Shirley you jest ZA, they sent out 350 requests for information and got back 54 results. They don't do a statistical analysis to determine if they've looked at a significant sample size relative to the the organization. They don't even tell us who they sent the surveys to so we can determine if they cherry picked the scientists to find ones who have a different than average opinion on the topic. More importantly, their questions are skewed to move the participant into more neutral positions that are poorly defined and don't get at the base of the issue. Yawn! This is the worse kind of manipulative propaganda, but well handled for that. No wonder the American public is so misinformed.

BTW - I find it rather amusing that the most significant contributor to this thread is you ZA, and yet the person who bugs Vegan is me. That makes it hard for me to take him seriously when he has no actual contribution to make, but only the "I'm better than you because you say to many things" argument. He is right, too funny!

So more debate today instead of action. I'm buying stock in sunscreen. Who is this naysayer? Not me; I'm just a crap or get off the pot guy. Whether humans are the cause of global warming or not is whats irrelevant. Humans are the only ones that can fix it. Or God & Mother Earth will fix it for us. And we won't like their solution.

And cows aren't eating more corn now; it's all being turned into ethanol.

As for the post office; can I interest you in some swamp land?
Sorry I gotta run. I mow late as I can; it's better for the air.

On this I agree with you, who causes it doesn't matter, rather that we can do something and we should. On the other hand, your notion that we aren't feeding corn to cows, pigs, and chicken may be mistaken. Your notion that the solution is sunscreen ignores the past. The historical record quite well shows what happens when you heat the planet up. The Midwest becomes a giant sea, the interior of the continents become deserts that go through huge dry spells. Gee see, working with that gut instinct can lead you astray. Actually looking at the record and measuring the results may be a better approach.

Apparently, you think the post office runs poorly because you haven't tried to get your insurance to cover you if you have a health issue, of tried to get customer service with someone who speaks English from any major American firm. Again, I'm nut sure what you're comparing the post office to, but it isn't to BP, who cut all maintenance to their processing plants and then killed a bunch of people when they had several accidents; or to GM, Chrysler, or Ford, building the best junk on the road; or to Motorola, getting chased out of the cell phone market by Nokia and on and on and on. No, I don't think the PO is perfect, but I'm not comparing them to perfection.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rkxAm0RgMr8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rkxAm0RgMr8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Parts 2, 3, 4, and 5 can be found in the video responses.

Wow! That's just amazing. So, the idea is that by generating a fear of global warming, someone, as yet undefined, is going to create a global government! Wait, I thought they were doing that with global capital thing that Za writes about. And weren't they going to do that through the whole Nafta thing and weren't they going to fly those black helicopters around and spy on us? I certainly wish these world domination guys would decide on one strategy, keeping track of them all is tough! Where's Dr. No when you need him?

Here's another one for you, it doesn't much matter who controls the world, if you control the money, ya pretty much write the rules.

More corn goes to the production of ethanol than animal feed today. Sunscreen comment was sarcasm directed at continued debate w/o action. Plus might be good stock tip considering...

As for the historical record; it also shows how mother earth lakes care of herself if we don't. Ice ages, comet impacts, floods etc.. None of which are too positive an outcome for the human race. Mark your Mayan calendars 12/21/2012.

My opinion of the post office comes from my working there. How many companies with a guaranteed monopoly do you know that can lose $12 million a day so far this fiscal year. The only reason you get your mail everyday is because the core function of delivering mail is pretty much ingrained. We succeed each day despite ourselves ( or actually despite the ineptness of our leadership). Their job is to grow our business, not drive it down the toilet.

Sorry, I will not even watch the Alex Jones clip. (NOT a fan of his)

On surveys, most surveys only poll a smalll percentage of the population. I think the number of American's from the IPCC was a pretty high percentage. I will not argue you can make polls and numbers come out the way you want.
(I posted a video on that from Penn and Teller and got probation)

More corn goes to the production of ethanol than animal feed today. Sunscreen comment was sarcasm directed at continued debate w/o action. Plus might be good stock tip considering...

As for the historical record; it also shows how mother earth lakes care of herself if we don't. Ice ages, comet impacts, floods etc.. None of which are too positive an outcome for the human race. Mark your Mayan calendars 12/21/2012.

My opinion of the post office comes from my working there. How many companies with a guaranteed monopoly do you know that can lose $12 million a day so far this fiscal year. The only reason you get your mail everyday is because the core function of delivering mail is pretty much ingrained. We succeed each day despite ourselves ( or actually despite the ineptness of our leadership). Their job is to grow our business, not drive it down the toilet.

Again, I agree with you, mother earth does take care of herself, or should I say the unique niche that earth occupies allows it to undergo severe transitions and yet still foster life. What earth doesn't do is take care of any given species, including mankind. On the other hand, no other species has a greater survivability. We might well damage the earth beyond anything we can imagine and both it and ourselves would survive. Does this mean that we should do it? Should we continue down the path we are on when we can change it? Should we live in denial of our impact? I would argue it's a pretty dumb experiment to pursue.

Did it occur to you that the loss in revenue at the Post Office might have nothing to do with the Post Office, but instead the change that has occurred in how people communicate with each other... The fact that the Post Office has stayed true to its core function and does it well is a testament. Take as comparison, Dell computers. Their core function was the production of computers in a unique fashion. They delivered an excellent product and had excellent service. In an attempt to make more money, they changed their core function, delivering a crappy product, with low customer service. Now they is on the skids brother. Doing the job you do, and doing it well counts.

As for a monopoly, hardly, new technology has destroyed the Post Office's monopoly which at this time is primarily delivering the few remaining bills that aren't delivered electronically and junk mail. Perhaps the P.O. needs to rethink it's core function, but that still doesn't make it any worse than any other company out there. Your 12 million dollars a day amounts to 4 billion a year, compare that to AIG, the banks etc. Given that the problems the Post Office is facing weren't generated internally, I'd say they are doing fairly well, relatively speaking.

It is easy when you work for an organization, or belong to it, to focus on the negative aspects of that organization; it's a lot harder to focus on what it does well.

Sorry, I will not even watch the Alex Jones clip. (NOT a fan of his)

On surveys, most surveys only poll a smalll percentage of the population. I think the number of American's from the IPCC was a pretty high percentage. I will not argue you can make polls and numbers come out the way you want.
(I posted a video on that from Penn and Teller and got probation)

Yes, but as I pointed out, you get a statistical measure of the relevance of those numbers, something not given here. You also get an unbiased poll, not set up to make rational replies look like disagreements with the core principal. As I said, the poll is well set up to make a point, but it has no real relevance since that was it's goal.

Yes, you can build a biased poll, this is one such. However, you can't make numbers come out the way you want. Numbers is numbers. You can analyze them poorly, but if you give all the numbers, and how you carried out your analysis, then a learned reader can determine where you've gone astray and what the truth is. This is what is compelling about the GW argument vs. the nay-sayers. The IPCC data is clear, presented in total, and the methodology can be determined by outside agents. The nay-sayer data is often pulled off the cuff, or out of the pie hole, is not subjected to peer review or any analysis, as it is only offered in summery, and often enough comes with no data at all. This is why the IPCC data has credibility and is accepted whereas the data or ideas from the nay-sayers is not.

__________________________________________________ __
Bitten by the IPCC (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=0ea8dc23-ad1a-440f-a8dd-1e3ff42df34f&p=2)



And as for Lyles peer reviewed stuff


__________________________________________________ ____

Japanese IPCC scientists says global warming �worst scientific scandal� (http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/2008/06/18/japanese-ipcc-scientists-says-global-warming-worst-scientific-scandal/3343/)


__________________________________________________ _


UN IPCC Scientist Says Global Warming Big Deception (http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907115419/energy-and-environment/un-ipcc-says-global-warming-big-deception.html)

The title refers to the same Dr Itoh from the last article, but in this article he quotes

John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama
Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology
Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany

Then he posts this


Which is about all the time I am going to spend on this today.

Well Lyle, this IPCC scientist says the report was NOT peer reviewed like it should have been and that it is a big deception. (of course he is trying to sell a book)

Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data (http://www.infowars.com/greenpeace-leader-admits-organization-put-out-fake-global-warming-data/)

Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold has been forced to admit that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030, in a crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement.

In an interview with the BBC�s Stephen Sackur on the �Hardtalk� program, Leipold initially attempted to evade the question but was ultimately forced to admit that Greenpeace had made a �mistake� when it said Arctic ice would disappear completely in 20 years.

Click the link to read the rest of the article.

SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf)

UN exaggerated warming 6-fold: the scare is over

SPPI�s authoritative Monthly CO2 Report for July 2009 announces the publication of a major paper by Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, demonstrating by direct measurement that outgoing long-wave radiation is escaping to space far faster than the UN predicts, showing that the UN has exaggerated global warming 6-fold.Report, page 3.

Lindzen�s paper on outgoing long-wave radiation shows the �global warming� scare is over. Thanks to recent peer reviewed papers that have not been mentioned in the mainstream news media, we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate. Page 3.

