Nice work..

I just wanted to write to say that you have a great site and a wonderful resource for all to share.

We all agree there is and has been global warming for at least 12,000 years–
at 3 parts per 10,000, how could carbon dioixde be causing increased global warming. Glaciers have been receeding for 12,000 years–and will continue no matter what we do–why is this not admitted in discussions–

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Basically because I like to believe that mother earth is a large, strong, living planet. Rather than a fragile, weak, and susceptible planet. We humans are a fraction of this living planet. Bacteria and algae accounting for the majority of environmental influence. They’re everywhere. Hence the term living planet. An increase in greenhouse gases produced by these creatures would have a much larger and deleterious effect on the planet than anything we could do. (Exception: Hydrogen bombs, lots of them).

But these carbon-dioxide creating creatures are regulated. Are regulated by other creatures in our ecosystem. Are regulated by a scarcity of resources. For instance, if carbon dioxide is created by one creature another creature will rise in population to consume the extra carbon dioxide. And thereby a balance is reached on this planet. These tipping points have been being reached and balancing out for the last 4.5 billion years. The scales at which these chemicals are created and at which the organisms operate is really beyond us. We have assimilated into their world. Not vice versa.

These are some of the factors that have contributed to global climate changes for the last 4.5 billion years. Besides polarity shifts, volcanoes, earthquakes, and asteroids of course. We humans are just that not significant. Like this guy said:

William M. Gray, Colorado State University: “This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.”

Anyways this has always been my original gut opinion. I am not a scientist and I am not a fanatic. I have not researched all that there is to know about global warming. It is basically an opinion that reflects my understanding of this planet its geology and its ecosystems. An understanding that I have nurtured through a general interest in science throughout my life. I do not deny that human behavior in the last 150 years is artificial and different than any time in the Earth’s past. And we should definitely be conscious of these things if not for the earth’s sake then at least for our sake. Because really we are the fragile ones. We are the complex organisms that depend on a myriad of conditions every day for our survival. We should acknowledge our actions because of what we know about chaos theory and the butterfly effect. Which tells us that one minor action under the right circumstances can multiply out to have humongous results. So maybe we are the cause of this .5 celsius rise in temperature, but who’s to say really, I remain skeptical.

What we should not do is get carried away. What we should not do is underestimate our great planet. We should try not to be frantic or create drama. We should simply try to understand our planet and understand ourselves. We should conserve and care for our planet for real genuine reasons not just for selfish theories about our survival of our cities and global destruction.

The debates about global warming and environmental concerns involve a lot of great people. Loving, caring, intellectual people. But I believe, to a certain extent, it is also being backed by larger firms, corporations, and politicians. Like Al Gore. Who bring up global warming debates simply not necessarily because they care so much but simply cause they want your vote. They want power. They are the ones who have to spark a fear so that they may dominate. I think this is definitely a factor. I guess you would call this the liberal agenda. That’s Hollywood, that’s newspapers, that’s politicians. Hey, I’m not biased against liberals, God knows conservatives have their own agendas too which are equally bad. Probably worse. I like to believe I’m just stating the facts, calling it like I see it. Understanding us humans and this planet for what it is, from what I conclude, not from what someone else has concluded for me.

Steve S

The National Academy of Sciences has just released a report concluding that the “hockey stick” graph that has been relied upon by the global warming alarmists cannot be relied upon. The media and the liberal blogs suppress this news and spin it for o…

Balling’s “factual evidence” apparently does not sufficiently pass muster to get published in scientific journals.

Here’s an interesting article on climate skeptics in the latest Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html

A growing trend – they pull these pseudo-scientists from Creation Institutional Colleges that exist solely to debunk real science in the name of religious mythologies from the Bible (Noah’s Flood for instance), which conveniently align with most of the Republican Party’s greedy little plans to accumulate unnecessary wealth. The paper their diplomas are printed upon is worthless. They know very little about anything reality based, especially science.

Some of the funniest stuff I have ever read is a series of debates these pseudo-scientists have had with real scientists. Usually on Public Radio Stations or before a zealous audience who later asks crazy questions about Atheism instead of science.

For a good laugh: http://www.atheists.org/evolution/morrisdebate.html

EvAreas of Expertise:

* Satellite data temperature
* Hurricanes
* Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
* Evangelical Movement and Global warming
* General climate change issues

from: http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=267

Could you enlighten us here as to exactly what isInterfaith stwardship Allaince has to do with science,

or Evangelical Movement and Global warming could that be faith based science? lets see what else he has to say…..

