Traverse City Record-Eagle

Blogs

Frosty's reprieve

Troy Keith, The Armchair ConservativeCold enough for you out there? At least one happy snowman has been given a new lease on life as recent scientific studies are now predicting that the earth's current cooling trend will continue for some time to come. Whether the result is frightful or delightful remains to be seen, but the global warming alarm bells of previous years seem conspicuously silent under this winter's new blanket of snow. Even Al Gore would seem to be in hibernation as repeated challenges to debate his questionable science remain unanswered.

Just six or eight months ago, going through a day without numerous references to the fiery calamity awaiting humanity was next to impossible. Now, I'm hard pressed to find much of anything "new" on the subject as an increasing number of scientists are beginning to warm up to the idea of a coming ice age. According to data from the Jason Oceanographic Satellite, a cooling trend may be in the forecast until at least 2030.

Writing recently in Pravda, columnist Gregory Fegal states:

The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

This sounds much like the opinion of Science Magazine in 1975:

According to the Academy [the NAS] report on climate, we may be approaching the end of a major interglacial cycle, with the approach of a full-blown 100-year long ice age a real possibility…with ice packs building up relatively quickly from local snowfall that fails to melt form winter to winter.

Fegel suggests that the current global warming model "is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture' of long-term climate change". While noted for his controversial views, I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Fegel on this point.

Readers may also be interested in this 1974 Time Magazine article entitled Another Ice Age?

In addition to record snowfalls this year, we're also accumulating a significant amount of data that contradicts previous assertions by those in the alarmist camp. I wrote about much of this in a previous post, but given recent reports and the current media shift, I thought the idea was worth revisiting.

According to the Old Farmer's Almanac, meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D’Aleo states:

We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes. Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future.

Looking at NASA's newly corrected data on global mean temperatures for the last 10 years, it's difficult to ascertain any significant trend in either direction.

As with most things, a greater perspective often illuminates more of the picture. When we view global temperatures from a 2,000 year vantage point, an entirely different pattern emerges.

Dr. Craig Loehle has done extensive research using oxygen isotope data from deep core samples and stalagmites as well as pollen counts, diatoms in lake sediment and other methods to produce the two thousand-year temperature graph below.

This data supports the theory of a medieval warming period (MWP) that until recently, had been accepted as general fact. Prior to 1990, scientists widely agreed that countless studies of tree rings, ice cores and sediment samples, in addition to written records and ledgers of harvest totals from the era, all pointed conclusively to an unusually warm cycle in the earth's climate. Much warmer in fact, than the temperatures we've experienced in this current cycle that have prompted such alarmism.

Because this MWP occurred before man made emissions and our crude addiction to fossil fuels could be blamed, much of the global warming community has worked diligently to bury or discredit this line of reasoning. Anthropogenic (based upon human activity) warming remains the overwhelming theme of the decade despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary and numerous credible voices expressing doubt about the currently accepted theories.

Given the economic woes currently facing our nation, the global warming debate may seem to be an insignificant topic, but under Kyoto's ever-present shadow and the new administration's stated positions on energy policy, cap and trade legislation and a general penchant for all things green, nothing could be further from the truth.

President-elect Obama's recent selection of Carol Browner to be the new global warming czar falls into place with my previous concerns about the coming administration. The topic of American Socialism is often met with skepticism, but it should be noted that Ms. Browner is one of 14 leaders of an organization called Socialist International — a group openly calling for the implementation of "democratic forms of global governance as the foundation for building a peaceful and sustainable world society overall."

One of Socialist International's charters states that "A principal task of new global governance must be to ensure that the benefits of global economic growth and the opportunities for economic development are distributed fairly." One can't help but wonder where Joe the Plumber is these days.

