Seizing Natural Climate Change by Politicans!

[Papa Bear]

Remember! When you can win with the facts you insult and tear down the messenger! It is an old Political left wing trick! It is what Stalin wrote for his KGB to discredit those that opposed communism! The were showing old 1930s US pictures into the 1980 to show their people how backwards we were! LOL So watch out for the same tactics here as well! Point out the "Right Winger" and make fun of them for their stance on life? Or less government? Self-significance's, or less taxes to support poor science?

The Science world has a few black eyes that are interesting:
In the early Seventies there was an oil spill in a cove in Baja California and the oil company promised to pay for clean up and to study the cove for it's environmental impact!

Well the study went on for a few years and the scientist reports were dire to say the least and he was always complaining about the work load! The oil company sent down another Scientist only to find the first one in a hammock over looking a pristine bay! The oil had an impact it kill off an invader species and allowed a more natural environment to reestablish in the bay! The point is the Fox has no incentive to call of the fact that the "Sky is falling" when you can collect all the chickens that you want!

In addition read George Orwell's 1984 and you will see that government needs an enemy and we are the ultimate ENEMY of the earth! You know we who evolved from Primates and are told all the time we are animals! Yet so how we aren't a natural part of the environment? Go figure!

[Papa Bear]

http://www.junkscience.com/ Like ALGORE!

[Papa Bear]

I am sure the Lefties will tell you how this guy "Must beat his wife" but it is real science not the junk being passed as truth!

Posted on Mar. 20, 2008

By Roy W. Spencer

The Sloppy Science of Global Warming

Northern Canada iceberg photo: iStockphoto

While a politician might be faulted for pushing a particular agenda that serves his own purposes, who can fault the impartial scientist who warns us of an imminent global-warming Armageddon? After all, the practice of science is an unbiased search for the truth, right? The scientists have spoken on global warming. There is no more debate. But let me play devil’s advocate. Just how good is the science underpinning the theory of manmade global warming? My answer might surprise you: it is 10 miles wide, but only 2 inches deep.

Contrary to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth – not one peer-reviewed paper. The reason: our measurements of global weather on decadal time scales are insufficient to reject such a possibility. For instance, the last 30 years of the strongest warming could have been caused by a very slight change in cloudiness. What might have caused such a change? Well, one possibility is the sudden shift to more frequent El Niño events (and fewer La Niña events) since the 1970s. That shift also coincided with a change in another climate index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

The associated warming in Alaska was sudden, and at the same time we just happened to start satellite monitoring of Arctic sea ice. Coincidences do happen, you know…that’s why we have a word for them.

We make a big deal out of the “unprecedented” 2007 opening of the Northwest Passage as summertime sea ice in the Arctic Ocean gradually receded, yet the very warm 1930s in the Arctic also led to the Passage opening in the 1940s. Of course, we had no satellites to measure the sea ice back then.

So, since we cannot explore the possibility of a natural source for some of our warming, due to a lack of data, scientists instead explore what we have measured: manmade greenhouse gas emissions. And after making some important assumptions about how clouds and water vapor (the main greenhouse components of the atmosphere) respond to the extra carbon dioxide, scientists can explain all of the recent warming.

Never mind that there is some evidence indicating that it was just as warm during the Medieval Warm Period. While climate change used to be natural, apparently now it is entirely manmade. But a few of us out there in the climate research community are rattling our cages. In the August 2007 Geophysical Research Letters, my colleagues and I published some satellite evidence for a natural cooling mechanism in the tropics that was not thought to exist. Called the “Infrared Iris” effect, it was originally hypothesized by Prof. Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

By analyzing six years of data from a variety of satellites and satellite sensors, we found that when the tropical atmosphere heats up due to enhanced rainfall activity, the rain systems there produce less cirrus cloudiness, allowing more infrared energy to escape to space. The combination of enhanced solar reflection and infrared cooling by the rain systems was so strong that, if such a mechanism is acting upon the warming tendency from increasing carbon dioxide, it will reduce manmade global warming by the end of this century to a small fraction of a degree. Our results suggest a “low sensitivity” for the climate system.

