Global Warming

[Soldier4Christ]

This has only been temporarily dropped. The democrats were just giving a little show for the environmentalists and socialists that are pushing this bill and knew that President Bush would have vetoed it anyway. For these reasons they allowed it to be shelved for now with the intent of pushing it again after the presidential elections knowing that either person running for president will sign it through.

There are many hard days coming for the U.S.

[nChrist]

Hello Pastor Roger,

YES - I agree completely that there are hard times coming. In fact, they are already here. Many average people are having trouble just paying for necessities. As an example, food prices have sky-rocketed. Many are already having to make some hard choices about what kinds of food they can afford. At the same time - heating, cooling, and transportation costs are already insane. Transportation costs effects the price of all necessities.

On top of everything else, our politicians are working on the largest tax increases in history. The average folks and the poor will be the first ones to suffer. This is before thinking about the massive giveaway programs that are planned and many other things that will break the bank for average people. In the meantime, the rich folks will be lining their pockets. The coming results will be socialism, communism, and more rejection of GOD. The stage is being set for the End Days, so everything above is small in comparison to the other things that are MOST CERTAINLY ON THE WAY.

As for Christians, our portion will be GOD, HIS Love, HIS Grace, and HIS Care. That will be more than sufficient until HE takes us HOME.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Ephesians 1:18-23 NASB I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

[Soldier4Christ]

Huge Volcanoes May Be Erupting Under Arctic Ice

 New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade.

Hidden 2.5 miles (4,000 meters) beneath the Arctic surface, the volcanoes are up to a mile (2,000 meters) in diameter and a few hundred yards tall.

They formed along the Gakkel Ridge, a lengthy crack in the ocean crust where two rocky plates are spreading apart, pulling new melted rock to the surface.

Until now, scientists thought undersea volcanoes only dribbled lava from cracks in the seafloor. The extreme pressure from the overlying water makes it difficult for gas and magma to blast outward.

But the Gakkel Ridge, which is relatively unexplored and considered unique for its slow spreading rate, is just the place for surprises.

Robert Reeves-Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Massachusetts and his colleagues discovered jagged, glassy fragments of rock scattered around the volcanoes, suggesting explosive eruptions occurred between 1999 and 2001.

They hypothesize that the slow spreading could allow excess gas to build up in pockets of magma beneath the oceanic crust. When the gas pressure gets high enough, it pops like a champagne bottle being uncorked.

With news this week that polar ice is melting dramatically, underwater Arctic pyrotechnics might seem like a logical smoking gun.

Scientists don't see any significant connection, however.

"We don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice," Reeves-Sohn told LiveScience, "but they seem to have had a major impact on the overlying water column."

The eruptions discharge large amounts of carbon dioxide, helium, trace metals and heat into the water over long distances, he said.

The research, detailed in the June 26 issue of the journal Nature, was funded by NASA, the National Science Foundation and WHOI.

[Soldier4Christ]

Of course such tremendous heat has nothing to do with melting ice and the CO2 being emitted has nothing to do with CO2 levels being higher because they aren't manmade.   

[nChrist]

Of course such tremendous heat has nothing to do with melting ice and the CO2 being emitted has nothing to do with CO2 levels being higher because they aren't manmade.   

          

Al Gore would probably say that the volcanoes were caused by global warming. Bible Prophecy clearly tells us that there will be many natural disasters in the Tribulation Period. All other Bible Prophecy was fulfilled perfectly at GOD'S Appointed time, and REMAINING BIBLE PROPHECY will be no different. Let's make it blunt and simple:  man has NO CONTROL and WON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL! It's an insane VANITY OF MAN to think that mankind can control the forces of NATURE that GOD CREATED! Any number of natural disasters could unleash hundreds of times more destruction than any weapon ever devised by man. ONLY the CREATOR knows about the POWER locked up in HIS CREATION. THE ONLY REAL POWER A MAN OR WOMAN HAS IS AS A CHRISTIAN AND PRAYING TO ALMIGHTY GOD!