With at least four years of unchecked regulation and oversight ahead, we will most likely be investing billions of dollars in unproven and unreliable means of energy production while costs to the consumers skyrocket as established companies are forced to buy into a bogus carbon credit system. Proven oil reserves will remain untapped and the coal industry may well be put out of business as Mr. Obama has stated previously:

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

Our choice in light bulbs has already been mandated to the toxic and unpleasant CFL's in 2012. Inefficient, environmentally un-friendly bio-fuels are being rammed down our tanks, backyard BBQ's have been banned and recently fireplaces have been placed on the naughty list as Los Angeles Mayoral candidate Walter Moore rings in on a new government initiative in CA:

The Philosopher Kings of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) have decided that government must stop you from burning wood in your fireplace.

The AQMD — which is funded with $125 million of your money each year – just made it illegal to install wood-burning fireplaces in new homes, and adopted regulations to stop you from using your existing fireplace on days they deem too polluted. In a region where massive wildfires are as routine as televised car chases, these kill-joys want to stop you from burning logs? Are you kidding me?

We've got ten jillion cars and trucks stuck in traffic, idling, for
about 18 out of every 24 hours. We've got a governor who fires up the
Gulfstream twice a day to commute from L.A. to Sacramento. We've got kids getting shot while minding their own business. And yet we need a new law to ban the burning of logs in fireplaces? Really?

Perhaps the most foul smelling bit of legislation on the table is the EPA's proposed flatulence tax that could cost farmers up to $175 per animal. If that flies, it would seem only fair that congress be assessed a carbon offset fee of $300 per person to compensate for all the hot air coming out of the capital these days.

In closing, I'd like to quantify this piece by stating again that there are numerous credible sources on both sides of this iron curtain. Extensive research has been done by many reputable scientists but clear, definitive proof for the concept of AGW simply does not exist. Without a tangible solution, or for that matter an obvious definition of the problem, it would be foolish and irresponsible to turn our economy upside down during this critical period. Once ceded, our freedoms and national sovereignty are not likely to return and I am hesitant to relinquish them so easily.

We all want clean air, fresh water to drink and the ability to experience the wonders of an unpolluted natural world, but these aspirations can be attained through market driven solutions and the free choices of our world's citizens.

Lest we forget, CO2 comprises approximately .03% of the atmosphere and roughly 97% of all CO2 is produced by non-human sources such as fermentation, forest fires and volcanoes. Of all the greenhouse gasses, water vapor represents nearly 95% of the total, followed by CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide (N2O) and misc. other gases making up the remaining five percent.

When all of the factors are taken into consideration, human activity accounts for less than one half one percent of all greenhouse gas contributions. The truth is out there, ‘al’beit inconvenient at times.

  • PM

    Nice work! I like reading another side of the story. The alarmists would probably hunt you down for your comments here. If you aren't a sheeple…you don't exist.

  • PM

    Nice work! I like reading another side of the story. The alarmists would probably hunt you down for your comments here. If you aren’t a sheeple…you don’t exist.

  • http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/ Jim

    My uncle was a D-Day combatant and came through without a scratch. Troy Kieth would then say that proves that it wasn't dangerous. One exception does not disprove a trend.
    An analysis of climatologists predictions of the weather from 1965 to 1979 found that 7 predicted cooling, 44 accurately predicted warming, and 20 predicted a stable climate.
    Now with remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling it is more like about 95% of climatologists predict warming.

  • http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/ Jim

    My uncle was a D-Day combatant and came through without a scratch. Troy Kieth would then say that proves that it wasn’t dangerous. One exception does not disprove a trend.
    An analysis of climatologists predictions of the weather from 1965 to 1979 found that 7 predicted cooling, 44 accurately predicted warming, and 20 predicted a stable climate.
    Now with remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling it is more like about 95% of climatologists predict warming.

    • troykeith

      I appreciate your uncle’s service and will continue to work diligently to preserve the freedoms he fought for. The point of this piece was not to focus so much on a prediction one way or another, but rather the growing discrepancies between both camps and the fact that opinions are regularly changing. The Science Magazine piece was referencing the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences in 1975, not some rogue weatherman in Alabama.