What, you might wonder, has been the media and science community response to our work? Absolute silence. No doubt the few scientists who are aware of it consider it interesting, but not relevant to global warming. You see, only the evidence that supports the theory of manmade global warming is relevant these days.

The behavior we observed in the real climate system is exactly opposite to how computerized climate models that predict substantial global warming have been programmed to behave. We are still waiting to see if any of those models are adjusted to behave like the real climate system in this regard.

And our evidence against a “sensitive” climate system does not end there. In another study (conditionally accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate) we show that previously published evidence for a sensitive climate system is partly due to a misinterpretation of our observations of climate variability. For example, when low cloud cover is observed to decrease with warming, this has been interpreted as the clouds responding to the warming in such a way that then amplifies it. This is called “positive feedback,” which translates into high climate sensitivity.

But what if the decrease in low clouds were the cause, rather than the effect, of the warming? While this might sound like too simple a mistake to make, it is surprisingly difficult to separate cause and effect in the climate system. And it turns out that any such non-feedback process that causes a temperature change will always look like positive feedback. Something as simple as daily random cloud variations can cause long-term temperature variability that looks like positive feedback, even if in reality there is negative feedback operating.

The fact is that so much money and effort have gone into the theory that mankind is 100 percent responsible for climate change that it now seems too late to turn back. Entire careers (including my own) depend upon the threat of global warming. Politicians have also jumped aboard the Global Warming Express, and this train has no brakes.

While it takes only one scientific paper to disprove a theory, I fear that no amount of evidence will be able to counter what everyone now considers true. If tomorrow the theory of manmade global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests.

About the only thing that might cause global warming hysteria to end will be a prolonged period of cooling…or at least, very little warming. We have now had at least six years without warming, and no one really knows what the future will bring. And if warming does indeed end, I predict that there will be no announcement from the scientific community that they were wrong. There will simply be silence. The issue will slowly die away as Congress reduces funding for climate change research.

Oh, there will still be some diehards who will continue to claim that warming will resume at any time. And many will believe them. Some folks will always view our world as a fragile, precariously balanced system rather than a dynamic, resilient one. In such a world-view, any manmade disturbance is by definition bad. Forests can change our climate, but people aren’t allowed to.

It is unfortunate that our next generation of researchers and teachers is being taught to trust emotions over empirical evidence. Polar bears are much more exciting than the careful analysis of data. Social and political ends increasingly trump all other considerations. Science that is not politically correct is becoming increasingly difficult to publish. Even science reporting has become more sensationalist in recent years.

I am not claiming that all of our recent warming is natural. But the extreme reluctance for most scientists to even entertain the possibility that some of it might be natural suggests to me that climate research has become corrupted. I fear that the sloppy practice of climate change science will damage our discipline for a long time to come.

Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. His book, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor, will be published this month.

[Papa Bear]

While it takes only one scientific paper to disprove a theory, I fear that no amount of evidence will be able to counter what everyone now considers true. If tomorrow the theory of man-made global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests.

So let the crying begin!

[thalassamania]

Steven J. Milloy is self described as the founder and publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com; an investment adviser to the Free Enterprise Action Fund; and a columnist for FoxNews.com.

Another right wing shill and self-proclaimed expert with no qualifications except bizarre opinions and a mouth that won't stop.

[Papa Bear]

While it takes only one scientific paper to disprove a theory, I fear that no amount of evidence will be able to counter what everyone now considers true. If tomorrow the theory of man-made global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests.

So let the crying begin!

[Papa Bear]

NZ Antarctic voyagers return with scientific treasure trove

Worst Ross Sea ice conditions in 30 years eh? Must be Gore Effect.

NZ Antarctic voyagers return with scientific treasure trove
4:02PM Thursday March 20, 2008
By Kent Atkinson - NZPA

Scientists and crew of New Zealand’s biggest scientific voyage in the Antarctic waters of its Ross Sea dependency have returned with a treasure trove of new fish and other organisms.

The research vessel Tangaroa returned to Wellington today after completing the most comprehensive survey of marine life in the region.