08 Aug 2005
Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as “fact,” I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

Same page just a little lower…he does not look too scientific does he NOW

and another of his serious scientific proposals…

I’ve decided it’s time to get serious about Global Warming. The national academies of science of eleven nations recently united to warn us of impeding climatic doom resulting from our careless inflation of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from its God-ordained 19th century value of 0.00029 to the current astronomical magnitude of 0.00038. With increasing fears that this extra plant food will cause a choking of our cities and highways with unwanted greenery, and the Russians’ concern that winter temperatures will warm above -40 deg. F, thus changing the hibernation habits of the endangered Siberian snow snake, I must now join the chorus of voices calling for action.

Unfortunately, most of the bills currently being debated by congress (McCain-Lieberman; Domenici-Bingaman) to help reduce the use of fossil fuels will fix only a miniscule part of the problem, with literally unmeasurable effects on global temperatures in the coming decades.

In response to this lack of leadership, I have decided it is time to campaign for my own legislation. I am hopeful that my ideas will take our congressional leadership by storm, and become part of the energy bill now being debated in the Senate.

The Spencer-Spencer bill (the name reflects my desire to get full credit for these ideas) will meet the challenges of Global Warming head-on, avoiding most our projected future emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. I propose a gradual phase-in, over periods of up to 10 days, of the following measures:

1) Addition of a $10 per gallon tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. This will
result in an immediate reduction in gasoline use, probably remove our
dependence on foreign oil, and there will be no need to drill in ANWR.
Millions of displaced workers in the petroleum industry will be needed in
the rapidly-expanding bicycle manufacturing sector. As a side benefit,
the Europeans will no longer be jealous over our low fuel taxes (the real
reason for current poor relations), and a new era of cooperation between
the U.S. and the EU will emerge.

2) The average gas mileage of cars will be increased to meet a mandated
100 mpg. This will force the automakers to use their high-mpg fuel injection
and lean combustion technologies that they have been hiding from us
through collusion with the petroleum industry (I read about this terrible
injustice while waiting in the checkout line at the grocery store).

3) Electricity generation will be required to be at least 90% from renewable
resources. Using my extensive background in physics and economics,
I have calculated that this will reduce electricity consumption by close to
90%, a huge savings in energy.

4) Re-institute a national speed limit, set to 35 mph. After our country’s
previous success with speed limit reductions to 55 mph, a lower limit should
be even more attractive to the public. (The 35 mph limit should be more
than enough, anyway, since most ground transportation will be by bicycle.)

5) Jogging will be outlawed. It is a little known fact that the extra carbon
dioxide (and methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas) emitted by
joggers accounts for close to 10% of the current Global Warming problem.
This will have an additional, rejuvenating psychological advantage for the
overwhelming majority of us who do not jog, resulting in an immediate
jump in productivity and thus GDP.

6) All roads and buildings in cities will be required to be painted white. This
will eliminate the urban heat island effect, which is clearly out of control.

Of course, for the good of the country, some people will necessarily be exempt from these new restrictions. Policymakers, scientists, and policymaking scientists, owing to their irreplaceable roles in society, will be the only three groups allowed to travel at any speed and consume any amount of fuel. As a result, “HOV” lanes will be redesignated “PS” lanes. Air travel will also be restricted to only these three groups.

These changes will be difficult at first, but as has been stated repeatedly by scientists and politicians alike, Global Warming is a greater threat to humanity than terrorism, nuclear proliferation, celebrity trials, and editorial bad humor, combined. It is time to put petty partisan politics aside, and unite for the common good of humanity.

I call on the Senate to adopt Spencer-Spencer as part of the energy bill.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062005G

He is just a paid hack for the repug energy industry with out real serious concerns…give it up…

Here is the link for the above quote

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=187

And you see minni mind why does the web sirte you draw this quote fromlinks to a website for the article that has no new articles or updates beyond 2000…six years ago…

Wonder what the good Dr Singer would have thought about somebody who was using the knowledge of 1963 to rate the moon shot of 1969

That’s excluding nearly a decade of work.

All of them underscoring deficiencies in the global climate models.

Not all the evidence for human-caused warming uses the models. There are plenty of data points independent of the models:

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3458&method=full

Some people will do anything to save the Earth, except take a science course.

If you know anything about the science, you would know that Christy and Spencer are part of a very small minority of skeptics. And these skeptics don’t seem to publish much. See this study about how since 1993, 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming have been published. 0 of them challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

And the first sentance of the NAS study, commissioned by the president in 2001, reads:

“Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.”

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3713&method=full

I mean, what more do you need? You have to start delving into paranoid conspiracy theories to deny the problem at this point.