Love In Christ,
Tom

Christian Quotes 13 - There is no doubt that the possessive clinging
to things is one of the most harmful habits in life. Because it is so
natural, it is rarely recognized for the evil that it is. But it's
outworking is tragic. This ancient curse will not go out painlessly.
The tough old miser within us will not lie down and die obedient to
our command. He must be torn out of our hearts like a plant from the
soil: he must be extracted in blood and agony like a tooth from the
jaw. He must be expelled from our souls in violence as Christ expelled
the money changers from the temple. -- A.W. Tozer

[HisDaughter]

There are many hard days coming for the U.S.

Yep.

[Shammu]

Mysterious California Glaciers Keep Growing Despite Warming

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

MOUNT SHASTA, Calif. —
Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta's flanks are a rare exception: They are the only known glaciers in the continental U.S. that are growing.

Reaching more than 14,000 feet above sea level, Mount Shasta is one of the state's tallest peaks, dominating the landscape of high plains and conifer forests in far Northern California.

Nearby Indian tribes referred to its glaciers as the footsteps made by the creator when he descended to Earth. Hikers flock to Shasta's peak every summer to scale them.

With glaciers retreating in the Sierra Nevada, the Rocky Mountains and elsewhere in the Cascades, Mount Shasta — the southernmost volcano in the Cascade range — is actually benefiting from changing weather patterns over the Pacific Ocean.

"When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, an assistant professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who led a team studying Shasta's glaciers. "These glaciers seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean."

Climate change has cut the number of glaciers at Montana's Glacier National Park from 150 to 26 since 1850, and some scientists project there will be none left within a generation.

Lonnie Thompson, a glacier expert at Ohio State University, has projected the storied snows at Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro might disappear by 2015.

But for Shasta, about 270 miles north of San Francisco, scientists say a warming Pacific Ocean means more moist air.

On the mountain, precipitation falls as snow, adding to the glaciers enough to overcome a 1.8 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature in the last century, scientists say.

"It's a bit of an anomaly that they are growing, but it's not to be unexpected," said Ed Josberger, a glaciologist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Tacoma, Wash.

By comparison, the glaciers in the Sierra Nevada, more than 500 miles south of Mount Shasta, are exposed to warmer summer temperatures and are retreating.

The Sierra's 498 ice formations — glaciers and ice fields — have shrunk by about half their size over the past 100 years, said Andrew Fountain, a geology professor at Portland State University. He inventoried glaciers in the continental U.S. as part of a federal initiative.

He said Shasta's seven glaciers are the only ones scientists have identified as getting larger.

Glaciologists say most glaciers in Alaska and Canada are retreating, too, but there are too many to study them all.

Although Mount Shasta's glaciers are growing, researchers say the 4.7 billion cubic feet of ice on its flanks could be gone by 2100.

For the glaciers to remain their current size, Shasta would have to receive 20 percent more snowfall for every 1.8-degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature, Tulaczyk said.

The Shasta glaciers have been advancing since the end of a drought in the early 20th century. The mountain's smallest glaciers — named Konwakiton, Watkins and Mud Creek — have more than doubled in length since 1950.

Hikers seeking to cross Shasta's glaciers — marked with crevasses as deep as 100 feet — say they are much larger than the boundaries drawn on geological maps.

"I noticed I was traveling down farther than the maps were showing it," said Eric White, a U.S. Forest Service ranger who has climbed Shasta for 23 years.

Four glaciers at Washington's Mount Rainier are staying about the same size. Those glaciers — shielded from the sun on the mountain's north and east sides — have received just enough snow to keep them from shrinking.

The added ice on Mount Shasta might be good for the state's water supplies. Hydrologists believe the glaciers feed springs and aquifers, though they say it's unclear precisely how the water travels underground.

