The Death of the Global Warming Myth

[Backstop]

Frankly, I don't have the education or knowledge base to make an accurate decision as to whether Global Warming is fact or hoax. So I'll just have to rely on those who claim a greater understanding of the facts.

No more relying on others.

After a solid month of reading, I am absolutely convinced man-induced global warming is nothing more than Libertard Buffoonary.

[Aplomb]

Who needs drugs to blow your mind when we've got the United Nations?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061501857.html

A Climate Culprit In Darfur

By Ban Ki Moon
Saturday, June 16, 2007; Page A15



Just over a week ago, leaders of the world's industrialized nations met in Heiligendamm, Germany, for their annual summit. Our modest goal: to win a breakthrough on climate change. And we got it -- an agreement to cut greenhouse gases by 50 percent before 2050. Especially gratifying for me is that the methods will be negotiated via the United Nations, better ensuring that our efforts will be mutually reinforcing.


This week, the global focus shifted. Tough but patient diplomacy produced another win, as yet modest in scope but large in humanitarian potential.



Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir accepted a plan to deploy, at long last, a joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur. This agreement, too, is personally gratifying. I have made Darfur a top priority and have invested considerable effort, often far from public view, toward this goal.



Clearly, uncertainties remain. This deal, like others before it, could yet come undone. It could be several months before the first new troops arrive and longer before the full 23,000-member contingent is in place. Meanwhile, the fighting will probably go on, even if less intensely and despite our many calls for a cease-fire. Still, in a conflict that has claimed more than 200,000 lives during four years of diplomatic inertia, this is significant progress, especially considering that it has come in only five months.


It would be natural to view these as distinct developments. In fact, they are linked. Almost invariably, we discuss Darfur in a convenient military and political shorthand -- an ethnic conflict pitting Arab militias against black rebels and farmers. Look to its roots, though, and you discover a more complex dynamic. Amid the diverse social and political causes, the Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change.


Two decades ago, the rains in southern Sudan began to fail. According to U.N. statistics, average precipitation has declined some 40 percent since the early 1980s. Scientists at first considered this to be an unfortunate quirk of nature. But subsequent investigation found that it coincided with a rise in temperatures of the Indian Ocean, disrupting seasonal monsoons.



This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming.


It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought. Until then, Arab nomadic herders had lived amicably with settled farmers. A recent Atlantic Monthly article by Stephan Faris describes how black farmers would welcome herders as they crisscrossed the land, grazing their camels and sharing wells. But once the rains stopped, farmers fenced their land for fear it would be ruined by the passing herds. For the first time in memory, there was no longer enough food and water for all. Fighting broke out. By 2003, it evolved into the full-fledged tragedy we witness today.


A U.N. peacekeeping force will help moderate the violence and keep humanitarian aid flowing, saving many lives. Yet that is only a first step, as I emphasized to my colleagues at the summit in Germany. Any peace in Darfur must be built on solutions that go to the root causes of the conflict.



We can hope for the return of more than 2 million refugees. We can safeguard villages and help rebuild homes. But what to do about the essential dilemma -- the fact that there's no longer enough good land to go around?


A political solution is required. My special envoy for Darfur, Jan Eliasson, and his A.U. counterpart, Salim Ahmed Salim, have worked out a road map, beginning with a political dialogue between rebel leaders and the government and culminating in formal negotiations for peace. The initial steps could be taken by this summer.


Ultimately, however, any real solution to Darfur's troubles involves sustained economic development. Precisely what shape that might take is unclear.



But we must begin thinking about it. New technologies can help, such as genetically modified grains that thrive in arid soils or new irrigation and water storage techniques. There must be money for new roads and communications infrastructure, not to mention health, education, sanitation and social reconstruction programs. The international community needs to help organize these efforts, teaming with the Sudanese government as well as the international aid agencies and nongovernmental organizations working so heroically on the ground.


The stakes go well beyond Darfur. Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia University economist and one of my senior advisers, notes that the violence in Somalia grows from a similarly volatile mix of food and water insecurity. So do the troubles in Ivory Coast and Burkina Faso.


There are many other parts of the world where such problems will arise, for which any solutions we find in Darfur will be relevant. We have made slow but steady progress in recent weeks. The people of Darfur have suffered too much, for too long. Now the real work begins.

The writer is secretary general of the United Nations.

[American Patriot]

---

Who needs drugs to blow your mind when we've got the United Nations?

Drugs? At my age I just bend over, or sqat down, then stand up quickly.

[MagnetMan]

Did anyone else see this report that some German's recently distributed?

I'm not sure where it is officially available from, but you can download it here.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...707.1161v2.pdf

I think it is a report worthy of reading, but if you choose not to here is the Physicist's Summary.

1) There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect, which explains the relevant physical phenomena. The terms “greenhouse effect" and “greenhouse gases" are deliberate misnomers.

