Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?

[sunsettommy]

Jim Pedan has given us permission to post this in it's entirety at my forum.

Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?

EXCERPT:

Editor's Introductory Note: Our planet has been slowly warming since last emerging from the "Little Ice Age" of the 17th century, often associated with the Maunder Minimum. Before that came the "Medieval Warm Period", in which temperatures were about the same as they are today. Both of these climate phenomena are known to have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, but several hundred years prior to the present, the majority of the Southern Hemisphere was primarily populated by indigenous peoples, where science and scientific observation was limited to non-existent. Thus we can not say that these periods were necessarily "global".

However, "Global Warming" in recent historical times has been an undisputable fact, and no one can reasonably deny that.

But we're hearing far too often that the "science" is "settled", and that it is mankind's contribution to the natural CO2 in the atmosphere has been the principal cause of an increasing "Greenhouse Effect", which is the root "cause" of global warming. We're also hearing that "all the world's scientists now agree on this settled science", and it is now time to quickly and most radically alter our culture, and prevent a looming global catastrophe. And last, but not least, we're seeing a sort of mass hysteria sweeping our culture which is really quite disturbing. Historians ponder how the entire nation of Germany could possibly have goose-stepped into place in such a short time, and we have similar unrest. Have we become a nation of overnight loonies?

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/modu...?name=Jim_Peden

[leonardcohen]

A proper ip address would be nice

[sunsettommy]

A proper ip address would be nice

It works fine as it is.

[sunsettommy]

No comments over this Editorial?

[August1991]

No comments over this Editorial?

First, this is a forum. We comment on posts here. You provided no comment in the OP, so why should we comment?

Second, who is James A Peden? Some web designer.

Third, we have several zillion threads on this topic. Why did you start a new one?

Fourth, your link is old (and unoriginal) news. OTOH, you missed a significant news report (NPR) of the past week or so of the Argo Project. (NPR's spin is impressive.)

Lastly, why didn't you provide a link to the original website. That would be more honest and give you some credibility. As it is, you appear like just another self-promoting huckster who doesn't know very much (if anything) about this topic.

[DogOnPorch]

I think that it's a bit of column 'A' and a bit of column 'B'.

Sure, man does have a dramatic effect on his environment. One would have to be blind not to notice. Satellite photos of pollution pouring off China like it's a big smoke stack or airliner contrails creating artificial stratus cloud layers over much of the civilized world by noon each day: It's just a fact. Not to mention what man is doing to the wildlife in various environments...extinction and such. As an animal, we're a pest that's reached infestation levels...lol.

On the other side, there are things like the 11 year Sun-spot cycle which can affect things...or other minor changes in Solar output. The tilt of our pole changes...albeit slowly...which could have results over time. Volcanos can also be a huge factor...after huge eruptions the average global temperature can drop for years. Anyways...numerous factors can be found on this side.

But how much is too much? One need only look to the planet Venus to see the results of a runaway greenhouse scenario. The big threat, I think, is that some relatively minor effect on our part will tip the balance and start things down a path we might not be able to recover from. The Cretaceous era ended when a large meteor slammed into the Gulf of Mexico. But, it crashed into an already sick planet that was going through a period of extensive vulcanism...it was just that meteor that pushed it that extra step down the path taking the dinosaurs with it.

So my conclusion: no single thing man does can cause our end...but when they are added up over time the results are going to be unpredictable at best. The smart bet would be to do what we can to reduce our footprint on the environment just to be on the safe side.

--------------------------------------------------------

Rocky Racoon, checked into his room

Only to find Gideon's Bible.

---The Beatles

Edited March 26, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[Riverwind]

But how much is too much? One need only look to the planet Venus to see the results of a runaway greenhouse scenario.

The atmosphere of venus is not compariable to earth nor is it an example of a runaway greenhouse. See the series here: http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/02/2...ool-greenhouse/

Venus is hotter because its atmosphere has a much higher pressure.

The smart bet would be to do what we can to reduce our footprint on the environment just to be on the safe side.

The issue is what to do. People in Quebec and Ontario are keen to do their bit by imposing strict regulations on tar sands development. However, they are less inclined to support stringent fuel economy standards on cars. I am always sceptical when people advocate the 'precautionary principle' yet quickly come up with excuses why that principle should not apply to things that affect them personally. Edited March 26, 2008 by Riverwind

[DogOnPorch]

The atmosphere of venus is not compariable to earth nor is it an example of a runaway greenhouse. See the series here: http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/02/2...ool-greenhouse/

Venus is hotter because its atmosphere has a much higher pressure.

