View Poll Results: Shall we change the name of the thread to "The Death of the Global Warming Myth"?

Voters
3. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    3 100.00%
  • no

    0 0%
Page 19 of 30 FirstFirst ... 915161718192021222329 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 380 of 597

Thread: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

  1. #361
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    21 October 2011 Last updated at 12:24 ET



    Article written by Richard Black Environment correspondent



    Climate study raises 'heated debate'

    Comments (26)
    The Berkeley group hopes to banish some of the clouds over climate change - but will they?
    More from Richard





    The Berkeley Earth Project's new analysis of the global temperature record, which I covered on Thursday, raises a number of questions concerning the science and the politics of climate change, and the ways in which science should be conducted.
    The headline conclusion - that the Earth's surface is indeed getting warmer and that the 20th Century did indeed see a pattern of warming, slight cooling and warming again - is hardly a surprise.
    But in the febrile atmosphere of "the climate debate", its significance lies not only in its conclusions, but in who's done it and what they've found.
    At the heart of the "Climate Gate" issue lay the allegation that researchers at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and their peers elsewhere had basically cooked the books.
    They'd twisted, hidden, manipulated and otherwise distorted their record of the Earth's temperature, it was said, for whatever reason - to save their careers, promote their green ideology or further the cause of world government.
    It was also said that the climate crowd were not "proper" scientists. Get physicists or geologists on the case, it was argued, and some proper conclusions might emerge.
    Into this arena rode the Berkeley group - seven of the 10 physicists, two of them statisticians, just one a climatologist - with a new approach.
    Richard Muller, the project's founder, told me that one of the things he looked for in choosing his team was a proven ability to take on new areas of science and bring some original thought to them.
    Within climate science, one of the interesting questions now is whether the three major existing temperature record teams - Nasa, Noaa and the UK Met Office/UEA collaboration - learn anything from the Berkeley effort.
    When I spoke to Phil Jones, leader of the UEA team, he told me he thought there might be ways in which the Berkeley approach could feed into existing programmes.
    Equally, you can be sure that Prof Jones, James Hansen and everyone else in the established teams will be scrutinising the Berkeley methodology to see if they think it's made any mistakes.
    The Berkeley group's record of global land temperature mirrors existing ones closely
    And this leads on to the second way in which Prof Muller's team may re-shape the mould.
    In the years leading up to 2009, climate researchers were subjected to an ever-increasing stream of critical bloggery, innuendo and Freedom of Information (FoI) requests.
    While some of the FoI requests may have been entirely legitimate, the cumulative impact was that researchers battened down the hatches against the storms raging outside - creating something of a bunker mentality that has been criticised by official enquiries, even though they found the wider concerns about manipulation were unfounded.
    Prof Muller does not come across as the sort of chap to be fazed by criticism. The project aims for openness and inclusion - not just between scientists, but involving the general public.
    Perhaps it can take the big three temperature programmes back into open waters along with it. And perhaps, if it is entirely open with everything from the beginning, some of the sound and fury will abate.
    Cannot play media. You do not have the correct version of the flash player. Download the correct version