The 7140 nautical mile voyage surveyed some areas and habitats for the first time, and uncovered many species that are new to science.

The 26 scientists and 18 crew endured the worst ice conditions documented in the Ross Sea in 30 years to complete 35 days of sampling Antarctic marine biodiversity and habitats.

The voyage, which took 50 days and $6.6 million of government funding, was part of an international effort by 23 countries to survey marine ecosystems and habitats in the waters surrounding Antarctica.

The voyage would contribute to two global science programmes: International Polar Year and the Census of Antarctic Marine Life.

The researchers worked round the clock in the 24-hour days of the Antarctic summer collecting more than 30,000 samples of many different forms of life from tiny micro-plankton up to large toothfish and recorded some never-seen-before views of the seabed.

Fish experts onboard recorded 88 fish species, of which eight are possibly new to science.

Many of the fish have special adaptations to deal with the extreme polar and deep-sea environments they live in.

Malcolm Clark, of the National Institute of Atmospheric and Water Research (Niwa), and Stefano Schiaparelli, of the Italian National Antarctic Museum, reported continued discoveries of new species or new records of invertebrates.

Many would remain unconfirmed until samples were sent to experts around the world after the voyage.

In a report on the internet they said there were a number of animals that have been caught or photographed that they were confident were new species, new records, or adding a lot of information about poorly known groups.

These included a sea lily found in shallow waters, a sea urchin and a snail found at a depth of 2200m.

Some unusual squid species were caught, including several juvenile colossal squid.

The survey also captured samples from the sea surface, the water column and the seabed.

While processing the samples, scientists had to battle worse than expected weather, with temperatures down to minus-13degC and blizzards that caused equipment to ice up and samples of seawater, mud and fish to freeze on deck.

Hi-tech cameras allowed scientists to see many communities on the sea-floor for the first time and revealed new information about the behaviour, inter-relationships and habitats.

The voyage was a collaboration between Land Information New Zealand (Linz), Ministry of Fisheries, Niwa, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Antarctica New Zealand, New Zealand universities, and both the Italian and United States Antarctic programmes.

The entire voyage was filmed by Natural History New Zealand, an American-owned company.

[Papa Bear]

Environmentalism is a religion with it's own Gurus that are to be believed because they are tested politically as "Human Haters" and Socialists then their credentials are "just right" as long as their doctrine blames man and especially "Capitalist man"! You can tell a persons politics from the "Scientific conclusions"! Man puts all value on this planet, without us nothing else matters! If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound? Who cares unless we are there to quantify the beauty of the tree? Or the Forrest?

The Trial Lawyers have done a great job hand and hand with the left wing! We believe with no scientific proof that "Breast implants cause Auto-immune disease" No scientific evidence, "all Asbestos is dangerous" if so why do they still mine it is Canada? Because only the South African Asbestos causes Mesothelioma and not the straight type from Canada, yet we point the finger at all of it in order to put more money in the pockets of Trial Lawyers! The best book ever written is "Trashing the Planet" By Dixie Lee Ray and unless you read it you haven't got a clue! Even if you disagree with it at least you will know where I come from and why I have the positions I do!

We are being manipulated by the media and Junk science to blame someone for life! What are we going to do when the Moon leaves it's orbit and spins off into space? Or when the 1 in 17000 chance a "Life ending Meteor" will hit the planet? We have so many real threats that to tell you that YOU and your SUV are killing the Polar Bear is just nuts! Not one of the climate models when run backwards puts us "Here at this time or weather place" in real science you have to be able to reproduce the results in the lab, and they can't!

My 36 years of diving and traveling I have observed our oceans and I have not seen the alarming signs that sell movies, employee scientists, Tax people, and most of all control people without force!

So if you take the doom and gloom side of this sell your dive gear and move to higher ground now! Be sure you walk, even though that produces more CO2 in a mile as your car, but you will look green! Plant or pay to have that tree planted! Even though we plant "Urban forest" wherever we build!