The IPCC assumes CO2 concentration will reach 836 ppmv by 2100, but, for almost eight years, CO2 concentration has headed straight for only 570 ppmv by 2100. This alone halves all of the IPCC�s temperature projections. Pages 5-6.

Since 1980 temperature has risen at only 2.5 �F (1.5 �C)/century, not the 7 F� (3.9 C�) the IPCC imagines. Pages 7-9.

Sea level rose just 8 inches in the 20th century and has been rising at just 1 ft/century since 1993. Sea level has scarcely risen since 2006. Also, Pacific atolls are not being drowned by the sea, as some have suggested. Pages 10-12.

Arctic sea-ice extent is about the same as it has been at this time of year in the past decade. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent � on a 30-year rising trend � reached a record high in 2007. Global sea ice extent shows little trend for 30 years. Pages 13-15.

Hurricane and tropical-cyclone activity is at its lowest since satellite measurement began. Page 16.

Solar activity has declined again, after a large sunspot earlier in the month. The Sun is still very quiet. Pages 17-18.

The (very few) benefits and the (very large) costs of the Waxman/Markey Bill are illustrated at Pages 19-21.

Science Focus this month studies the effect of the Sun on the formation of clouds. IT�S THE SUN, STUPID! Pages 22-23.

As always, there�s our �global warming� ready reckoner, and our monthly selection of scientific papers. Pages 24-27.

And finally, a Technical Note explains how we compile our state-of-the-art CO2 and temperature graphs. Page 28.

UN Climate Report Confuses Arctic and Antarctic (http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/un-climate-report-rife-with-errors/)

Yes, I know it is a small thing, but it is still funny.

We're freezing our asterisks off in Michigan. We're praying for global warming up here.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cf-fzVH6v_U&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cf-fzVH6v_U&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Arctic to be ice-free in summer in 20 years: scientist

http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/d/0c/d0c3eb8ca18907492a4b337b5cec5193.jpeg (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/reuters/brand/SIG=pd7i95;_ylt=AoDRg38OOZr11jKxsrCtjHtllpd4;_ylu= X3oDMTExaTJpa3NyBHBvcwMxBHNlYwN5bi1wcnZkbGluawRzbG sDcmV1dGVycw--/*http://www.reuters.com) <script type="text/javascript"> if(!YAHOO){var YAHOO = {};} YAHOO.BuzzWidgetTries = 0; (function(){ if(YAHOO && YAHOO.util && YAHOO.util.Event && YAHOO.Media && YAHOO.Media.Buzz){ (function(){ var buzz = new YAHOO.Media.Buzz("buzz-top",{"sync":"buzz-bottom","countPosition":"after","fetchCount":false,"loc_strings":{"buzz_up":"Buzz up!","buzzed":"Buzzed!","one_vote":"{0} vote","n_votes":"{0} votes"}});buzz.onSuccess.subscribe(function(){ if(YAHOO.Updates){ YAHOO.Updates.Disclosure.showDialog({"container":"yup-container","source":"buzz","type":"buzzUp","lang":"en-US"}); } }); })();(function(){ var buzz = new YAHOO.Media.Buzz("buzz-bottom",{"sync":"buzz-top","countPosition":"after","fetchCount":true,"loc_strings":{"buzz_up":"Buzz up!","buzzed":"Buzzed!","one_vote":"{0} vote","n_votes":"{0} votes"}});buzz.onSuccess.subscribe(function(){ if(YAHOO.Updates){ YAHOO.Updates.Disclosure.showDialog({"container":"yup-container","source":"buzz","type":"buzzUp","lang":"en-US"}); } }); })(); } else if(YAHOO.BuzzWidgetTries < 10000) { YAHOO.BuzzWidgetTries += 500; setTimeout(arguments.callee, 500); } })(); </script>

<form method="post" action="http://buzz.yahoo.com/vote/" class="buzz" id="buzz-top"> <input name="publisherurn" value="y_news" type="hidden"> <input name="guid" value="nm/20091015/us_climate_britain_arctic_science" type="hidden"> <input name=".done" value="/article/y_news/nm/20091015/us_climate_britain_arctic_science" type="hidden"> <input name="assettype" value="article" type="hidden"> <input name="votetype" value="1" type="hidden"> <input name="from" value="orion" type="hidden"> <input name="key" value="1bf68" type="hidden"> <input name=".crumb" value="PXIGvt4y8fN" type="hidden"> <input name="logged" value="1" type="hidden"> <button type="submit">Buzz up!</button></form>

<!-- end: .tools -->
<!-- end: .hd --> http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20091015/i/r4154399825.jpg?x=213&y=159&xc=1&yc=1&wc=410&hc=306&q=85&sig=nsnoGIzYuvil6UC.JGi1XA-- (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Broken-Arctic-sea-ice-seen-window-US-Coast-Guard-C130/photo//091015/ids_photos_ts/r4154399825.jpg//s:/nm/20091015/sc_nm/us_climate_britain_arctic_science_1) <cite class="caption"> Reuters � Broken Arctic sea ice as seen from a window in from a U.S. Coast Guard C130 flight over the Arctic Ocean � </cite>

<!-- end #main-media -->

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20091015/videolthumb.dcaa1e88566c00872c3bf3d227431bec.jpg?x =50&y=50&xc=42&yc=1&wc=328&hc=328&q=85&sig=_csFt6php.gOP_oo07ZZcw-- Play Video (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ynews?ch=4226714&cl=16083846&lang=en) Climate Change Video:Floating Dutchmen: Holland builds homes on water (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ynews?ch=4226714&cl=16083846&lang=en) <cite>AFP (http://news.yahoo.com/i/3080)</cite>
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/cnbc/20091013/videolthumb.b903ef87e5dd7764e4d8a8c3643e30d7.jpg?x =50&y=50&xc=51&yc=1&wc=300&hc=300&q=85&sig=tS1HvJ7nmhykFCvdKZ9tNQ-- Play Video (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ynews?ch=4226720&cl=16065708&lang=en) Climate Change Video:Making Money Going Green (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ynews?ch=4226720&cl=16065708&lang=en) <cite>CNBC (http://news.yahoo.com/video/cnbc)</cite>
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/cbs_local/20091012/videolthumb.9ca008a7aaeb5ee811b2006bd5ca1f91.jpg?x =50&y=50&xc=51&yc=1&wc=300&hc=300&q=85&sig=ayrgK8eFf7o0NCf1ZiCB1g-- Play Video (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ylocalnews?ch=4226712&cl=16049974&lang=en) Climate Change Video:Project Green: Local building's roof goes green (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ylocalnews?ch=4226712&cl=16049974&lang=en) <cite>WHAS TV11 Louisville (http://news.yahoo.com/video/local/louisville)</cite>



<!-- end .primary-media -->
<!-- end .related-media --> <cite class="vcard"> By Peter Griffiths Peter Griffiths </cite> � <abbr title="2009-10-15T05:52:16-0700" class="timedate">Thu Oct 15, 8:52 am ET</abbr>
<!-- end .byline --> LONDON (Reuters) � Global warming will leave the Arctic Ocean ice-free during the summer within 20 years, raising sea levels and harming wildlife such as seals and polar bears, a leading British polar scientist said on Thursday.
Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, said much of the melting will take place within a decade, although the winter ice will stay for hundreds of years.
The changes will mean the top of the Earth will appear blue rather than white when photographed from space and ships will have a new sea route north of Russia.
Scientists say evidence of melting Arctic ice is one of the clearest signs of global warming and it should send a warning to world leaders meeting in Copenhagen in December for U.N. talks on a new climate treaty.
"The data supports the new consensus view -- based on seasonal variation of ice extent and thickness, changes in temperatures, winds and especially ice composition -- that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer within about 20 years," Wadhams said in a statement. "Much of the decrease will be happening within 10 years."
Wadhams, one of the world's leading experts on sea ice cover in the North Pole region, compared ice thickness measurements taken by a Royal Navy submarine in 2007 with evidence gathered by the British explorer Pen Hadow earlier this year.
Hadow and his team on the Catlin Arctic Survey drilled 1,500 holes to gather evidence during a 280-mile walk across the Arctic. They found the average thickness of ice-floes was 1.8 meters, a depth considered too thin to survive the summer's ice melt.
Sometimes referred to as the Earth's air-conditioner, the Arctic Sea plays a vital role in the world's climate. As Arctic ice melts in summer, it exposes the darker-colored ocean water, which absorbs sunlight instead of reflecting it, accelerating the effect of global warming.
Dr Martin Sommerkorn, from the environmental charity WWF's Arctic program, which worked on the survey, said the predicted loss of ice could have wide-reaching affects around the world.
"The Arctic Sea ice holds a central position in our Earth's climate system. Take it out of the equation and we are left with a dramatically warmer world," he said.
"This could lead to flooding affecting one-quarter of the world's population, substantial increases in greenhouse gas emissions .... and extreme global weather changes."
Britain's Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said the research "sets out the stark realities of climate change."
"This further strengthens the case for an ambitious global deal in Copenhagen," he added.
(Editing by Jon Boyle)

Not Evil Just Wrong (http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/) premiers tonight at 7pm CST.

