Global Warming

[Soldier4Christ]

Al Gore and Dr James Hansen

[Shammu]

The world has never seen such freezing heat

By Christopher Booker
16/11/2008

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.

The world has never seen such freezing heat

[Soldier4Christ]

The world has never seen such freezing heat

LOL ... that post has gotten a lot of exposure here in this thread.

[Soldier4Christ]

The global warming alarmists are getting desperate. With forecasts such as we have now where the high temps are 5 to 15 degrees below average and getting higher than normal snowfalls around the world they have to do something to attempt to save their jobs and prove that they were not wrong. This is one of the reasons that they have changed the words "global warming" to "climate change".

What is really pathetic is the Weather Channel. They just gave the weather forecast saying the temps were going to be well below average for this coming week nationwide with some areas getting above average amounts of snow then immediately went into a show talking about how dangerous global warming is for us all and what we need to do to prevent it. It really does give a person great confidence in what they are reporting (NOT!)

[HisDaughter]

Film-makers taking on our 'global warming hysteria'

HARRY McGEEA new Irish film claims that climate change guru Al Gore is an alarmist and that those who think they are saving the planet are only hurting the poor

IF THE ADVANCE publicity is anything to go by, Not Evil Just Wrong will do for Al Gore what Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 did for George W Bush.

"This is the film Al Gore and Hollywood don't want you to see," declares the website for the latest work by film-makers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer. The site even features a big picture of Gore, with his lips in the photograph seemingly digitally enhanced to make them look like Heath Ledger's Joker from the latest Batman film.

The website goes on to say that their latest film - which takes on what are described as global warming alarmists - is "the most controversial documentary of the year". Indeed, it could very well be the most controversial. And Al Gore and Hollywood may well not want you to see it. And in that respect, Gore and co are actually succeeding for the moment. Because there is no completed film. Not yet anyway.

McElhinney and McAleer have raised almost $1 million (€799,000) but need a total of $4.5m (€3.6m) to allow for a full cinema release. They say they were acutely disappointed at being turned down for funding by the Irish Film Board, especially its conclusion that it was "repetitive and creatively thin".

Instead, they have gone onto the internet hoping to solicit donations in the style of Barack Obama. The finished product will be around 90 minutes long. Both film-makers rebut the Film Board's criticism by pointing out that a near-complete version of the film has been chosen in the audience category at the Amsterdam Film Festival later this month.

However, for now, there is no finished product. And that creates a bit of a difficulty. The merits of the case put forward in the film can only be judged - for now - on a short trailer and on the spirited arguments put forward by its two creators, and not on the work itself.

McElhinney and McAleer, who are a married couple, are former journalists. McElhinney broke the Tristan Dowse story and the questionable money-making industry that had grown up around adoptions abroad. McAleer is a former journalist with the Sunday Times and the Financial Times, who worked as a correspondent in Bucharest for a number of years.

THIS IS NOT the first time they have courted controversy. An earlier documentary, Mine Your Own Business, contended that the actions of environmentalists were destroying communities and lives in developing countries. A screening in the US was picketed by environmental groups. And the documentary was also criticised because it was 70 per cent funded by Gabriel Resources, the Canadian mining company that wanted to develop an open pit gold mine in an impoverished village in Romania. This surely compromised the editorial objectivity of the film.

On the contrary, McAleer says. He points out that it is stated clearly in the first five minutes of the film where the funding came from. He also asserts that the funder had no editorial control and only saw the film after completion. But why fund it then?

"They saw what I had written [about the village] in the Financial Times and saw that I was representing it in a fair way. Also they had a good story to tell. They were the only people who could save this village from being destroyed by environmentalists."

The latest work, when it appears, will tackle the same subject but on a far more ambitious - and provocative - scale. They will set out to prove the true cost of what they call "global warming hysteria", which they claim damages the lives of vulnerable people. Shooting took place in Ireland, Uganda, China, England, France and the US.

The film, as outlined by both, explores three strands. The first looks at previous "scares", namely the widespread ban on the use of the anti-malaria pesticide DDT, because of its effect on the environment. The ban was highly controversial because there was evidence that its absence actually increased the incidence of malaria in poorer countries. Both describe the ban as appalling and a disgrace, putting the lives of birds and wildlife ahead of human beings who died from disease-carrying mosquitoes.

The second strand explores what they contend are "flaws" in the climate change argument. It is clear that the biggest "flaw" from their perspective has a name and it is Al Gore.

