"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:05 GMT, "CRM" wrote:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing
this
BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical
levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834


Interesting. I wonder if it'll make the news on NBC.

It doesn't sell, does not generate hysteria for profit. All the greenies
are asking for what do they pick on next.

wrote in message
...
On Jan 5, 12:27 pm, "CRM" wrote:
I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing
this
BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical
levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Did you see the reason why?:

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea
ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead,
the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly
cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to
the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And
to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly
be because of global warming.

-------
Nature has a way of compensating that fruit fly specialists and politicians
have no clue off. In fact, they are hype for sale clueless. Some of knew
this all along.

FUD - Fear and Uncertainty Deivers! (Profits).

On Jan 5, 3:27*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 3:05*pm, wrote:





On Jan 5, 2:26*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 2:12*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this
BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical
levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Did you see the reason why?:

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea
ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead,
the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly
cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to
the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And
to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly
be because of global warming.

Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition,
it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical
weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming..
BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have
something to do with global warming.

If, but, could... *bottom line is that no one has proven that GW even
exists. *Many of the so-called indicators are vanishing as the weather
and climate follow their natural cycles. *More and more scientist are
coming out against the IPCC report and the idea of GW at all.
Including a large number that were used by name in the IPCC report
that now say they disagree with it's findings.

GW was (and is) a very successful money-making scheme. *Algore is
laughing all the way to the bank in his monster house and private jet..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The number of scientists who think that global warming IS occuring is
massive compared to the number who don't believe it.

That is very debatable, and what quality scientists are we talking
about. NASA and NOAA, two pretty credible orginazations of scientists
do not adhere to Global Taxing...



It's plain and
simple. Let's say you have a bomb sitting in your yard. A few
scientists tell you that it's okay to go hit it with a shovel, nothing
will happen, it's inert, those damned liberals think everything is
dangerous. Another much, much larger group of scientists tell you that
if you hit the bomb with a shovel, it will kill you, and everyone else
in town. Which do you do?

And here's quite a simple question. Do you think that all of the
millions of pounds of pollutants poured into the air every day,
including green house gases, poisons, etc. is good for the environment
and good for your children to breath?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Uh, no. Here's NOAA's take:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/home.html
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303239,00.html

And then NASA's
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global...worldbook.html

wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:55 pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:02 pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:32 pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 12:27 pm, "CRM" wrote:
I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this
BS here.
Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical
levels?
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
Did you see the reason why?:
Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea
ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead,
the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly
cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to
the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And
to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly
be because of global warming.
Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition,
it has nothing to do with GW. :-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical
weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming.
BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have
something to do with global warming.
Loogy, how would you define 'cyclical' when we're talking millions of
years. Hell, Gore's stuff was only for the past couple hundred. *That* is
cyclical in the big scheme of things. No?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Going up steadily corresponding to the industrial revolution isn't a
cycle.

No, it is coincidental.

BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:55 pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:02 pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:32 pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 12:27 pm, "CRM" wrote:
I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be
no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G
pushing this
BS here.
Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's
historical
levels?
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
Did you see the reason why?:
Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea
ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead,
the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly
cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to
the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And
to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly
be because of global warming.
Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition,
it has nothing to do with GW. :-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical
weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming.
BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have
something to do with global warming.
Loogy, how would you define 'cyclical' when we're talking millions of
years. Hell, Gore's stuff was only for the past couple hundred.
*That* is
cyclical in the big scheme of things. No?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Going up steadily corresponding to the industrial revolution isn't a
cycle.

No, it is coincidental.


You have no cred to make such a statement.

hk wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:55 pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:02 pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:32 pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 12:27 pm, "CRM" wrote:
I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be
no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G
pushing this
BS here.
Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's
historical
levels?
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
Did you see the reason why?:
Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer
sea
ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier.
Instead,
the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly
cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to
the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming.
And
to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite
possibly
be because of global warming.
Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition,
it has nothing to do with GW. :-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical
weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming.
BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have
something to do with global warming.
Loogy, how would you define 'cyclical' when we're talking millions of
years. Hell, Gore's stuff was only for the past couple hundred.
*That* is
cyclical in the big scheme of things. No?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Going up steadily corresponding to the industrial revolution isn't a
cycle.