      If numerous studies show that the earth has undergone repeated periods of warming and cooling (often warmer than this current upswing), how can we so easily accept the notion of man-made global warming and the corresponding governmental regulation that goes along with it?

      State climatologists (not funded by the federal gov’t) seem to be much more outspoken critics of commonly accepted AGW theory than their federal counterparts as this bit from the American Association of State Climatologists would suggest:

      http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p628.htm

      I’m not attempting to make a definitive statement either way; I just think there are too many contradictions, errors in the data collection methods and outright manipulations of the evidence to jump off the cliff at this point.

      • Jeff

        Opinions CAN change, facts can’t. The world reported 328 new record HIGH temps this last year and 116 record low temps. Let’s make an inference from this factual data … glad ur back TK.

        • http://www.michigantaxes.wordpress.com Ed Burley

          Hey Jeff, since Troy was good enough to provide citations for his data, how about some for yours? Or is this just Sierra Club, or Earth First propaganda like Gore peddles?

          Contrary to your silly claim, facts do change. Today’s temperature is in the teens, and tomorrow’s might be 21 degrees. Both are facts, and they are different facts. Fact is, global warming does not produce record low temperatures. Fact is, there are far more scientists who disagree with global warming than who accept it. As soon as you provide the citations for your facts, I’ll supply the ones for mine.

          And remember, by your own admission, I’m always right.

          • Jeff

            I can tell by your logic that you have a strong science background Ed Burley. And, yes, global warming will STILL have record low temps, and in fact, more snow for michigan (lake effect induced due to warmer lake temps.) I can’t remember exactly where I saw the numbers I gave above, but you’re right – it was probably some left wing propapganda from Discover Magazine or Nat. Geographic. I’m also a yahoo headling fanatic, so I could have read it there too – so much for trusting something on the internet. I’ll look around and see if i can find a SCIENTIFIC article that is peer reviewed by a reputable weather group. And, yes as usual, you are right (to those people in your small circle of friends you can bully into believing you…)

          • http://www.michigantaxes.wordpress.com Ed Burley

            Bully? That’s funny…

            Anyway, let’s start with a report that was put together by the following list of people (with their qualifications):

            1) Anderson, Warren. Economist, George Mason University, author of Fire and Ice. Fairfax, Virginia, USA

            2) Avery, Dennis. Director, Center for Global Food Issues, co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming. USA

            3) Battaglia, Franco. Professor of Chemical Physics and Environmental Chemistry, University of Modena. Italy

            4) Carter, Bob. Paleoclimatologist and professor, James Cook University. Townsville, Australia

            5) Courtney, Richard. Engineering expert for fuel use and climate consequences. United Kingdom

            6) D’Aleo, Joseph. Meteorologist, fellow and elected councilor AMS; first director of meteorology, The
            Weather Channel. USA

            7) Goldberg, Fred, Ph.D. (Technology) polar expert,
            and co-organizer of 2006 Stockholm Climate Conference. Sweden

            8) Gray, Vincent, Ph.D. (Chemistry) and publisher of New Zealand Climate Newsletter. New Zealand

            9) Haapala, Kenneth. Economist, energy and economic modeler. USA

            10) Heiss, Klaus, Ph.D. Economist and author of survey studies of climate. Austria

            11) Idso, Craig, Ph.D. (Ag Meteorology), and publisher of CO2Science.org. Tempe, Arizona,
            USA

            12) Jaworowski, Zbigniew. Professor, Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection. Warsaw,
            Poland

            13) Kärner, Olavi, Ph.D. (Physics), Tartu Observatory. Estonia

            14) Khandekar, Madhav, Ph.D. Meteorologist, formerly with Environment Canada. Expert
            Reviewer, IPCC 2007. Ontario, Canada

            15) Kininmonth, William. Meteorologist, former head
            of National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of
            Meteorology. Australia

            16) Labohm, Hans. Economist, former deputy foreign policy planning advisor, Netherlands Ministry of
            Foreign Affairs. Netherlands

            17) Monckton, Christopher. Climate analyst, former advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
            Scotland.