Until recently, the same phenomenon that is benefiting Shasta's glaciers was feeding glacier growth in southern Norway and Sweden, the New Zealand Alps and northern Pakistan, according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In each area, scientists say, more snowfall temporarily offset warming temperatures in the 1990s and early 2000s. But rising temperatures since then have begun to shrink the ice.

Climate change is causing roughly 90 percent of the world's mountain glaciers to shrink, said Thompson, the Ohio State glacier expert.

"Best that we keep our eye on the big picture," Thompson said in an e-mail about Shasta's unique position. "The picture points unfortunately (to) massive loss of ice on land, which has huge implications for future sea level rise."

Global forecasts show temperatures warming from 2 degrees to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century if no major efforts are undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

At that rate, California's snowpack and its remaining glaciers are among the most vulnerable of its natural resources.

Even without global warming, another threat to Shasta's glaciers could come far more quickly: a volcanic eruption could melt them, creating mud flows that could bury the surrounding small communities.

Over the last 4,000 years, Shasta has erupted about every 250 to 300 years, and did so most recently about 200 years ago, said William Hirt, a geology instructor at the College of the Siskiyous.

Mysterious California Glaciers Keep Growing Despite Warming

[Soldier4Christ]

Does this have any impact on global warming alarmists? NO! Even the article you posted shows some that hint at it being caused by global warming.

Global warming causing California glacier to grow, scientists say

The glaciers on Mount Shasta in California are growing because of global warming, experts say.

"When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, a University of California, Santa Cruz, professor who studied the glaciers.

But the seven glaciers on Shasta, part of the Cascade mountains in northern California, "seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean," he said.

As the ocean warms, more moisture evaporates. As moisture moves inland, it falls as snow — enough on Shasta to more than offset a 1 C temperature rise in the past century.

The three smallest of the Shasta glaciers are more than twice the length they were in 1950.

Other glaciers in Norway, Sweden, New Zealand and Pakistan were in the same position as Shasta, but are now shrinking because rising temperatures have more than offset the increased snowfall.

As many as 90 per cent of Earth's mountain glaciers are getting smaller, said Lonnie Thompson from Ohio State University.

A U.S. government inventory found that, with one exception, Shasta's glaciers are the only ones growing on the U.S. mainland, said Andrew Fountain, a professor at Portland State University, who worked on the assessment.

The exception is a small glacier that is shaded in the crater of Mount St. Helens, Wash. It's unlikely to continue to grow once it leaves the shade, scientists said.

Four glaciers on the shady north and east sides of Mount Rainier, Wash., are stable.

Yep, we have a lot more ice because the earth is warming.   

[HisDaughter]

Do as Al says, not as Al does

On Thursday, former U. S. vice-president Al Gore delivered a major address calling on his country to abandon all fossil fuels within 10 years. By 2018, U. S. electricity and fuel should come entirely from "renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources," he said. Tickets to the event encouraged attendees to "please use public transit, bicycling or other climate-friendly means" to reach the lecture hall.

So how did Mr. Gore and his retinue arrive? In two Lincoln Town Cars and a full-sized SUV that sat idling with the air conditioners blasting while the Gore party was inside.

It was 34 C in Washington. Al Gore can't be expected to get into an overheated vehicle after he's worked up a sweat telling others how to save the planet.

Remember, too, the Nobel prizewinning environmentalist lives in a Tennessee mansion that produces a carbon footprint 20 times that of the average American home. A sizeable chunk of his personal fortune comes from royalties on a zinc mine which had to be temporarily closed five years ago in part because the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ruled it one of the worst-polluting mine sites in America. Illegal toxins were frequently discharged into nearby rivers.

Mr. Gore's Live Earth benefit concert last summer flew scores of rock bands to stages around the world in carbon-spewing private jets. To cover the emissions from his own frequent use of private jets, Mr. Gore set up a company that buys carbon offsets, so that in effect he is paying himself for his carbon indulgences, writing off the expense on one hand, while pocketing the proceeds on the other.