2) There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet
• with or without atmosphere,
• with or without rotation,
• with or without infrared light absorbing gases.

The frequently mentioned difference of 33 _C for the fictitious greenhouse effect of the
atmosphere is therefore a meaningless number.

3) Any radiation balance for the average radiant flux is completely irrelevant for the determination of the ground level air temperatures and thus for the average value as well.

4) Average temperature values cannot be identified with the fourth root of average values of the absolute temperature's fourth power.

5) Radiation and heat flows do not determine the temperature distributions and their average values.

6) Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the actual heat flow without mechanical work.

7) The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the “average" fictitious radiation balance, which has no physical justification anyway, was given up.

8) After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the infrared radiation in the Earth's atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does not change considerably by raising its partial pressure.

9) Infrared absorption does not imply “backwarming". Rather it may lead to a drop of the temperature of the illuminated surface.

10) In radiation transport models with the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, it is assumed that the absorbed radiation is transformed into the thermal movement of all gas molecules. There is no increased selective re-emission of infrared radiation at the low temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere.

11) In climate models, planetary or astrophysical mechanisms are not accounted for properly. The time dependency of the gravity acceleration by the Moon and the Sun (high tide and low tide) and the local geographic situation, which is important for the local climate, cannot be taken into account.

12) Detection and attribution studies, predictions from computer models in chaotic systems, and the concept of scenario analysis lie outside the framework of exact sciences, in particular theoretical physics.

13) The choice of an appropriate discretization method and the definition of appropriate dynamical constraints (flux control) having become a part of computer modelling is nothing but another form of data curve fitting. The mathematical physicist v. Neumann once said to his young collaborators: “If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will fly." (cf. Ref. [185].)

14) Higher derivative operators (e.g. the Laplacian) can never be represented on grids with wide meshes. Therefore a description of heat conduction in global computer models is impossible. The heat conduction equation is not and cannot properly be represented on grids with wide meshes.

15) Computer models of higher dimensional chaotic systems, best described by non-linear partial differential equations (i.e. Navier-Stokes equations), fundamental differ from calculations where perturbation theory is applicable and successive improvements of the predictions - by raising the computing power - are possible. At best, these computer models may be regarded as a heuristic game.

16) Climatology misinterprets unpredictability of chaos known as buttery phenomenon as another thread to the health of the Earth.

[American Patriot]

Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (by 30%....incl. video)
CBS 13.com ^ | September 3, 2007 | John Iander
Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow

John Iander
Reporting
(CBS13) MOUNT SHASTA The debate over global warming has taken a pretty odd twist in Northern California. Up on Mount Shasta, the glaciers are not behaving like you'd expect.

Big mountains often produce their own weather patterns. Mount Shasta, at 14,162 feet seems to have a mind of its own these days. Shasta has seven glaciers. The biggest is the one on the middle, Whitney Glacier. What has surprised scientists about the glacier is that if the theories about global warming are true, the glacier ought to be shrinking, but it's not.

“Unlike most areas around the world, these glaciers are advancing, they are growing. Thirty percent in the last fifty years,” says scientist Erik White.

White and mountain climber Chris Carr are Shasta experts.

"Every year it's a little bit different. But the glacier changes dramatically, year to year," says Carr.

So why are the glaciers larger today than they were a century or more ago?

"Mount Shasta is right at the very northern end of areas influenced by El Nino and were at the southern end of areas affected by La Nina. So between the two we get to see the benefits of that which means more snow and rain in this area," says White.

Snow scientists have been tracking the glaciers' size by comparing photos from a century ago to those taken decades later, and then using satellite data and computer modeling to determine the rate of growth.

Those models predict Shasta will continue to receive more than normal snowfall, but if the temperature continues to rise, the glaciers will begin to recede.

For now, the growing glaciers are good news to the town of Mount Shasta which hosts the thousands of tourists who come to here to experience the thrill of ice climbing.

You can climb mountain Shasta all the way to the glaciers to see for yourself, but, you'd better have good hiking equipment and be in good shape too!

[American Patriot]

"Scientists say global warming is a crock...."

Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears
EarthTimes.org ^ | 12 Sep 2007 | Hudson Institute

A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."

The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.

"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."

"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.

The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line.

Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.

Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years is available from Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Gl.../dp/0742551172 /ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6773465-0779318?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189603742&sr=1-1

For more information, please contact Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, at 540-337-6354: Email: cgfi@hughes.net

Hudson Institute

[American Patriot]

Global warming 'is good and is not our fault'
Daily Telegraph ^ | 14/09/2007 | Sophie Borland

Global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon and its effects can even be beneficial, according to two leading researchers.

Recent climate change is not caused by man-made pollution, but is instead part of a 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling that has happened for the last million years, say the authors of a controversial study.