            18) Motl, Lubos, Ph.D. (Physics), former fellow at Harvard, publisher of The Reference Frame blog. Czech Republic

            19) Segalstad, Tom V. Associate Professor and head of Geological Museum, University of Oslo. Norway

            20) Singer, Fred. Atmospheric physicist and former director of U.S. Weather Satellite Service. USA.

            21) Taylor, George. Oregon State University, former president of Association of State Climatologists.
            USA

            22) Thoenes, Dick. Professor Emeritus, Eindhoven University and co-author Man-Made Global
            Warming: Unravelling a Dogma. Netherlands

            23) Uriarte, Anton. Professor of Climatology and Geography, Universidad del Pais Vasco. Spain

            24) Weber, Gerd-Rainer, Ph.D. (University of Indiana), Consulting meteorologist. Germany

            As you can see, we have a list of meterologists, professors, chemists, economists, etc. Their study can be found here:

            http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf

            In addition, there is also a report done by 631 scientists (over 500 more than authored the UN report) found here:

            http://www.heartland.org/full.html?articleid=24313

  • troykeith

    I appreciate your uncle’s service and will continue to work diligently to preserve the freedoms he fought for. The point of this piece was not to focus so much on a prediction one way or another, but rather the growing discrepancies between both camps and the fact that opinions are regularly changing. The Science Magazine piece was referencing the opinion of National Academy of Sciences in 1975, not some rogue weatherman in Alabama.

    If numerous studies show that the earth has undergone repeated periods of warming and cooling (often warmer than this current upswing), how can we so easily accept the notion of man-made global warming and the corresponding governmental regulation that goes along with it?

    State climatologists (not funded by the federal gov’t) seem to be much more outspoken critics of commonly accepted AGW theory than their federal counterparts as this bit from the American Association of State Climatologists would suggest:

    http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p628.htm

    I’m not attempting to make a definitive statement either way; I just think there are too many contradictions, errors in the data collection methods and outright manipulations of the evidence to jump off the cliff at this point.

  • Jeff

    Opinions CAN change, facts can't. The world reported 328 new record HIGH temps this last year and 116 record low temps. Let's make an inference from this factual data … glad ur back TK.

  • http://www.michigantaxes.wordpress.com Ed Burley

    Hey Jeff, since Troy was good enough to provide citations for his data, how about some for yours? Or is this just Sierra Club, or Earth First propaganda like Gore peddles?

    Contrary to your silly claim, facts do change. Today's temperature is in the teens, and tomorrow's might be 21 degrees. Both are facts, and they are different facts. Fact is, global warming does not produce record low temperatures. Fact is, there are far more scientists who disagree with global warming than who accept it. As soon as you provide the citations for your facts, I'll supply the ones for mine.

    And remember, by your own admission, I'm always right.

  • Jeff

    I can tell by your logic that you have a strong science background Ed Burley. And, yes, global warming will STILL have record low temps, and in fact, more snow for michigan (lake effect induced due to warmer lake temps.) I can't remember exactly where I saw the numbers I gave above, but you're right – it was probably some left wing propapganda from Discover Magazine or Nat. Geographic. I'm also a yahoo headling fanatic, so I could have read it there too – so much for trusting something on the internet. I'll look around and see if i can find a SCIENTIFIC article that is peer reviewed by a reputable weather group. And, yes as usual, you are right (to those people in your small circle of friends you can bully into believing you…)

  • Jeff

    hmmm, how about this one Ed/Troy. 2008 was the among the ten warmest years on record (of the last 158 years data has been kept) and Elllemere island's ice sheets shrunk to 1/9 their normal size. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29

    My guess is you don't like data from the UN Mr. Ed. Might lead to a new world order or something ?