    Berkeley Group's animation of the change in land temperature since 1800

    The Berkeley project poses a scientific challenge with its contention that water temperature changes in the north Atlantic - perhaps related to the Gulf Stream, as it's commonly known - are driving year-to-year changes in global temperature.
    Even more so, when the authors suggest that a greater part of the warming-cooling-warming history of the 20th Century could be down to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) than is recognised.
    (Clarification for putative cherry-pickers; the scientific work behind the papers doesn't examine this idea or even back it, but the authors suggest it as an avenue for further research.)
    I had a chat with Michael Schlesinger, the University of Illinois professor who discovered the AMO along with Navin Ramankutty in 1994.
    Research he and others have done since shows clearly, he said, that "while the AMO was the dominant influence on global mean temperature during 1904-1944 and 1944-1976, it is not the dominant influence over the entire observational record, 1850 to 2010.
    "Over this time period, it is the increase in the concentrations of greenhouse gases caused by humanity's burning of fossil fuels that is the dominant cause of the observed warming."
    That, I think, is the conclusion that the majority of climate scientists is likely to make, although the whole issue is made more complex by the fact that greenhouse warming can perturb natural cycles such as the AMO.
    But there is scope for some real investigation.
    Quality assured In some ways, the real battle on climate change is fought not within the scientific arena but in the court of public opinion.
    Claims that US weather station quality affected diagnosis of global warming was rejected
    So it's interesting to see what those who would shape opinion are making of the Berkeley results.
    The sceptical blogosphere has been unusually quiet - disappointingly quiet, you might say.
    James Delingpole, Jo Nova, ClimateAudit... nothing.
    One who has waded into the fray, inevitably, is Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That.
    I say "inevitably", because his criticisms of weather station quality were among the factors that persuaded Prof Muller to get his project off the ground.
    The Berkeley group concluded that although a high proportion of weather stations in the US might not be high quality - for example, if they're situated in the middle of an expanding city - it doesn't matter.
    High-quality stations show the same warming trend as low-quality ones; so this issue can be taken off the table.
    Mr Watts, in his recent postings, isn't impressed.
    He argues that the Berkeley team used too long a time period for its analysis. He says it made a few other basic errors.
    These things may or may not turn out to be true or important. But Mr Watts is on shaky ground, as he recognises, given that back in March he wrote a warm post on the Berkeley project's methods, concluding: "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong".
    Pressing the point He is on much, much, much shakier ground in his request that because the Berkeley papers have not gone through formal peer-review, the team should not be looking for any media coverage.
    Pots and kettles are everywhere.
    The entire modus operandi of blogging - and in the climate field, Watts Up With That is one of the most successful - is that stuff is chucked into the public domain for discussion with no review at all.
    All those posts on Climate Audit and Bishop Hill over the years finding "problems" with historical climate data - how many of them were peer-reviewed?
    Exactly. And Anthony Watts is in any case happy to put non-peer-reviewed science onto his pages.
    On 6 October, for example, Erl Happ pens a guest post on high-level clouds and surface temperature with claims that this is new work - "The 'natural' dynamics described in this post are currently unrecognized in climate science". This wasn't peer-reviewed.
    The science of climate change has been drowning in an ocean of politics
    On 5 August, we find there is apparently "quite a bit of buzz surrounding a talk and pending paper" on the temporal relationship between temperature rise and CO2 - and apparently it's fine to talk about it, even though the paper's not published.
    There are many other examples; and Watts Up With That is far from being alone.
    Yet the Berkeley group is beyond the pale in posting and talking about science that has not been peer-reviewed?
    A number of journalists in the mainstream media appear to regard Watts Up With That and other blogs of the same ilk as a gushing tap of stories - and if Mr Watts believes journalists should not report science that's not peer-reviewed, perhaps he could pick up the phone and have a word with them.
    There's a fair bit of revisionism going on too, some of it visible in the comments on my news story.
    "Sceptics don't say the world isn't warming," this narrative goes - "we just debate how much of it is caused by greenhouse gases."
    There are some "sceptics" who do take this line, it's true. But if the Earth's temperature record wasn't an issue, why has so much energy been expended in attempting to discredit it and the scientists behind it?
    Over on the other side of the divide, Joe Romm of Climate Progress, who has on several occasions written critically of the Berkeley team (Richard Muller "doesn't have a great grasp of basic climate science", Judith Curry is "the most debunked person on the science blogosphere"), is now apparently happy with their conclusions, reserving his trademark bucket of vitriol for Anthony Watts.
    There is actually a more serious and interesting question surrounding peer-review, with Richard Muller describing his approach as a return to much better practices of a previous era - but that's for another time.
    In the meantime, I'll leave you with the words of Elizabeth Muller, executive director of the Berkeley project, who hopes their work will "cool the debate over global warming".
    What do you reckon? Chances out of 10?
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  2. #362
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Editorial Board Opinion