Dennis Avery, an environmental economist, and Professor Fred Singer, a physicist, have looked at the work of more than 500 scientists and concluded that it is very doubtful that man-made global warming exists. advertisement

They also say that temperature increase is actually a good thing as in the past sudden cool periods have killed twice as many people as warm spells.

Mr Avery, a senior research fellow at the Hudson Institute, an independent US think-tank, said: "Not all of these researchers who doubt man-made climate change would describe themselves as global warming sceptics but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.

"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people.

"It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine, plagues and disease."

In contrast, they say there is evidence that wildlife is flourishing in the current warming cycle with corals, trees, birds, mammals and butterflies adapting well.

In addition, sea-levels are not rising dramatically and storms and droughts have actually been less severe and frequent.

The authors claim that the change is not man-made because the most recent period of global warming took place between 1850 and 1940 when there were far less CO2 emissions than today.

They claim to show strong historical evidence of an entirely natural cycle based on data of floods on the Nile going back 5,000 years.

Evidence is citing showing records of Roman wine production in Britain in the first century AD.

Prof Singer, a specialist in atmospheric physics at the University of Virginia, said: "We have a greenhouse theory with no evidence to support it, except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events.

"The models only reflect the warming, not its cause."

They also say that natural temperature change can be caused by fluctuations in the sun.

The authors spent months analysing scientific reports and papers for their book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.

Their aim was to undermine claims made by Al Gore, the former US vice-president, in his film An Inconvenient Truth, that shows the extent of man-made global warming.

[American Patriot]

Scientists slam AP for using 'scare tactics' in global warming article
U.S. Senate Inhofe EPW Press Blog ^ | September 24, 2007 | Marc Morano

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...a551&Issue_id=

Scientists slam AP for using 'scare tactics' in global warming article

Posted By Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov 9:55 AM ET

Nearly two dozen prominent scientists from around the world have denounced a recent Associated Press article promoting sea level fears in the year 2100 and beyond based on unproven computer models predictions. The AP article also has been accused of mischaracterizing the views of a leading skeptic of man-made global warming fears. The scientists are dismissing the AP article, entitled “Rising Seas Likely to Flood U.S. History” (LINK) as a “scare tactic,” “sheer speculation,” and “hype of the worst order.” (H/T: Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters.org - LINK)

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, a climate and atmospheric science consultant and a UN IPCC expert reviewer ridiculed the AP article.

“Rarely have I read such a collection of unsubstantiated and scare-mongering twaddle. Not only do real studies show no increase to rate of sea level change, the [AP] article gives reasons for concern that are nonsense,” Courtney told Inhofe EPW Press Blog on September 23.

UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand slammed the article as well:

“This [AP article] is a typical scare story based on no evidence or facts, but only on the ‘opinions’ and ‘beliefs’ of ‘experts’, all of whom have a financial interest in the promotion of their computer models,” Gray wrote to the Inhofe EPW Press Blog.

The September 22, 2007 Associated Press article promoting future computer generated climate fears, appears just days before a high profile UN climate summit in New York City this week. The AP’s Seth Borenstein has a history of promoting unverifiable climate fears of the future (See: “AP Incorrectly claims scientists praise Gore’s movie” from June 2006 – LINK )

This AP report comes at a time when the peer-reviewed science is continuing to debunk the foundation for global warming fears. (See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK)

Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, stated that the AP mischaracterized his views on sea level in the article promoting climate fears a hundred years from now.

“[My] discussion [with the AP reporter Seth Borenstein] was primarily about the storm surges which come from hurricanes - that's the real vulnerability. The sea level is rising around 1 inch per decade, but sea level is like any other climate parameter - its either rising or falling all the time. To me, 16 inches per century is not a significant problem to deal with. But since storm surges of 15 to 30 feet occur in 6 hours, any preventive strategy, like an extra 3 feet of elevation, would be helpful,” Christy wrote to the Inhofe EPW Press blog.

“Thinking that legislation can change sea level is hubris. I did a calculation on what 1000 new nuclear power plants operating by 2020 would do for the IPCC best guess in the year 2100. The answer is 1.4 cm – about half an inch (if you accept the IPCC projection A1B for the base case.) Also, there doesn't seem to be any acceleration of the slow trend,” Christy explained.

The AP article stated: “Ultimately, rising seas will likely swamp the first American settlement in Jamestown, Va., as well as the Florida launch pad that sent the first American into orbit, many climate scientists are predicting. In about a century, some of the places that make America what it is may be slowly erased.”

Borenstein, who only quotes six scientists in the article, of which only one can be labeled a climate skeptic, uses the generic phrase “several leading scientists say." (EPW Blog Note: This blog report alone quotes nearly two dozen climate experts countering the AP’s “report” on sea level)

Borenstein’s article also claims alarming sea levels “will happen regardless of any future actions to curb greenhouse gases, several leading scientists say. And it will reshape the nation.”