  • Jeff

    hmmm, how about this one Ed/Troy. 2008 was the among the ten warmest years on record (of the last 158 years data has been kept) and Elllemere island’s ice sheets shrunk to 1/9 their normal size. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29342&Cr=climate&Cr1

    My guess is you don’t like data from the UN Mr. Ed. Might lead to a new world order or something ?

    • http://www.michigantaxes.wordpress.com Ed Burley

      Hey Jeff, thanks for the link. Now, where in that article does the data show that global warming is being CAUSED by humans?

      Ever heard of solar flares? Probably not, or were those our fault too? Let’s talk research, okay? Please see my post above.

      • Jeff

        Oh, I’ve never said WHO caused it. In fact, i’m leaning toward natural oscillations that have happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future. BUT, we can’t dispute the fact that it IS happening now. Global warming is happening, its not disputable. Now, can it change tomorrow and swing back the other way. Sure can. Gotta love the fickle nature of mother nature. And troy, Yes, I agree, the data collection techniques can be flawed.

        I live out of town in the woods. Today it was 8 deg F when I left my house. In town it was 12 deg F. Same elevation, same basic area, different temps. Data collected near towns schews the average to show global warming. I agree. But, shrinking glaciers and shrinking ice fields can’t be ignored. Global warming IS happening, but I’m not saying how, don’t worry. In fact, you’ll be happy to know i didn’t even give Al Gore’s movie a watching. He’s not a scientist, I wouldn’t watch.

        • http://www.michigantaxes.wordpress.com Ed Burley

          Have you ever stood on a glacier? In the summer months in Alaska, when the temperature is anywhere from 75 (in Anchorage – southern Alaska) to 95 degrees (in Fairbanks – northern Alaska), the glaciers are melting continually. I stood on a huge glacier back in 1985, and watched as the glacier gushed water into the Bering Straits – and I mean GUSHING.

          Right now, while it is winter in the northern hemisphere, it is SUMMER in the lower, and I’ll bet that in Antarctica those “ice fields” and glaciers are melting – just like they do every year, and just like they do the other half of the year in the Arctic.

          Most people who attempt to discuss this stuff have never been to any of these places, and so believe all the BS that’s being shovelled out by those with a political agenda.

          And before you make some smart aleck comment about my experiences, I was in the Air Force the entire 80s. I was a Technical Instructor who travelled extensively (more than 6 months out of the year). That’s how I ended up in Alaska in June of 1985.

          • Jeff

            Since you travelled extensively, more than 6 months out of the year, you must have stopped and measured the thickness, the width and the length of these glaciers. You gathered this data and then compared it to long term baseline data gathered years before and compared it. Then you wrote a technical journal and had it peer reviewed. That’s what scientists do Ed. They don’t just say “Hey, I travelled there, now I know lots about it.” Try again.

          • http://www.michigantaxes.wordpress.com Ed Burley

            Actually no, I didn’t; and you, in spite of your stupidity, should have known better. My POINT was that glaciers melt in the summertime. I know that’s difficult for a drone like you to understand, unable to think for himself…

            My point continues to be that there is no proof that this so-called warming is man-made. Secondly, there has been NO WARMING since 1998 according to the data, and now it appears we are in a cooling cycle. Thirdly, the cry-in-your-beer pictures of poor old polar bears jumping in the water is pure balderdash – as I pointed out, in the summertime, temperatures there can get downright balmy (comparatively, of course). Ice starts to melt at 32 degrees F, or 0 degrees C. Not sure if you knew that either Jeff.

            It’s also funny that you talk about “peer-review” so much. Do you even know what you are talking about, or are you just regurgitating Gore’s propaganda? Let’s talk about peer-reviewed journals for a minute, shall we?

            Were you aware that at one time, all of the journal articles in peer-reviewed Psychology journals stated that homosexuality was a mental illness? Were you aware that psychologists used to chop up people’s frontal lobes (called a frontal lobotomy), all in the name of peer-reviewed science? Were you aware that at one time, in the realm of legal peer review, blacks were considered less than a person, and subject to ownership by whites?