"We look at the bigger errors that are in An Inconvenient Truth," says McElhinney, who asserts that scientists are not settled on climate change, and there is not incontrovertible evidence that it is happening.

It's not possible to gainsay the film. But you wonder does the logic follow all the way through. Gore still believes in a ban on DDT, says McElhinney, arguing that this compromises his views on climate change. Not necessarily. They also explore nine "flaws" in Gore's film, established by the High Court in Britain during a civil case. Their major contentions include criticism of the famous inverted hockey stick graph which purported to show constant emissions for many centuries and big increases in CO2 emissions since 1900. That model completely neglected medieval warming (proven) and the little ice age from the 16th century to 1850 (also proven), they argue.

IN BRIEF, THEIR other main assertions are: there has been no global warming since 1995; the polar bear population is not under threat from climate change but from human hunters; they also say that the Arctic and Greenland glaciers have been receding since 1850, long before the invention of SUVs; and, finally, that the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) takes issue with Al Gore's contention that sea levels will rise by 20ft (more like 19 inches, says the IPCC).

None of these arguments are new. It is the view of critics of global warming that the Earth's climate is still recovering from the Little Ice Age after it ended around 1850. A quick Google of any of the above issues does point to potential flaws (ie too much reliance on modelling, projecting and extrapolation) but the problem is that the contrary argument often teeters on a rickety foundation.

The third strand is McAleer's argument that the measures proposed to tackle climate change will cause crisis and chaos. The world would collapse without fossil fuel, he says. "The cure could be worse than the disease." He is particularly scathing of Al Gore's call for a total ban on fossil fuels in a decade, which would be a disaster, leading to millions of people being driven into poverty.

The views are certainly contrarian. But there are some eminent scientists among the contributors, including Dr Syun-Ichi Akasofu, former director of the International Arctic Research Centre and Prof Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist from MIT, both of whom are sceptics.

The authority of all the arguments will be severely tested. One is mindful of Martin Durkin's controversial The Great Global Warming Swindle for Channel 4 that set about debunking global warming as an overstated theory. The film was criticised by the UK TV regulator (Ofcom) for inaccuracies, and the Ofcom decision gave Durkin's critics a field day in attacking the credibility of his film.

Do McElhinney and McAleer themselves reject climate change, reject the need to cut down on our dependency on oil? "The idea that CO2 causes climate change or causes global warming - let's keep it clear - is not settled," says McElhinney. "The idea of dramatically altering the way we live would be a mistake until more information has been gathered." Both believe that there is no panic, and that the world has 300 years (until coal is exhausted) to come up with alternative sources of energy.

They are right about one thing - it will be very controversial. Their arguments will be unremittingly scrutinised, leaving only two possible outcomes: the film will debunk and expose, or be itself debunked and exposed.

© 2008 The Irish Times

[nChrist]

Thanks Sister Yvette!

I wish that everyone knew the TRUTH about so-called GLOBAL WARMING. It isn't settled because it doesn't exist, and thousands of prominent scientists have tried to expose it as a MASSIVE FRAUD AND CON GAME. It's a money game to control masses of people, and that's all that GLOBAL WARMING EVER WAS. It isn't good science or even a good theory - IT'S JUNK THAT COSTS TONS OF MONEY. Real scientists who try to inform the government and the public the TRUTH about so-called global warming are hushed, shunned, and even persecuted. The BIG MONEY FOLKS like Al Gore don't want the truth to get out, and they do have the POWER to abuse those who try to get the TRUTH out. BLUNTLY, GLOBAL WARMING IS NOTHING BUT A GLOBAL CON GAME WHERE CRIMINALS ARE STEALING MONEY FROM THE PEOPLE!

[Soldier4Christ]

"The idea that CO2 causes climate change or causes global warming - let's keep it clear - is not settled," says McElhinney.

Only in the minds of those that don't know the truth about CO2 of willing to accept the facts as they truly are.

the actions of environmentalists were destroying communities and lives in developing countries

Not just in developing countries but worldwide. They are already the main cause of millions of deaths.

BLUNTLY, GLOBAL WARMING IS NOTHING BUT A GLOBAL CON GAME WHERE CRIMINALS ARE STEALING MONEY FROM THE PEOPLE![/b]

and costing many lives with many more yet to pay for this stupidity.

[Shammu]

Europe, Japan Face $46 Billion Global-Warming Penalty (Update1)

By Alex Morales and Jeremy van Loon

Nov. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Twenty nations including Japan, Italy and Australia may be releasing more greenhouse-gas pollution than they agreed to under the Kyoto treaty to curb global warming.