Apparently if the world is ever to reach the carbon-free future Mr. Gore dreams of, it will have to get there without Al's help.

But take heart, there is increasing evidence that man-made carbon dioxide may not be causing global warming. Indeed, there is increasing debate in the scientific community whether there is even any warming occurring at all. Mr. Gore might just be able to keep going from jet to limo to estate guilt-free (if not carbon-free) for as long as he wishes.

On Tuesday, the Associated Press reported that seven mountain glaciers in northern California were advancing. They joined glaciers in southern Norway, Sweden, the New Zealand Alps and the Hindu Kush mountains of Pakistan. Indeed, worldwide, there are nearly half as many glaciers advancing as retreating.

How did the AP explain this? Well, all the shrinking glaciers it mentioned in its story were melting due to global warming, while the growing ones were "benefitting from changing weather patterns." Glacier melt is proof of a climate crisis, while -- on the same planet, under the same global conditions -- glacier advance is chalked up as a mere natural phenomenon.

Facts that don't fit the global-warming dogma -- call them inconvenient truths -- are to be dismissed as unimportant. Only those that feed the environmental hysteria are proof of something ominous.

So I'm sure they're entirely inconsequential, but here, anyway, are some anecdotes that cast doubt on the notion that emissions from our SUVs and power plants are dangerously harming the climate.

Greenland isn't melting. And while Arctic sea ice may have thinned in the past three decades by about 3% per decade, according to the U. S. National Snow and Ice Date Center, Antarctic ice (which is about 20 times as voluminous as the Arctic kind) has grown by 1% per decade,

Also, after last summer's record melt in the Arctic, this summer's melt in Antarctica was the smallest on record. And NASA satellites have found that Arctic Sea ice coverage this year is more than one million square kilo-metres greater than last year's, greater than the average of the last three years and 10-20 centmetres thicker than in 2007. According to observations by the Danish Meteorological Institute, we "have to go back 15 years to find ice expansion so far south."

Snow coverage in North America this winter was greater than at any time in recorded history. China had its worst winter in a century, and the southern hemisphere its worst in the past 50 years.

And while global temperatures increased slightly in June, through the end of May, the nine-month decline in temperatures beginning in September was greater (0.8C) than all the warming of the 20th century (0.6C).

All of this may prove nothing (although if these signals pointed toward warming, you can bet they'd be billed as proof a coming climate catastrophe). But they should at least give Mr. Gore comfort that he need not sacrifice his high-carbon lifestyle just to prove he can walk the walk.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=668476 
 

[nChrist]

One must give credit when credit is so. Al Gore is a world-class con man who is carrying off one of the largest crimes in history with a world full of witnesses. Will he get away with it? We must consider that he has lots of help, and they will also enjoy lining their pockets WITH NO REMORSE AT ALL. The only way any of them will ever have any remorse is if they get caught and prosecuted. Otherwise, they are proving that CRIME DOES PAY EXTREMELY WELL. In fact, they are committing almost the PERFECT CRIME. Prosecution would be very difficult unless there was evidence of planned FRAUD and a conspiracy of others working together in that FRAUD. HOWEVER, THIS COULD BE DONE!, and many people would be happy to help in the cost of the investigation and prosecution. In fact, I think that many would be happy to borrow money to pay for such an endeavor. I know that I would.

[Soldier4Christ]

A Natural Cause of Greenhouse Gas
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Data collected through the 1980s and 1990s strongly suggested that the earth was warming.1 Some scientists believe the phenomenon is man-made (anthropogenic), primarily due to fossil fuel combustion that, we are told, emits greenhouse gases. Other researchers are convinced that the warming trend was caused naturally, perhaps by an increase in the sun's radiation.2 Resolution of these debates seems a long way off, but a new discovery may add weight to the idea that the earth and everything in and around it, including the atmosphere, was designed by God.