I for one will be enjoying a pristine reef hopefully in 80 plus degree water a few steps from my Bure where the water lines has been for the last 30 years!
You see it is one thing to tell and sell this crap to someone in Denver who has never seen the ocean except on a screen in "Water World" but to sell it to people who are in it all the time is a whole different deal and we should stand up and tell it as we see it! That is vialed observation!

So when you hear a rant about politics or visa versa you can pin down that persons science, politics, and religion!

[Papa Bear]

Just a "Weatherman"?:

THE 2008 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON CLIMATE CHANGE
REMARKS OF JOHN COLEMAN
As presented on March 2, 2008
At the Marriot Marquee in New York City
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it.
Global Warming; it is a SCAM.
With those words, posted on the weather page of the website of the San Diego
Television station where I am chief meteorologist, I came out of the closet and into the
spotlight in the movement to debunk the wildly out of control, hysterical frenzy about the
supposed imminent climatic catastrophe of Global Warming. And, how does it feel to be
in the ring dueling it out with the global warming doomsayers? In the words of James
Brown, "WOW. I feel Good."
I feel Good because I know I am on the right side in this debate. I acknowledge the
sides are very unbalanced. On the other side are the United Nations, the leaders of the
many of the nations of the world, most politicians here in the United States including all
the current candidates for President, the Governor of my home state of California and
many other governors, virtually all of Hollywood's do-gooder stars, just about all of the
national media, seemingly every environmentalist on the planet, a half dozen
prestigious scientific organizations, many well known scientists, most teachers and up
to 80 percent of the people. They all stand alongside of the Nobel Peace Prize and the
Academy Award winner; the former Vice President of the United States, Al Gore.
So here I am now a part of an outcast, much assailed, way outnumbered group of
global warming deniers. At least that is what we are called by the other side. Deniers, a
demeaning and ugly term. I can handle their abuse. I don't like it; but I can handle it.
But here is what I decided is not acceptable: Being silent when I know I am right. And I
have pledged to make every effort to explain this scam and reveal the truth about
climate change to all who will hear me. To cave-in and give lip service to the other side,
the side that is wrong, dead wrong, is not an option. And no matter how it all come out,
"Wow, I feel Good."
My father was raised on a farm. Even after he became a college professor he still liked
to go on the farmer's evening walk to look at the weather and predict what tomorrow
would be like. As a young boy I loved to go with him. This was way back in the late
1930's when weather data was scare and weather forecasts were rudimentary. But in
those boyhood days with Dad, I developed a sense of connection with the atmosphere.
My future life as a meteorologist was being molded.
As a freshman in college I worked in a start-up, pioneering TV station. This was in
1953. One day the boss asked "Who knows about the weather?" My hand shot up and
from that moment on I was a television weathercaster. When I went to class the next
day, the Professor began, "I watched you report the weather on TV last night. What are
you doing here in Introduction to Meteorology?" I answered, "Trying to find out what I
am talking about." Everybody laughed, but it was true. Thus began the education I
needed to really forecast the weather.
All through college and for the 51 years that have followed, I have predicted the weather
every day. I have walked in the weather and felt connected to my environment. Here I
am, in 2008, still doing it. I walk in the weather. I predict the weather every day. I feel
one with my environment. And, I feel Good.
Somewhere along the way, perhaps a decade ago, I began to read about global
warming. I didn't take it seriously; after all, I had been through the coming Ice Age
frenzy in the mid 70's. None the less, I read and listened. I had my doubts but tried to
keep an open mind.
I am not a research meteorologist like many in this room with advanced degrees. I am
your student. But, I am a serious student and totally immersed in my field of expertise.
As I studied, I couldn’t believe what was happening around me. There was an
unprecedented explosion of global warming hype. All the media was filled with the bad
news that the sky is falling. We have been warned of the dire consequences our
civilization faces. The coasts will be flooded by melting ice caps. The crops will fail.
Millions will die. Species will be wiped out as their habitats vanish. Panic sweeps the
media. There are new alarms sounded every day. It has gone on for more than two
years.
I tried to stay calm. My studies had convinced me, beyond a shadow of doubt, this well
orchestrated media frenzy is wrong; dead wrong. There is no unprecedented,
unequivocal, uncontrollable man made global warming now and no evidence that it is to
come. The entire frenzy is just as ridiculous as it can be.
People I meet ask me about Global Warming. I tell them to relax it isn't for real. And,
