Cheap Shots at Global Warming

**Odysseus** · 08-16-2008, 05:04 PM

Ok, I was trying to stay out of this, but now I can't.

Peter, check this guys sources like NOAA before assuming everything he says is correct.

Here is the last report from NASA, listing 2007 as the 2nd WARMEST year on record, just behind 2005.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: News, Updates, and Features

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

You can't base one year's numbers vs. anothers. You have to look at the general consensus over X amount of time. Comparing one to the next doesn't give an accurate account of what is going on. Just like whipsaws in a stock line, the trend may be upward but you may have a bad quarter in there.

Also, you will note that our data in tornadoes has increased over the years from the 60's. This isn't because of global warming, but we have increased our population and studying of tornadoes, so we can now identify them a lot easier, as well as we have more people around who notice them, along with more radars to pick them up.

This is the same for Polar Bears. We didn't have as many people involved or good ways to calculate the amount of Polar Bears there were back in the 60's. We still can't. Read this if you want to know more about TRUE information on Polar Bears, rather than some random "Doctor"'s rants. In the link below they even go into how they still are unsure the direction of the population for some of the Polar Bear sub-populations, but for the majority they do know. Same with weather, we know a lot, but not enough. But we see a trend.

Page Not Found | Polar Bears International

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/

null

I do believe Global Warming is real, based off the studies I've done and off other people studies. Is it a proven fact? No, but neither is gravity. But I believe in that too

~Ody

ooo found this too just after I hit reply. Neat site on 2007's Tornadoes from the NWS, pretty neat stuff

New Rufsum Page - NOAA/NWS Storm Prediction Center

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/online/monthly/2007_annual_summary.html

**Karel** · 08-19-2008, 09:34 AM

An Inconvenient Web Page

Warning! Do not visit the following link! It contains a list of links to pages that confront several Global Warming Myths from a mainstream science viewpoint.

Why the warning? Because those pages might not express your views, and that may be all you are looking for in a Global Warming article.

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed (in the Environment section of NewScientist.com)

Regards,

Karel

**Peter Hansen** · 10-04-2008, 09:02 PM

Dr Leeb Comments On Federal Reserve and Global warming!

O f course Dr Leeb wishes to sell his news letter .......and I must admit, I am NOT a Subscriber nor do I have any comments about the letter.
Nevertheless, he does portray an interesting story about the origin of the Federal Reserve and the long decline of the US dollar. Oh yeah ....he does have some comments on global warming which he says , "Is the BIGGEST FARCE ever foisted on mankind in the name of Science" .....my sentiments exactly LOL!

http://www.leebsenergyworld.com/?source=TCI100408

**Karel** · 10-08-2008, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by Peter Hansen View Post

O f course Dr Leeb wishes to sell his news letter .......and I must admit, I am NOT a Subscriber nor do I have any comments about the letter.
Nevertheless, he does portray an interesting story about the origin of the Federal Reserve and the long decline of the US dollar. Oh yeah ....he does have some comments on global warming which he says , "Is the BIGGEST FARCE ever foisted on mankind in the name of Science" .....my sentiments exactly LOL!

http://www.leebsenergyworld.com/?source=TCI100408

Are we about to enter a loop? That is virtually, if not exactly, the same text you posted here on our forum. As especially Ody showed that he is rather shaky on facts, and as this seems to be all that dr. Leeb can contribute, he is isn't really worth the bother. Perhaps his financial newsletter is, but I like people who get their facts straight better.

And didn't you even notice this was the same piece?

Regards,

Karel

**MyInvestors10** · 11-19-2008, 05:46 AM

Re:Global warming

Thanks for sharing the useful information about the global warming we would be great full if we get more information about the global warming.

**New-born baby** · 02-03-2009, 05:06 PM

Global warming: A very bad joke

By John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel 1/29/2009

The Amazing Story Behind The Global Warming Scam -- By John Coleman (Founder of the Weather Channel)
January 28, 2009

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international mand reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "...we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It's a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle's Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.

And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

John Coleman

**billyjoe** · 02-03-2009, 05:49 PM

New-born,

I used 75 CCF more natural gas Jan '09 than Jan'08 and Jan'08 used more than Jan '07. This global warming is killing me. I don't care if it's 75 in Alaska.