“Storm surges worsened by sea level rise will flood the waterfront getaways of rich politicians—the Bushes' Kennebunkport and John Edwards' place on the Outer Banks. And gone will be many of the beaches in Texas and Florida favored by budget-conscious students on Spring Break,” Borenstein’s AP article continued.

But prominent scientists are speaking out and denouncing the article a mere hours after its publication.

Here is a sampling of scientists’ reaction to the AP story:

State of Florida Climatologist Dr. Jim O'Brien of Florida State University countered the AP article.

“The best measurements of sea level rise are from satellite instrument called altimeters. Currently they measure 14 inches in 100 years. Everyone agrees that there is no acceleration. Even the UN IPCC quotes this,” O’Brien wrote to EPW on September 23. O’Brien is also the director of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies.

“If you increase the rate of rise by four times, it will take 146 years to rise to five feet. Sea level rise is the ‘scare tactic’ for these guys,” O’Brien added.

Climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990:

The IPCC never makes ‘predictions’, only ‘projections’; what might happen, or be 'likely" if you believe the assumptions in the model. No computer model has ever been shown to be capable of successful prediction,” Gray wrote to the Inhofe EPW Press Blog on September 23.

“Actual data on sea levels are unreliable. Long term figures are based on tide-gauge measurements near port cities prone to subsidence and damage of equipment from severe weather. Many recent and more reliable measurements show little recent change. Satellite measurements have shown a recent rise which may be temporary,” Gray added.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, a retired Senior Research Scientist and Coordinator for national international marine geological research at the Geological Survey of Finland:

“Even the worst case scenario is half of that quoted by Associated Press. This is a hype of the worst order. This whole scare builds on GCM's which we know mimic Earth processes very simplistically and are thus most unreliable,” Winterhalter told Inhofe EPW Press Blog on September 23.

“I, as a marine geologist, am abhorred. I just looked at the USGS (US Geological Survey) site and am astonished that none of the references or fact sheets seem to refer to IPCC Fourth Assessment Report released this spring,” Winterhalter added.

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, a climate and atmospheric science consultant and a UN IPCC expert reviewer:

“Global sea level has been rising for the 10,000 years since the last ice age, and no significant change to the rate of sea level rise has been observed recently,” Courtney wrote to Inhofe EPW Press Blog on September 23.

"A continuing rise of ~2 mm/year for the next 100 years would raise sea level by ~0.2 m as it did during the twentieth century. And it is hard to see any justification for Andrew Weaver's claim (as quoted by AP) that ‘We're going to get a meter and there's nothing we can do about it, unless Weaver is talking about the next 500 years,” Courtney wrote.

“Simply, there is no reason to suppose that sea level rise will be more of a problem in this century than it was in the last century or each of the previous ten centuries,” he concluded.

Geophysicist Dr. David Deming of University of Oklahoma.

“Projections of sea-level rise are based on projections of future warming, fifty or a hundred years hence. And these projections are based on speculative computer models that have numerous uncertainties,” Deming wrote in a September 23, e-mail to Inhofe EPW Press Blog.

“These models cannot even be tested; their validity is completely unknown. In short, predictions of future sea-level rise are nothing but sheer speculation,” Deming added.

Swedish Professor Wibjorn Karlen of the Department of Social and Economic Geography at Stockholm University:

“Another of these hysteric views of our climate,” Karlen wrote to Inhofe EPW Press Blog regarding the AP article.

“I have used the NASA temperature data for a study of several major areas. As far as I can see the IPCC “Global Temperature” is wrong. Temperature is fluctuating but it is still most places cooler than in the 1930s and 1940s. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate,” Karlen explained.

“The latest estimates of sea level rise are 1.31 mm/year. With this water level increase it will take about 800 years before the water level has increased by 1 m if not conditions change before that (very likely). Society will looks very different at that time,” he added.

Emmy Nominated Meteorologist Art Horn says AP loves ‘a scary story’

“Fearless forecasts from people who likely have never made real time, real world predictions. We who have worked in the real world of everyday weather forecasting for decades understand what it's like to be burned, even when you felt the forecast was a lock. I'm of the belief that most if not all of these predictions come from people who don't know much about the nature of prediction,” Horn wrote to Inhofe EPW Press Blog the day after the AP article was published.

“Working with computer models that don't even start with a climate remotely similar to the real world can't give you results that are in any way close to useful. But the AP and all news organizations love a scary story. I know, I worked as a TV meteorologist for 25 years. If it will generate a buzz they will run with it,” Horn explained.

“Making predictions about how much sea level will rise helps to insure the money train will continue. There will be people in seats of power that will continue to feed money to universities, research facilities and people like [NASA’s] James Hansen.

Greenpeace co-founder ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore noted the AP article was way off base from even the UN IPCC predictions.