some of them get very hostile with me. People with no scientific knowledge and no
reason I can see to take a position, have accepted global warming as their mantra; their
religion; their passion; their cause.
It has finally risen to the point, where, like Howard Beal in the movie "Network”, I can't
take it anymore. When Mr. Gore was given a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar, when
CNN declared Earth a "Planet in Peril", when NBC went green to save the Earth from
Global Warming and turned out the studio lights on a football pregame show: That was
it. I essentially opened the window and shouted at the top of my lungs, "I am madder
than hell and I am not going to take it anymore". That is when I wrote and published my
global warming rant.
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it.
Global Warming; it is a SCAM.
That was mid November. Since I posted that first piece, I have written and posted 8
more briefs explaining the scientific basis for my stand on global warming.
I have intensified my studies. I have entered the debate where ever I have been
invited. And I stand firm. Man made Global Warming is not a problem. There is no
climate change crisis.
I am holding a document. At this point, I believe this is last remaining cornerstone
document of the global warming advocate's case. This 113 page scientific paper is
titled: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. It is the much debated chapter
nine of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I wonder how
many people who are disciples of Global Warming have actually read it. I wonder how
many understand it. This paper portends to explain how carbon dioxide, CO2, drives a
radiative forcing multiplier that turns this minor trace compound in the atmosphere into
THE force behind uncontrollable global warming.
When the global warming hype was beginning, it was that hockey stick chart of average
temperatures over the millenniums, the chart featured in Al Gore's book and movie that
grabbed everybody's attention. That chart was reproduced everywhere. It was the
centerpiece of Global Warming.
Thank goodness for Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They lead the charge to
expose this chart for what it is; a scientific fraud. Their papers were widely published
and prompted others to conduct studies, as well. After a few years of debate, the
hockey stick chart is dead and buried. Rest in peace.
But there was more bad science to keep the battle going. With great fanfare NASA
began releasing papers that claimed to be detecting global warming in the average
annual temperatures of Earth. Each year was said to be warmer than the last or among
the warmest ten ever. However, it was not long before Madhay Khandekar and Joseph
D’Aleo, Roger Pielke Sr., Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, Anthony Watts, Ben
Herman and many others demonstrated the inaccuracy and data manipulations behind
these NASA pronouncements. At one point, NASA admitted its errors and issued
corrected figures that shifted the warmest decade from the 1990's back to the 1930's.
What has become clear is that any warming that took place in the last 20 years of the
20th century was small, less than a degree, and was not totally, if at all, the result of
mankind’s activities.
Urban heat islands, problems with the sites where weather instruments are located,
changes in the instruments themselves and even the paint on the instrument shelters all
play a part in distorting temperature data. Determining which stations to include in
averaging, the statistical methods used in processing the data, melding of sea surface
satellite data with land based temperature measurements, considerations of
measurements at different levels in the atmosphere are some of the complications in
producing global temperature averages. They leave lots of room for error and for
games to be played. The bottom line is, whatever warming may have occurred is not
great, not increasing year to year and not necessarily or entirely man made. After much
debate and study, average global temperature increases, another cornerstone of the
Global Warming frenzy, fell into discredit.
The global warming advocates fail to consider natural climate changes versus man
made climate influences. We all know Earth has always gone through constant natural
climate changes. There is no reason to assume that these natural shifts are not
continuing and will continue to occur in the future. For instance, it is well documented
that Earth has been in a long gradual warming trend following the last ice
age. Solar cycles and shifting ocean current variations overlay that long term warmup
producing fluctuations from year to year and decade to decade. None of this is
devastating, but it is important to consider when we produce climate predictions. I see
no convincing evidence that natural climate changes have been overwhelmed because
of the activities of mankind.
So that brings me back to this paper, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change.
Since all of the other gambits of the Global Warming advocates have not withstood the
scrutiny of peer review, how about this one. It all boils down to carbon dioxide. The
Global Warming advocates claim the buildup of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere
resulting for the burning of fossil fuels is leading directly to an uncontrollable warm-up in