    A bad month for climate-change skeptics




    By Editorial, Published: November 18


    THE PAST MONTH hasn’t been good for climate-change skeptics. At a congressional hearing Monday, Richard Muller, a former global-warming skeptic at the University of California, Berkeley, told lawmakers that, after a two-year review of historical world temperature data, he has verified the scientific consensus that the earth is warming — by about 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years. This is not surprising; as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last year, the warming of the planet, detected in multiple, independent lines of evidence, is “unequivocal.”
    Mr. Muller said that exactly how much humans contribute to such warming is difficult to calculate. But, as the Economist pointed out last year, even if the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is off by a factor of five in its reckoning of the climate’s sensitivity to an eventual doubling of the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, that still leaves only a 50 percent chance of relatively minor temperature change. The developed world and large developing nations, meanwhile, continue to pump immense amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. The Energy Department released an analysis this month concluding that global carbon emissions in 2010 increased by the largest amount ever, to a higher level than the IPCC’s worst-case projection.

    14
    Comments









    inShare

    Gallery

     A collection of cartoons about the environment and global warming.




    What are the consequences? Scientists can’t be sure. An IPCC committee gathered in Kampala, Uganda, this week to review the available science. It concluded that the warming that scientists have detected so far has likely led to higher extreme daily temperatures and high water on coasts. But, despite the rhetoric that emerges every time a hurricane hits the United States, the data is too thin to conclude that global warming has had any effect on aggregate tropical cyclone activity. The IPCC also noted that linking individual weather events to climate change is unreasonable. Natural variability will continue to be a dominant factor in explaining dangerous weather.
    Predicting future effects also comes with exceptional uncertainties because of scientific models’ inadequacy to simulate the complex climate system many years out, among other things. Still, the IPCC says, with more warming it is virtually certain that very hot days will get hotter and more frequent; it’s very likely that heatwaves will, too. It’s also likely that heavy rains and snows will occur more often and that tropical cyclone wind speed will increase. Scientists can’t predict, but they also can’t rule out, worse consequences.
    Varying amounts of uncertainty are inherent to climate science, but they do not mean humans can dismiss the dangers. Countries should clear-headedly address the risks of a warming world by cutting back on carbon emissions and preparing to adapt, the Kampala report argues.
    The U.S. debate on global warming remains fancifully divorced from the scientific discussion. President Obama hardly ever mentions climate change. Republicans’ behavior is much more embarrassing: GOP presidential candidates often dismiss the warnings of experts in favor of conspiracy-drenched denial. The debate should no longer be about whether the world is warming or whether there is reason to act. It must be about how to respond.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  3. #363
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    I still dismiss "climate change" as bullshit.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  4. #364
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    41
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    The fact that they went from "global warming" to "climate change" proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is crap, pure crap that has been used to defraud citizens of trillions of dollars.

    Everybody knows the slight upward anomally was simply a statistical error caused by the proximity of the detectors to a one AL GORE, who has always been full of hot air!

  5. #365
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,420
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Uh oh... Climategate 2.0!

    Climategate 2.0 Emails – They’re Real And They’re Spectacular!
    November 22, 2011

    A better link to where to download the new FOIA2011.zip file is posted below the fold – Anthony

    UPDATE: 8:20 AM PST These emails have not been verified yet, and this story was posted by one of my moderating staff while I was asleep. Until such time they are verified, tread lightly because without knowing what is behind the rest of the zip file, for all we know it’s a bunch of recipes and collection of lorem ipsum text files. I’m working to authenticate these now and will report when I know more – Anthony Watts

    UPDATE2: 8:45AM PST The Guardian has a story up by Leo Hickman, and this excerpt suggests they may be the real deal:
    Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is “of interest” to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified.
    The emails appear to be genuine, but this has yet to be confirmed by the University of East Anglia. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages.
    UPDATE3: 9:25 AM PST – Having read a number of emails, and seeing this quote from Mike Mann in the Guardian:
    When asked if they were genuine, he said: “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.”
    I’m going to conclude they are the real deal. I’ve posted a BitTorrent link to the file below. One big difference between Climategate 1 and 2 is that in 1, it took days for the MSM to catch on, now they are on top of it.

    UPDATE4:
    9:45 AM PST I’ve changed the headline from Climategate 2.0 to Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular! with a hat tip to Jerry Seinfeld. The relevance of that headline is particularly interesting in the context of where Dr. James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has his office in NYC.