They're failing to rein in carbon-dioxide output enough to meet their pledges signed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, according to reports by individual countries. As a penalty for missing their goals under the treaty, the nations are required to buy permits for every excess ton of the heat-trapping gas released through 2012. That will total 2.3 billion permits for 20 nations, New Carbon Finance, a research firm in London, has estimated.

The potential penalty, 36 billion euros ($46 billion) for the group based on current permit prices, and the fact that only a minority of 37 Kyoto signatory nations may meet their pledges bodes poorly for international efforts to limit global warming.

``This shows there's a lot more interest in promising stuff than actually keeping those promises,'' Bjorn Lomborg, author of the book ``The Skeptical Environmentalist,'' said in a telephone interview from Copenhagen. ``What you should be doing is investing in research and development to make much more dramatic emissions cuts much cheaper in the future.''

In three days the UN will publish a report on emissions data for 2006, compiling figures from national reports already released. Analysts have been using that data to estimate emissions for Kyoto's 2008-2012 measurement period because a nation's CO2 output from factories, power plants and vehicles varies little year to year. It takes about 10 years, for example, to build a low-emissions nuclear plant to replace several dirtier coal-fired power stations.

Cost-Sharing

Kyoto's binding targets are a cornerstone in the international effort to limit global warming. The U.S. is the only developed nation not to ratify the pact.

Under the treaty, countries that are unable to meet targets must buy permits from nations that have a surplus. The government must pay the bill, and some such as Italy and Spain are requiring industry to share in the costs.

Alternatively nations may buy credits representing greenhouse-gas reductions made abroad through investments in clean-energy and forestry projects. That comes at a cost. UN- Certified Emission Reduction credits, or CERs, which double as a Kyoto permit, today traded at 15.80 euros for a 2008 contract.

The U.K., Sweden and several eastern European nations are headed to meet their Kyoto obligations, according to carbon analysts. Others are set to miss by a wide margin, with Canada, Japan, Italy and Spain the worst transgressors.

Canada, facing the biggest emissions overshoot, has already said it won't meet its Kyoto target, even by buying permits. It wasn't included in New Carbon Finance's forecast.

`Impossible Goals'

In Italy's case, ``It's obvious the goals are not possible,'' Corrado Clini said today at an energy conference today in Rome. Italy will need 421 million permits over the five-year period, and Spain, 405 million, the research firm said. That would cost each country more than 6 billion euros, using the current price of CERs, though both governments have said they may share the costs with local industry.

Point Carbon, an Oslo-based emissions-market analysis company, estimates Italy will need 325 million permits and Spain 395 million.

Italian government and corporate officials are increasingly criticizing the Mediterranean nation's looming emissions costs. Kyoto is ``pure folly,'' Paolo Scaroni, chief executive of Eni SpA, the nation's largest oil company, said Nov. 10 on an Il Sole 24 Ore Radiocor report.

Canadian Route

Italy is among countries that may go the Canadian route of choosing not to buy the permits they need to meet their targets, said Steven Knell, a London-based energy analyst at the economic consulting and research firm Global Insight Inc.

``It is unlikely that Italy would formally drop out of the Kyoto, however non-compliance is a distinct possibility,'' Knell said. ``The cases of non-compliance may well pile up as many states are well off the mark.''

Italy's Clini said the government and industry would purchase the permits together and not withdraw from the treaty. ``We won't pull out of Kyoto,'' Clini said. ``At this point, we're in it.''

Australia, which only ratified Kyoto in 2007, will need credits to cover 20.6 million tons a year, at an estimated annual cost of 325 million euros, based on the CER price. Japan, which New Carbon Finance predicts will need 587 million credits, says new energy-efficiency policies will help the nation meet its target.

`Exaggerated Burden'

``We are going to strengthen the energy-efficiency standard for buildings and factories,'' Hiroaki Takiguchi, director of Japan's office of international strategy on climate change, said in an Oct. 28 interview from Tokyo. ``We are promoting renewable energy such as solar, wind.''

Improved energy policies mean Japan will only need 100 million credits, or less than one-fifth of New Carbon Finance's estimate, over the five-year period, Takiguchi said.

``More and more countries are improving energy efficiency and promoting alternative fuels,'' said Claudia Kemfert, head of energy at the DIW economic research institute in Berlin. ``The fear about how much of a burden this will be is exaggerated.''