global temperatures which will accelerate over time and produce disastrous
climatological consequences. If their hypothesis is wrong, then the entire Global
Warming frenzy is without basis. This is indeed their last remaining cornerstone;
their bottom line. All the other stuff we hear about ice caps melting, polar bears,
hurricanes, droughts and heat waves is just antidotal noise. Most of it is wrong and
none of it really counts. The only thing that matters now is the issue of CO2 forcing.
I am confident that CO2 forcing is not valid. I tell you without equivocation, after
reading lots of research Papers, I conclude the CO2 forcing hypostasis has failed the
test of peer review.
The increases in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere were first measured and published
by Roger Revelle, who is known as the Grandfather of Global Warming. He was a man
of great accomplishment and stature; a true senior scientist. He was the founder of the
Scripps Oceanographic Institution and later a Professor at Harvard where one of his
students was Al Gore. Gore says his experience in Revelle’s class became the
foundation of his eventual Global Warming campaign. But, interesting enough, in later
years Revelle himself cautioned against the assumption that CO2 was the engine of
climate change.
CO2, the natural compound that we humans breathe out, that plants use in
photosynthesis, that oceans absorb and release, is also in the exhaust of the burning of
fossil fuels. It seems clear that much of the frenzy over Global Warming comes from
environmentalists who want to end the burning of fossil fuels. They try to frame Carbon
Dioxide as a pollutant that must be eliminated. Their case does not hold up. It is not a
pollutant. And eliminating fossil fuels would not eliminate it, only reduce it.
Many well intentioned scientists have done studies that they say link the buildup of
Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere with warming of temperatures. Their historical
evidence has been proven wrong. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere follows warming,
perhaps as a result of the warming, but clearly does not proceed warming. It is not the
cause of warming. Studies of long term temperatures and CO2 prove that.
But still the Global Warming advocates rest their case on their contention that CO2 has
a special influence on water vapor, the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
They say is multiplies the greenhouse effect of the water vapor. This is called CO2
forcing. Without this forcing effect, CO2 couldn't have a significant impact on
greenhouse warming because it is a mere trace compound in the atmosphere, around
38 molecules of CO2 out of every 100,000 thousand molecules of atmosphere, a tiny
fraction of the air around us.
That brings me back to this paper, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. This
paper, done for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has
been peer reviewed within the IPCC, accepted and made a part of the underlying
documents of the Global Warming predictions of the IPCC. And very importantly, the
CO2 forcing formula from this paper is what has gone into those IPCC accepted climate
computer models that predict climatic Armageddon. So this is it, the final and key
cornerstone document. If it is correct, the Global Warming frenzy is valid. If it is not
correct, the entire case is baseless. And this is a very substantial study building on a
referencing dozens of prior studies. A large group of significant scientists have worked
on aspects of and contributed to this final product. It is very substantial. Those
scientists and their work and this paper cannot be lightly dismissed.
Many of the scientists who are here today have commented on this paper. Some have
done studies that counter its findings; essentially they prove it wrong. I find the most
convincing work on this to date is this paper, Environmental Effects of Increased
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie
Soon. To me they are absolutely convincing. But, I believe the debate on this issue
may continue for some time.
When I discuss Global Warming debate with those around me, I often hear the plea,
"John, if the United Nations and its panel of 2,500 scientists have concluded that global
warming is a major threat to our planet, you should listen to what they say. They are
the experts. The UN must be the final judge in this matter. You are a heretic." This is I
believe the hardest hurdle to jump. Debating the science is logical and straight
forward. People's view of the world structure is emotional and difficult to overcome. But
let me try, please.
The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in
1988. Engineer Alan Cheetham has done an exhaustive study of how this came about.
It is an amazing political story with an undercurrent of effort to position third world
nations to gain restitution from the highly developed nations for the pollution from their
industrial activity. The history also documents how the politicians clamored to create
another bureau for the dream of a one world government and to entrench themselves in
power.
Once the UN IPCC was established, it had to create documentation of manmade
climate change to prove its own worthiness to exist and to gain funding for its activities.
Money flowed to scientist to produce to the needed research. Meetings were held to