“The IPCC predicts 18 - 59 cm, i.e. their high end is about half predicted in the AP story, and the AP story warns of a possible three meters,” Moore told Inhofe EPW Press Blog.

“The sea was 400 feet (130 meters) lower than today at the peak of the last Ice Age 18,000 years ago. This is an average of 72 cm/100 years. Most of this occurred between 18,000 and 6,000 years ago so there were periods when the sea rose more that 1 meter per 100 years,” Moore concluded.

Former Harvard physicist Dr. Lubos Motl:

“There's no good reason to expect more than 3 millimeters per year in average. It's been really 1.5 mm in the last 50 years, and 2 mm per year in 1900-1950. The rate has actually slowed down according to some papers,” Motl wrote to Inhofe EPW Press Blog.

“Any model that predicts significant acceleration [of sea level] with growing CO2 is falsified or nearly falsified by the observed data. It's crazy to think that this slow gradual rise is anything that would justify any actions besides the houses that have to be either moved or protected on the centennial scale,” he added.

“Any calculation that wants to indicate that the effects of sea level rise are a significant portion of the life or the economy is simply a miscalculation,” he concluded.

Chemist and agronomist Paavo Siitam:

“Despite some doom and gloom predictions, excluding waves washing onto shores by relatively rarely occurring tsunamis and storm-surges, low-lying areas on the face of our planet have NOT yet been submerged by rising oceans... so probably low-lying areas along shorelines of Canada and the USA will be SAFE into foreseeable and even distant futures,” Siitam wrote to Inhofe EPW Press Blog.

“By the way, I'd be happy to buy prized oceanfront properties at bargain prices, anywhere in the world, when unwarranted, panic selling begins. The dire predictions will not come true this century,” he added.

IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist:

“I cannot help but conclude that this is one more example of scare-mongering by some very reputed scientists in the atmosphere/ocean science. I am disappointed to find that none of these scientists seem to want to refer to the excellent work of Prof Morner of Stockholm University who was the President of the INQUA commission for Maldive Islands SLR and who has discounted & dismissed the Maldive Islands 'disappearing' in ONE hundred years or even earlier according to some scare-mongerers!” Khandekar wrote to Inhofe EPW Press Blog.

“Besides Prof Morner's excellent studies, the scientists named in the news story seem to have ignored another well-documented study by Simon Holgate , an oceanographer in UK, whose paper in GRL( Geophysical Research Letters, 2007) has analyzed nine long sea-level records from 1903-2003 and the study finds that the SLR from 1953-2003 was about 1.5 mm/yr while the SLR from 1903-1953 was about 2 mm/yr, so there is NO ESCALATING sea level rise at present,” Khandekar explained.

“If the earth's climate enters into a mini ice age by 2035-2040 as several solar scientists are suggesting now, we may NOT even see half the sea level rise as quoted above,” he added.

Atmospheric physicist Dr. Fred Singer:

“The key to Borenstein’s story is the first very word: 'Ultimately.' Yes -- with sea level continuing to rise at the rate of about seven inches per century (as it has in past centuries), Florida will be flooded in a few 1000 years,” Singer, co-author of “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years,” wrote.

Singer added sea levels will rise “unless a new ice age begins sooner -- lowering sea level -- as ocean water turns into continental ice sheets.”

Dr. Art Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine:

“Long term temperature data suggest that the current - entirely natural and not man made - temperature rise of about 0.5 degrees C per century could continue for another 200 years. Therefore, the best data available leads to an extrapolated value of about 1 foot of rise during the next two centuries,” Robinson explained to Inhofe EPW Press Blog.

”There is no scientific basis upon which to guess that the rise will be less or will be more than this value. Such a long extrapolation over two centuries is likely to be significantly in error - but it is the only extrapolation that can be made with current data. There may be no sea level rise at all. No one knows,” he added.

Accuweather’s chief long range forecast Joe Bastardi slammed the AP article for being offering up “a series of anything can happen and probably will statements.”

“As someone who competes in the private sector and gets fired if my forecasts are not supply enough merit to be right enough for clients to benefit, I would welcome the kind of padding one has in making such outrageous long range forecasts that no one still alive will be able to verify,” Bastardi explained.

Ivy League forecasting expert Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at University of Pennsylvania and his colleague Kesten Green Monash University in Australia:

“Dire consequences have been predicted to arise from warming of the Earth in coming decades of the 22nd Century. Enormous sea level rises is one of the more dramatic forecasts. According to the AP’s Borenstein, such sea-level forecasts were experts' judgments on what will happen,” Armstrong and Green wrote to Inhofe EPW Press Blog.

“As shown in our analysis experts' forecasts have no validity in situations characterized by high complexity, high uncertainty, and poor feedback. To date we are unaware of any forecasts of sea levels that adhere to proper (scientific) forecasting methodology and our quick search on Google Scholar came up short,” Armstrong and Green explained.