The nation’s two top authorities on global satellite temperature data–Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville–came to Washington last week to discuss the reasons they’re not too concerned about a putative global warming. Speaking before an audience of approximately 80 Congressional staff, policy analysts, and journalists, Spencer and Christy covered points familiar to scientists who have studied the global warming issue, all of them underscoring deficiencies in the global climate models:

To begin with, they said, all weather–clouds, rain, wind–acts to remove excess heat from the Earth’s surface, but the models do not explicitly account for these rain systems. Water vapor makes up 95 percent of the greenhouse effect; half of the IPCC-predicted global warming depends on how water vapor responds to increased carbon dioxide. Yet the climate models do not have the cloud microphysics to predict how water vapor will respond. As the models have improved over the last decade, the IPCC’s “best estimate” of global warming by the year 2100 continues to be revised downward: 3.3 degrees C in 1990, 2.8 degrees C in 1992, and 2 degrees C in 1996.

Spencer and Christy stressed that the surface temperature record is not global and has not been independently validated. The satellite data covers the entire Earth and has been independently validated by balloon radiosonde data. (Another study independently validating the satellite record will appear shortly in the Journal of Geophysical Research.) Global climate models–the foundation for the Global Climate Treaty–base their forecasts on temperatures in the lower troposphere (not the surface itself), which is the area tracked by satellites. At this point, said Christy, GCMs say the satellite temperatures should be running 50 percent higher than surface temperatures. Instead, surface temperatures are going up and lower troposphere temperatures are heading slightly down.

Dr. Christy criticized the press briefing two weeks ago by Vice President Al Gore, saying attempts to use the recent El Nino to whip up the media on global warming was a case of picking examples that sounded impressive but on closer examination had no merit. For example, Gore cited 5 small U.S. states as setting record high temperatures during the first five months of 1998, when the El Nino was having its strongest impact on U.S. weather. But Christy said that the selected five states amounted to just 1.3 percent of the total land area of the United States. Of all of the 50 states, he said, 37 had record high temperatures posted before 1940, and only 13 set records since then. Christy added that the Earth has been generally cooler for the past 5,500 years, a period often referred to by scientists as “neoglacial.” Six thousand years ago it was much warmer than today and Norway’s glaciers had completely disappeared. Now Norwegian glaciers are advancing at record speed.

The Vice President is adamant, however, even risking embarrassment to shove the Kyoto Protocol down the public’s collective throat. Associated Press reported last Wednesday, June 17, that Gore was threatening to shut down the federal government if Congress failed to approve the Clinton Administration’s proposed environmental spending. Heading the list is the five-year, $6.3 billion package of tax credits, subsidies, and research grants targeting the global warming issue. Speaking to a group of Green activists, Gore hinted that President Clinton would veto any legislation containing riders that would choke off the proposed spending. “We are putting Congress on notice,” he said. “We are drawing the line.” A White House official, who asked to remain anonymous, said it was “premature” to say specifically if Clinton would veto any bills.

As American humorist P.J. O’Rourke has said: “Some people will do anything to save the Earth, except take a science course.” Well, some who have “taken a science course” have a higher calling. A colleague recently forwarded to us “A Scientist’s Belief in God and the Earth,” from the March 18th Financial Times of London. The article is a profile of Sir John Houghton, co-chairman of the IPCC, who is described as a “devout Christian” and “a man who occupies an interesting position at the point where science, government and faith meet–some might say clash…”

Houghton makes some interesting statements. He “admits that, in spite of the refinement of science, there is still uncertainty about where the climate is actually heading, especially…how the climate may change.” According to Sir John, who obviously hasn’t talked to Vice President Gore lately, “People haven’t seen global warming yet. It’s all in the future. We can’t expect them to take drastic action yet in the face of these uncertainties. It’s not that they don’t care. They just can’t be bothered…” Still, reasonable evidence isn’t really necessary, in his view. Governments simply need to show a little “leadership,” take on “the high moral and spiritual challenges” of environment, population growth, allocation of resources, etc., even in the face of uncertainty. In other words, as Houghton said in a Times of London article last year, cutting energy use by more than 50 percent “can contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind’s greed and indifference.”

Comment by memphis minnie — May 26, 2006 @ 8:37 pm

This guy reads like a far-rightwing conspiracy quack. His ‘questions’ made a lot of assumptions and absolutist statements. I just really love it when people speak for all others – in terms of ‘all’ and ‘never’ and ‘always’ – even if infered or implied. It immediately lets me know that they are arguing on emotion and/or fear and not logic. And the false ‘politeness’ and backhanded compliments are nauseating – very condescending. Dr. Spencer needs to pull his head out of his own rear end.

But throughout mankind, we haven’t been doubling the level of CO2. What would you think are the consequences of doing this? Nothing?

And throughout mankind we haven’t been gathering evidence like this: http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3458&method=full

Even if you disregard the NAS, NOAA, the IPCC (which you shouldn’t disregard) the temperature goes up. CO2 levels go up. CO2 has the property of trapping heat. According to Occam’s Razor, that’s the most likely suspect. And that’s what the science says, and that’s what 99.9% of the scientific community says. So let’s put our head back in the sand?