How's That Global Warming Thing Working for You?

[deacon blues]

Woke up this morning with 2 inches of snow in my back yard. Kids are out of school, second Monday in a row due to snow, ice, freezing rain. We had record lows back in January. We are in the Deep South. My parents got 14 inches in Ohio. My dad, a yellow-dog Democrat had to joke about Al Gore and Global Warming. Said something about Al Gore being out of a job or something.

Read this article by Mark Steyn in MCleans magazine about the global warming farce and how they have accumulated their "facts" over the years:

"It the Credibility that's Melting"

Whenever I write about “climate change,” a week or two later there’s a flurry of letters whose general line is: la-la-la can’t hear you. Dan Gajewski of Ottawa provided a typical example in our Dec. 28 issue. I’d written about the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit’s efforts to “hide the decline,” and mentioned that Phil Jones, their head honcho, had now conceded what I’d been saying for years—that there has been no “global warming” since 1997. Tim Flannery, Australia’s numero uno warm-monger, subsequently confirmed this on Oz TV, although he never had before. In response, Mr. Gajewski wrote to our Letters page: “Steyn’s column on climate change was one-sided, juvenile and inarticulate.” Yes, yes, but what Steyn column isn’t? That’s just business as usual. A more pertinent question is: was any of it, you know, wrong? Well, our reader didn’t want to get hung on footling details: “The disproportionate evidence supports the anthropogenic cause of global warming,” he concluded. Yes, but how did the “evidence” get to be quite so “disproportionate”?

Take the Himalayan glaciers. They’re supposed to be entirely melted by 2035. The evidence is totally disproportionate, man. No wonder professor Orville Schell of Berkeley is so upset about it: “Lately, I’ve been studying the climate-change-induced melting of glaciers in the Greater Himalaya,” he wrote. “Understanding the cascading effects of the slow-motion downsizing of one of the planet’s most magnificent landforms has, to put it politely, left me dispirited.” I’ll say. Professor Schell continued: “If you focus on those Himalayan highlands, a deep sense of loss creeps over you—the kind that comes from contemplating the possible end of something once imagined as immovable, immutable, eternal?.?.?.” Poor chap. Still, you can’t blame him for being in the slough of despond. That magnificent landform is melting before his eyes like the illustration of the dripping ice cream cone that accompanied his eulogy for the fast vanishing glaciers. Everyone knows they’re gonna be gone in a generation. “The glaciers on the Himalayas are retreating,” said Lord Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank and author of the single most influential document on global warming. “We’re facing the risk of extreme runoff, with water running straight into the Bay of Bengal and taking a lot of topsoil with it. A few hundred square miles of the Himalayas are the source for all the major rivers of Asia—the Ganges, the Yellow River, the Yangtze—where three billion people live. That’s almost half the world’s population.” And NASA agrees, and so does the UN Environment Programme, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the World Wildlife Fund, and the respected magazine the New Scientist. The evidence is, like, way disproportionate. But where did all these experts get the data from?

Well, NASA’s assertion that Himalayan glaciers “may disappear altogether” by 2030 rests on one footnote, citing the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report from 2007. In fact, the Fourth Assessment Report suggests 2035 as the likely arrival of Armageddon, but what’s half a decade between scaremongers? They rate the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing as “very high”—i.e., more than 90 per cent. And the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for that report, so it must be kosher, right? Well, yes, its Himalayan claims rest on a 2005 World Wildlife Fund report called “An Overview of Glaciers.” WWF? Aren’t they something to do with pandas and the Duke of Edinburgh? True. But they wouldn’t be saying this stuff if they hadn’t got the science nailed down, would they? The WWF report relies on an article published in the New Scientist in 1999 by Fred Pearce. That’s it? One article from 12 years ago in a pop-science mag? Oh, but don’t worry, back in 1999 Fred did a quickie telephone interview with a chap called Syed Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. And this Syed Hasnain cove presumably knows a thing or two about glaciers.

Well, yes. But he now says he was just idly “speculating”; he didn’t do any research or anything like that. But so what? His musings were wafted upwards through the New Scientist to the World Wildlife Fund to the IPCC to a global fait accompli: the glaciers are disappearing. Everyone knows that. You’re not a denier, are you? India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, says there was not “an iota of scientific evidence” to support the 2035 claim. Yet that proved no obstacle to its progress through the alarmist establishment. Dr. Murari Lal, the “scientist” who included the 2035 glacier apocalypse in the IPCC report, told Britain’s Mail on Sunday that he knew it wasn’t based on “peer-reviewed science” but “we thought we should put it in”—for political reasons. I wonder what else is in that Nobel Peace Prize-winning report for no other reason than “we thought we should put it in.” Don’t forget, the IPCC’s sole source was the cuddly panda crowd over at the World Wildlife Fund.

Donna Laframboise, a colleague of mine from the glory days at the National Post, did a simple search of the online version of the IPCC report and discovered dozens of citations of the WWF. It’s the sole source cited for doomsday predictions of glacier melt not only in the Himalayas but also the Andes and the Alps, as well as for a multitude of other topics, from coral reefs to avalanches. This would appear to be in breach of the IPCC’s own guidelines. The WWF is a pressure group. They’re not scientists. They’re not even numerate: one of their more startling glacier-melt claims derives entirely from an arithmetical miscalculation arising from a typing error.

Are any of you Obama supporters disturbed by the fact that he and many powerful Democrats embrace this hoax as truth and use all of this misinformation to hinder our freedoms, our economy, our independence and our way of life?