“Media outlets should be clear when they are reporting on scientific work and when they are reporting on the opinions held by some scientists. Without scientific support for their forecasting methods, the concerns of scientists should not be used as a basis for public policy,” they concluded.

The Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley in the UK, an advisor to the Science and Pulblic Policy Institute, who has authored numerous climate science analyses (LINK):

“Given the absence of credible evidence for extreme sea-level rise over the coming century in the peer-reviewed literature, the IPCC has been compelled to reduce its sea-level estimates. The mean centennial sea-level rise over then 10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age has been 4 feet per century; in the 20th century sea level rose less than 8 inches; and the IPCC's current central estimate is that in the coming century sea level will rise by just 43 cm (1 ft 5 in),” Monckton wrote to Inhofe EPW Press Blog.

Canadian economist Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph in Ontario (who was key in debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick”) pointed out that real estate values would be plummeting on the coastlines if the AP article was accurate.

“If what they're saying is true, we will see the effect on land values long before we see the effect on sea levels. They are saying that it is certain that all sea-level waterfront property around the US will be worthless in 50-100 years. Since the market is very efficient at discounting future certainties into present values, US beachfront property ought to be losing at least 20 percent of its remaining value every decade from now on,” McKitrick wrote to Inhofe EPW Press Blog.

”It might be worth asking some real estate agents, especially in places like Hollywood and the Hamptons, where there seems to be such a consciousness of global warming, if beachfront owners are beginning to dump their properties at a discount. Because, of course, if some people have inside information that this land is really going to be worthless soon, they'll be the first ones to cash out and move to higher ground,” he concluded.

As EPW previously reported in a comprehensive report debunking fears of Greenland melting and a scary sea level rise, many prominent scientists dismiss computer model fears. (LINK)

Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack of the University of Pennsylvania, explains that sea level is only rising up 1.8 millimeters per year (0.07 inches) -- less than the thickness of one nickel.

"Sea level is rising," Giegengack said, but it's been rising ever since warming set in 18,000 years ago, he explained according to a February 2007 article in Philadelphia Magazine. “So if for some reason this warming process that melts ice is cutting loose and accelerating, sea level doesn’t know it. And sea level, we think, is the best indicator of global warming," he said. (LINK) Giegengack also noted that the history of the last one billion years on the planet reveals "only about 5% of that time has been characterized by conditions on Earth that were so cold that the poles could support masses of permanent ice." (LINK)

Prominent scientist Professor Nils-Axel Morner, declared "the rapid rise in sea levels predicted by computer models simply cannot happen." Morner, a leading world authority on sea levels and coastal erosion who headed the Department of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University, noted on August 6, 2007: "When we were coming out of the last ice age, huge ice sheets were melting rapidly and the sea level rose at an average of one meter per century. If the Greenland ice sheet stated to melt at the same rate - which is unlikely - sea level would rise by less than 100 mm - 4 inches per century." Morner, who was president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution from 1999 to 2003, has published a new booklet entitled "The Greatest Lie Ever Told," to refute claims of catastrophic sea level rise. (LINK)

# # #

Related Links:

Global Warming "Consensus" Continues To Melt Away (Op-Ed By Senator Inhofe, Power Magazine) Cutting Emissions May Cost U.S. Economy Up to $1.8 Trillion Senators Propose $4500 Climate Tax on American Families Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived' Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed) Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus’ Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids’ Attempting to "Scare Each Other" Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’ Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype' The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global Warming" # # #

[Phil Fiord]

WOW is all I can think when I saw this and read it in full.

The Weather Channel founder declares that Global Warming is the "Greatest scam in History"

Pretty heavy stuff...

Go here and Thanks to drudge.
http://media.newsbusters.org/stories...t-scam-history

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’


By Noel Sheppard | November 7, 2007 - 17:58 ET

If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?
We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.
Coleman marvelously began (emphasis added, h/t NB reader coffee250):

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
[...]
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.

Let's hope so, John; let's hope so.
Related articles:

Harvard Paper Calls Al Gore a Hypocrite
Renowned Environmentalist Calls Biofuels‘Crime Against Humanity’
John Stossel: ‘Don’t Look to Government to Cool Down the Planet’
UN Climate Panel to Discuss Global Warming at Tropical Resort
Global Warming Tutorial Media Should be Required to WatchVote for Stephen McIntyre's Climate Audit as Best Science Blog

—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

[American Patriot]

Global Warming: The New Lysenkoism
The Nav Log ^ | 11/30/07 | ltn72

The early returns of the Cult of Global Warming are in and they are not flattering. An ever-growing body of reputable scientists are gathering their courage and calling Global Warming what it is: an enormous hoax whose aim is not saving the planet, but rather, carrying the torch for communism and its utterly discredited bag of lies whose sole aim is to give a small group of elites control over the Earth’s stupid and uneducated population. For their own good, of course.