No, it is coincidental.


You have no cred to make such a statement.

You have no "cred" to refute my statement.

"CRM" wrote in
:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea
ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G
pushing this BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's
historical levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834



I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ce.area.withtr
end.jpg

or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6

strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last couple of
years is significantly below the 20 year average for 1979-2000, and
further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction in sea ice area. In
fact, that very figure is presented in the article you reference - you
might want to take a closer look at it before you reject the idea that
something is happening with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if
that graph were of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot
more concerned.

On Jan 5, 4:24*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 3:27*pm, wrote:





On Jan 5, 3:05*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 2:26*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 2:12*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this
BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical
levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Did you see the reason why?:

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea
ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead,
the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly
cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to
the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And
to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly
be because of global warming.

Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition,
it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical
weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming.
BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have
something to do with global warming.

If, but, could... *bottom line is that no one has proven that GW even
exists. *Many of the so-called indicators are vanishing as the weather
and climate follow their natural cycles. *More and more scientist are
coming out against the IPCC report and the idea of GW at all.
Including a large number that were used by name in the IPCC report
that now say they disagree with it's findings.

GW was (and is) a very successful money-making scheme. *Algore is
laughing all the way to the bank in his monster house and private jet.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The number of scientists who think that global warming IS occuring is
massive compared to the number who don't believe it.

That is very debatable, and what quality scientists are we talking
about. NASA and NOAA, two pretty credible orginazations of scientists
do not adhere to Global Taxing...

It's plain and
simple. Let's say you have a bomb sitting in your yard. A few
scientists tell you that it's okay to go hit it with a shovel, nothing
will happen, it's inert, those damned liberals think everything is
dangerous. Another much, much larger group of scientists tell you that
if you hit the bomb with a shovel, it will kill you, and everyone else
in town. Which do you do?

And here's quite a simple question. Do you think that all of the
millions of pounds of pollutants poured into the air every day,
including green house gases, poisons, etc. is good for the environment
and good for your children to breath?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Uh, no. Here's NOAA's take:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...303239,00.html

And then NASA'shttp://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

Much of your data is dated. Taken from another forum:

"NOAA scientist say warming concesus a scandal"

Global Warming Rope-a-Dope
By Walter Williams
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, December 29, 2008

Americans have been rope-a-doped into believing that global warming is
going to destroy our planet.

Scientists who have been skeptical about manmade global warming have
been called traitors or handmaidens of big oil. The Washington Post
asserted on May 28, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics”
of manmade climate fears. Bill Blakemore on Aug. 30, 2006 said, “After
extensive searches, ABC News has found no such (scientific) debate on
global warming.”

U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de
Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of
global warming. U.N. special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland
on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate “over” and added “it’s
completely immoral, even, to question” the U.N.’s scientific
“consensus.”

In July 23, 2007, CNN’s Miles O’Brien said, “The scientific debate is
over.” Earlier he said that scientific skeptics of manmade
catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil
fuel industry, usually.”

The global warming scare has provided a field day for politicians and
others who wish to control our lives. After all, only the imagination
limits the kind of laws and restrictions that can be written in the
name of saving the planet.

Recently, more and more scientists are summoning up the courage to
speak out and present evidence against the global warming rope-a-dope.
Atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research
Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said,
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there
is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global
warming.”

Dr. Goldenberg has the company of at least 650 noted scientists
documented in the recently released U.S. Senate Minority Report: “More
Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming
Claims: Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus’ in 2008.” The
scientists, not environmental activists, include Ivar Giaever, Nobel
Laureate in physics, who said, “I am a skeptic … Global warming has
become a new religion.” Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an environmental physical
chemist, said warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the
history … When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel
deceived by science and scientists.”

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a
catastrophic future warming,” said Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical
engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200
scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research
and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, said, “Many (scientists) are
now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming
fears), without having their professional careers ruined.”