<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="480" height="386" id="utv115313" name="utv_n_409044"><param name="flashvars" value="loc=%2F&amp;autoplay=false&amp;vid=2364244" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.ustream.tv/flash/video/2364244" /><embed flashvars="loc=%2F&amp;autoplay=false&amp;vid=2364244" width="480" height="386" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" id="utv115313" name="utv_n_409044" src="http://www.ustream.tv/flash/video/2364244" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" /></object>

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CRob%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtm l1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="Edit-Time-Data" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CRob%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtm l1%5C01%5Cclip_editdata.mso"><!--> <style> v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]--><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" images="" smilies="" redface.gif="" border="0" alt="" title="Embarrassment" smilieid="2" class="inlineimg"></o:smarttagtype>AP Impact: Statisticians Reject Global Cooling<o>

</o> <!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/> <v:formulas> <v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/> </v:formulas> <v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/> <o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/> </v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="AP" href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/brand/SIG=br2v03/*http:/www.ap.org" style='width:79.5pt;height:20.25pt' o:button="t"> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Rob\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_ima ge001.gif" o:href="http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/nws/p/ap_logo_106.png"/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--> (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/brand/SIG=br2v03/*http:/www.ap.org)<cite>By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer </cite>[I]Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer<cite> </cite>
<st1><st1:state w:st="on">
</st1:state></st1>Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book. Only one problem: It's not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.
<o> </o>
The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?
<o></o>
In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.
<o></o>
"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the <st1><st1>University</st1> of <st1>South Carolina</st1></st1>.
<o></o>
Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller "Freakonomics." Last week, a poll by the <st1><st1>Research</st1><st1> </st1></st1>found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.
<o></o>
Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped — thus, a cooling trend. But it's not that simple.<o>

</o> Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.
<o></o>
The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.
<o></o>
"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."
<o></o>
The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
<o></o>
Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.
<o></o>
Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired <st1><st1>Duke </st1><st1>University</st1></st1> statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.
<o></o>
Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."
<o></o>
One prominent skeptic said that to find the cooling trend, the 30 years of satellite temperatures must be used. The satellite data tends to be cooler than the ground data. And key is making sure 1998 is part of the trend, he added.
<o></o>
It's what happens within the past 10 years or so, not the overall average, that counts, contends Don Easterbrook, a W<st1><st1>estern</st1> <st1>Washington</st1> <st1>University</st1></st1> geology professor and global warming skeptic.
<o></o>
"I don't argue with you that the 10-year average for the past 10 years is higher than the previous 10 years," said Easterbrook, who has self-published some of his research. "We started the cooling trend after 1998. You're going to get a different line depending on which year you choose.
<o></o>
"Should not the actual temperature be higher now than it was in 1998?" Easterbrook asked. "We can play the numbers games."
<o></o>
That's the problem, some of the statisticians said.
<o></o>
Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."
<o></o>
The trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said.
<o></o>
Apart from the conflicting data analyses is the eyebrow-raising new book title from Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, "Super Freakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance."
<o></o>
A line in the book says: "Then there's this little-discussed fact about global warming: While the drumbeat of doom has grown louder over the past several years, the average global temperature during that time has in fact decreased." <o>

</o> That led to a sharp rebuke from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which said the book mischaracterizes climate science with "distorted statistics."
<o></o>
Levitt, a <st1><st1>University</st1> of <st1>Chicago</st1></st1> economist, said he does not believe there is a cooling trend. He said the line was just an attempt to note the irony of a cool couple of years at a time of intense discussion of global warming. Levitt said he did not do any statistical analysis of temperatures, but "eyeballed" the numbers and noticed 2005 was hotter than the last couple of years. Levitt said the "cooling" reference in the book title refers more to ideas about trying to cool the Earth artificially.
<o></o>
Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it's important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years.
<o></o>
"To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous," said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.
<o></o>
Ben Santer, a climate scientist at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Lab, called it "a concerted strategy to obfuscate and generate confusion in the minds of the public and policymakers" ahead of international climate talks in December in Co<st1><st1:city w:st="on">penhagen</st1:city></st1>.
<o></o>
President Barack Obama weighed in on the topic Friday at MIT. He said some opponents "make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change — claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary."
<o></o>
Earlier this year, climate scientists in two peer-reviewed publications statistically analyzed recent years' temperatures against claims of cooling and found them not valid.

Not all skeptical scientists make the flat-out cooling argument.
<o></o>
"It pretty much depends on when you start," wrote John Christy, the <st1><st1:state w:st="on">Alabama</st1:state></st1> atmospheric scientist who collects the satellite data that skeptics use. He said in an e-mail that looking back 31 years, temperatures have gone up nearly three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit (four-tenths of a degree Celsius). The last dozen years have been flat, and temperatures over the last eight years have declined a bit, he wrote.
<o></o>
Oceans, which take longer to heat up and longer to cool, greatly influence short-term weather, causing temperatures to rise and fall temporarily on top of the overall steady warming trend, scientists say. The biggest example of that is El Nino.
<o></o>
El Nino, a temporary warming of part of the <st1>Pacific Ocean</st1>, usually spikes global temperatures, scientists say. The two recent warm years, both 1998 and 2005, were El Nino years. The flip side of El Nino is La Nina, which lowers temperatures. A La Nina bloomed last year and temperatures slipped a bit, but 2008 was still the ninth hottest in 130 years of NOAA records.
<o></o>
Of the 10 hottest years recorded by NOAA, eight have occurred since 2000, and after this year it will be nine because this year is on track to be the sixth-warmest on record.

The current El Nino is forecast to get stronger, probably pushing global temperatures even higher next year, scientists say. NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend "will be never talked about again.

<o></o>

Wow, I just read this, if those emails turn out to be true, this does blow the whole global warming thing out of the water because of lack of credibility.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/20/the-global-warming-scandal-of-the-century/

Another article on the same subject with more information.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Thanks, Pizza! :)

OMG, Global Warming is causing Prostitution, the UN says so!!

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/177346/climate-change-pushes-poor-women-to-prostitution-dangerous-work

(I even had to check to make sure this was not a spoof web site)

<o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" images="" smilies="" redface.gif="" border="0" alt="" title="Embarrassment" smilieid="2" class="inlineimg"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" images="" smilies="" redface.gif="" border="0" alt="" title="Embarrassment" smilieid="2" class="inlineimg"></o:smarttagtype>Our whole approach to this planet which not only sustains us -- but is our source -- has yielded myopic mis-steps which yield short-term gain at the expense of long-term public interest. <st1:city w:st="on"><st1>
To write off climate change as 'sky is falling' falsehood is every bit as dangerous as spewing the once in vogue tobacco industry talking point that their product isn't dangerous. Wake up people!
</st1></st1:city>
<st1:city w:st="on"><st1>I haven' read the article below, but for what it's worth here you go --

- - - -
</st1></st1:city>
AP: Warming's Impacts Sped Up, Worsened since Kyoto

<script type="text/javascript">if(!YAHOO){var YAHOO = {};} YAHOO.BuzzWidgetTries = 0; (function(){ if(YAHOO && YAHOO.util && YAHOO.util.Event && YAHOO.Media && YAHOO.Media.Buzz){ (function(){ var buzz = new YAHOO.Media.Buzz("buzz-top",{"sync":"buzz-bottom","countPosition":"after","fetchCount":false,"loc_strings":{"buzz_up":"Buzz up!","buzzed":"Buzzed!","one_vote":"{0} vote","n_votes":"{0} votes"}});buzz.onSuccess.subscribe(function(){ if(YAHOO.Updates){ YAHOO.Updates.Disclosure.showDialog({"container":"yup-container","source":"buzz","type":"buzzUp","lang":"en-US"}); } }); })();(function(){ var buzz = new YAHOO.Media.Buzz("buzz-bottom",{"sync":"buzz-top","countPosition":"after","fetchCount":true,"loc_strings":{"buzz_up":"Buzz up!","buzzed":"Buzzed!","one_vote":"{0} vote","n_votes":"{0} votes"}});buzz.onSuccess.subscribe(function(){ if(YAHOO.Updates){ YAHOO.Updates.Disclosure.showDialog({"container":"yup-container","source":"buzz","type":"buzzUp","lang":"en-US"}); } }); })(); } else if(YAHOO.BuzzWidgetTries < 10000) { YAHOO.BuzzWidgetTries += 500; setTimeout(arguments.callee, 500); } })(); </script> <!-- end: .tools -->
<!-- end: .hd --> http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20091122/capt.55937c86e700489197254b928a0e29d2.climate_09_p ost_kyoto_ny393.jpg?x=213&y=144&xc=1&yc=1&wc=410&hc=277&q=85&sig=WFXakveZSaPjHS1FG5i.FA-- (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/President-Barack-Obama/photo//091122/480/55937c86e700489197254b928a0e29d2//s:/ap/20091122/ap_on_sc/sci_climate_09_post_kyoto)<cite class="caption"></cite>