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which guided the Kyoto talks, aims to negotiate a new treaty for the post- 2012 period at a meeting next year in Copenhagen. Failure by countries to meet their Kyoto targets suggests there's no point in agreeing to a new deal, said Lomborg.

``It questions the whole idea of getting together in Copenhagen next year and making even more ambitious promises when we haven't even been able to fulfill our promises so far,'' said Lomborg, an economist and director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, an economic advisory body.

Europe, Japan Face $46 Billion Global-Warming Penalty

[Shammu]

All these countries signed up because they thought the US was signing up. That the United States, would pay their fines and then people probably wouldn't have noticed, that they didn't pay theirs.  But, Kyoto was never about the environment. It was a money grab. The main goal of Kyoto was to transfer Billions from rich countries to poor countries.

[Shammu]

New Bible has a 'green' theme
Posted 10/8/2008

By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
A new edition of the Bible sets out to show that the seeds of environmentalism were first sown in the Garden of Eden.

Just as "red letter" Bibles highlight the words of Jesus in red ink, The Green Bible, in stores this week, uses green ink to spotlight more than 1,000 passages extolling the goodness of creation and God's charge to mankind to care for it.

The first chapter of Genesis is grass green, as are big chunks of Psalms and threads through every book including the Gospels, where Jesus considers the lilies of the field and keeps his eye on the sparrow.

Publisher HarperOne uses the New Revised Standard Translation of the Bible to present the earth-loving book printed with soy ink on recycled paper and bound in eco-friendly linen.

IDEA CLUB: Are you weary of eco-preaching?
PUBLISHERS: Niche Bibles reach new audiences

Where other Bibles have theological analysis, The Green Bible has essays by conservationists and theologians who link its calls to compassion, love and brotherhood to eco-concerns. It concludes with a reading guide tracking environmental themes throughout the Bible.

The Humane Society of the United States is distributing copies at upcoming events for its All Creatures Great and Small campaign to promote moral awareness of the treatment of animals on the farm or in the family home as pets.

A national survey by Baylor University in Waco, Texas, released in September, found most religious people of all denominations agreed that "dramatic" changes were needed to prevent further damage to the earth, air and living creatures. However, those who said they had no religion were 12 to 15 percentage points stronger in their view that mankind must step up on stewardship. Also, evangelical Protestants were consistently less likely to agree on any of the environmental issues than other Christian groups.

"We need a Bible like this," says Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, who has led the group into environmental activism. "I've traveled the country for two years now speaking at college chapel services. I ask, 'Has anyone here ever heard a sermon at their home church on the stewardship of creation?' Rarely does even one hand go up."

Environmentalism faces hurdles among evangelicals, Cizik says, citing suspicions that it is "liberal-leftist" or "witchy-pagan," or that it leans to government regulation.

Another hurdle: "Dominionism — the idea that God gave this to us and we can do what we darn well please.

"When people tell me, Jesus never talked about the environment, I say, God says, 'Love your neighbor,' not drown him in melting sea ice," Cizik says.

However, this newest Green Bible is not the first. A 1993 book also called The Green Bible, co-authored by religious studies expert Stephen Scharper and anthopologist Hilary Cunningham, has no green ink but has the same intentions.

It intertwines ecology and ecumenism by drawing quotes from a wide range of sacred texts, saints, poets and scientists, says Scharper, who teaches on social movements in the University of Toronto's Centre for Environment,.

"We wanted to address the tension between Biblically based Christians and environmentally based Christians and to show the corresponding views of other faith and humanist traditions with quotes from the Dalai Lama, Gandhi and others," says Scharper.

New Bible has a 'green' theme

[Shammu]

I personally find irritating about this sort of endeavor is that these people are willfully ignorant that there is, not a fine line but a very marked and distinct difference, between being good stewards of God's creation and the form of mother earth worship that humanists engage in.

Good stewardship means that the earth and all therein is given for our use knowing that one day we will answer to the Creator for how we used it. Humanists tend to see human activity as a blight on the earth. If they want to save the earth, then they need to quit their jobs, cars, life, and move into the forests and live off the land.

Their view is that a beaver's dam, built by beavers for beaver's purposes, is more noble than a human dam built by humans, for human's purposes. Similarly, they look at animal carnivores and say "nature red in tooth and claw," but human carnivores is cruel and evil.

[Soldier4Christ]

Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 Years

High snowfall and cold weather to blame.