The fact of the matter is an increasing amount of climate research
suggests a possibility of global cooling. Geologist Dr. Don J.
Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University says,
“Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps
more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977
cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton
and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice
Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.”

Geologist Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008
International Geological Congress, currently at Uppsala University in
Sweden asks, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin
to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must
cooling go on?”

and this:

As we've noted, 2008 has been a year of records for cold and snowfall
and may indeed be the coldest year of the 21st century thus far. In
the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures
for the month of October.

Global thermometers stopped rising after 1998, and have plummeted in
the last two years by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius. The 2007-2008
temperature drop was not predicted by global climate models. But it
was predictable by a decline in sunspot activity since 2000.

When the sun is active, it's not uncommon to see sunspot numbers of
100 or more in a single month. Every 11 years, activity slows, and
numbers briefly drop near zero. Normally sunspots return very quickly,
as a new cycle begins. But this year, the start of a new cycle, the
sun has been eerily quiet.

The first seven months averaged a sunspot count of only three and in
August there were no sunspots at all — zero — something that has not
occurred since 1913.

According to the publication Daily Tech, in the past 1,000 years,
three previous such events — what are called the Dalton, Maunder and
Sporer Minimums — have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough
to be called the Little Ice Age (1500-1750).

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-
Carleton Geoscience Centre of Canada's Carleton University, says: "I
and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding
excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and
earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the
ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Indeed, a look at a graph of solar irradiance from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows little solar activity
during the Little Ice Age and significant activity during recent
times.

I like this one:

From the London Times

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved


Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major
themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily
Telegraph.

By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 10:59AM


The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski
resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry"
could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December
19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" ,
reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all
records by New Year's Day".

Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the
evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when
there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made
global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been
adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever
proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three
significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way
wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used
as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures
plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen
for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US
under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years
flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel
out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the
warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC,
that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the
North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly
icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical
predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever
before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.

Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy
now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents,
temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they
plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the
underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume
worse than ever by the middle of the next decade).

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a
"scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed.
At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of
proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate
experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which
was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more
blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce
no more than convenient fictions.

Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its
worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in
on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost
every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's
Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and
"environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty
in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that
the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for
"combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge
themselves in more comfortable times.

Suddenly it has become rather less appealing that we should divert
trillions of dollars, pounds and euros into the fantasy that we could
reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent. All those grandiose
projects for "emissions trading", "carbon capture", building tens of
thousands more useless wind turbines, switching vast areas of farmland
from producing food to "biofuels", are being exposed as no more than
enormously damaging and futile gestures, costing astronomic sums we no
longer possess.

As 2009 dawns, it is time we in Britain faced up to the genuine crisis
now fast approaching from the fact that – unless we get on very soon
with building enough proper power stations to fill our looming "energy
gap" - within a few years our lights will go out and what remains of
our economy will judder to a halt. After years of infantile
displacement activity, it is high time our politicians – along with
those of the EU and President Obama's US – were brought back with a
mighty jolt into contact with the real world.

Heh... this farce called man-made GW is coming to an end.

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:09 -0500, hk wrote:

BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:55 pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:02 pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:32 pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 12:27 pm, "CRM" wrote:
I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be
no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G
pushing this
BS here.
Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's
historical
levels?
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
Did you see the reason why?:
Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea
ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead,
the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly
cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to
the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And
to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly
be because of global warming.
Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition,
it has nothing to do with GW. :-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical
weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming.
BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have
something to do with global warming.
Loogy, how would you define 'cyclical' when we're talking millions of
years. Hell, Gore's stuff was only for the past couple hundred.
*That* is
cyclical in the big scheme of things. No?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Going up steadily corresponding to the industrial revolution isn't a
cycle.

No, it is coincidental.