The issue is what to do. People in Quebec and Ontario are keen to do their bit by imposing strict regulations on tar sands development. However, they are less inclined to support stringent fuel economy standards on cars. I am always sceptical when people advocate the 'precautionary principle' yet quickly come up with excuses why that principle should not apply to things that affect them personally.

Venus's atmosphere was at one point much like Earth's but it had the misfortune of being just a bit too close to the Sun. Vast amounts of carbon dioxide were liberated from the rocks once all the water turned to gas producing the high pressures we see today. Mars is a similar story but due to it's low gravity can only retain a fraction of what it once had.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhoaywjTOMs

As for your second part: don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-progress. I like my coffee hot in the mornings, like most, before I drive to my various tasks around the city. But my comment stands re: human kind's effects on the planet.

----------------------------------------------

Ninety-nine and a half just won't do...

---CCR

Edited March 26, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

Re: the article.

I've heard of this explanation for Venus's retrograde spin and high pressure. It has merrit but I don't think they've been able to come to consensus on it. Venus's lack of moons...even small rocks being one reason I can recall for this being doubted. No rubble.

-----------------------------

Even in hindsight, I would not change one whit of the Voyager experience. Dreams and sweat carried it off. But most of all, its legacy makes us all Earth travelers among the stars.

---Charley Kohlhase: Voyager Mission Analysis and Engineering Manager

[Riverwind]

I've heard of this explanation for Venus's retrograde spin and high pressure. It has merrit but I don't think they've been able to come to consensus on it. Venus's lack of moons...even small rocks being one reason I can recall for this being doubted. No rubble.

Far enough. I was objecting to the suggestion that earth could end up like venus if we don't mend our ways.

[DogOnPorch]

Far enough. I was objecting to the suggestion that earth could end up like venus if we don't mend our ways.

Perhaps not so dramatic, but since we only have ONE planet, it might be prudent to change the oil and replace filters on occasion.

--------------------------------------------

Damn-it! What didn't Diddy do?

---Satan at his sweet 16 party: South Park

[jbg]

On the other side, there are things like the 11 year Sun-spot cycle which can affect things...or other minor changes in Solar output. The tilt of our pole changes...albeit slowly...which could have results over time. Volcanos can also be a huge factor...after huge eruptions the average global temperature can drop for years. Anyways...numerous factors can be found on this side.

There are a gazillion cycles, the most famous of which is the ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) cycle. In fact, oceans were supposed to be the focus of what was "warmed" by the manmade greenhouse effect, and the oceans in turn would warm the planet. This National Post article (link) excerpted below, shows that some "scientists" are rather upset that buoys (which after all have no ideology) are not confirming warming (apologies to August 1991 if this is the "Argos" situation to which he refers; I'm a bit too tired to surf links at this hour).

Perhaps the climate change models are wrong

Lorne Gunter, National Post

Published: Monday, March 24, 2008

Bob Strong, Reuters

They drift along in the worlds' oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres -- more than a mile deep -- constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.

Then, about once every 10 days, a bladder on the outside of these buoys inflates and raises them slowly to the surface gathering data about each strata of seawater they pass through. After an upward journey of nearly six hours, the Argo monitors bob on the waves while an onboard transmitter sends their information to a satellite that in turn retransmits it to several land-based research computers where it may be accessed by anyone who wishes to see it.

These 3,000 yellow sentinels --about the size and shape of a large fence post -- free-float the world's oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.

It's fascinating to watch their progress online. (The URLs are too complex to reproduce here, but Google "Argo Buoy Movement" or "Argo Float Animation," and you will be directed to the links.)

******************

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.

In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.

*****************

The big problem with the Argo findings is that all the major climate computer models postulate that as much as 80-90% of global warming will result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into the atmosphere.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm a bit too tired to surf links at this hour.

I hear you there. Watching an interesting documentary on early humans...quite informative. Slow here tonight, anyways.

---------------------------------------------------

When my father arrived in Kenya, he had found the Kikuyu way of life similar to that of the British at the time the Romans invaded England 2,000 years ago.