------------billy

**riverbabe** · 02-04-2009, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by billyjoe View Post

New-born,

I used 75 CCF more natural gas Jan '09 than Jan'08 and Jan'08 used more than Jan '07. This global warming is killing me. I don't care if it's 75 in Alaska.

------------billy

billy, my Jan 09 bill was an ESTIMATE. I paid it but thought it excessive. Now I'm kind of glad because my Feb bill should be less, unless winter keeps getting worse, like today when we just got 4 more inches and 3-5 more lake effect due by midnight.

**Odysseus** · 02-05-2009, 12:29 AM

Water vapor is just a trace gas.... I wouldn't suggest telling that to the folks of Louisiana though...

Atmospheric Gases

There are a number of atmospheric gases which make up air. The main gases are nitrogen and oxygen, which make up 78% and 21% of the volume of air respectively. Oxygen is utilised primarily by animals, including humans, but also to a small degree by plants, in the process of respiration (the metabolism of food products to generate energy).

The remaining 1% of the atmospheric gases is made up of trace gases. These include the noble gases, very inert or unreactive gases, of which the most abundant is argon. Other noble gases include neon, helium, krypton and xenon. Hydrogen is also present in trace quantities in the atmosphere, but because it is so light, over time much of it has escaped Earth's gravitational pull to space.

The remaining trace gases include the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapour and ozone, so-called because they are involved in the Earth natural greenhouse effect which keeps the planet warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.

**Karel** · 02-10-2009, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by New-born baby View Post

By John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel 1/29/2009

The Amazing Story Behind The Global Warming Scam -- By John Coleman (Founder of the Weather Channel)
January 28, 2009 ...

How John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, succeeds in confirming that he is not a scientist at all, and less of a journalist (which he is supposed to be) than an anti-global warming propagandist. Some quotes will make this clear.

The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.
— It is rather disingenuous, and totally fallacious, to use a two year trend to discredit a century long trend.

[An early paper by Revelle] seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.
— As is unfortunately the case for most scientists. They have to be able to use their research results to raise grant money for further research, otherwise they are not worth their tenure. It detracts a lot of time from research, however.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. ... Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories.
— The attentive reader notes that there is no word about the results of the “reaching out” of scientists. Perhaps we are supposed to conclude there were none. But then why not come out and say it? Apparently Coleman has some ethics, however, and he does not want to lie. There now is proof.

The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "...we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."
— We are talking about the state of the science then, in 1988. Now we have “waited” those 10 or 20 years Revelle thought necessary. He was about right with the timing, and most climate scientists are now convinced.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.
— Why would Revelle want to? He prognosticated that by now we would have enough information to be sure. We have, see the IPCC data, and it points strongly to human caused global warming.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle's Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man.
— That is rather vile. I totally dislike smear tactics.

From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.
— The IPCC was the main debate forum, and counter to Coleman's picture of “One World Bureaucrats”, this intergovernmental panel was a place where many conflicting opinions and interests met. As a result, the IPCC conclusions are often considered to be on the conservative side by scientists. That is not necessarily a bad thing for policy making. But the IPCC most certainly is not a radical bunch of global warming promotors and the debate there has been a protracted one. Not liking the conclusions is no argument for claiming there was no debate. And Coleman does not seem to be someone to take seriously, although calling names is something else.

And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.
— It is not quite clear on what basis, but everyone is entitled to his or her convictions, of course.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.
— What a pity then that Coleman gave no arguments for this conclusion.

How strange that stuff like this gets a hearing and does the rounds. It is full of antiquated science (suggesting that no progress has been made in 20 years) and innuendo about the motives of “global warming activists”. The first is ridiculous, and the second works both ways. Why should we accept that the “anti-global warming activists” are noble idealists and that they can not possibly have economical motives? Get real: Coleman can only mention grant money, and about “millions of dollars” for ethanol subsidies and “a hundred million” for the carbon credits business. How does this compare with the current value of the carbon fuel industry?

Let's rather talk about the science, not about silly propaganda pieces.

Regards,

Karel

**Peter Hansen** · 04-19-2009, 05:46 PM