<!-- end #main-media -->

Climate Change Video:7News: ETS could become a reality (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ynews;_ylt=AvOa6Lv6eystq.rkcLzxArqp_aF4;_ylu=X3oDM TFhM3FoN2N2BHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bl9yXzNzbG90X3ZpZGVvBHN sawN2aWQtZXYtbGluaw--?ch=4226714&cl=16777060&lang=en) <cite>Australia 7 News (http://news.yahoo.com/video/australia-7-news;_ylt=AoQTVMMgX9WerrFtTIQf7uup_aF4;_ylu=X3oDMT FiM2dubWdvBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN5bl9yXzNzbG90X3ZpZGVvBHNs awN2aWQtZXYtcHJvdmk-)</cite>
Climate Change Video:Climate pressure (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ynews;_ylt=AkXRWL19WfNu5xc7mURXAJep_aF4;_ylu=X3oDM TFhY2xnMzdzBHBvcwM0BHNlYwN5bl9yXzNzbG90X3ZpZGVvBHN sawN2aWQtZXYtbGluaw--?ch=4226724&cl=16771435&lang=en) <cite>Australia 7 News (http://news.yahoo.com/video/australia-7-news;_ylt=Alp69_vw4eZe22f.wbW6riKp_aF4;_ylu=X3oDMT FicGwyanI4BHBvcwM1BHNlYwN5bl9yXzNzbG90X3ZpZGVvBHNs awN2aWQtZXYtcHJvdmk-)</cite>


<cite class="vcard">By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer </cite> – <abbr title="2009-11-22T11:54:19-0800" class="timedate">Sun Nov 22, 2:54 pm ET</abbr>
<!-- end .byline --> WASHINGTON – Since the 1997 international accord to fight global warming, climate change has worsened and accelerated — beyond some of the grimmest of warnings made back then.
As the world has talked for a dozen years about what to do next, new ship passages opened through the once frozen summer sea ice of the Arctic. In Greenland and Antarctica, ice sheets have lost trillions of tons of ice. Mountain glaciers in Europe, South America, Asia and Africa are shrinking faster than before.
And it's not just the frozen parts of the world that have felt the heat in the dozen years leading up to next month's climate summit in Copenhagen:
_The world's oceans have risen by about an inch and a half.
_Droughts and wildfires have turned more severe worldwide, from the U.S. West to Australia to the Sahel desert of North Africa.
_Species now in trouble because of changing climate include, not just the lumbering polar bear which has become a symbol of global warming, but also fragile butterflies, colorful frogs and entire stands of North American pine forests.
_Temperatures over the past 12 years are 0.4 of a degree warmer than the dozen years leading up to 1997.
Even the gloomiest climate models back in the 1990s didn't forecast results quite this bad so fast.
"The latest science is telling us we are in more trouble than we thought," said Janos Pasztor, climate adviser to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
And here's why: Since an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas pollution was signed in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, the level of carbon dioxide in the air has increased 6.5 percent. Officials from across the world will convene in Copenhagen next month to seek a follow-up pact, one that President Barack Obama says "has immediate operational effect ... an important step forward in the effort to rally the world around a solution."
The last effort didn't quite get the anticipated results.
From 1997 to 2008, world carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have increased 31 percent; U.S. emissions of this greenhouse gas rose 3.7 percent. Emissions from China, now the biggest producer of this pollution, have more than doubled in that time period. When the U.S. Senate balked at the accord and President George W. Bush withdrew from it, that meant that the top three carbon polluters — the U.S., China and India — were not part of the pact's emission reductions. Developing countries were not covered by the Kyoto Protocol and that is a major issue in Copenhagen.
And the effects of greenhouse gases are more powerful and happening sooner than predicted, scientists said.
"Back in 1997, the impacts (of climate change) were underestimated; the rate of change has been faster," said Virginia Burkett, chief scientist for global change research at the U.S. Geological Survey.
That last part alarms former Vice President Al Gore, who helped broker a last-minute deal in Kyoto.
"By far the most serious differences that we've had is an acceleration of the crisis itself," Gore said in an interview this month with The Associated Press.
In 1997, global warming was an issue for climate scientists, environmentalists and policy wonks. Now biologists, lawyers, economists, engineers, insurance analysts, risk managers, disaster professionals, commodity traders, nutritionists, ethicists and even psychologists are working on global warming.
"We've come from a time in 1997 where this was some abstract problem working its way around scientific circles to now when the problem is in everyone's face," said Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate scientist.
The changes in the last 12 years that have the scientists most alarmed are happening in the Arctic with melting summer sea ice and around the world with the loss of key land-based ice masses. It's all happening far faster than predicted.
Back in 1997 "nobody in their wildest expectations," would have forecast the dramatic sudden loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic that started about five years ago, Weaver said. From 1993 to 1997, sea ice would shrink on average in the summer to about 2.7 million square miles. The average for the last five years is less than 2 million square miles. What's been lost is the size of Alaska.
Antarctica had a slight increase in sea ice, mostly because of the cooling effect of the ozone hole, according to the British Antarctic Survey. At the same time, large chunks of ice shelves — adding up to the size of Delaware — came off the Antarctic peninsula.
While melting Arctic ocean ice doesn't raise sea levels, the melting of giant land-based ice sheets and glaciers that drain into the seas do. Those are shrinking dramatically at both poles.
Measurements show that since 2000, Greenland has lost more than 1.5 trillion tons of ice, while Antarctica has lost about 1 trillion tons since 2002, according to two scientific studies published this fall. In multiple reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, scientists didn't anticipate ice sheet loss in Antarctica, Weaver said. And the rate of those losses is accelerating, so that Greenland's ice sheets are melting twice as fast now as they were just seven years ago, increasing sea level rise.
Worldwide glaciers are shrinking three times faster than in the 1970s and the average glacier has lost 25 feet of ice since 1997, said Michael Zemp, a researcher at World Glacier Monitoring Service at the University of Zurich.
"Glaciers are a good climate indicator," Zemp said. "What we see is an accelerated loss of ice."
Also, permafrost — the frozen northern ground that oil pipelines are built upon and which traps the potent greenhouse gas methane — is thawing at an alarming rate, Burkett said.
Another new post-1997 impact of global warming has scientists very concerned. The oceans are getting more acidic because more of the carbon dioxide in the air is being absorbed into the water. That causes acidification, an issue that didn't even merit a name until the past few years.
More acidic water harms coral, oysters and plankton and ultimately threatens the ocean food chain, biologists say.
In 1997, "there was no interest in plants and animals" and how they are hampered by climate change, said Stanford University biologist Terry Root. Now scientists are talking about which species can be saved from extinction and which are goners. The polar bear became the first species put on the federal list of threatened species and the small rabbit-like American pika may be joining it.
More than 37 million acres of Canadian and U.S. pine forests have been damaged by beetles that don't die in warmer winters. And in the U.S. West, the average number of acres burned per fire has more than doubled.
The Colorado River reservoirs, major water suppliers for the U.S. West, were nearly full in 1999, but by 2007 half the water was gone after the region endured the worst multiyear drought in 100 years of record-keeping.
Insurance losses and blackouts have soared and experts say global warming is partly to blame. The number of major U.S. weather-related blackouts from 2004-2008 were more than seven times higher than from 1993-1997, said Evan Mills, a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.
"The message on the science is that we know a lot more than we did in 1997 and it's all negative," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "Things are much worse than the models predicted."
___
On the Net:
U.S. government's 2009 report on climate change impacts: http://tinyurl.com/usimpacts (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/ap_on_sc/storytext/sci_climate_09_post_kyoto/34175718/SIG=10ukau9st/*http://tinyurl.com/usimpacts)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report on changes already observed:
http://tinyurl.com/worldimpacts (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/ap_on_sc/storytext/sci_climate_09_post_kyoto/34175718/SIG=111v49bub/*http://tinyurl.com/worldimpacts)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate change: http://unfccc.int (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/ap_on_sc/storytext/sci_climate_09_post_kyoto/34175718/SIG=10jh1692n/*http://unfccc.int)

If the climate never changed, of course that would be easiest to manage. Historically, that isn't realistic. If you had to choose warmer or colder, what would you choose? I would certainly choose warmer with more carbon dioxide.

I don't have much doubt that the climate is getting warmer slightly. What I doubt, is that it is a disaster. The language and science used makes me very skeptical. Calling carbon dioxide a pollutant, is the kind of rhetoric that works against reason for me.

Carbon dioxide is good for our planet. So is warmer rather than colder. Cold means no food and a lot of dead people. Warm means big old dinosaurs can be supported by the lush vegetation. Warm means more rain.

Interesting news.

So all that data was not Hacked??



Global Warming emails not Hacked? (http://netrightnation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1252151:climate-gate-e-mails-released-by-whistleblower-not-hacker&catid=1:nrn-blog&Itemid=7)

Another interesting twist

Climate Change Data Dumped (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece)

I am not a fan of the people who put this video together, but I am watched it and it does put together some interesting news video's.

Climate Gate (http://www.blip.tv/file/2904375)

The "WeAreChange" people believe that the one world government people fabricated Global Warming.

A little humor today

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nEiLgbBGKVk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nEiLgbBGKVk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://image.patriotpost.us.s3.amazonaws.com/2009-11-30-humor-cb1125j.jpg

It just keeps getting more and more interesting.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578486,00.html

Good article offering some perspective (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html?page=1).