    UPDATE 5:
    11:00AM PST In a statement, UEA doesn’t deny these emails, but posts about the whitewash investigations of the past, like they matter now.

    UPDATE6:
    12:08PM PST Here’s an email that collaborates a radio interview I did in Seattle with Thomas Peterson in summer 2007, yes these are 100% real emails, no doubt whatsoever now. More here: Climategate 2.0 – NCDC: “Mr. Watts gave a well reasoned position”

    UPDATE7:
    1:20 PM PST Phil Jones and Tom Wigley calls another scientist (The former state climatologist of California) a “jerk” for publishing his UHI results.

    UPDATE8:
    140PM PST Mike Mann shows his true colors:

    email 1680.txt
    date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:03:05 -0400
    from: “Michael E. Mann”..
    subject: Re: Something not to pass on
    to: Phil Jones

    Phil,
    I would not respond to this. They will misrepresent and take out of context anything you give them. This is a set up. They will certainly publish this, and will ignore any evidence to the contrary that you provide. s They are going after Wei-Chyung because he’s U.S. and there is a higher threshold for establishing libel. Nonetheless, he shouldconsider filing a defamation lawsuit, perhaps you too.

    I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.

    I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them….

    UPDATE9:
    2:25PM PST Josh weighs in with the first satirical cartoon here

    UPDATE10:
    4:30PM PST Some thoughts on cracking the big remaining all.7z file here

    UPDATE11:
    4:45PM PST Kevin Trenberth gets all misty eyed and sing-songy at Christmas here

    UPDATE 12:
    9:30 PM PST We’ve known for some time that Al Gore made up a bunch of claims in his AIT movie that simply weren’t true. Now this revelation in the new email batch shows that in the case of Kilimanjaro’s disappearing snows, even Phil Jones and Dr. Lonnie Thompson don’t believe global warming is the cause, even though Thompson put out a press release nearly a year ago saying just that. Told ya so. Pants on fire and all that. Anything for “the cause” right?

    ================================================== =============

    Early this morning, history repeated itself. FOIA.org has produced an enormous zip file of 5,000 additional emails similar to those released two years ago in November 2009 and coined Climategate. There are almost 1/4 million additional emails locked behind a password, which the organization does not plan on releasing at this time.

    The original link was dropped off in the Hurricane Kenneth thread at about 4 AM Eastern. It is still there.

    Some initial snippets floating around the blogosphere:

    <3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
    “reconstruction”.

    <3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.

    <3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit.

    <0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause

    <2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process

    <2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task.

    JeffId has some initial reaction

    From the ReadMe file:
    /// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///

    “Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

    “Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

    “One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true. “Poverty is a death sentence.”

    “Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

    Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline.

    This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.

    The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning to publicly release the passphrase.

    We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such as…
    ================================================== ============

    Here’s one about UHI that is convincing:
    cc: liqx@cma.xxx
    date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:16:37 +0800
    from: =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?=
    subject: Re:Re: thank you
    to: p.jones@xxx

    Dear Phil,

    Again I find that the emails from my CMA mail boxes can not get to you.

    From attaches please find the data of 42 urban stations and 42 rural stations (by your list) and a reference of homogenization of the data. we have tested and adjusted the abrupt discontinuities of the data during 1951-2001, but the following years (2002-2004) has only been quality controled and added to the end of the series, but we found the relocation during these 3 years have minor effects on the whole series in most of the stations.

    I partly agree with what Prof. Ren said. and we have done some analysis on the urban heat island effect in China during past years. The results are differnt with Ren’s. But I think different methods, data, and selection of the urban and rural stations would be the most important causes of this. So I think it is high time to give some new studies and graw some conclusion in this topic. I hope we can make some new achives on this both on global scale and in China.

    Best
    Qingxiang
    —– Original Message —–
    From: “Phil Jones” < p.jones@xxxx >
    To: “Rean Guoyoo” < guoyoo@xxxx >
    Cc: “%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4″ < limmy@xxx>, <liqx@cma.xxx >
    Sent: 2007-09-24 16:25:59 +0800
    Subject: Re: thank you

    Dear Guoyu,
    I think I emailed you from America last week. I am away again next week, but here this week.