A bitterly cold Alaskan summer has had surprising results. For the first time in the area's recorded history, area glaciers have begun to expand, rather than shrink. Summer temperatures, which were some 3 degrees below average, allowed record levels of winter snow to remain much longer, leading to the increase in glacial mass.

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound", said glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years".

"On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface [in] late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying [did] not become snow free until early August."

Molnia, who works for the US Geological Survey, said it's been a "long time" since area glaciers have seen a positive mass balance -- an increase in the total amount of ice they contain.

Since 1946, the USGS has maintained a research project measuring the state of Alaskan glaciers. This year saw records broken for most snow buildup. It was also the first time since any records began being that the glaciers did not shrink during the summer months.

Those records date from the mid 1700s, when the region was first visited by Russian explorers.  Molnia estimates that Alaskan glaciers have lost about 15% of their total area since that time -- an area the size of Connecticut.

One of the largest areas of shrinkage has been at the national park of Glacier Bay. When Alexei Ilich Chirikof first arrived in 1741, the bay didn't exist at all -- only a solid wall of ice. From that time until the early 1900s, the ice retreated some 50 miles, to form the bay and surrounding area.

Accordingly to Molnia, a difference of just 3 or 4 degrees is enough to shift the mass balance of glaciers from rapid shrinkage to rapid growth. From the 1600s to the 1900s, that’s just the amount of warming that was seen, as the planet exited the Little Ice Age.

Molnia says one cold summer doesn't mean the start of a new climatic trend. At least years like this, however, might mark the beginning of another Little Ice Age.

[Soldier4Christ]

In just 15 days, Barrow has received twice its average monthly Nov snowfall … on top of a record-breaking October

BARROW SET AN ALL TIME RECORD MONTHLY SNOWFALL DURING OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR...THE TREND OF ABOVE AVERAGE SNOWFALL CONTINUES…6.8 INCHES OF SNOW FOR THE FIRST 15 DAYS OF THE MONTH...ALREADY WELL ABOVE THE AVERAGE MONTHLY SNOWFALL OF 3.9 INCHES...

 

IN ADDITION, THIS RANKS AS THE 7TH SNOWIEST FIRST FIFTEEN DAYS OF THE MONTH ...MEASURABLE SNOW WAS RECORDED ON 14 OF 15 DAYS SO FAR THIS MONTH WITH THE MAXIMUM DAILY AMOUNT OF 1.3 INCHES OF THE 15TH.

STATISTICS FOR SNOWIEST FIRST 15 DAYS OF NOVEMBER

1. 17.0 1925
2. 11.4 2006
3. 10.1 1965
4.  9.2 2001
5.  7.1 2005
6.  6.9 1943
7.  6.8 2008
7.  6.8 1968
9.  6.2 2007
10. 5.9 1958

______________________


Winter storm warning for West Virginia - 5 to 15 inches of snow expected

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHARLESTON WV

A WINTER STORM WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL MIDNIGHT EST

TUESDAY NIGHT...IS EXPECTED TO PRODUCE A SIGNIFICANT UPSLOPE SNOW SHOWER EVENT FOR SOME OF THE MOUNTAINOUS COUNTIES IN WEST VIRGINIA.

TOTAL SNOW ACCUMULATION FROM MONDAY AFTERNOON INTO TUESDAY NIGHT ARE EXPECTED TO BE IN THE 5 TO 15 INCH RANGE.  ELEVATIONS ABOVE 2500 FEET IN THE WARNING AREA...ARE LIKELY TO HAVE THE HIGHER AMOUNTS...

[Soldier4Christ]

Global Warming to Shrink Brains?

In news that is sure to set the mind of climate change denialist Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) a spinnin', two head shrinkers at the University at Albany will soon publish research that suggests the human brain grew dramatically as our ancestors adapted to colder temperatures.

Jessica Ash and Gordon Gallup studied 109 fossilized skulls from different latitudes to determine that "climate may have been an important selective force behind the evolution of human cranial capacity," according to Gallup, who theorized that changes in global temperature could account for as much as 50 percent of the variation in headmeat. "Specifically, we found that as the distance from the equator increased, north or south, so did brain size," he said. The researchers will publish their study in the spring edition of Human Nature.




I think the brain size of the global warmist has already shrunk.

[nChrist]

       ROFL!

Senator James Inhofe is my Representative, and I like him. He has served Oklahoma well for many years, and I wish that he could share some of his common sense with folks in Washington. Sadly, there aren't many like him left.