Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L13208, 2004)
- David H. Douglass (Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA)
- Benjamin D. Pearson (Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA)
- S. Fred Singer (Science & Environmental Policy Project, Arlington, Virginia, USA)

Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination
(Science 5, Vol. 291. no. 5501, January 2001)
- Eric Monnin, Andreas Indermühle, André Dällenbach, Jacqueline Flückiger, Bernhard Stauffer, Thomas F. Stocker, Dominique Raynaud, Jean-Marc Barnola

Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate
(GSA Volume 13, Issue 7, July 2003)
- Nir J. Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91904, Israel)
- Ján Veizer (Institut für Geologie, Mineralogie und Geophysik, Ruhr Universität, 44780 Bochum, Germany, and Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada)

Does a Global Temperature Exist?
(Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, June 2006)
- Christopher Essex (Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario)
- Ross McKitrick (Department of Economics, University of Guelph)
- Bjarne Andresen (Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen)

Estimation and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution
(GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L03209, 2004)
- Willie W.-H. Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA)
- David R. Legates (Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA)
- Sallie L. Baliunas (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA)

Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds
(Royal Society of London Proceedings Series A, vol. 462, Issue 2068, 2006)
- Harrison, R. Giles; Stephenson, David B

Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays and regional climate time series
(Journal Advances in Space Research, February 2007)
- Charles A. Perrya (US Geological Survey, Lawrence, KS, USA)

Formation of large NAT particles and denitrification in polar stratosphere: possible role of cosmic rays and effect of solar activity
(Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 2273-2283, 2004)
- F. Yu (Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York, USA)

Has solar variability caused climate change that affected human culture?
(Journal Advances in Space Research, 2007)
- Joan Feynmana, (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, CA Institute of Technology, California, USA)

Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River?
(JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, D21114, 2006)
- Alexander Ruzmaikin (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA)
- Joan Feynman (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA)
- Yuk L. Yung (Department of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA)

On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
(JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 110, A08105, 2005)
- Nir J. Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel)

On the relationship of cosmic ray flux and precipitation
(GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 28, NO. 8, PAGES 1527–1530, 2001)
- Dominic R. Kniveton (School of Chemistry Physics and Environmental Science, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom)
- Martin C. Todd (Department of Geography, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom)

Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth’s temperature
(GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L08203, 2007)
- H. B. Hammel (Space Science Institute, Boulder, Colorado, USA)
- G. W. Lockwood (Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA)

The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
(physics/0612145v1, 2006)
- Henrik Svensmark (Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center)

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
(Science 14, Vol. 299. no. 5613, March 2003)
- Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang, Volodya Y. Lipenkov

“The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.”

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements
(JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112, D06102, 2007)
- John R. Christy (Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA)
- William B. Norris (Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA)
- Roy W. Spencer (Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA)
- Justin J. Hnilo (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA)

Ouch that has to hurt…

The man also has plans for something like 1,200 new nuclear plants.

The fact is, the United States could cut back its fossil fuel consumption by 75% by simple conservation measures……
Better use of rail, better housing insulation, combined heat hot water, power generation, etcetera.
Then there are bio-fuels such as the new MPG recarbonization system, new breakthourghs in Aqueous fuels. The MPG – Fischer Tropsch re-carbonization system obtains 200 liters or 1.25 barrels of finished gasoline,
diesel or kerosine for every cubic meter of wet bio-mass garbage wastes going in. (including sewage sludge, thank you.) Add that to breakthourghs in aqueous fuels running off of no less than 70% bio-fuel and 30% water, and you are off fossil fuels at a profit.

We could be off fossil fuels at a big fat profit for everybody by 2026. Ecology and economy are not contradictions in terms.

The dot com boom is over. But the New Energy boom is just getting started. Let Cheney deny all he wants, but the money is in “New Energy Systems”.

Here in Europe, we have an intact rail and functioning state of the art rail system my countrymen in the U.S. would envy. So re-build rail for a start.
Provides jobs and rail employees pay taxes.

The solutions are under our noses. All we have to do to “smell them” is to stop kissing “neo-con” asses like Cheney`s and go on doing our own particular things respective to New Energy. Go for it.

All the Best: Old Fashioned Lincoln Liberal….. with great hopes in New Energy Technologies.