Recently, John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, a meteorologist who now works at KUSI TV in San Diego, and a member of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), publicly decried the Global Warming Hoax:


"It is the greatest scam in history," said Coleman on the ICECAP Web site. "Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the 'research' to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims… In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious as the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway."

An ever growing body of data reflected on hundreds of websites not controlled by Big Media shows the hoax for what it is. Cherry-picked statistics; weather observation stations built within arm’s reach of large man-made heat sources; screeching about melting some arctic ice fields while studiously ignoring a simultaneous and equal increase in ice in other arctic locations; PhotoShopped pictures of polar bears drowning and elephants mummified in Africa; the list is nearly endless. One scientist has linked more than 600 bogus science websites to the topic “global warming.” Almost all are alarmist, if not just plain dishonest.

It needs to be noted that The Global Warming Hoax has been seen before, wearing different clothes. In the last century it was called Lysenkoism...



Complete Article Here

[American Patriot]

The Pope condemns the climate change prophets
TheDaily Mail ^ | DEcember 11, 2007 | SIMON CALDWELL

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

[American Patriot]

GLOBAL WARMING AND HURRICANES
Nealz Nuze ^ | DEcember 12, 2007 | Neal Boortz

Democrats are trying the blame the Bush administration for pressuring experts to downplay the connection between hurricanes and global warming.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Sto...3982079&page=1

A report released by Democrats on Monday called the "Political Interference With Climate Change Science Under the Bush Administration" marks the end of a 16-month investigation into the conspiracy theories of Democrats. The report says that "the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming."

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1653

Now former director of the National Hurricane Center, Max Mayfield has stepped forward to contradict the Democrats' findings: political pressure did not cause him to change his congressional testimony which downplayed the link between global warming and hurricanes.

The controversy started when a staff member of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska sent an email to the NOAA asking Mayfield to say that global warming was not making hurricanes stronger. Bottom line for Democrats ... Bush was behind the whole thing. I wonder how many Democrat staffers have pressured government scientists to participate in the global warming alarmism?

By the way, part of Mayfield's original testimony following hurricane Katrina states, "the increased activity since 1995 is due to natural fluctuations/cycles of hurricane activity driven by the Atlantic Ocean itself along with the atmosphere above it and not enhanced substantially by global warming."

Why are Democrats upset? They see global warming as the key to more income redistribution. They don't want to loose this argument.

[American Patriot]

Global Wallet Warming
Human Events ^ | 12/12/2007 | Susan Easton

On his way to pick up his Nobel Prize, Algore stopped off in London to deliver an address to The Fortune Forum. His back-up group of global warmies included The Prince of Brunei, Bob Geldorf, David Frost, Darryl Hannah and Jerry Hall (the ex Mrs. Mick Jagger).

In case the name of the host organization glanced too lightly off your intellectual windscreen, go back one sentence and read the name of Algore’s hosts. They are “The Fortune Forum,” a self-proclaimed multi-issue global group devoted to the red-hot issues of the day. This includes fighting poverty.

The Fortune Forum does appear to live up to its title. In 2006, Bill Clinton became the highest paid public speaker in the world when he made three speeches. When combined, the fees for these three talks helped him pay off his legal fees and buy the Clinton homes in both Chappaqua, NY, and Georgetown, D.C. One of these speeches was to help launch the Fortune Forum Summit in London for that year. His cohort for the evening was Mr. “Greed is Good,” Michael Douglas. Tickets for that FF event were 1,000 pounds a head or about $1850 at the 2006 pound to dollar conversion rate.

We shall now defer to the Fortune Forum website for an explanation of the scope of global poverty:

“More then 1 billion people still live below the extreme poverty line of $1 a day, and 20,000 die from poverty each day. More then 3 billion, more then half of humanity, live in poverty, with less then $2 per day. Over 1 billion people have no access to health care. Out of the population of the developing countries 66% have no toilets, nor even latrines.”

But those are mere statistics. At The Fortune Forum in late November of 07, money was no object. (This is an attempt at irony). The audience included world leaders, entrepreneurs and (surprise) celebrity activists, who, when they could bend their minds to think about things other than whose designer clothing label they were wearing, were in heated anticipation of Algore’s speech. They ought to have had great expectations. The price tag to attend this gala poverty consciousness-raising event was as high as $100,000 per person. Lesser fees were probably (if at all) paid by those whose names are aforementioned.

According to reliable sources, Saint Al was his usual humble self when he arrived to give his speech to The Fortune Forum. Of course, he insisted on a VIP room for himself and his entourage, barring any and all press from his presence. The better to be holy.

Who bought into the evening? Scan the official website at you will see photos of both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown making warm welcoming remarks to the well-heeled guests. Then check out the photos of the glitterati -- all arriving in haute couture evening wear. Say, isn’t that Sir David Frost who left the BCC for the Al Jazerra TV Network? There’s Cat Stevens, the American pop songwriter who converted to Islam. Isn’t that Darryl Hannah who slept at least once with JFK Jr. and can hold her breath long enough to portray a believable mermaid?