Classic, after being asked to look into the possible fraud that is Climate Change, Sen Boxer said she would look into the fraud....... of the Hacker.....

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/70249-boxer-hacked-climategate-emails-may-face-criminal-probe

now this is funny

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578990,00.html

LOL, well, I guess the truth is now known. The Global Warming Scam is now official.

Yet another article talking about how the scam was rammed.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/coleman-media-will-ignore-climategate-until-they-hear-i-was-wrong-pjm-exclusive/

Interesting data in this article.


Having the IPCC investigate climategate would be like Ken Lay heading up the Enron enquiry. (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/coleman-media-will-ignore-climategate-until-they-hear-i-was-wrong-pjm-exclusive/)

Funny how several IPCC scientists have been saying the data was not correct over a year ago, but were ignored. Even now, with PROOF that IPCC "Global Warming Theory" scientists manipulated the data and worked to suppress contradicting data, it is still being ignored by most of the major media and even our own government.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/szpzf2EG0jk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/szpzf2EG0jk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

wow, Canadians are pretty smart, who would of thought

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lgIEQqLokL8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lgIEQqLokL8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Why let reality get in the way of your agenda?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_gore_falsifies_the_record

Wow, that is all I can say.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aUtzMBfDrpI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aUtzMBfDrpI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

This is great

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kuovqFwUtDc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kuovqFwUtDc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Inconvenient Truth for Gore as Arctic Ice Claims Don't Add Up (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/15/inconvenient-truth-gore-claims-dont-add/)

London Times

The former vice president said new research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years, but the scientist his estimate was based on denies the timeline.
<!-- begin story detail -->

http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Scitech/121409_gorecopen_604X341.jpg (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/15/inconvenient-truth-gore-claims-dont-add/) Dec. 14: Former Vice President Al Gore speaks at the U.N. Climate summit in Copenhagen. (AP)

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was hit by an inconvenient one yesterday.
The former vice president, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," became entangled in a new climate change row.
Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.
In his speech, Gore told the conference: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."
However, the climatologist whose work Gore was relying upon dropped the former vice president in the water with an icy blast.
"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr. Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."
Gore's office later admitted that the 75 percent figure was one used by Dr. Maslowski as a "ballpark figure" several years ago in a conversation with Gore.
The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JmPSUMBrJoI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JmPSUMBrJoI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

If the NeoCons pull their feet out of their mouths long enough to actually look at the way modern human behavior affects the Earth which is our source & sustains us -- maybe they will see this is a matter of science, not politics... :rolleyes:

Report: '00s were globe's warmest decade on record <!--startclickprintexclude--> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="25"> <tbody><tr> <td class="datestamp"> | (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2010-01-18-global-temperatures_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo#uslPageReturn)</td><td align="right">
</td></tr></tbody></table><script type="text/javascript">if (typeof(articleSummary) == 'undefined'){ var articleSummary =""; } <!-- yahoobuzz script --> var articleSource = "USATODAY.com"; var yahooBuzzArticleId = 'usatoday:'+storyURL+'?csp=34'; var yahooBuzzBadgeType = 'text'; <!-- twitter script --> var twtUrl = 'http://usat.me?'+tagID+''; var maxLength = 140 - (twtUrl.length + 1); var twtSource = 'RT @USATODAY' if (storyTitle.length > maxLength) { storyTitle = storyTitle.substr(0, (maxLength - 5))+'...'; } var twtLink = 'http://twitter.com/home?status='+encodeURIComponent( twtSource + ' ' + storyTitle + ' ' + twtUrl ); <!-- myspace script --> function GetThis(T, C, U, L) { var targetUrl = 'http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=postto&' + 't=' + encodeURIComponent(T) + '&c=' + encodeURIComponent(C) + '&u=' + encodeURIComponent(U) + '&l=' + L; window.open(targetUrl); } var sclListTop = ""; sclListTop +=''; sclListTop +='
'; sclListTop +='
Share'; sclListTop +='
<!-- this element will be replaced -->'; sclListTop +='
Add to Mixx (http://mixx.com/submit/story?page_url='+storyURL+'&partner=usat)'; sclListTop +='
Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u='+storyURL+'&title='+storyTitle+')'; sclListTop +='
<a href="'+twtLink+'" onClick="uoTrack(\'twitter\')" target="_blank"'+'>Twitter<'+'/a>'; sclListTop +='

'; sclListTop +=' '; sclListTop +=' '; sclListTop +='
'; sclListTop +='
More'; sclListTop +='
'; sclListTop +='
Fark (http://cgi.fark.com/cgi/fark/farkit.pl?u='+storyURL+'&h='+storyTitle+')'; sclListTop +='
Digg (http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url='+storyURL+'&title='+storyTitle+'&topic=)'; sclListTop +='
Reddit (http://reddit.com/submit?url='+storyURL+'&title='+storyTitle+')'; sclListTop +='
MySpace (http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=postto&u='+storyURL+'&t='+storyTitle+')'; sclListTop +='
StumbleUpon (http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url='+storyURL+'&h='+storyTitle+ ')'; sclListTop +='
Propeller (http://www.propeller.com/story/submit/?url='+storyURL+'&title='+storyTitle+')'; sclListTop +='
LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url='+storyURL+'&title='+storyTitle+'&summary='+articleSummary+'&source='+articleSource+')'; sclListTop +='

'; sclListTop +=' '; sclListTop +='

'; sclListTop +='
'; sclListTop +='
'; sclListTop +='
'; jQuery("#topSocialButtons").append(sclListTop); </script> <script type="text/javascript"> jQuery(".share-nav").treeview({control: ".treecontrol",animated: "medium",collapsed: true}); jQuery(function() { jQuery.ajax({ type: "GET", url: "/marketing/rss/settings.xml", dataType: "xml", success: BuildSubscribeButtons }); }); function BuildSubscribeButtons(xml) { // Build SSTS array var url = document.location.toString(); var urlArray = url.split("/") var nurl = ""; for (i = 3; i < urlArray.length - 1; i++) { if(i<urlArray.length-2){ nurl += urlArray[i] + "|"; } else { nurl += urlArray[i]; } } var feedid = ""; var feedname = ""; var idx = 1; while (feedid == "" && idx>0) { idx = nurl.indexOf('|'); jQuery(xml).find('add').each(function(){ if (jQuery(this).attr('key') == nurl) { feedid = jQuery(this).attr('value'); } }); if (feedid == "") { nurl = nurl.replace(/(.*)\|(.*)/,"$1"); } } jQuery(xml).find('add').each(function(){ if (jQuery(this).attr('key') == feedid) { feedname = jQuery(this).attr('value'); } }); if (feedname == "") feedname = "usatoday-NewsTopStories.xml"; var sclListTop = ""; sclListTop +=''; sclListTop +='
'; <!-- divider --> sclListTop +='
Subscribe'; <!-- subscribe buttons --> sclListTop +='
iGoogle (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/' + 'http://add.my.yahoo.com/rss?url=http://rssfeeds.usatoday.com/' + escape(feedname) + ')'; sclListTop +='

'; sclListTop +=' '; sclListTop +=' '; sclListTop +='
'; sclListTop +='
More'; sclListTop +='
'; sclListTop +='
myAOL (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/' + 'http://www.netvibes.com/subscribe.php?url=http://rssfeeds.usatoday.com/' + escape(feedname) + ')'; sclListTop +='

'; sclListTop +=' '; sclListTop +='

'; sclListTop +='
'; sclListTop +='
'; sclListTop +='
'; <!-- what's this --> sclListTop +='
[/URL]'; sclListTop +='

'; sclListTop +='
'; sclListTop +='
'; jQuery("#topSocialButtons").append(sclListTop); jQuery(".subscribe-nav").treeview({control: ".treecontrol",animated: "medium",collapsed: true}); } </script> <script src="http://d.yimg.com/ds/badge.js"></script> <!-- /EdSysObj --> By [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/community/tags/reporter.aspx?id=181"]Doyle Rice (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/#open-share-help), USA TODAY
The decade of 2000-09 was the Earth (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Natural+and+Physical+Sciences/Space+and+Astronomy/Earth)'s warmest on record, according to data released last week by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, N.C (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Asheville).
The climate center reported that the decade's average global surface temperature was almost 1 degree above the 20th-century average. This shattered the 1990s reading, which was 0.65�F above average.
The global average is based on readings from more than 7,200 ground weather stations around the world and from ships and buoys at sea. Global weather data goes back to 1880.
The NCDC reports two sustained periods of warming have been recorded in the past 130 years, one that occurred from around 1910-1945, and the most recent worldwide warming trend, which began around 1976.
"Temperatures during the latter period of warming have increased at a rate comparable to the rates of warming projected to occur during the next century, with continued increases of anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gases," noted climatologist Ahira Sanchez-Lugo in an online report.