Vinnie,
I think EPA is probably not a new troll here but someone who has been trolling here before and is now using yet a different name. To wit, when EPA lifts material wholesale from anti-global warming and rightwing sites, the sentences start with a capital letter and end with a period, in accordance with the rules of English punctuation. When writing on his own, his sentences usually start with lower case letters, don’t use periods or commas and run on into what should be other sentences. This is exactly the way the troll who posed recently as Clinton, Harry Truman, FDR writes.
Of course, it is possible that this is just another uneducated rightwing troll who has never learned about capitalizing letters and where to demarcate sentences. I can’t dismiss that possiblity, either.

Show me ONE peer-reviewed paper which refutes either a)global warming, or b) human-caused global warming. If you can do that, I might believe that there is evidence for an alternate global warming theory. If you can’t do that (and we know you can’t!), then have some integrity and admit that you are wrong.

If I really thought it would make a difference I would supply some of the very wide body of evidence indicating that global warming is real and is man-made. But you are interested in nothing more than creating doubt about the issue. Since you demand ‘proof’, I won’t ever be able to convince you.

I do question the motives of global warming deniers like yourself. Below is a link to a list of organizations that Exxon has provided money to to the tune of over $8 million. Do you deny that Exxon has a vested economic interest in this debate and has been doing what they can to create doubt about the issue?

http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html

Answer us honestly, have you ever had any affiliation with any of the organizations listed in this list? If not, please explain why you are so interested in this topic. How did you come across this site? It’s kind of odd that you’ve never posted here before and now all of a sudden you go on and on with the standard right-wing global warming denier talking points.

Any theory not proven is up for debate. You would not have to post statements and consensus viewpoints if you could prove man-made CO2 is causing climate change. You are completely contradicting yourself. What am I seeing right now, what effects? Are you going to tell me sea level rise will be catastrophic when the IPCC who you list states it will not be? Make up your mind. The only person you are fooling with your long winded replies are the ones already fooled by the man-made global warming religion.

I don’t have the time to take on all of your arguments

That is because you cannot. Not a single person here has been able to argue the science of this not even remotely. Prove to me via the Scientific Method Man-Made CO2 will cause catastrophic climate change.

You cannot and any intelligent, rational and scientifically minded person should realize this before they go jumping off the cliff with you.

This administration took positions on the environment that were provable. CO2 is not a pollutant = fact. Blaming big oil and energy companies for all your woes is a copout and designed to get people to not look at the lack of provable scientific evidence supporting man-made CO2 causing catastrophic climate change. I have made many more points than just planets in our solar system undergoing climate change.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

FACT: CO2 is not a pollutant. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously.

Quick Facts:

- Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C in the last 100 years.
- Global mean sea level has risen about 0.17m (6.6in) in the last 100 years.
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen by about 30% (280-370 ppmv) over the past 100 years.
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) = about 0.038% of the atmosphere.
- Humans can only claim responsibility for about 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually.
- Ice core records show Carbon Dioxide (CO2) changes lag behind Temperature changes by hundreds of years.
- Carbon Dioxide accounts for somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4% of the greenhouse effect.
- Water accounts for about 90-95% of the greenhouse effect.
- Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming is an unproven Theory.
- There is no “scientific consensus” that global warming will cause catastrophic climate change.
- Science is not determined by “consensus” but by the Scientific Method.

You didn’t name one either, EPA. You also can’t capitalize, punctuate, and write run-on sentences just like the troll posing as various Dem presidents.
BTW, “it’s” is the contraction of “it is,” smarty-pants. Ever heard of the personal pronoun “its,” E(normously)P(athetic)A(..hole)? I didn’t think so.

His tax returns are public. Look them up yourself.

What this thread should be all about is how our administration consistently ignored the scientific consensus to argue the other side. Even if you argue that both arguments carry the same weight (which I don’t agree with), one has to ask why the administration clung so hard to the non-consensus position. It couldn’t have anything to do with our administrations strong ties to the energy companies could it Mr. EPA?

What EPA is de facto arguing is that the Bush administration was right to ignore the scientific consensus because the consensus is wrong. While I wholeheartedly disagree with that, I think the more important point is that his line of arguing is an attempt to distract us from the main premise – that our adminstration consistently and deliberately took a position that ignored warnings from professional scientists and favored positions that were generated by the energy companies.

