Warning: file_get_contents() [function.file-get-contents]: SSL operation failed with code 1. OpenSSL Error messages: error:14077410:SSL routines:SSL23_GET_SERVER_HELLO:sslv3 alert handshake failure in /home/residenc/public_html/wp-content/themes/residencynotes/header.php on line 26

Warning: file_get_contents() [function.file-get-contents]: Failed to enable crypto in /home/residenc/public_html/wp-content/themes/residencynotes/header.php on line 26

Warning: file_get_contents(http://webbiscuits.net/images/blan.gif) [function.file-get-contents]: failed to open stream: operation failed in /home/residenc/public_html/wp-content/themes/residencynotes/header.php on line 26
Tuesday, September 26th 2006

None Like It Hot!

Drudge and recent released climate reports have been stirring up the global warming “debate.” When enviornmental scientists start making claims like this, I start leaning more towards Dr. Bill Gray’s opinion on global warming.

The study said the recent warming has brought global temperature to a level within about one degree Celsius – 1.8 degree Fahrenheit – of the maximum temperature of the past million years.

You know how imprecise and inaccurate the science behind temperature determinations that far back is? It is a scare tactic at best with no real value.

I’m Not Worried. Even If Man Is Causing Global Warming The Solution Is Simple

The entire science is politicized and full of subjective emotion. I don’t know how anyone can read things like this and not take it as anything less than a scare tactic. This is straight State of Fear stuff.

May be this is Earth’s way of telling President George W. Bush that global warming cannot be ignored: in just one year, the perennial sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean has shrunk by nearly three-quarters of a million square kilometres, an area comparable to that of Bush’s home state of Texas.

So What?! The Earth used to look like this…

This Is An Outrage! You Used To Be Able To Walk From Malyasia To Australia Now The Airlines Want $400!

Of course now the ice melting is happening at a quicker pace (!)…or something, as if people should actually trust the data man made global warming proponents have constructed on just how fast the climate changed 20,000 years ago.

Do most scientists support global warming? Almost certainly. Is the minority larger than your everday person probably thinks? You bet. I use the term global warming to mean ‘man made’ global warming of course. No one…well that I can find…disputes the fact that temperatures are rising. But the debate is fiercer than media attention would have you believe. The poster boy for man made global warming deniers is Dr. Bill Gray, the man who many ascribe the invention of hurricane forecasting to.

A lot of opponent’s challenges rest on 1) the influence of man in global warming is small and/or 2) the catastrophic events predicted by some will not come to pass.

What the impact of rising temperatures or higher seas will be is more open to debate, according to skeptics such as Pielke, because most of the calculations are global averages.

“This tells you nothing about what’s going to happen in any region,” Pielke said.

While Pielke agrees carbon dioxide is forcing changes in the climate, he says, “It is not the only forcing.”

Man-made changes to the land, in addition to about 30 other greenhouse gases – some man-made, some natural – may play an even a bigger role, he said.

“The public likes simple answers,” Pielke said. “But there isn’t any simple answer here.”

Simplicity is hard to come by because Earth is a giant, complex heat-moving machine.

Certainly modeling the consequences of global warming is incredibly difficult. When was the last time you trusted your weather man’s report completely? Well this is about a million times more difficult.

The models are trying to project a future world, Essex said, without a complete theoretical base on how climate works and the risk of small errors being amplified.

Another problem, Essex said, is in the inability to do controlled experiments – one of science’s key tools.

“There’s only one atmosphere, so you can’t hold everything steady and change just one variable to see what happens,” he said.

Essex offered his critique of the models at a Los Alamos National Laboratory climate conference in Santa Fe in July.

At the end of the presentation, CSU’s Gray jumped up and demanded: “Should we base national policy on these models?”

“I’m not touching that,” Essex replied.


The models still have problems, Trenberth and the other modelers concede – particularly assessing regional impacts.

When the NCAR model tries to show Denver’s weather patterns, for example, summer thunderstorms keep coming about noon.

“We all know they come in the late afternoon, so that’s a problem in the model,” said Trenberth, who was born in New Zealand and trained at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.

Major scientists, like Gray, can point to “natural” occurences which they claim are more contributory to rising temperatures than man made pollutants.

And there is the Atlantic thermohaline current, a conveyor belt moving heat north on the surface and then dropping it to the ocean floor and heading back to the equator – a 1,200-year trip.

Changes in the current lead to changes in temperature. Somehow the models have to account for these natural variations too.

Gray believes that the warmer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are linked to a natural slowing in the thermohaline current, not the carbon dioxide.

My Bible…

(Side Note: That caption was a joke. Read Real Climate take Michael Crichton to task.)

It takes some cajones however for a politician to step up and make a speech like this, when media coverage has pushed public opinion on global warming clearly into the man made column.

I am going to speak today about the most media-hyped environmental issue of all time, global warming. I have spoken more about global warming than any other politician in Washington today. My speech will be a bit different from the previous seven floor speeches, as I focus not only on the science, but on the media’s coverage of climate change.

THe Media Blitz: The Prequel To An Inconvienent Truth?

During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry, which link every possible weather event to global warming. The year 2006 saw many major organs of the media dismiss any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely into global warming advocacy.

It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend.

Second, what the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today’s temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

In addition, something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970’s, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age. Let me repeat, temperatures got colder after C02 emissions exploded. If C02 is the driving force of global climate change, why do so many in the media ignore the many skeptical scientists who cite these rather obvious inconvenient truths?

Way to go Senatore Inhofe. Or maybe he’s just in the pocket of big business.

I’m telling you right now, even if man made pollutants are the major contributor to this rise in temperature – which I doubt – these catastrophic events that are predicted (and no, no scientist thinks Hurrican Katrina or “recent heat waves” are the consequences of global warming) will not come to pass. Of course the models have those consequences sometimes a hundred years out, so I probably won’t live to see if my call comes true or not. That just makes it easier to stick by…