oxygen taken from the air in forming combustion products...but no way will get to 9.2 tons.

Not just that, but it looks like they are forgetting that a "tank" of ethanol won't drive you as far as a tank of gasoline. You'll need a tank and a half of ethanol to have the same energy as a tank of gasoline.

You're exhaust would weigh some more than the gasoline because you are taking the carbon and hydrogen from your fuel, combining them with oxygen and getting carbon dioxide and water vapor. The CO₂ and water will weigh more than the fuel because of the oxygen added. It won't be in the tons though.

global warming is a scam

perpetrated by the united nations

to circumvent nation states.

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.