            Gives me a good feeling about “peer-review,” doesn’t it you? The real point of peer-review is to allow dissenting opinions to be published, with appropriate data (which opponents of warming have), so that peers can review the data. They can then make an informed decision. The peer-review is usually for the purpose of keeping crackpots (like Gore) out of the scientific community. As it stands, too many peer-reviewed journals are disallowing the publishing of contrary data. Why? Because they have a political agenda, as do you.

          • Jeff

            Of course peer reviewed science has changed a bit since those times Ed. Just like Christians no longer burn witches at the stake. They don’t imprison scientists for saying the earth goes around the sun, etc.

            And, of course glaciers melt in the summer, even drones like me know that. In fact, the rate of melting is increasing and the amount of glacier rebuilding is slowing therefore they’re shrinking.

            And, as for your point about it being MAN MADE global warming, I won’t argue it. I’m saying its probably more cycle based than man-made, but there is indisputable proof that warming HAS been happening over the last 20-30 years. I’m not saying it will continue either. You can shout as loud as you want Mr. Ed, but your shouting will not sway the evidence.

            As for a poitical agenda, I have none regarding global warming or cooling. I actually feel like moving south these days because its too cold here lately, but I do like skiing.

            Interesting side note. Just got an email from a friend in Norway. I asked how the skiing was going … He replied “We just don’t get the snow and cold temperatures here like we used to 20 years ago. Now we only get one month of skiing snow, it used to be three months of the white stuff.” Hmmmm sounds warmer there and since I have travelled extensively 6 months out of the year, that makes me an expert.

          • Jeff

            Ok, Mr. Ed … my last comment on the topic, then we’ll have to meet and settle this man to man. ;)

            This quote is from Dr. Fred Singer. He seems to have stolen all my ideas – global warming is happening !! Here are his credentials.

            S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Vir-ginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a dozen books and mono-graphs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.

            AND, here is a thumbnail sketch of his ideas.

            Man-Made Warming?
            The most fundamental question is scientific: Is the observed warming of the past 30 years due to natural causes or are human activities a main or even a contributing factor?

            At first glance, it is quite plausible that humans could be responsible for warming the cli-mate. After all, the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has been increasing steadily since the beginning of the industrial revolution and is now 35 percent higher than it was 200 years ago. Also, we know from direct measurements that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” which strongly absorbs infrared (heat) radiation. So the idea that burning fossil fuels causes an enhanced “greenhouse effect” needs to be taken seriously.

            But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.

            Here is the link to the full essay/speech.

            http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08

            Indisputable – global warming is happening, no politcal agenda, who is causing it? more mother nature than man.

          • http://www.michigantaxes.wordpress.com Ed Burley

            Funny Jeff, my source of information has been Singer too. I just don’t agree that warming is occurring AS A LONG TERM TREND.

            Any idiot knows that the earth warms, and then cools – I’ve never denied that. What I have categorically denied is man-made warming, and that we are still in a warming cycle. That is patently false. For the last ten years, there has been no significant warming.

          • Jeff

            for teh last ten years there has been no significant warming? none?? Come on Ed, the temperature readings don’t lie. Mother nature is heating us up !!

            http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090113_ncdcstats.html

            Wait, maybe NOAA is biased by the liberal media? Maybe they measured wrong? Maybe you visited their sites and can disprove their readings? Come on, you’ve travelled for more than 6 months out of the year AND were a technical advisor or something right? Sorry, I’m bored, thought I’d give you something to call me “idiotic” or “having a ppolitcal agenda.”

    • troykeith

      There are some serious questions surrounding current data/temp collection methods, particularly with the surface stations as referenced on the sites below:

      http://www.surfacestations.org/
      http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/article.cfm?artId=22197
      http://climatepolice.wordpress.com/category/global-warming/
      http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm

      Even if your information was correct, the greater question becomes how can it be proven that any increase (or decrease) in temperature is due to human activity?