Oceanographer David Karl at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa has recently been examining a problem called the "methane enigma." There has been a mysteriously high concentration of methane in the ocean's surface waters, indicating that this gas was being produced in the sea. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and fortunately maintains an atmospheric blanketing layer that supports life on earth. Many scientists fear that too much methane in the atmosphere, however, would cause too thick a blanket and that this could become potentially harmful to the planet.

The methane enigma has now been at least partially solved. According to Karl's research, bacteria are converting methylphosphonates into methane in the oceans.3 The methane diffuses from there into the atmosphere. We have long known that bacteria help to maintain a proper balance of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen levels in the atmosphere. Bacteria are now known to play a vital role in maintaining methane levels as well. This makes sense within the creation science model--a loving God created a robust atmosphere, complete with bacterial systems that balance amounts of atmospheric gases in order to support life.

References

   1. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Accessed online July 10, 2008. Since 1998, earth's temperature has not been warming, and in January 2008 the temperature dramatically sank. See also "January 2008--4 sources say 'globally cooler' in the past 12 months" on the Watts Up With That? website, accessed July 10, 2008.
   2. Over 9,000 Americans with PhDs in science have signed the Global Warming Petition Project to voice their disagreement with the anthropogenic theory of the cause of global warming. Accessed online July 10, 2008.
   3. New Pathway For Methane Production In The Oceans Discovered. Science News. Posted on ScienceDaily.com on July 4, 2008, accessed July 10, 2008.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.

[Soldier4Christ]

Anchorage on pace for chilliest summer
Alaska city could hit 65 degrees for fewest days on record

The coldest summer ever? You might be looking at it, weather folks say.

Right now the so-called summer of '08 is on pace to produce the fewest days ever recorded in which the temperature in Anchorage managed to reach 65 degrees.

That unhappy record was set in 1970, when we only made it to the 65-degree mark, which many Alaskans consider a nice temperature, 16 days out of 365.

This year, however -- with the summer more than half over -- there have been only seven 65-degree days so far. And that's with just a month of potential "balmy" days remaining and the forecast looking gloomy.

National Weather Service meteorologist Sam Albanese, a storm warning coordinator for Alaska, says the outlook is for Anchorage to remain cool and cloudy through the rest of July.

"There's no real warm feature moving in," Albanese said. "And that's just been the pattern we've been stuck in for a couple weeks now."

In the Matanuska Valley on Wednesday snow dusted the Chugach. On the Kenai Peninsula, rain was raising Six-Mile River to flood levels and rafting trips had to be canceled.

So if the cold and drizzle are going to continue anyway, why not shoot for a record? The mark is well within reach, Albanese said:

"It's probably going to go down as the summer with the least number of 65-degree days."

MEASURING THE MISERY

ADVERTISEMENT
In terms of "coldest summer ever," however, a better measure might be the number of days Anchorage fails to even reach 60.

There too, 2008 is a contender, having so far notched only 35 such days -- far below the summer-long average of 88.

Unless we get 10 more days of 60-degree or warmer temperatures, we're going to break the dismal 1971 record of only 46 such days, a possibility too awful to contemplate.

Still, according to a series of charts cobbled together Tuesday evening by a night-shift meteorologist in the weather service's Anchorage office, the current summer clearly has broken company with the record-setting warmth of recent years. Consider:

• 70-degree days. So far this summer there have been two. Usually there are 15. Last year there were 21. In 2004 there were 49.

• 75-degree days. So far this summer there've been zero. Usually there are four. It may be hard to remember, but last year there were 21. In 2004 there were 23.

So are all bets off on global warming? Hardly, scientists say. Climate change is a function of long-term trends, not single summers or individual hurricanes.

Last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it's "unequivocal" the world is warming, considering how 11 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 13 years.

So what's going on in Alaska, which also posted a fairly frigid winter?