Does truth matter to any of you? Or is party-line politics all that matters?

[Aquila]

Global Warming isn't disproven by snow and record cold temperatures. In fact, if global warming is true (I know it's debatable) we'd expect certain climate changes producing record highs and record lows in various areas. I believe there was a movie titled, Day After Tomorrow, in which the polar ice shelves melted significantly enough to cool the Northern currents of the oceans, thus sending the earth into an ice age. While the movie is definately exaggerated the thought is logical with the theory of global warming. Global warming will bring record highs and shift seasons to create extremely bitter winters with record lows in other areas.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Global Warming isn't disproven by snow and record cold temperatures. In fact, if global warming is true (I know it's debatable) we'd expect certain climate changes producing record highs and record lows in various areas. I believe there was a movie titled, Day After Tomorrow, in which the polar ice shelves melted significantly enough to cool the Northern currents of the oceans, thus sending the earth into an ice age. While the movie is definately exaggerated the thought is logical with the theory of global warming. Global warming will bring record highs and shift seasons to create extremely bitter winters with record lows in other areas.

I hate to interupt a good post.... however, the notion that Global Warming will trigger record, and violent swings wiht record cold temps, is actually an unqualified and unscientific statment.

It became popular myth after Katrina because it was suggested that GW would lead to more extreme patterns. However, that has not been the case at all.

you cannot have extreme cold swings in a climate where warming is being drivin by a CO2 forcing effect. If anything the CO2 forcing will mitigate natural patterns.

The SCIENCE does not agree, and the scientists.... even AGW proponents have distanced themselves from this myth.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I hate to interupt a good post.... however, the notion that Global Warming will trigger record, and violent swings wiht record cold temps, is actually an unqualified and unscientific statment.

Ferd, obviously you're hard of reading. I had said,

While the movie is definately exaggerated the thought is logical with the theory of global warming. Global warming will bring record highs and shift seasons to create extremely bitter winters with record lows in other areas.

It became popular myth after Katrina because it was suggested that GW would lead to more extreme patterns. However, that has not been the case at all.

I'd not rule out more extreme occurances in the future. Just me.

you cannot have extreme cold swings in a climate where warming is being drivin by a CO2 forcing effect. If anything the CO2 forcing will mitigate natural patterns.

Weather patters are more impacted by ocean temperature.

The SCIENCE does not agree, and the scientists.... even AGW proponents have distanced themselves from this myth.

Depends on the research. If we seek to see if atmospheric temperature is raising temperatures globally the answer is definately no. However, if we find that atmsopheric temperature is increasing in the polar regions, melding ice caps, causing wider variations in ocean temperatures, thus impacting weather patterns the answer is yes.

[Aquila]

I do believe in global warming. However, I'm not sure it's the result of man's making. The Bible says,

Revelation 16:8-9
8And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
9And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

Friend... the sun is going to be granted power to burn man.

[Dedicated Mind]

I find it interesting that the terms have changed from global warming to climate change, meaning hot or cold change in the climate is bad. I don't beleive it but I think conservation of the environment is a good thing.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

I find it interesting that the terms have changed from global warming to climate change, meaning hot or cold change in the climate is bad. I don't beleive it but I think conservation of the environment is a good thing.

Just as the entire law can be summed up in the two greatest commandments, I believe we can also give two when dealing with all environmental policy:

1) Don't use more then you need

2) Clean up after yourself

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

I find it interesting that the terms have changed from global warming to climate change, meaning hot or cold change in the climate is bad. I don't beleive it but I think conservation of the environment is a good thing.

The term "Global Warming" was a misnomer. You see, the concept was that the atmosphere is heating and melting polar ice caps. This is causing ocean temperatures to vary. As ocean temperatures vary weather patterns change and this brings colder winters and hotter summers, in addition to unique weather in some areas where such weather was unheard of. Since this misnomer has caused many people experiencing colder winters to sneer with statements like, "They call this global warming.", it was obviously necessary to redefine the term more properly to "Climate Change".

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The term "Global Warming" was a misnomer. You see, the concept was that the atmosphere is heating and melting polar ice caps. This is causing ocean temperatures to vary. As ocean temperatures vary weather patterns change and this brings colder winters and hotter summers, in addition to unique weather in some areas where such weather was unheard of. Since this misnomer has caused many people experiencing colder winters to sneer with statements like, "They call this global warming.", it was obviously necessary to redefine the term more properly to "Climate Change".

Aquila if there is more heat being trapped on earth then that heat has to be somewhere. The whole earth cannot get colder and there really be global warming... Now what I'm more interested in is whether the heat being used to melt the glaciers and such is enough to cause the rest of the earth to cool down as much as it has. Personally I don't think so... but the least we could see is some evidence. It would be rather simple to calculate. Estimate the amount of heat required to melt the glaciers that have been melted, estimate the amount of heat required to make the average temperature everywhere else on earth colder. Then all we got to do is compare these values.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Aquila if there is more heat being trapped on earth then that heat has to be somewhere. The whole earth cannot get colder and there really be global warming... Now what I'm more interested in is whether the heat being used to melt the glaciers and such is enough to cause the rest of the earth to cool down as much as it has. Personally I don't think so... but the least we could see is some evidence. It would be rather simple to calculate. Estimate the amount of heat required to melt the glaciers that have been melted, estimate the amount of heat required to make the average temperature everywhere else on earth colder. Then all we got to do is compare these values.

Let's start somewhere....

We see the drastic melting of our polar ice caps. Are you proposing that these ice caps are melting because it's not getting warmer?