You have no cred to make such a statement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold..._b_154982.html

"One of the last, desperate canards proposed by climate alarmists is
that of the polar ice caps. Look at the "terrible," "unprecedented"
melting in the Arctic in the summer of 2007, they say. Well, the ice
in the Arctic basin has always melted and refrozen, and always will.
Any researcher who wants to find a single molecule of ice that has
been there longer than 30 years is going to have a hard job, because
the ice has always been melted from above (by the midnight Sun of
summer) and below (by relatively warm ocean currents, possibly
amplified by volcanic venting) -- and on the sides, again by warm
currents. Scientists in the alarmist camp have taken to referring to
"old ice," but, again, this is a misrepresentation of what takes place
in the Arctic."

--

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that
a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes
that it will also make better soup."

H.L. Mencken

On Jan 5, 6:36*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 4:24*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 3:27*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 3:05*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 2:26*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 2:12*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this
BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical
levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Did you see the reason why?:

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea
ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier.. Instead,
the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly
cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to
the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And
to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly
be because of global warming.

Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition,
it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical
weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming.
BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have
something to do with global warming.

If, but, could... *bottom line is that no one has proven that GW even
exists. *Many of the so-called indicators are vanishing as the weather
and climate follow their natural cycles. *More and more scientist are
coming out against the IPCC report and the idea of GW at all.
Including a large number that were used by name in the IPCC report
that now say they disagree with it's findings.

GW was (and is) a very successful money-making scheme. *Algore is
laughing all the way to the bank in his monster house and private jet.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The number of scientists who think that global warming IS occuring is
massive compared to the number who don't believe it.

That is very debatable, and what quality scientists are we talking
about. NASA and NOAA, two pretty credible orginazations of scientists
do not adhere to Global Taxing...

It's plain and
simple. Let's say you have a bomb sitting in your yard. A few
scientists tell you that it's okay to go hit it with a shovel, nothing
will happen, it's inert, those damned liberals think everything is
dangerous. Another much, much larger group of scientists tell you that
if you hit the bomb with a shovel, it will kill you, and everyone else
in town. Which do you do?

And here's quite a simple question. Do you think that all of the
millions of pounds of pollutants poured into the air every day,
including green house gases, poisons, etc. is good for the environment
and good for your children to breath?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Uh, no. Here's NOAA's take:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...ttp://lwf.ncdc...

And then NASA'shttp://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

Much of your data is dated. *Taken from another forum:

"NOAA scientist say warming concesus a scandal"

Global Warming Rope-a-Dope
By Walter Williams
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, December 29, 2008

Americans have been rope-a-doped into believing that global warming is
going to destroy our planet.

Scientists who have been skeptical about manmade global warming have
been called traitors or handmaidens of big oil. The Washington Post
asserted on May 28, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics”
of manmade climate fears. Bill Blakemore on Aug. 30, 2006 said, “After
extensive searches, ABC News has found no such (scientific) debate on
global warming.”

U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de
Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of
global warming. U.N. special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland
on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate “over” and added “it’s
completely immoral, even, to question” the U.N.’s scientific
“consensus.”

In July 23, 2007, CNN’s Miles O’Brien said, “The scientific debate is
over.” Earlier he said that scientific skeptics of manmade
catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil
fuel industry, usually.”

The global warming scare has provided a field day for politicians and
others who wish to control our lives. After all, only the imagination
limits the kind of laws and restrictions that can be written in the
name of saving the planet.

Recently, more and more scientists are summoning up the courage to
speak out and present evidence against the global warming rope-a-dope.
Atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research
Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said,
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there
is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global
warming.”

Dr. Goldenberg has the company of at least 650 noted scientists
documented in the recently released U.S. Senate Minority Report: “More
Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming
Claims: Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus’ in 2008.” The
scientists, not environmental activists, include Ivar Giaever, Nobel
Laureate in physics, who said, “I am a skeptic … Global warming has
become a new religion.” Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an environmental physical
chemist, said warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the
history … When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel
deceived by science and scientists.”

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a
catastrophic future warming,” said Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical
engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200
scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research
and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, said, “Many (scientists) are
now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming
fears), without having their professional careers ruined.”

The fact of the matter is an increasing amount of climate research
suggests a possibility of global cooling. Geologist Dr. Don J.
Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University says,
“Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps
more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977
cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton
and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice
Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.”