ORIGINAL SOURCE: Annual State of the Climate, 2009 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global)
CHART: Global temperatures by decade (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2009/decadal-global-temps-1880s-2000s.gif)
2009 continued a trend of anomalously warm years. The years 2001 through 2008 each rank among the 10 warmest years of the 130-year (1880-2009) record and 2009 was no exception. The climate center found that 2009 tied with 2006 as the 5th-warmest since records began in 1880.
Almost all of the Earth's land areas were warmer-than-average in 2009. Parts of Australia and New Zealand endured record-breaking warmth in January, February, and August.
The only exceptions to the unusual warmth were in central Asia and interior sections of North America, including the U.S. Midwest, which experienced much cooler-than-normal temperatures.
Global precipitation in 2009 was near the long-term average, reported the climate center.
<!-- EdSysObj ID="SSI-A" FRAGMENTID="35167852" rberthol --><!--startclickprintexclude--> <!-- USAT RATINGS START --> <style type="text/css"> .div-wrapper{ margin: 20px 0 10px 0; border:none; padding:0 0 0 0; padding-bottom:10px; direction:ltr; text-align:left; vertical-align:middle; font-size:12px; } .div-wrapper a {text-decoration:none;color:#00529b;} .div-wrapper a:hover {text-decoration:underline;} .rec-src-link{color:#666;margin-left:6px;} Legend.Outbrain_recommendations_legend {color:#000;font-weight:bold;font-size:12px;margin-bottom:6px} .div-wrapper li { list-style-position:outside !important;list-style-type:square;margin-bottom:2px } #usatRatings {margin-top:16px} #usatRatings .outbrain-recommendationsFieldset{position:inherit !important;} </style> <script language="JavaScript"> var OutbrainPermaLink=storyURL; var OB_Template = "usatoday"; var OB_demoMode = false; var OBITm = "1241731960421"; var OB_langJS ='http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' ) OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = '<script src="http://widgets.outbrain.com/OutbrainRater.js" type="text/javascript"><\/script>'; document.write(str); } </script><script src="http://widgets.outbrain.com/OutbrainRater.js" type="text/javascript"></script><iframe id="odbPingIframeId" name="odbFrame" style="width: 0px; height: 0px; display: none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><fieldset style="display: block; padding-left: 8px; padding-right: 8px;" id="recommendationsFieldset_0_bottom" class="outbrain-recommendationsFieldset"> <img style="border: 0px none ! important;">


<legend class="Outbrain_recommendations_legend">You might be interested in:</legend>

UN: 2000-2009 likely warmest decade on record (http://traffic.outbrain.com/network/redir?key=381ab52929029ccda4dc34fc9d02cc8d&rdid=91991794&type=MLT_def&in-site=true&req_id=2e1affb7a0fb2a4559b95087b5ba155d&fp=false&am=get&agent=blog_JS_rec&version=5.1.1&idx=0) (USATODAY.com)
July's climate: Chilly USA, torrid globe (http://traffic.outbrain.com/network/redir?key=82ee34e5963fdc119d62ed5ba40cf794&rdid=91991794&type=MLT_def&in-site=true&req_id=2e1affb7a0fb2a4559b95087b5ba155d&fp=false&am=get&agent=blog_JS_rec&version=5.1.1&idx=1) (USATODAY.com)
Statistics experts reject global cooling claims (http://traffic.outbrain.com/network/redir?key=595447df1a6e02266dbd6807eafd8dad&rdid=91991794&type=MLT_def&in-site=false&req_id=2e1affb7a0fb2a4559b95087b5ba155d&fp=false&am=get&agent=blog_JS_rec&version=5.1.1&idx=2) (USATODAY.com in Tech)

</fieldset>

LOL, as more people start looking into the "science" of global warming, they keep finding holes in it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

So the IPCC study was based on a phone conversation from ten years ago with some information the guy basically made up?

At least that is what I got out of this article.

As far as the last post, I will read it later, I just popped on to post this article I saw on facebook. (therefor it must be true :D)

make fun of Al Gore all you want. you can find holes in anything. vested interests pay big money to find such holes. the tobacco industry for years 'found' holes in the science saying cigarette smoking is hazardous to ones health. Are you saying NASA's measurements are wrong? are you saying carbon emissions do not increase the greenhouse effect and make our planet more venusian? are you saying global warming is a farce or just that you don't think it is a problem?

are you against clean air? Even Ron Paul concedes global warming is a fact we need to address -- does he not?

Shaw used to suggest to his audiences that they take a bucket full of soot and throw it onto the CEO's of big industrial polluters since they were throwing soot into all of our lungs via their smokestacks. sure it costs corporations money to not foul the air or pollute so the more myopic CEO's oppose strict regulation. Polluting the water and air is soiling our own nest. are we homo sapiens or homo soilshimself?

I know it's been stated on this thread previously, but the Earth (along with the other planets inside our Solar System) has gone through numerous warming and cooling trends......long before man and the industrial revolution came into being. Heck, my home course is named as such because a big freakin' glacier was there many, many moons ago. The solar cycle and the Earth's shifting magnetic polarity play bigger parts in determing the climate temperatures here on Terra.

This is not to say we should not be concerned with global pollution.

right, (warm-bloooded) mammals may have gained prominence largely because of a past cooling trend. if we accelerate any otherwise natural trends through clearcutting forests and increasing the greenhouse effect through carbon emissions -- maybe we can help plants or insects or some other lifeform usurp our prominence ;-)

if we don't eventually discard the false premise that the natural order of things should be conquered and controlled -- and learn that respecting and working with the natural order of the universe is the key to sustainable evolution -- perhaps it is only fitting that our species is a flash in the cosmic pan ...

Carbon Emissions have nothing to do with Global Warming.

From The Sunday Times
February 14, 2010
World may not be warming, say scientists

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.

His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment.

Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator.

Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.

In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings.

Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.

“The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said.

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.

“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”

The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.

Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”

I could go for some global warming right now. :p

Can we start calling it "Global Warming Myth" now?

Although I prefer "Global Warming Scam"

<nyt_byline version="1.0" type=" "> Global Weirding Is Here


By: Thomas L. Friedman
</nyt_byline> Published: February 17, 2010


<!--NYT_INLINE_IMAGE_POSITION1 --> Of the festivals of nonsense that periodically overtake American politics, surely the silliest is the argument that because Washington is having a particularly snowy winter it proves that climate change is a hoax and, therefore, we need not bother with all this girly-man stuff like renewable energy, solar panels and carbon taxes. Just drill, baby, drill.




When you see lawmakers like Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina tweeting that �it is going to keep snowing until Al Gore cries �uncle,� � or news that the grandchildren of Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma are building an igloo next to the Capitol with a big sign that says �Al Gore�s New Home,� you really wonder if we can have a serious discussion about the climate-energy issue anymore.



The climate-science community is not blameless. It knew it was up against formidable forces � from the oil and coal companies that finance the studies skeptical of climate change to conservatives who hate anything that will lead to more government regulations to the Chamber of Commerce that will resist any energy taxes. Therefore, climate experts can�t leave themselves vulnerable by citing non-peer-reviewed research or failing to respond to legitimate questions, some of which happened with both the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


Although there remains a mountain of research from multiple institutions about the reality of climate change, the public has grown uneasy. What�s real? In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts � from places like NASA, America�s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre � and produce a simple 50-page report. They could call it �What We Know,� summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes.
At the same time, they should add a summary of all the errors and wild exaggerations made by the climate skeptics � and where they get their funding. It is time the climate scientists stopped just playing defense. The physicist Joseph Romm, a leading climate writer, is posting on his Web site, climateprogress.org (http://climateprogress.org/), his own listing of the best scientific papers on every aspect of climate change for anyone who wants a quick summary now.


Here are the points I like to stress:



1) Avoid the term �global warming.� I prefer the term �global weirding,� because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes. The weather gets weird. The hots are expected to get hotter, the wets wetter, the dries drier and the most violent storms more numerous.


The fact that it has snowed like crazy in Washington � while it has rained at the Winter Olympics in Canada, while Australia is having a record 13-year drought � is right in line with what every major study on climate change predicts: The weather will get weird; some areas will get more precipitation than ever; others will become drier than ever.


2) Historically, we know that the climate has warmed and cooled slowly, going from Ice Ages to warming periods, driven, in part, by changes in the earth�s orbit and hence the amount of sunlight different parts of the earth get. What the current debate is about is whether humans � by emitting so much carbon and thickening the greenhouse-gas blanket around the earth so that it traps more heat � are now rapidly exacerbating nature�s natural warming cycles to a degree that could lead to dangerous disruptions.


3) Those who favor taking action are saying: �Because the warming that humans are doing is irreversible and potentially catastrophic, let�s buy some insurance � by investing in renewable energy, energy efficiency and mass transit � because this insurance will also actually make us richer and more secure.� We will import less oil, invent and export more clean-tech products, send fewer dollars overseas to buy oil and, most importantly, diminish the dollars that are sustaining the worst petro-dictators in the world who indirectly fund terrorists and the schools that nurture them.