---Dr. Louis Leakey

Edited March 26, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[WIP]

The operative word should be "climate change" instead of global warming because there are too many numbskulls who look at the bad winter we're having hear in the East and declaring that there can't be any case for global warming!

The earth's climate is an extremely complex system, so trying to make clear predictions about how it will affect our weather is going to be difficult. There is uncertainty about whether "tipping points" will occur and cause a runaway greenhouse effect; and it's even in dispute whether higher temperatures will cause more or less hurricanes on the average. The only thing that is agreed upon is that more energy in the planet's climate systems will cause more severe storms and greater shifts in weather. That would fit the pattern with what's happening this year! For my part, I'm not going to put much stock in the oil company-financed "skeptics" unless they can show that the steady increase in man-made CO2 levels can carry on without having any impact on the climate.

[jbg]

The operative word should be "climate change" instead of global warming because there are too many numbskulls who look at the bad winter we're having hear in the East and declaring that there can't be any case for global warming!

The earth's climate is an extremely complex system, so trying to make clear predictions about how it will affect our weather is going to be difficult. There is uncertainty about whether "tipping points" will occur and cause a runaway greenhouse effect; and it's even in dispute whether higher temperatures will cause more or less hurricanes on the average. The only thing that is agreed upon is that more energy in the planet's climate systems will cause more severe storms and greater shifts in weather. That would fit the pattern with what's happening this year! For my part, I'm not going to put much stock in the oil company-financed "skeptics" unless they can show that the steady increase in man-made CO2 levels can carry on without having any impact on the climate.

WIP, I understand your point. The most important factor this past winter was La Nina, with an assist from a slow solar cycle. That being said, it is my belief that the La Nina-El Nino cycles, sunspot cycles, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation et. al. far away swamp any human CO²-related activities.

[buffycat]

WIP, I understand your point. The most important factor this past winter was La Nina, with an assist from a slow solar cycle. That being said, it is my belief that the La Nina-El Nino cycles, sunspot cycles, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation et. al. far away swamp any human CO²-related activities.

Agreed, as usual jbg, we can agree on climate change. I find that hopeful and quite nice

Though, one thing about the CO2 - it is far more of a danger to our oceans as opposed to being significant in any way to atmospheric warming. That is where my concern of excess CO2 comes from.

It's not a very powerful 'greenhouse' gas, as you know methane and water vapour are the biggies.

[Riverwind]

The only thing that is agreed upon is that more energy in the planet's climate systems will cause more severe storms and greater shifts in weather.

There is no science that supports this claim. It is simply seat-of-the-pants propaganda created by alarmists desperate to keep their theory credible in the face of cold temperatures.

For my part, I'm not going to put much stock in the oil company-financed "skeptics" unless they can show that the steady increase in man-made CO2 levels can carry on without having any impact on the climate.

The financed by "oil companies" is another example pathetic propaganda by alarmists. Oil companies spend a lot more money funding alarmists and the alleged funding links tend to be something like '15 years ago so-and-so received a 50K contract from an oil co to do something unrelated to climate change'. Or 'so and so has had opinions published by organizations that received 1% of the their funding from oils cos'. IOW - the links when they actually exist (and many times they don't exist at all) are so tenuous that they are irrelevant.

Frankly, people who think they can dismiss skeptical views by claiming 'links to oil companies' are simply looking for excuses to deny information that makes them feel uncomfortable. If you are going to argue that money distorts the science then you must admit that anyone with a job that depends on AGW being a "problem" cannot be trusted. This means that the opinion of the IPCC should be ignored because it is "obviously corrupted by its desire to justify its existence".

Edited March 26, 2008 by Riverwind

[jbg]

Though, one thing about the CO2 - it is far more of a danger to our oceans as opposed to being significant in any way to atmospheric warming. That is where my concern of excess CO2 comes from.

It's not a very powerful 'greenhouse' gas, as you know methane and water vapour are the biggies.

As to the CO² in the ocean, I am beginning to read some disturbing informatin that sounds more solid than the "global warming" stuff ever did. Obviously, the issue still remains if there is any effectual remedy. If the only effect of a Kyoto-type approach is to transfer CO²-intense manufacture to a country not included in Kyoto "Annex 1" (primarily China and India), then we've cost middle-to-high wage Westerners their jobs, for no gains. Think about the problem that way.