      Regarding Ellesmere Island’s ice sheets:

      http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1010

      http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112747212/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/2002-01-18-wais-thicker.htm

  • troykeith

    There are some serious questions surrounding current data/temp collection methods, particularly with the surface stations as referenced on the sites below:

    http://www.surfacestations.org/
    http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/article.c
    http://climatepolice.wordpress.com/category/glo
    http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm

    Even if your information was correct, the greater question becomes how can it be proven that any increase (or decrease) in temperature is due to human activity?

  • Jeff

    Oh, I've never said WHO caused it. In fact, i'm leaning toward natural oscillations that have happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future. BUT, we can't dispute the fact that it IS happening now. Global warming is happening, its not disputable. Now, can it change tomorrow and swing back the other way. Sure can. Gotta love the fickle nature of mother nature. And troy, Yes, I agree, the data collection techniques can be flawed.

    I live out of town in the woods. Today it was 8 deg F when I left my house. In town it was 12 deg F. Same elevation, same basic area, different temps. Data collected near towns schews the average to show global warming. I agree. But, shrinking glaciers and shrinking ice fields can't be ignored. Global warming IS happening, but I'm not saying how, don't worry. In fact, you'll be happy to know i didn't even give Al Gore's movie a watching. He's not a scientist, I wouldn't watch.

  • http://www.michigantaxes.wordpress.com Ed Burley

    Have you ever stood on a glacier? In the summer months in Alaska, when the temperature is anywhere from 75 (in Anchorage – southern Alaska) to 95 degrees (in Fairbanks – northern Alaska), the glaciers are melting continually. I stood on a huge glacier back in 1985, and watched as the glacier gushed water into the Bering Straits – and I mean GUSHING.

    Right now, while it is winter in the northern hemisphere, it is SUMMER in the lower, and I'll bet that in Antarctica those “ice fields” and glaciers are melting – just like they do every year, and just like they do the other half of the year in the Arctic.

    Most people who attempt to discuss this stuff have never been to any of these places, and so believe all the BS that's being shovelled out by those with a political agenda.

    And before you make some smart aleck comment about my experiences, I was in the Air Force the entire 80s. I was a Technical Instructor who travelled extensively (more than 6 months out of the year). That's how I ended up in Alaska in June of 1985.

  • Jeff

    Since you travelled extensively, more than 6 months out of the year, you must have stopped and measured the thickness, the width and the length of these glaciers. You gathered this data and then compared it to long term baseline data gathered years before and compared it. Then you wrote a technical journal and had it peer reviewed. That's what scientists do Ed. They don't just say “Hey, I travelled there, now I know lots about it.” Try again.

  • http://www.michigantaxes.wordpress.com Ed Burley

    Actually no, I didn't; and you, in spite of your stupidity, should have known better. My POINT was that glaciers melt in the summertime. I know that's difficult for a drone like you to understand, unable to think for himself…

    My point continues to be that there is no proof that this so-called warming is man-made. Secondly, there has been NO WARMING since 1998 according to the data, and now it appears we are in a cooling cycle. Thirdly, the cry-in-your-beer pictures of poor old polar bears jumping in the water is pure balderdash – as I pointed out, in the summertime, temperatures there can get downright balmy (comparatively, of course). Ice starts to melt at 32 degrees F, or 0 degrees C. Not sure if you knew that either Jeff.

    It's also funny that you talk about “peer-review” so much. Do you even know what you are talking about, or are you just regurgitating Gore's propaganda? Let's talk about peer-reviewed journals for a minute, shall we?

    Were you aware that at one time, all of the journal articles in peer-reviewed Psychology journals stated that homosexuality was a mental illness? Were you aware that psychologists used to chop up people's frontal lobes (called a frontal lobotomy), all in the name of peer-reviewed science? Were you aware that at one time, in the realm of legal peer review, blacks were considered less than a person, and subject to ownership by whites?