    I do think that understanding urban influences are important. I will wait for Dr Li Qingxiang to send some data, but there is no rush, as I am quite busy the next few weeks.

    Best Regards
    Phil

    At 00:59 20/09/2007, you wrote:
    The following message was returned back when I sent via cma site. I send it again via this site. I also forwarded this message to Dr, Li Qingxiang.

    Regards,
    Guoyu

    Dear Phil,
    Thank you for your message of Sept 11, 2007. I have just been back from the US. Sorry for the delayed response.

    I noted the discussion on blog sites. This is indeed a big issue in the studies of climate change.

    In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990. I think there might be at least three reasons for the difference:

    (1) the areas chosen in the analyses

    are different;
    (2) the time periods analyzed are obviously varied, and the aft-1990
    period is seeing a more rapid warming in most areas of China;
    (3) the rural stations
    used for the analyses are different, and we used some stations which we think could be more representative for the baseline change.

    We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately, when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.

    It is my opinion that we need to re-assess the urbanization effect on surface air temperature records for at least some regions of the continents. I am glad that you are going to redo it using the updated dataset. I expect you to obtain the new outcome.

    As for the dataset, I believe that Dr. Li Qingxiang could give you a hand. He and his group conducted a lot work of detection and adjustment of the inhomogeneities in the past years, and the adjusted and the raw datasets are all stored and managed in his center. The datasets we used are also from his center.

    I’d be happy to discuss some issues with you late, but I would not necessarily be as a co-author because my contribution would be rather minor.

    Best regards,
    Guoyu
    NCC, Beijing

    Shape Yahoo! in your own image. [1]Join our Network Research Panel today!


    Prof. Phil Jones

    Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 xxxx
    School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 xxxxx
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxx
    NR4 7TJ
    UK
    —————————————————————————-

    =======================263ÌìÏÂÓÊ£ÐÅÀµÓÊ×Ôרҵ===== ==================
    Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\Detecting and Adjusting Temporal Inhomogeneity in
    Chinese Mean Surface Air Temperature Data.pdf” Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\To
    Jones.rar”
    ================================================== ==================

    Here’s a bit torrent link to the FOIA2011.zip file
    https://remote.utorrent.com/send?bti...cid=6592169267

    You’ll need a bit torrent client

    BETTER LINK:

    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ROCGBR37
    Time to bring out a favorite YouTube video again!

    YouTube: Censoring The Decrease in Global Temperatures


  6. #366
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    ok... now that's funny.

    Ryan... if he posts updates, capture them.

    lol
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  7. #367
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,420
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    I already downloaded the FOIA file.

  8. #368
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Well, specifically I was referring to
    I’m working to authenticate these now and will report when I know more – Anthony Watts
    Cuz, honestly, between having to be the main cook tonight (thank GOD I'm not tomorrow) for about 20 people (making Rick's World Famous Chili) and trying to use all my 30 days worth of "Amazon Prime" to stream "LOST" (which I got hooked on yesterday), I don't have time for piddly shit like doing "research".

    /chuckles
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  9. #369
    Repeatedly Redundant...Again
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,118
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    More fallout from the global warming myth.

    Politicians cut backdoor deals with industry, and they all bled the cash cow to death.

    All at taxpayers expense.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/034234_wi...abandoned.html

    'Green' debacle: Tens of thousands of abandoned wind turbines now litter American landscape

    Thursday, November 24, 2011 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

    (NaturalNews) Literal beacons of the "green" energy movement, giant wind turbines have been one of the renewable energy sources of choice for the US government, which has spent billions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing their construction and use across the country. But high maintenance costs, high rates of failure, and fluctuating weather conditions that affect energy production render wind turbines expensive and inefficient, which is why more than 14,000 of them have since been abandoned.

    Before government subsidies for the giant metals were cut or eliminated in many areas, wind farms were an energy boom business. But in the post-tax subsidy era, the costs of maintaining and operating wind turbines far outweighs the minimal power they generate in many areas, which has left a patchwork of wind turbine graveyards in many of the most popular wind farming areas of the US.