LA NINA

Federal meteorologists trace a lot of the cool weather to ocean temperatures in the South Pacific.

When the seas off the coast of Peru are 2 to 4 degrees cooler than normal, a La Nina weather pattern develops, which brings cooler-than- normal weather to Alaska.

For most of the past year, La Nina (the opposite of El Nino, in which warmer-than-normal ocean temperatures occur off Peru) has prevailed. But that's now beginning to change.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Web site, water temperatures in the eastern South Pacific began to warm this summer -- and the weather should eventually follow.

The current three-month outlook posted by the national Climate Prediction Center in Camp Springs, Md., calls for below-normal temperatures for the south coast of Alaska from August through October -- turning to above-normal temperatures from October through December.

[HisDaughter]

That darn global warming again....

[HisDaughter]

David Evans | July 18, 2008
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy. 
 

I found this on craigslist which then led me on an internet search and I found the following....

[HisDaughter]

cont.....

GLOBAL WARMING CONSENSUS
Thursday, July 24, 2008 David ReinhardThe Oregonian

Maybe you've noticed this, too. The less sure people are of their views, the more inclined they are to name-call, yell and bully. I've noticed this when it comes to religion and politics and life in general, but I've had trouble getting used to it when it comes to science.

Science is supposed to be about irreducible facts, the discipline of the scientific method, repeatable experiments, rigorous analysis and solid conclusions rather than sound bites, insults, threats and public relations campaigns. But look at global warming and climate change.

The Weather Channel's top climatologist says broadcast meteorologists who voice skepticism about man-made climate change should be stripped of their certification. A renewable energy lobbyist writes an e-mail to a climate change skeptic saying he intends "to destroy your career." The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's James Hansen, a global warming guru, calls skeptics "court jesters," and Al Gore likens them to "flat-Earth" advocates. The bid to enforce a global warming consensus has added "climate-change deniers" to our lexicon. You know, like "Holocaust deniers."

Curious. Why all the loaded verbiage? Why the insistence on consensus in an arena that relies on challenging conventional wisdom? Why all the anger?

Why, indeed. This past week witnessed the great breakup not of the icebergs, but of the global warming consensus. What's existed beneath the surface, apparent to those who dug, exploded into public view.

"With this issue . . . we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the [the United Nations] International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) . . .," wrote Jeffrey Marque, editor of The American Physical Society's Physics & Society forum. "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

Imagine, a debate because a considerable presence within the scientific community disputes that man-made (anthropogenic) emissions are primarily responsible for global warming. Either court jesters and flat-Earthers are making a comeback or the climate change consensus isn't what it's cracked up to be. I'll bet on the latter. Marque kicks off the debate with the publication of a paper by Britain's Christopher Monckton on the IPCC's errors and exaggerations in estimating the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the rate of temperature change.

Elsewhere, a former climate change alarmist detailed what you might call his change of science. David Evans was a consultant to the "Australian Greenhouse Office" from 1999 to 2005. He helped craft the carbon accounting model measuring Australia's Kyoto Protocol compliance.

"When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good . . .," he wrote recently in The Australian. "The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? . . . But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming."

Evans notes a few telling facts: One, scientists have looked for hot spots in the atmosphere -- places where a possible cause of global warming occurs first and most -- and have found . . . none: "If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming." Two, he points out what scientists have found: Ice-core samples showing the six global warmings over the past half-million years occurred an average of 800 years before any uptick in atmospheric carbon, satellite temperature readings showing the recent warming trend ended in 2001, and the temperature has fallen about 0.6 C in the past year -- to the 1980 level.

But isn't the sky falling or, at least, the Arctic ice melting? According to the latest data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, "sea ice extent" on July 16 was 3.44 million square miles -- a half-million square miles more than what it was in July 2007.

The only thing that's heating up, it seems, is the debate about global warming, and a good thing, too.

Maybe it's time we all chill out.