    Gives me a good feeling about “peer-review,” doesn't it you? The real point of peer-review is to allow dissenting opinions to be published, with appropriate data (which opponents of warming have), so that peers can review the data. They can then make an informed decision. The peer-review is usually for the purpose of keeping crackpots (like Gore) out of the scientific community. As it stands, too many peer-reviewed journals are disallowing the publishing of contrary data. Why? Because they have a political agenda, as do you.

  • Jeff

    Of course peer reviewed science has changed a bit since those times Ed. Just like Christians no longer burn witches at the stake. They don't imprison scientists for saying the earth goes around the sun, etc.

    And, of course glaciers melt in the summer, even drones like me know that. In fact, the rate of melting is increasing and the amount of glacier rebuilding is slowing therefore they're shrinking.

    And, as for your point about it being MAN MADE global warming, I won't argue it. I'm saying its probably more cycle based than man-made, but there is indisputable proof that warming HAS been happening over the last 20-30 years. I'm not saying it will continue either. You can shout as loud as you want Mr. Ed, but your shouting will not sway the evidence.

    As for a poitical agenda, I have none regarding global warming or cooling. I actually feel like moving south these days because its too cold here lately, but I do like skiing.

    Interesting side note. Just got an email from a friend in Norway. I asked how the skiing was going … He replied “We just don't get the snow and cold temperatures here like we used to 20 years ago. Now we only get one month of skiing snow, it used to be three months of the white stuff.” Hmmmm sounds warmer there and since I have travelled extensively 6 months out of the year, that makes me an expert.

  • Jeff

    Ok, Mr. Ed … my last comment on the topic, then we'll have to meet and settle this man to man. ;)

    This quote is from Dr. Fred Singer. He seems to have stolen all my ideas – global warming is happening !! Here are his credentials.

    S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Vir-ginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a dozen books and mono-graphs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.

    AND, here is a thumbnail sketch of his ideas.

    Man-Made Warming?
    The most fundamental question is scientific: Is the observed warming of the past 30 years due to natural causes or are human activities a main or even a contributing factor?

    At first glance, it is quite plausible that humans could be responsible for warming the cli-mate. After all, the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has been increasing steadily since the beginning of the industrial revolution and is now 35 percent higher than it was 200 years ago. Also, we know from direct measurements that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” which strongly absorbs infrared (heat) radiation. So the idea that burning fossil fuels causes an enhanced “greenhouse effect” needs to be taken seriously.

    But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.

    Here is the link to the full essay/speech.

    http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/

    Indisputable – global warming is happening, no politcal agenda, who is causing it? more mother nature than man.

  • http://www.michigantaxes.wordpress.com Ed Burley

    Funny Jeff, my source of information has been Singer too. I just don't agree that warming is occurring AS A LONG TERM TREND.

    Any idiot knows that the earth warms, and then cools – I've never denied that. What I have categorically denied is man-made warming, and that we are still in a warming cycle. That is patently false. For the last ten years, there has been no significant warming.

  • Jeff

    for teh last ten years there has been no significant warming? none?? Come on Ed, the temperature readings don't lie. Mother nature is heating us up !!

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/200901

    Wait, maybe NOAA is biased by the liberal media? Maybe they measured wrong? Maybe you visited their sites and can disprove their readings? Come on, you've travelled for more than 6 months out of the year AND were a technical advisor or something right? Sorry, I'm bored, thought I'd give you something to call me “idiotic” or “having a ppolitcal agenda.”

  • Jeff

    nasa here, more crackpot liberals. hmmm this graph is looking more RED than blue and white. Hey, that makes red, white and blue !! Go usa !! http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?…

  • Jeff

    nasa here, more crackpot liberals. hmmm this graph is looking more RED than blue and white. Hey, that makes red, white and blue !! Go usa !! http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36699

  • Hawkman

    Its so sad to heard that. Everyone should take a step to stop the earth converting to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years. As saying is from 1974 no one is taking care of the earth.
    banff national park

Record-Eagle Blogs is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).