4) Even if climate change proves less catastrophic than some fear, in a world that is forecast to grow from 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion people between now and 2050, more and more of whom will live like Americans, demand for renewable energy and clean water is going to soar. It is obviously going to be the next great global industry.
China, of course, understands that, which is why it is investing heavily in clean-tech, efficiency and high-speed rail. It sees the future trends and is betting on them. Indeed, I suspect China is quietly laughing at us right now. And Iran, Russia, Venezuela and the whole OPEC gang are high-fiving each other. Nothing better serves their interests than to see Americans becoming confused about climate change, and, therefore, less inclined to move toward clean-tech and, therefore, more certain to remain addicted to oil. Yes, sir, it is morning in Saudi Arabia.



- - - -
and now back to your regularly programmed denial and Palin worship ;-)

http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index.jsp?intcmp=Electric_Car.Promo.Homepage.Home. P2

Moynihan, as Nixon aide, warned of global warming

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/nws/p/ap_logo_106.png (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/brand/SIG=11f589428/**http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ap.org%2Ftermsandconditions) <script type="text/javascript"> if(!YAHOO){var YAHOO = {};} YAHOO.BuzzWidgetTries = 0; (function(){ if(YAHOO && YAHOO.util && YAHOO.util.Event && YAHOO.Media && YAHOO.Media.Buzz){ (function(){ var buzz = new YAHOO.Media.Buzz("buzz-top",{"sync":"buzz-bottom","countPosition":"after","fetchCount":false,"loc_strings":{"buzz_up":"Buzz up!","buzzed":"Buzzed!","one_vote":"{0} vote","n_votes":"{0} votes"}});buzz.onSuccess.subscribe(function(){ if(YAHOO.Updates){ YAHOO.Updates.Disclosure.showDialog({"container":"yup-container","source":"buzz","type":"buzzUp","lang":"en-US"}); } }); })();(function(){ var buzz = new YAHOO.Media.Buzz("buzz-bottom",{"sync":"buzz-top","countPosition":"after","fetchCount":true,"loc_strings":{"buzz_up":"Buzz up!","buzzed":"Buzzed!","one_vote":"{0} vote","n_votes":"{0} votes"}});buzz.onSuccess.subscribe(function(){ if(YAHOO.Updates){ YAHOO.Updates.Disclosure.showDialog({"container":"yup-container","source":"buzz","type":"buzzUp","lang":"en-US"}); } }); })(); } else if(YAHOO.BuzzWidgetTries < 10000) { YAHOO.BuzzWidgetTries += 500; setTimeout(arguments.callee, 500); } })(); </script> <script type="text/javascript"> if (typeof YAHOO == "undefined") { YAHOO = {}; } if (typeof YAHOO.Media == "undefined") { YAHOO.Media = {}; } if (typeof YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons == "undefined") { YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons = {}; } var o_facebook_iframe_url="http://l.yimg.com/b/social_buttons/facebook-share-iframe.php?u={url}&t={title}"; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons.conf = { content: { url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20100703\/ap_on_re_us\/us_nixon_library_documents", title: "Moynihan%2C+as+Nixon+aide%2C+warned+of+global+warm ing+-+Yahoo%21+News", mail_locale: "us", mail_property: "news", mail_meta: "", print_url_template: "{url}/print" }, config: { facebook_iframe_url: o_facebook_iframe_url } } </script>

<form method="post" action="http://buzz.yahoo.com/vote/" class="buzz count-fetched" id="buzz-top"> <input name="publisherurn" value="y_news" type="hidden"> <input name="guid" value="ap/20100703/us_nixon_library_documents" type="hidden"> <input name=".done" value="/article/y_news/ap/20100703/us_nixon_library_documents" type="hidden"> <input name="assettype" value="article" type="hidden"> <input name="votetype" value="1" type="hidden"> <input name="from" value="orion" type="hidden"> <input name="redirect" value="1" type="hidden"> <input name="key" value="db59d" type="hidden"> <input name=".crumb" value="Gu0Q/CQOMt4" type="hidden"> <input name="logged" value="1" type="hidden"> <input name="language" value="en-US" type="hidden"> <input name="market" value="us" type="hidden"> <button type="submit">Buzz up!</button></form>

<!-- end: .tools -->
<!-- end: .hd --> http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100703/capt.161365f10d8e427ca82a875a2cfb054e-161365f10d8e427ca82a875a2cfb054e-0.jpg?x=213&y=163&xc=1&yc=1&wc=409&hc=313&q=85&sig=beBrza9G2yy81d3Sh7kBPA-- (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/reflecting-pool-FILE-Daniel-Patrick-Moynihan-carbon-dioxide/photo//100703/480/urn_publicid_ap_org161365f10d8e427ca82a875a2cfb054 e//s:/ap/20100703/ap_on_re_us/us_nixon_library_documents) <cite class="caption"> AP – FILE - In this Sept. 8, 1970 file photo, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, presidential urban affairs adviser, … </cite>

<!-- end #main-media -->

<!-- end .primary-media -->
<!-- end .related-media --> <abbr title="2010-07-03T02:53:30-0700" class="timedate">Sat Jul 3, 5:53 am ET

</abbr>
<!-- end .byline --> YORBA LINDA, Calif. – Documents released Friday by the Nixon Presidential Library show members of President Nixon's inner circle discussing the possibilities of global warming more than 30 years ago.

Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public's attention.

There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo. "This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."

Moynihan was Nixon's counselor for urban affairs from January 1969 — when Nixon began his presidency — to December 1970. He later served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations before New York voters elected him to the Senate.

Moynihan received a response in a January 26, 1970 memo from Hubert Heffner, deputy director of the administration's Office of Science and Technology. Heffner acknowledged that atmospheric temperature rise was an issue that should be looked at.

"The more I get into this, the more I find two classes of doom-sayers, with, of course, the silent majority in between," he wrote. "One group says we will turn into snow-tripping mastodons because of the atmospheric dust and the other says we will have to grow gills to survive the increased ocean level due to the temperature rise."

Heffner wrote that he would ask the Environmental Science Services Administration to look further into the issue.

Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency and had an interest in the environment. In one memo, Moynihan noted his approval of the first Earth Day, to be held April 22, 1970.

"Clearly this is an opportunity to get the President usefully and positively involved with a large student movement," he wrote to John Ehrlichman, Nixon's adviser on domestic affairs.

Moynihan's memo was among 100,000 documents released Friday.
The documents also include about 5,000 pages of now unclassified national security records on the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, correspondence between Nixon and then-British Prime Minister Edward Heath and back-channel Soviet-Israeli relations.

The new material is part of the ongoing effort to move Nixon's archives from Washington to Yorba Linda since the library came under federal control in 2007.
____
Online: http://nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10.php (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/ap_on_re_us/storytext/us_nixon_library_documents/36779692/SIG=11s5fb4h6/*http://nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10.php)

- - - -

wasn't that over 40 years ago? it isn't rocket science to see that if you increase the green-house effect with manmade particulate, temperatures go up. Pollution to myopic corporations is like tobacco to the tobacco industry -- there is (short-term, private) profit in pushing the idea it is not really a problem. Just call all concern: 'liberal claptrap.' :rolleyes:

Trend continues with second hottest July on record<!-- end: .tools -->

<cite class="vcard">By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer Randolph E. Schmid, Ap Science Writer </cite> � <abbr title="2010-08-13T12:34:50-0700" class="timedate">Fri Aug 13, 3:34 pm ET</abbr>
<!-- end .byline --> WASHINGTON � The Earth continues to feel the heat.
Last month was the second warmest July on record, and so far 2010 remains on track to be the hottest year.
Worldwide, the average temperature in July was 61.6 degrees Fahrenheit (16.5 Celsius), the National Climatic Data Center reported Friday. Only July 1998 was hotter since recordkeeping began more than a century ago.
And the January-July period was the warmest first seven months of any year on record, averaging 58.1 F (14.5 C). In second place was January-July of 1998.


- - - -



all you global warming deniers, lets meet back here in ten years.

Apparently the Ruskies are now publically saying the phenomenon exists. The oil-peddling Ruskies no doubt. But still no movement here. There are elections to be won by god. Rivals must be pilloried. Ignorance must remain a virtue. "Look at those pointy headed elitists, they listen to the "scientific community." Buncha losers."

So how exactly do you take an average worldwide temperature for a month?

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc184/gotcherj/suntsunami.jpg
AFP - Getty Images
Tsunami on the sun

Almost the full disk of the sun erupts in a tumult of activity on Aug. 1. This extreme ultraviolet image from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory shows a C3-class solar flare (the white area at upper left), a solar tsunami (the wavelike structure at upper right), multiple filaments of magnetism lifting off the stellar surface, large-scale shaking of the solar corona, radio bursts, a coronal mass ejection and more. Different colors in the image represent different gas temperatures.

If you are convinced that the time for debate is long past and the moment for action is now, then you should check out 350.org ( http://www.350.org/).

Doesn't the Earth go through periodic warming and cooling stages? With all the talk of Temperature increases I would imagine the cost of beachfront property in Alaska is Skyrocketing.

Keep Calm and Carry On
By Bill McKibben

Caution: It is vitally important not to make connections. When you see pictures of rubble like this week’s shots from Joplin, Missouri, you should not ask yourself: I wonder if this is somehow related to the huge tornado outbreak three weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, or the enormous outbreak a couple of weeks before that—together they comprised the most active April for tornadoes in our history. But that doesn’t mean a thing.