validate their work, publications were made, publicity was generated and the
bureaucracy not only prevailed but grew in importance and budget and the cycle has
continued to compound.
What if the UN IPCC had produced studies that denied that man made climate change
was a problem and that there was no cause for alarm. The IPCC would have been
disbanded. No bureaucrat is going to let that happen. The bias to produce the desired
results overwhelms reality.
At this point, much is made of the IPCC panel of 2,500 scientists being in consensus on
Global Warming. But get this. We now know how few scientists actually reviewed that
key chapter of the IPCC report, the one that concludes that it very highly likely that
greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the global warming over the
past 50 years. Dr. John McLean has issued a detailed report on IPCC reviewers. He
reveals that there were as few as 23 independent reviewers of that chapter and that
only 4 explicitly endorsed the hypothesis. That’s a long way from 2,500 and a long way
from consensus.
The lack of consensus is also well documented by Dr. Vincent Gray who was a expert
reviewer and member of the IPCC since the early 1990s. He has detailed just how
contrived the IPCC process has been and how it hardly actually reflects a majority
consensus of scientists at all. Dr. Gray asked hard questions. They were ignored. I
conclude that the final report of the IPCC panel is a political not a scientific document.
Now, I turn to our media. Within the media, whatever the UN says is generally accepted
as fact. The UN says there is a man made global warming crisis and its panel of 2,500
scientists is in consensus, that good enough. And if a former Vice President is the
spokesman for the cause, well that’s all the evidence the media needs to beat the
drums for global warming. So now Global Warming is the American media's cause
celeb.
I am not the only television weathercaster who is skeptical of global warming. I know of
two dozen others who have made public statements. And two dozen others have
privately contacted me but cannot make public statements because of their employment
situations. In any case, we are not nearly influential enough to turn the media.
Marc Morano working for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has
released an impressive list of more than 450 scientists who took a stand against the
global warming frenzy in 2007. And there are the thousands of scientists who signed a
petition against the Kyoto Protocol. That is impressive. But, in the media world none of
this seems to count. What we need to move the media is a network anchor or a
Hollywood super star to join the side of the skeptics.
Let me put a few things into perspective. The media won't, so allow me to try. Through
government we create an orderly civilization, or at least a reasonable facsimile of
same. The media seems hung up on government. But the real advancements of the
civilization are the product of science, not government. Science created the healthcare
that cured me of cancer and has saved my life twice, so far, and provides the
medications to keep me alive so I can be here today. Science created the power and
machines and systems that made air and auto travel possible, that warm and cool our
spaces. Science created our means of communication: our phones, our television and
radio, our internet and most of all science created computers that extend our human
capabilities by the power of millions. Science, not government, is the driving force of
civilization. That is why I am so excited to be here at a meeting of scientists. I honor
you and all your brethren around the world. You are the prime force of civilization.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Debate among scientists is the healthiest condition possible in our society. From
disagreement is born study, serious considerations and re-considerations. To declare
the debate about Global Warming to be over is anti-science, regressive and, in a word,
dumb. Let the debate flourish.
In conclusion, here are things we should not expect: The UN will never withdraw its
report. Al Gore will never admit he is wrong. The scientists who have developed the
case for CO2 forcing and global warming will not admit they erred. Environmental
extremists will never relent.
Things we can work for: The media might be persuaded to give some coverage to our
side of the debate. A significant percentage of the public may become climate change
skeptics. As a result some politicians may come to our side of the argument. These
are things we need to work toward.
Here is one question from me; a question, not a charge. If CO2 is not the culprit in
global warming, is the selling of carbon credits a financial fraud?
And, to paraphrase David Letterman, the number one thing to expect is: In 20 years we
will have the last laugh. When the climate has not changed, the ice caps have not
melted, polar bears are flourishing, the oceans have not flooded the shores, when
climate change has not destroyed our lives, Ah, we will have the last laugh.
The frenzy will fade away and there will be global warming jokes and Al Gore's prizes
will be tarnished.
Yes, we will have the last laugh.
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it.
Global Warming...it is a SCAM.
And because we are standing up to the horde of Global Warming alarmists and doing
our best to set the record straight, to calm the frenzy and provide proof that the sky is
not falling; yes, because of the work of all of you here today,
Wow, I feel good.
Links referenced in John Coleman’s remarks
KUSI Television, San Diego, John Coleman’s comments on Global Warming
http://images.bimedia.net/documents/...l+Warming1.pdf
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/
The Al Gore movie, “An Inconvenient Truth
http://www.climatecrisis.net/
The late James Brown
http://www.funky-stuff.com/jamesbrown/
An online article about the word “deniers” used to describe Global Warming skeptics
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/1782/
My father, Ernest Claude Coleman, PhD
http://www.thecolemannet.com/index.htm
United Nations IPCC Chapter 9, the key chapter on CO2 Forcing
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter9.pdf
Natural Resources Defense Council Global Warming report
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp
Michael Mann and the Hockey Stick Chart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mann_(scientist)
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s Paper refuting the Hockey Stick Chart
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf
Stephen McIntyre’s website
http://www.climateaudit.org
Ross McKitrick’s website
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/ross.html
NASA web pages on average annual temperatures
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...arth_warm.html
Dr. Mayhay Khandekar and Joseph D’Aleo’s post on the problems with the NASA
average temperature calculations
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PITFALLS.pdf
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr;’s post on problems with calculation average global temperatures:
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/08/an-...veragesurface-
temperature/
Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels paper detailing how observation points change over
time influences global average temperatures
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGRDec07.pdf
Anthony Watts discovers serious site problems with many official weather observation
stations in the United States and conducts a national effort to survey every location
http://surfacestations.org/
Dr. Ben Herman investigates questionable exaggerations in maximum temperatures at
locations where certain types of new temperature sensors have been installed.
http://climatesci.org/2008/01/21/gue...theuniversity-
of-arizona-maximum-temperature-trends/
The controversy about the influence of urban heat islands on global temperatures is
covered in the Wikipedia article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
Long term climate changes on Earth, resulting from natural causes, primarily variations
in the radiation received from the Sun are detailed by D. Bruce Merrifield
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...r_radia_1.html
I write about the solar influence on climate variations on Earth in my brief The Force
behind Climate Change
http://images.bimedia.net/documents/...al+Warming.pdf
Roger Revelle, the Grandfather of Global Warming and the man who inspired Al Gore,
cautioned against alarmism from the carbon dioxide build-up
http://www.financialpost.com/story.h...9-778c0973526e
Carbon Dioxide characterized as a pollutant, the force behind global warming
http://worldcoolers.org/co2map/
Typical newspaper article decrying carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._carbon22.html
Union of Concerned Scientists page on carbon dioxide
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...-globalwarming.
html
The key Paper by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon that explains
that Carbon Dioxide Forcing is not valid
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...inson_Soon.pdf
Another excellent Paper by Allan M.R, MacRae showing that Carbon Dioxide is not the
primary force in climate change
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
Dr. David Evans Paper showing that Carbon Dioxide does not cause Global Warming
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evan...NotCauseGW.pdf
Alan Cheetham details the history of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change)
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_History.htm
Dr. John McLean details the lack of significant peer review of the IPCC documents
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...an/mclean_IPCC
_review_final_9-5-07.pdf
Dr. Vincent Gray writes about his experience as a member of the IPCC
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...id=155&Itemid=
1
Two dozen Television meteorologists who are global warming skeptics are listed on
ICECAP
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts
The report on the over 400 scientists who spoke out in opposition to global warming in
2007
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport
The Petition against the Kyoto Protocol
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

[Papa Bear]

So I have posted line after line of evidence that the whole thing is a fraud! What do we hear in the way of facts or evidence on the "Correct side" Nothing but the insult! The jab, the barb, the challenge of personal belief, but never any empirical evidence! Just lies and attacks! That's all they have!