The most credible Fortune Forum guest might well have been a woman who was once married to an aging rock star. Yes, the ex Mrs. Mick Jagger. Bless him, Mick knew how to stash his cash before he made it because he has a degree from The London School of Economics. Lest we get us a fatwa, one does not dare remark on the fabulously wealthy Prince of Brunei, nor on the blond arm candy which adorns him. Eat your heart out, Paris Hilton.

Did we mention the location of the poverty consciousness raising dinner?? That would be THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE. Yes, you can apparently BUY Justice -- or at least eat there in London -- for the right price.

What’s the punchline? Apparently, when Algore rose to the podium he delivered a speech that was SO boring that guests reportedly began talking among themselves before it was over. Other Fortune Forum members subsequently trashed the speech in press interviews. Well, boo. What did they expect for a mere $200,000 (or -- as it worked out on the clock -- $6,600 per minute)?

Worse yet, some of the charities that were to benefit from this fund raising event were treated (gasp) like “uninvited guests.” They did not get to meet the Nobel Gore whose causes he was there to triumph. Fortune Forum organizers apologized to some of the other invited guests when they expressed dismay over their inability to have a photo taken with Al. In England they call this “a shambles.”

A spokesperson for the expert on hot air later made it clear that Mr. Gore was donating “a percentage of his fees” to the Alliance for Climate Protection.

Go to the website and start by taking the pledge. Once that’s done, click on “At The Store” and there you will find a variety of ways to purge your climate guilt by further thinning out your own wallet. Like with a line of vintage clothing.

Al Gore is in that business in case you couldn’t guess. It is The Global Warming Shell Game. Players are simply being suckered into padding Al Gore’s warmed up wallet. Gore is, need we say it, very hot.

[PsycoJoe]

Statement as of 2:27 PM EST on December 15, 2007

... Major winter storm for parts of the area this weekend...

... Winter Storm Warning now in effect until 7 PM EST Sunday...

The Winter Storm Warning is now in effect until 7 PM EST Sunday.

Occasional snow will become steadier and heavier this evening.
Heavy snow will persist overnight into Sunday morning. The snow
will taper of Sunday afternoon. Many locations should see 8 to 12
inches of snow with locally heavier amounts possible. By
Sunday... north winds gusting 30 to 40 mph may cause considerable
blowing and drifting of the snow with near blizzard conditions
possible.

A Winter Storm Warning means significant amounts of snow and
blowing snow are expected. Strong winds are also possible. This
will make travel very hazardous or impossible.

Oh yes. I expect to be wearing shorts and sandals by year's end.

[American Patriot]

Oh yes. I expect to be wearing shorts and sandals by year's end.

LOL!

[PsycoJoe]

Currently watching a program on the Discovery Channel ('Best Evidence') where some people are claiming that "chem-trails" (Down, Rick. Don't make me get the tranq.) are being used to counter global warming. I blame this obvious dumbing down of the American public on the current spate of 'reality based' TV.

[Ryan Ruck]

Year Of Global Cooling

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.

Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained "global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter." In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

[PsycoJoe]

"It was so hot I froze to death. Suzanna don't you cry."

Wow. They knew about it, even way back then...

/sarcasm

[PsycoJoe]

Statement as of 12:13 PM EST on December 23, 2007


... Winter Weather Advisory remains in effect until 7 am EST
Monday...

A Winter Weather Advisory remains in effect until 7 am EST
Monday.

Some slick spots have already developed on area roadways and
sidewalks as the morning rain has refroze due to the falling
temperatures. Strong winds will continue this afternoon into
tonight... occasionally gusting as high as 50 mph.

Snow showers will become more numerous through the day. Most of
the accumulating snow will occur from around 3 PM this afternoon
until around 5 am Monday though. The strong winds along with the
snowfall will create blizzard like conditions at times. Total
snowfall of 2 to 5 inches is likely by Monday morning. The lower
amounts will be east toward Alma and Charlotte... with the heavier
totals in the advisory area west toward Howard City and Grand
Rapids. Wind chill values will remain in the single digits much
of the next 24 hours.

The snow and wind will cause travel difficulties... so be prepared
for slippery roads and limited visibilities. You are urged to use
caution while driving.

Alright everyone. Sing it with me!

"We're having a heat wave, a tropical heat wave...."

[American Patriot]

Today's Global Warming Report: Snow, ice and assorted other weird-assed weather conditions, along with intermittent asteroids hitting Mars, beached whales and missing bees can be expected. Oh, and look out for the full moon last night and tonight

Tomorrow's global warming outlook: Same shit, different day.

30 Jan 2008 outlook. Mars hit by asteroid.