[WIP]

WIP, I understand your point. The most important factor this past winter was La Nina, with an assist from a slow solar cycle. That being said, it is my belief that the La Nina-El Nino cycles, sunspot cycles, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation et. al. far away swamp any human CO²-related activities.

I can see solar activity, volcanoes and other natural processes affecting climate, but I can't see a growing population that's increasing CO2 output having no effect on the climate. Most of the climate skeptic challenges I've read about temperature data look like attempts to lull the public into ignoring the issue so energy companies that pay these skeptics can carry on business as usual.

[WIP]

Agreed, as usual jbg, we can agree on climate change. I find that hopeful and quite nice

Though, one thing about the CO2 - it is far more of a danger to our oceans as opposed to being significant in any way to atmospheric warming. That is where my concern of excess CO2 comes from.

It's not a very powerful 'greenhouse' gas, as you know methane and water vapour are the biggies.

On the subject of oceans being poisoned by increasing CO2 levels, you might be interested in checking out the book "Under A Green Sky" by paleontologist Peter Ward. Ward was studying rock layers of the Permian-Triassic Extinction - referred to as "the great dying," it was an event that wiped out at least 96% of marine animals on earth. Ward was looking for evidence of a comet or asteroid impact similar to the one that caused the later extinction of the dinosaurs, but instead found evidence that a sharp spike in CO2 levels warmed the poles and slowed the circulating ocean currents enough to literally poison the oceans. http://www.amazon.com/Under-Green-Sky-Warm...s/dp/006113791X

The P/T Extinction was caused by volcanic flood basalts, but he sees the increase in human-produced CO2 as capable of creating the same kind of mass extinction in the next 50 to 100 years.

Edited March 26, 2008 by WIP

[WIP]

There is no science that supports this claim. It is simply seat-of-the-pants propaganda created by alarmists desperate to keep their theory credible in the face of cold temperatures.

Are cold temperatures here proof that the climate isn't changing? And the weather isn't the same all over the world. Take a look at what's happening in Russia for example:

The Ups and Downs of Global Warming

Andrew MOISEENKO, translation: J. Marshall Commins — 25.03.2008

The year 2007 marked the warmest year in the history of Russian climate observation, according to the Russian Federal Hydrometeorological and Environmental Monitoring Service (Rosgidromet). The average annual temperature was 2°С above the norm.

Few doubt that the Earth's climate is changing, but no one knows exactly why or how long the process will last. The international community must start preparing today for the effects of global warming..........continued

http://www.volgograd.kp.ru/daily/24069/308198/

The financed by "oil companies" is another example pathetic propaganda by alarmists. Oil companies spend a lot more money funding alarmists and the alleged funding links tend to be something like '15 years ago so-and-so received a 50K contract from an oil co to do something unrelated to climate change'. Or 'so and so has had opinions published by organizations that received 1% of the their funding from oils cos'. IOW - the links when they actually exist (and many times they don't exist at all) are so tenuous that they are irrelevant.

Frankly, people who think they can dismiss skeptical views by claiming 'links to oil companies' are simply looking for excuses to deny information that makes them feel uncomfortable. If you are going to argue that money distorts the science then you must admit that anyone with a job that depends on AGW being a "problem" cannot be trusted. This means that the opinion of the IPCC should be ignored because it is "obviously corrupted by its desire to justify its existence".

I was a climate change skeptic also, until the preponderance of evidence started showing clear evidence that human activity is playing a part in altering the climate. If it was just a few cranks like David Suzuki, it would be easy to write them off. Left wing idealogues gravitate to any issue that will require government action as part of a solution. Environmentalism has provided a convenient home for every activist who hates capitalism and wants government ownership of industry.

That said, the consensus of opinion among the scientists who study climate research is not on the side of the skeptics. And even more troubling is the fact that most of these skeptics exagerate their credentials and are indirectly funded by energy companies who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo:

New analysis of the latest ExxonMobil funding reports reveals that in spite of recent public statements to the contrary, the company continues to bankroll organizations that misrepresent the science and urgency of global warming.

The research, conducted by Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets.org project, shows that in 2006, ExxonMobil spent $2.1 million funding dozens of prominent climate-denial organizations.

Moreover, recently unearthed Exxon tax forms show that the company specifically covered up grants earmarked for Global Climate Change Efforts, Activities, Issues, Education or Outreach to fourteen skeptic organizations in 2005.

“Exxon’s decade-long campaign of denial and deception on global warming has provided cover for the Bush Administration’s inept climate policy,” said Kert Davies, Research Director at Greenpeace “Although Exxon’s public rhetoric on global warming appears to be shifting, in reality they continue to fund the denial industry.”

Greenpeace’s analysis shows that Exxon continues to fund the core network of front groups that have been misrepresenting the science on global warming and attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since the early 1990s. Among the recipients of Exxon funding in 2006 are several organizations which have been at the center of Exxon’s tobacco-style disinformation campaign.

http://www.polarisinstitute.org/exxon_stil...limate_skeptics

Global warming skeptics

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...change_skeptics

[Riverwind]

Are cold temperatures here proof that the climate isn't changing? And the weather isn't the same all over the world.

I am not sure what you tried to show with your link. Cold temperatures are not a sign of global warming. If global warming is occurring the winters will, on average, get warmer.

If we have cold weather like this winter it is a either a statistical fluke or a sign that GW hypothesis is wrong.

I was a climate change skeptic also, until the preponderance of evidence started showing clear evidence that human activity is playing a part in altering the climate.

Human activity is NOT the same as CO2. It is very dangerous to mix up the two because that can lead to the wrong policy response. Land use changes and aerosols like black carbon play a significant role.

Despite what you have been told there is no conclusive EMPIRICAL evidence that CO2 has caused most of the recent warming. The claims are based entirely on dubious climate models which depend on a huge number of estimated parameters - parameters that can be adjusted to ensure the models produce the desired output. Unfortnately, many in the scientific community now accept computer models as 'proof' of a hypothesis. That is an absurd position that no one outside the community should accept.

More importantly, there is real data collected from a variety of reputable sources that shows that the climate models are most likely wrong.

That said, the consensus of opinion among the scientists who study climate research is not on the side of the skeptics.

If you want research funding you must believe in the CO2 hypothesis. Any scientist who dares to question the holy creed is ostracized. That said there are still a significant number of credible scientists like Linzden, Christy, Spenser or Pieke Sr. None of these people have links to oil companies (although places liek sourcewatch try to claim they do - those claims are false).

The research, conducted by Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets.org project, shows that in 2006, ExxonMobil spent $2.1 million funding dozens of prominent climate-denial organizations.

$2.1 million? What a joke. That nothing compared to what the various organization like Greenpeace spend lobbying for their point of view. See: http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/01/...al-machine.html

Let us recap. Of all the oil companies, according to Greenpeace, the Royal Society, and campaigning organisations, journalists, and scientists, ExxonMobil is the worst. And of all the wrong things it does, the worst has been to give $2 million to the CEI over the course of a decade. This funding has been sufficient to significantly stall international action on climate change on the global political agenda. Allegedly.

Yet as we can see, since 1994, Greenpeace have been the lucky recipients of well over $2 billion in roughly the same time. A difference of three orders of magnitude.

A little hint - any website that uses the term 'denier' is nothing but a shill for the numerous organizations seeking to cash in on the CO2 hysteria. GW is big business. If you accept the premise that money corrupts science then the MUST accept that the billions allocated by governments to fund anti-CO2 measures must corrupt the science even more than any puny funding provided by oil companies.

Edited March 26, 2008 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

I am not sure what you tried to show with your link. Cold temperatures are not a sign of global warming. If global warming is occurring the winters will, on average, get warmer.

If we have cold weather like this winter it is a either a statistical fluke or a sign that GW hypothesis is wrong.

Human activity is NOT the same as CO2. It is very dangerous to mix up the two because that can lead to the wrong policy response. Land use changes and aerosols like black carbon play a significant role.

Despite what you have been told there is no conclusive EMPIRICAL evidence that CO2 has caused most of the recent warming. The claims are based entirely on dubious climate models which depend on a huge number of estimated parameters - parameters that can be adjusted to ensure the models produce the desired output. Unfortnately, many in the scientific community now accept computer models as 'proof' of a hypothesis. That is an absurd position that no one outside the community should accept.

More importantly, there is real data collected from a variety of reputable sources that shows that the climate models are most likely wrong.

If you want research funding you must believe in the CO2 hypothesis. Any scientist who dares to question the holy creed is ostracized. That said there are still a significant number of credible scientists like Linzden, Christy, Spenser or Pieke Sr. None of these people have links to oil companies (although places liek sourcewatch try to claim they do - those claims are false).

$2.1 million? What a joke. That nothing compared to what the various organization like Greenpeace spend lobbying for their point of view. See: http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/01/...al-machine.html

A little hint - any website that uses the term 'denier' is nothing but a shill for the numerous organizations seeking to cash in on the CO2 hysteria. GW is big business. If you accept the premise that money corrupts science then the MUST accept that the billions allocated by governments to fund anti-CO2 measures must corrupt the science even more than any puny funding provided by oil companies.

People with huge bank accounts deny global warming or cooling..Those with small or non-existant bank accounts accept the fact that human activity is making the weather extreme and destructive. It's a bottom line issue - if those who have a huge field of investement in the cess pool slave state China...would admit to global warming it would be finacial suicide ...so they are not about to off themselves by doing what is right - those with huge destructive and successful investment in evil..believe that there is no heaven here or after - so they are going for it like no tomorrow and they can't really TAKE IT WITH THEM...SO THEY WILL TAKE US WITH THEM INSTEAD...I AM NOT GOING. THE TRICK IS TO OUTLIVE THE BASTARDS..AND ALL GOOD MEN WILL!

[sunsettommy]

First, this is a forum. We comment on posts here. You provided no comment in the OP, so why should we comment?

Second, who is James A Peden? Some web designer.

Third, we have several zillion threads on this topic. Why did you start a new one?

Fourth, your link is old (and unoriginal) news. OTOH, you missed a significant news report (NPR) of the past week or so of the Argo Project. (NPR's spin is impressive.)

Lastly, why didn't you provide a link to the original website. That would be more honest and give you some credibility. As it is, you appear like just another self-promoting huckster who doesn't know very much (if anything) about this topic.

Wow what a smarmy reply!

Is there a forum rule that states that the person starting a thread MUST comment first?

You missed this part:

Editor's Science Bio

James A. Peden - better known as Jim or "Dad" - Webmaster of Middlebury Networks and Editor of the Middlebury Community Network, spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. As a student, he was elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity, and was President of the Student Section of the American Institute of Physics. He was a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His thesis on charge transfer reactions in the upper atmosphere was co-published in part in the prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics. The results obtained by himself and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh remain today as the gold standard in the AstroChemistry Database. He was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, declared one of the "100 Most Significant Technical Developments of the Year" and displayed at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. He also has a Mensa-qualifying I.Q. and a missing toe he lost to a lawnmower when he was in college.

All agree he has a great sense of humor.

I think he is more than a web designer.

I know a lot about the ARGO project.Since I posted that at my forum last week .I have been correcting AGWer's over it too in two forums.

James Peden gave me permission to post this in its entirety at my forum.I simply connected to it from here.Because it is in the ORIGINAL form.Since there has been no debate over the editorial.I have no reason to update it.Yes James has changed part of his editorial.

Your attitude here is repelling and irrational.

Try debating instead.

[August1991]

This National Post article (link) excerpted below, shows that some "scientists" are rather upset that buoys (which after all have no ideology) are not confirming warming (apologies to August 1991 if this is the "Argos" situation to which he refers; I'm a bit too tired to surf links at this hour).

That's exactly the Argo Project I was referring to.

In my mind, it is the most troubling evidence yet that I have seen about global warming (or climate change). It's worth noting that I am not by nature an "environmental skeptic". I have no doubt that the greenhouse effect can occur. I also believe that human activities upset nature's balance. I believe this in part because the price system does not incorporate accurately environmental harm and hence it creates the wrong incentives.

With all that said, the Argo Project is already providing data showing that we simply do not understand well enough how the earth's climate works. It is premature to believe that reducing man-made CO2 emissions will change anything because we just don't know.

Currently climate models predict that the oceans should have temperature increases that are much greater than atmospheric temperature changes. The Argo Project shows that the oceans in the past five years are getting slightly cooler:

Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can.

NPR

Keep in mind that this is NPR and it could never question openly climate change orthodoxy. The fact is that we simply don't know how the oceans absorb CO2 or how they regulate the world's atmospheric temperature. Five years is a short data cycle so we'll have to wait for more information from the 3000 Argo submersed floats.

Lastly, here are two fun (and safe) videos to download (right click and save) and watch.

Video 1

Video 2

NASA Site

Edited March 26, 2008 by August1991