Geologist Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008
International Geological Congress, currently at Uppsala University in
Sweden asks, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin
to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must
cooling go on?”

and this:

As we've noted, 2008 has been a year of records for cold and snowfall
and may indeed be the coldest year of the 21st century thus far. In
the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures
for the month of October.

Global thermometers stopped rising after 1998, and have plummeted in
the last two years by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius. The 2007-2008
temperature drop was not predicted by global climate models. But it
was predictable by a decline in sunspot activity since 2000.

When the sun is active, it's not uncommon to see sunspot numbers of
100 or more in a single month. Every 11 years, activity slows, and
numbers briefly drop near zero. Normally sunspots return very quickly,
as a new cycle begins. But this year, the start of a new cycle, the
sun has been eerily quiet.

The first seven months averaged a sunspot count of only three and in
August there were no sunspots at all — zero — something that has not
occurred since 1913.

According to the publication Daily Tech, in the past 1,000 years,
three previous such events — what are called the Dalton, Maunder and
Sporer Minimums — have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough
to be called the Little Ice Age (1500-1750).

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-
Carleton Geoscience Centre of Canada's Carleton University, says: "I
and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding
excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and
earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the
ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Indeed, a look at a graph of solar irradiance from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows little solar activity
during the Little Ice Age and significant activity during recent
times.

I like this one:

From the London Times

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major
themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily
Telegraph.

By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 10:59AM

The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski
resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry"
could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December
19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" ,
reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all
records by New Year's Day".

Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the
evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when
there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made
global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been
adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever
proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three
significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way
wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used
as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures
plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen
for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US
under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years
flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel
out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the
warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC,
that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the
North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly
icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical
predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever
before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.

Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy
now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents,
temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they
plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the
underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume
worse than ever by the middle of the next decade).

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a
"scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed.
At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of
proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate
experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which
was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more
blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce
no more than convenient fictions.

Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its
worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in
on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost
every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's
Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and
"environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty
in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that
the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for
"combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge
themselves in more comfortable times.

Suddenly it has become rather less appealing that we should divert
trillions of dollars, pounds and euros into the fantasy that we could
reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent. All those grandiose
projects for "emissions trading", "carbon capture", building tens of
thousands more useless wind turbines, switching vast areas of farmland
from producing food to "biofuels", are being exposed as no more than
enormously damaging and futile gestures, costing astronomic sums we no
longer possess.

As 2009 dawns, it is time we in Britain faced up to the genuine crisis
now fast approaching from the fact that – unless we get on very soon
with building enough proper power stations to fill our looming "energy
gap" - within a few years our lights will go out and what remains of
our economy will judder to a halt. After years of infantile
displacement activity, it is high time our politicians – along with
those of the EU and President Obama's US – were brought back with a
mighty jolt into contact with the real world.

Heh... this farce called man-made GW is coming to an end.

Amen....

So, we should not hear the "concencus" myth, the Ice Cap myth, or the
Polar Bear myth anymore.. Furthermore, I hope we don't hear the
documented cooling, directly related to Sun activity, called "warming"
anymore.. snerk

Fact is, the computer bubble was a result of the Y2K hoax and made a
lot of people real rich before the whole ponzi scheme fell down.. Now
we are seeing the Global Taxing scheme which came about during the
same administration, with many of the same players come apart too..
Hopefully this time before whole industries are gutted, it may be too
late for the American Auto industry, but maybe not. Either way,
remember, Al Gore has reportedly made nearly 100 million dollars on
this scam so far while living the high life and asking everyone else
to sacrifice.... Fat pig, maybe we should go back to burning whale
blubber...

Yes, the Y2K hoax sold everybody on earth a new computer in a 9 month
period, the stocks went frekin' nuts.. Smart folks figured out that if
everyone bought new computers in 1999, most would not need another new
one till late 2002 or longer.. Of course the industry crashed in 01,
no one needed a new computer, the smart ones dumped their stock before
the crash. Even I saw it coming and a good friend that plays the
market thanked me dearly when he got out of the e-stocks in time to
save his ass...Duh!