    "Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy's California 'big three' locations which include Altamont Pass, Tehachapin and San Gorgonio, considered among the world's best wind sites," writes Andrew Walden of the American Thinker. "In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills."

    Walden speaks, of course, about the birds, bats, and other air creatures that routinely get tangled in and killed by wind turbine propellers. And as far as the "post-industrial junk" language, well, if it costs too much to run the machines in the first place, then it definitely costs too much to uproot and remove them post-construction.

    This whole wind energy mess just further illustrates how the American people have been played by their elected officials who bought into the "global warming" hysteria that spawned the push for wind energy in the first place. And now that the renewable energy tax subsidies are gradually coming to an end in some places, the true financial and economic viability, or lack of wind energy, is on display for the world to see.

    "It is all about the tax subsidies," writes Don Surber of the Charleston Daily Mail. "The blades churn until the money runs out. If an honest history is written about the turn of the 21st century, it will include a large, harsh chapter on how fears about global warming were overplayed for profit by corporations."

  10. #370
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,420
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Too bad they are so large or else I might have to go liberate a couple for myself...

  11. #371
    Repeatedly Redundant...Again
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,118
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    The ones I've seen are BIG.

    If you get on Interstate 10 going west of Kerrville toward El Paso, there are miles of these things.

    Here's an idea:

    Last edited by Backstop; November 26th, 2011 at 22:34.

  12. #372
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,420
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    I believe the wingspans are as large or larger than a 747.

    I've seen them transporting the blades via flatbed truck on highways around the Cincinnati area.

  13. #373
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Drove past hundreds of them on the way to Missouri a couple weeks back.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  14. #374
    Super Moderator and PHILanthropist Extraordinaire Phil Fiord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,496
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    The ones in the California desert than have been there decades are also a place where dead are routinely dropped after a criminal kills them, according to a few sources several years back.

  15. #375
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,420
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Forget Global Warming - It's Cycle 25 We Need To Worry About (And If NASA Scientists Are Right The Thames Will Be Freezing Over Again)
    Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

    January 29, 2012


    A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age

    The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

    The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

    Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

    Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

    Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

    We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

    Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

    According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

    However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.



    Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

    These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

    ‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

    He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

    CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.



    So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.

    ‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.

    Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

    ‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

    He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

    ‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.



    She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

    ‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

    Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

    The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

    ‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

    Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

    ‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’

  16. #376
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    It's not the Sun.

    I just read two articles yesterday about the little Ice Age. They have "confirmed" volcanic activities caused it.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  17. #377
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Global warming did it
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  18. #378
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Boats have wood stoves on them..... why can't a car?

    hehehe
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  19. #379
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    Astronaut to tweet photographs of Earth Hour from space station







    Astronaut Andre Kuipers, aboard the International Space Station. (ESA/NASA / March 30, 2012)


    By Mary Forgione Los Angeles Times Daily Travel & Deal blogger March 30, 2012, 10:46 a.m.

    Lights out, camera, action?
    Dutch astronaut Andre Kuipers will have the perfect spot to watch Earth Hour unfold around the world Saturday evening from his seat on the International Space Station, about 240 miles above the planet.
    Kuipers, who has been named an Earth Hour ambassador by the World Wildlife Fund, plans to take photos and videos of the planet as the lights go out and share them online, according to the European Space Agency.
    Look for Kuipers' real-time coverage from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m. Saturday on his logbook blog and via tweets from @Astro_Andre. (One caveat: Don't expect to see much if it's foggy or overcast.)
    Earth Hour is an annual event in which millions of people around the world collectively shut off their lights for an hour to raise awareness about climate change and energy use. The World Wildlife Fund promotes the event that began in 2007 in Australia.
    This year expect lights to go out or dim at Times Square, the Las Vegas Strip, Buckingham Palace in London and the Great Wall in China. To track photos of Earth Hour or to add your own, go to the EarthHour 2012 Flickr page.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  20. #380
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Death of the Global Warming Myth

    In general I prefer NO LIGHT pollution - because honestly it's been 2 years since I could set up my telescope in town. I just can't really use it any more.

    However, I want everyone to turn on EVERY LIGHT in their neighborhood for this damned stupid "Earth Day" since there is no such God Damned thing as Global Warming. It's utter bullshit.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •