The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 8/600)
Formula88 JUN 16, 06:51 PM

quote
Originally posted by 4-mulaGT:


According to Treehuggers downtown Manhattan would be totally inhabitable by plants due to all the lead, benzene, aromatics, and other toxins in the air, right?



I believe the word you're looking for is uninhabitable.
4-mulaGT JUN 16, 10:13 PM

quote
Originally posted by Formula88:


I believe the word you're looking for is uninhabitable.





you got me....
Toddster JUN 17, 01:01 PM

quote
Originally posted by 4-mulaGT:

According to Treehuggers downtown Manhattan would be totally UN-inhabitable by plants due to all the lead, benzene, aromatics, and other toxins in the air, right?



A tree DOESN'T grow in Brooklyn.
fierobear JUN 19, 08:14 PM
I keep trying to warn you folks about the panic that the global warming advocates are stirring up. See here, first hand the result!
4-mulaGT JUN 19, 10:55 PM

quote
Originally posted by fierobear:

I keep trying to warn you folks about the panic that the global warming advocates are stirring up. See here, first hand the result!



I love that show.... Its the exact opposite of the American Idle/ Emotional, BS that has put the us in the position its in,

There was a comment on there that perfectly summed up my thoughts:

Im socially conservative & believe in God, but I got to love this show. Even at times when I don't agree with the point they are making, at least you have to THINK a little more. And all this from a "cartoon". Maybe if Washington & our local leaders watched this, they will start doing the right things for ALL of us. Or we could start voting for the better leader not just for an "R" or "D"

And this is a perfect one liner:
In reality they are an equal opportunity offender.

Anyway... I suppose I should contribute something scientific to bore everyone.......

http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html
Chew on THAT for a while!

His personal history seems unusual, he is probably easily "discredited" but I would love to see anyone here debate with him with same caliber of scientific facts.
fierobear JUN 19, 11:45 PM

quote
Originally posted by 4-mulaGT:


http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html
Chew on THAT for a while!

His personal history seems unusual, he is probably easily "discredited" but I would love to see anyone here debate with him with same caliber of scientific facts.



That looks like an interesting site. I'll check it out. Thanks for posting it.
Formula88 JUN 22, 11:30 PM
Canadian Scientists Fear Global Cooling

Kenneth Tapping, a researcher at Canada's National Research Council, wants to look for evidence of increased sunspot activity, according to IBD. "The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century."

A "solar hibernation" in the 17th Century "corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715," IBD reported. "Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe."
fierobear JUL 12, 02:11 PM
OK, time to get back to this thread.

Here are several links about crap that NASA's James Hansen is pulling. Don't worry...I'll get to them, one by one.

Here's a good one...

Hansen’s Anniversary Testimony

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

On June 23, 1988 James Hansen, Astronomer by degree but climatologist by self appointment testified in front of congress. It was an orchestrated testimony coordinated by Senator Al Gore and a Senator from Colorado, Tim Wirth (now running Ted Turner’s UN Foundation) who admitted they picked the day after calling the National Weather Service to ensure it was a hot day. He admitted proudly later they opened all the windows the night before, making air conditioning ineffective and making sure all involved including Hansen would be seen mopping their brow for maximum effect. Hansen testified “Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe, with a high degree of confidence, a cause-and-effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.”

See in the story below how hard Hansen has worked to try and make his prognostication verify by manipulating data. By his own comments to the UK Guardian “When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that’s a crime.” Well the disinformation that comprises the GISS data then by his own words is a crime, and in his own words he “should be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature”.

Here is the plot of actual NASA global satellite monthly temperatures since June 1988. Note the anomaly in May 2008 was lower than in June 1988 by nearly 0.3C. Of course, we don’t have June 2008 numbers yet. Please note I am not saying that cooling began in 1988. Satellites show clearly that since 1979 there was a moderate warming which peaked in 1998. A cooling has taken place the last 6 to 7 years. Global station and ocean data with all its warts shows the warming from the early 1900s to the 1930s, cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s then warming again peaking in 1998. I am just making an observation that it is ironic that 20 years after his first testimony about global warming, it is half a degree F oooler globally, not supporting the drastic measure he advocates. Also we can explain not only the trends but each spike or dip with some natural phenomena as we have shown in recent posts.
fierobear JUL 12, 03:10 PM
Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis disproved - pdf file

23 June 2008
The AGW-hypothesis asserts that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) – notably carbon dioxide – in the
atmosphere will cause the globe to warm (global warming: GW) and that anthropogenic emissions of carbon
dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air with resulting anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global
warming (AGW).
I think a clear distinction needs to be made between
(a) the science of AGW, and
(b) the perception of AGW - and the use of AGW - by non-scientists.
The science
The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong; i.e.

1. There is no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature.

2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global
temperature at all time scales.

3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations.
The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present
(i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar
to that of 1940. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near-constant rate and by
more than 30% since 1940.

4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by increase to anthropogenic emissions of carbon
dioxide.
More than 80% of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide has been since 1940 and the increase to
the emissions has been at a compound rate of ~0.4% p.a. throughout that time. But that time has exhibited 40
years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940.

5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.
The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions.
Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions.
The above list provides a complete refutation of the AGW-hypothesis according to the normal rules of
science: i.e.

Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data and the opposite of the hypothesis'
predictions is observed in the empirical data.
But politicians and advocates adhere to the hypothesis. They have a variety of motives (i.e. personal
financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, etc.). But support of
science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis.
Hence, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its
advocates (e.g. Hansen). And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming that they are.

Richard S. Courtney DipPhil
IPCC expert reviewer, energy and environmental consultant
United Kingdom

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 07-12-2008).]

fierobear JUL 13, 03:21 AM
Not a scientific proof, but I thought this was interesting. Al Gore, the poster boy for "GLOBAL WARMING, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!", doesn't seem to put his money - or science - where his mouth is on global warming.

Gore Refuses Global Warming Prediction Challenge

Written By: Dan Miller
Published In: Environment & Climate News
Publication Date: July 1, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute


Al Gore, one of the world's leading proponents of the theory that global warming is an imminent crisis, missed a deadline to meet a global warming challenge issued by a leading expert in forecasting.

Scott Armstrong, a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, issued the challenge to the former vice president in June 2007. Gore initially indicated interest in the challenge, but later expressed some concerns.

Armstrong said he could forecast global temperature change over the next 10 years more accurately than any climate model Gore might nominate.

Armstrong's forecast was to be that the global mean temperature would not change over the 10 years. His forecast is based on the so-called "naive model" that has been shown by prior research to be appropriate for complex situations with high uncertainty.

Armstrong proposed each man would put $10,000 into a charitable trust fund, and the one with the most accurate forecast would designate a recipient.


Backed Down Repeatedly

Gore indicated he was busy when the bet was first proposed, so Armstrong extended the deadline to March 26, 2008 and simplified the bet so Gore merely needed to put a checkmark beside a climate model that would produce forecasts for him. Gore then came back and said he did not believe in money wagers--so Armstrong proposed they forget the money and just conduct the challenge for scientific purposes.

Nothing more was heard from Gore, and the deadline passed.

On March 28, Armstrong sent a message to Gore, asking him, "When and under what conditions would you be willing to engage in a scientific test of your forecasts?"

Armstrong said, "Validation of forecasting methods is a key issue in climate change because, although we know that climate varies, we have been unable to locate a single scientific forecast that supports global warming. If Mr. Gore or anyone else is aware of such a forecast, they should reveal the source to the scientific community. Claims that science supports global warming forecasts have, to date, failed to provide sources."

A history of Armstrong's Global Warning Challenge to Gore is provided at http://theclimatebet.com. It includes all correspondence between Scott Armstrong and Al Gore.


======================

Link to the "climate bet"