It is far better to think of these as isolated, unpredictable, discrete events. It is not advised to try and connect them in your mind with, say, the fires now burning across Texas—fires that have burned more of America by this date than any year in our history. Texas, and adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico, are drier than they’ve ever been—the drought is worse than the Dust Bowl. But do not wonder if it’s somehow connected.

If you did wonder, you’d have to also wonder about whether this year’s record snowfalls and rainfalls across the Midwest—resulting in record flooding across the Mississippi—could somehow be related. And if you did that, then you might find your thoughts wandering to, oh, global warming. To the fact that climatologists have been predicting for years that as we flood the atmosphere with carbon we will also start both drying and flooding the planet, since warm air holds more water vapor than cold.

It’s far smarter to repeat to yourself, over and over, the comforting mantra that no single weather event can ever be directly tied to climate change. There have been tornadoes before, and floods—that’s the important thing. Just be careful to make sure you don’t let yourself wonder why all these records are happening at once: why we’ve had unprecedented megafloods from Australia to Pakistan in the last year. Why it’s just now that the Arctic has melted for the first time in thousands of years. Focus on the immediate casualties, watch the videotape from the store cameras as the shelves are blown over. Look at the anchorman up to the chest of his waders in the rising river.

Because if you asked yourself what it meant that the Amazon has just come through its second hundred-year-drought in the last four years, or that the pine forests across the western part of this continent have been obliterated by a beetle in the last decade—well, you might have to ask other questions. Like, should President Obama really just have opened a huge swath of Wyoming to new coal-mining? Should Secretary of State this summer sign a permit allowing a huge new pipeline to carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta? You might have to ask yourself: do we have a bigger problem than four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline?

Better to join with the US House of Representatives, which earlier this spring voted 240-184 to defeat a resolution saying simply “climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.” Propose your own physics; ignore physics altogether. Just don’t start asking yourself if last year’s failed grain harvest from the Russian heatwave, and Queensland’s failed grain harvest from its record flood, and France and Germany’s current drought-related crop failures, and the death of the winter wheat crop in Texas, and the inability of Midwestern farmers to get corn planted in their sodden fields might somehow be related. Surely the record food prices are just freak outliers, not signs of anything systemic.

It’s very important to stay completely calm. If you got upset about any of this, you might forget how important it is not to disrupt the record profits of our fossil fuel companies. If worst ever did come to worst, it’s reassuring to remember what the US Chamber of Commerce told the EPA in a recent filing: there’s no need to worry because “populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations.” I’m pretty sure that’s what they’re telling themselves in Joplin today.

Bill McKibben is founder of the global climate campaign 350.org, and Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College.

The time for debate is past because the data shows no global warming whatsoever for the past decade. You should run for the PDGA Board with slogans like that.

10 years ago I was planting tomatos in early May. For the past four years I have not been able to get them in until June, it has been so cold. Any more of this kind of global warming and the ski shops will be open 12 months of the year.

And for that matter, the planet was 10 to 12 degrees warmer when it was covered in jungles full of dinosaurs. So long as we don't need to be bioengineering carnivorous dinosaurs, I'm fine with the jungles.

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc184/gotcherj/Globalwarming.jpg

Keep Calm and Carry On
By Bill McKibben

Caution: It is vitally important not to make connections. When you see pictures of rubble like this week�s shots from Joplin, Missouri, you should not ask yourself: I wonder if this is somehow related to the huge tornado outbreak three weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, or the enormous outbreak a couple of weeks before that�together they comprised the most active April for tornadoes in our history. But that doesn�t mean a thing.

It is far better to think of these as isolated, unpredictable, discrete events. It is not advised to try and connect them in your mind with, say, the fires now burning across Texas�fires that have burned more of America by this date than any year in our history. Texas, and adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico, are drier than they�ve ever been�the drought is worse than the Dust Bowl. But do not wonder if it�s somehow connected.

If you did wonder, you�d have to also wonder about whether this year�s record snowfalls and rainfalls across the Midwest�resulting in record flooding across the Mississippi�could somehow be related. And if you did that, then you might find your thoughts wandering to, oh, global warming. To the fact that climatologists have been predicting for years that as we flood the atmosphere with carbon we will also start both drying and flooding the planet, since warm air holds more water vapor than cold.

It�s far smarter to repeat to yourself, over and over, the comforting mantra that no single weather event can ever be directly tied to climate change. There have been tornadoes before, and floods�that�s the important thing. Just be careful to make sure you don�t let yourself wonder why all these records are happening at once: why we�ve had unprecedented megafloods from Australia to Pakistan in the last year. Why it�s just now that the Arctic has melted for the first time in thousands of years. Focus on the immediate casualties, watch the videotape from the store cameras as the shelves are blown over. Look at the anchorman up to the chest of his waders in the rising river.

Because if you asked yourself what it meant that the Amazon has just come through its second hundred-year-drought in the last four years, or that the pine forests across the western part of this continent have been obliterated by a beetle in the last decade�well, you might have to ask other questions. Like, should President Obama really just have opened a huge swath of Wyoming to new coal-mining? Should Secretary of State this summer sign a permit allowing a huge new pipeline to carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta? You might have to ask yourself: do we have a bigger problem than four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline?

Better to join with the US House of Representatives, which earlier this spring voted 240-184 to defeat a resolution saying simply �climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.� Propose your own physics; ignore physics altogether. Just don�t start asking yourself if last year�s failed grain harvest from the Russian heatwave, and Queensland�s failed grain harvest from its record flood, and France and Germany�s current drought-related crop failures, and the death of the winter wheat crop in Texas, and the inability of Midwestern farmers to get corn planted in their sodden fields might somehow be related. Surely the record food prices are just freak outliers, not signs of anything systemic.

It�s very important to stay completely calm. If you got upset about any of this, you might forget how important it is not to disrupt the record profits of our fossil fuel companies. If worst ever did come to worst, it�s reassuring to remember what the US Chamber of Commerce told the EPA in a recent filing: there�s no need to worry because �populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations.� I�m pretty sure that�s what they�re telling themselves in Joplin today.

Bill McKibben is founder of the global climate campaign 350.org, and Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College.




This piece is the very definition of propaganda. It is biased, low on facts and high on scare value. How about this non-fact: "Why it�s just now that the Arctic has melted for the first time in thousands of years. " And of course the author implies all these tornadoes, droughts and floods can be blamed on big oil!!


I am surprised he didn't blame global warming and/or big oil for the Japanese tsunami.



Add to that, the author/"scholar" of this propaganda piece has several honorary degrees, but no actual college degree. What kind of "scholar" doesn't finish undergraduate school? He is trained as a writer, not a scientist and not as an economist. He is simply a biased "journalist" reporting his "facts" to meet his own personal agenda.

What is unfortunate is that folks like the original poster, who obviously truly care about this issue, forward propaganda like this in an effort to raise concern and actually end up hurting their cause.

What difference does Global Warming make anyway? I have it on good authority that the World is ending at the end of next year anyway. Enjoy global warming while it lasts, especially you guys in northern Scandinavia.

So how exactly do you take an average worldwide temperature for a month?

This piece is the very definition of propaganda. It is biased, low on facts and high on scare value. How about this non-fact: "Why it�s just now that the Arctic has melted for the first time in thousands of years. " And of course the author implies all these tornadoes, droughts and floods can be blamed on big oil!!


I am surprised he didn't blame global warming and/or big oil for the Japanese tsunami.



Add to that, the author/"scholar" of this propaganda piece has several honorary degrees, but no actual college degree. What kind of "scholar" doesn't finish undergraduate school? He is trained as a writer, not a scientist and not as an economist. He is simply a biased "journalist" reporting his "facts" to meet his own personal agenda.

What is unfortunate is that folks like the original poster, who obviously truly care about this issue, forward propaganda like this in an effort to raise concern and actually end up hurting their cause.

I read this piece in some other forum. I never took the writer's intent to pose as a scholar, only to use the same tone non-sceptics have been subject to for years. You know, offering a cold winter day as a rebuttal to climatologists, offering some paragraph of an e-mail to imply a grand conspiracy by "liberals" to achieve some undefined something guided by some impossible-to-discern motivation. I see folks in Congress do this all the time. It works. More power to him.

http://<IFRAME height=349 src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/j0sCCJFkEbE?rel=0" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen></IFRAME> (http://<iframe width="560" height="349" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/j0sCCJFkEbE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>)

Big O BS. Where does the Leaf get electricity? How will our grid support everyone having a Leaf?

Wind, tidal, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric certainly not enough.

Big O BS. Where does the Leaf get electricity? How will our grid support everyone having a Leaf?

From whale oil generators.

Not everyone wants a Leaf, but there sure are a lot of people interested in owning a weekday commuter car that has no tailpipe and zero emissions. And like all other technologies, EVs will improve over time. Nissan was simply the first automaker to bring to market a mass-produced, 100% fully-electric passenger car.

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2010-10/nissan-leaf-nicely-done-not-everyone