The Secret Campaign of President Bush’s Administration To Deny Global Warming

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/1

Looking back at your numerous posts you like to pick and choose little pieces of knowledge like global warming on Pluto to try and create doubt about the reality of the situation. Let’s just look at the summary position of the American Meterological Association. For some odd reason, I trust these guys to tell me more about climate than you.

“Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond. Focusing on the next 30 years, convergence among emission scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing air temperatures will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production and rangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level rise. Important goals for future work include the need to understand the relation of climate at the state and regional level to the patterns of global climate and to reverse the decline in observational networks that are so critical to accurate climate monitoring and prediction.”

Source: http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

Let’s see you find a valid scientific organization that makes a corresponding quote taking your position.

First, I question why you have devoted so much of your time to fighting this issue. You appear to have taken a few hours of your Saturday to rehash the standard right-wing talking points on climate change. I do question your motives. I know it is an easy knee-jerk reaction to say that your type are in the pay of the oil companies, but there is ample evidence to show that Exxon and others have provided MILLIONS to fund your brand of ’science’. It’s funny how you ignore the key premise of this article, that Cheney pushed something based on ideology rather than on science. Indeed, that’s been a hallmark of this administration. You are acting just like Cheney yourself.

I don’t have the time to take on all of your arguments but I will provide my own list of scientific organizations that have taken the consensus position on global warming (below). Let’s see you name a single scientific organization that has taken your side.

The most important problem with your arguments is your thrashing of the scientific method. You bash ‘consensus’ on one hand and on the other hand try to list scientists who are on your side as some kind of proof. In fact, the way science operates ‘consensus’ is all we have. I would argue that almost all of those arguing your side, yourself included, are doing so based on political or economic reasons and not out of an interest in scientific inquiry. Are you going to deny that Cheney has a very strong relationship with the energy companies? It’s so bad that he had to fight a Supreme Court battle to keep these relationships hidden.

No one can PROVE the existence of atoms, that evolution occurred or that Einstein’s relativity is correct. So, by your standards all of those items should be up for debate. Yet, these are standards of scientific thinking today. Why? Because the CONSENSUS over numerous years of scientific study has concluded that these theories are valid. And yes, we still call them ‘theories’ because, unlike religious thinking, we acknowledge that we could be wrong.

I imagine if three or four doctors said that, based on the evidence, you had an appendicitis, you would argue that they can’t prove it. Indeed, they can’t prove it. They could be wrong. You argue that the ‘consensus’ of these doctors doesn’t mean anything. That’s not the way science is done! And so you take no action and die.

The fact that so many scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus position is compelling. Given that they’ve still held their own depsite the intense efforts of the energy companies AND the Bush administration is doubly compelling.

We are seeing the effects of global warming right now and these effects will only be magnified over the next few decades since those in power haven chosen to do NOTHING about it. Given that there’s at least a good chance of this happening, don’t you think we should be concerned and do something about it?

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
The American Astronomical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
American Association of State Climatologists
Australian Medical Association
American Chemical Society
American Quaternary Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

I try to…but some people are just so f*cking stupid I can’t contain myself sometimes.

I wouldn’t be so hard on yourself. I realize you make yourself feel better by ignoring the argument because you don’t have the brain power to win but hey more power to the ignorant. I think you should try some more unwitty acronyms.

Yeah ok Lora you met all these “Scientists” but cannot name one. Oh I met a million who all say you are stupid they also attended MIT.

m12, the hypocrisy is evident. Their inner irrational hatred for Booosh! clouds their judgement. Latching on to the Global Warming Religion is their only hope to “feel better” about the sad state of their lives. When confronted with the scientific facts and evidence they name call and cry because they never could win a logical debate with facts. Maybe we should go back to an emotional argument:

Oh looky the cute Polar Bear eats a Baby Seal pup alive:

Polar Bear kills Seal pup

Look how the poor bear crushes the baby seal pup’s skull and eats it’s flesh. Save the Polar Bear!!! Save the Polar Bear!!! To hell with the defenseless baby seals!!! Come on Lora, MsJoanne how about I show this to your kids in elementary school.!

George Bush is an environmental hero for owning such a house.

I remember posting a thread on Democratic Underground talking about that house and it’s owner, Viggo Mortenson. All the lefties gave the owner great praise. Then I told them I made a “mistake” with the owner, and they ate their words.

The President who has paid more than his fair share of taxes over the last 7 years?