Metamorphasis of fraud - No Warming-Triggered Ice Age

[jbg]

The form of the promised apocolypse has now been revised. We are duly informed that no warming triggered Ice Age (link to article) is in the works. At least until a new panic along those lines is needed. Excerpts below:

By WALTER GIBBS

OSLO — Mainstream climatologists who have feared that global warming could have the paradoxical effect of cooling northwestern Europe or even plunging it into a small ice age have stopped worrying about that particular disaster, although it retains a vivid hold on the public imagination.

The idea, which held climate theorists in its icy grip for years, was that the North Atlantic Current, an extension of the Gulf Stream that cuts northeast across the Atlantic Ocean to bathe the high latitudes of Europe with warmish equatorial water, could shut down in a greenhouse world.

Without that warm-water current, Americans on the Eastern Seaboard would most likely feel a chill, but the suffering would be greater in Europe, where major cities lie far to the north. Britain, northern France, the Low Countries, Denmark and Norway could in theory take on Arctic aspects that only a Greenlander could love, even as the rest of the world sweltered.

All that has now been removed from the forecast. Not only is northern Europe warming, but every major climate model produced by scientists worldwide in recent years has also shown that the warming will almost certainly continue.

“The concern had previously been that we were close to a threshold where the Atlantic circulation system would stop,” said Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “We now believe we are much farther from that threshold, thanks to improved modeling and ocean measurements. The Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current are more stable than previously thought.”

****

[jester]

Doesn't modelling always show what you want it too? After all they put the info in and tell it what results to look for.

[jbg]

Doesn't modelling always show what you want it too? After all they put the info in and tell it what results to look for.

Exactly. That's how you wind up with the "panic of the week".

[rover1]

This is a very complicated matter. Although I agree that new developments seem to show some improvements, it is still much too early to say much, as far as I know. This is still a threat, and could lead to a much greater catastrophe than global warming ever could. We shall just have to wait and see.

[speaker]

Doesn't modelling always show what you want it too? After all they put the info in and tell it what results to look for.

A modeller definitely has to put in the data the system will use to come up with an answer, The better data the better the answer. What makes you think the scientists also tell the computer what results to look for? This is a case where climatologists believe that they have inputted better information and as a result have come up with a refutation of what they believed earlier. More power to them. I hope for Europes sake that they are right.

It may mean that global warming is more severe than previously thought, and it may already be too late for the balancing effect of a colder north Atlantic.

[jbg]

Sounds like a lot of Nostradamian, apocolyptic nonesense to me.

[Canuck E Stan]

It may mean that global warming is more severe than previously thought, and it may already be too late for the balancing effect of a colder north Atlantic.

Top ten myths about global warming

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

See Link for reasons.

Kyoto/Climate News

THE CENSORS - DENYING ANY DEBATE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

Friends of Science is concerned about the serious and growing problem of censorship of debate on global warming. The deniers of debate include some of the leading scientific journals who refuse to publish papers which challenge the fashionable wisdom about global warming. Real science is based on the precept that constructive, intelligent debate is not only welcome, but essential to progress. Unfortunately, climate-change science is in danger of losing its status as real science. Instead, it is increasingly used as a convenient tool by governments and special-interest groups, more interested in pushing their own political agenda than in promoting policies that actually protect the environment. Usually lacking in climate-science knowledge, and disinterested in exerting the effort to acquire any, they merely stoop to the lower level of name calling by referring to others as "deniers".

Prime examples of this growing trend are former Prime Minister Chretien's single-handed decision to ratify Kyoto based on his "gut-feel" while ignoring the climate scientists who urged his government to convene unbiased science hearings before his ratification. Similarly, his successor, Paul Martin, continued to ignore requests by leading scientists to debate this issue in a scientific manner. Further, when Friends of Science was finally invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Environment, their testimony was excised from the committees report to then Environment Minister Dion. Further, he ignored our complaint and lacked the courtesy to even reply.

The Debate Deniers-"gut feeling" is the scientific way.

[rover1]

It may mean that global warming is more severe than previously thought, and it may already be too late for the balancing effect of a colder north Atlantic.

Top ten myths about global warming

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

Some of these conclusions, appear to be based on Lord Mockton's paper, some of which has been refuted based on questionable mathematical models. The rest of Mockton's conclusions are in process of being scientifically reviewed. The rest constitutes, more or less, a criticism of the Kyoto agreements. Nobody who has studied the matter thinks that Kyoto is without fault. All in all, the 4th IPCC report is still upheld by most scientists up to now.

See Link for reasons.

Kyoto/Climate News

THE CENSORS - DENYING ANY DEBATE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

Friends of Science is concerned about the serious and growing problem of censorship of debate on global warming. The deniers of debate include some of the leading scientific journals who refuse to publish papers which challenge the fashionable wisdom about global warming. Real science is based on the precept that constructive, intelligent debate is not only welcome, but essential to progress. Unfortunately, climate-change science is in danger of losing its status as real science. Instead, it is increasingly used as a convenient tool by governments and special-interest groups, more interested in pushing their own political agenda than in promoting policies that actually protect the environment. Usually lacking in climate-science knowledge, and disinterested in exerting the effort to acquire any, they merely stoop to the lower level of name calling by referring to others as "deniers".

Prime examples of this growing trend are former Prime Minister Chretien's single-handed decision to ratify Kyoto based on his "gut-feel" while ignoring the climate scientists who urged his government to convene unbiased science hearings before his ratification. Similarly, his successor, Paul Martin, continued to ignore requests by leading scientists to debate this issue in a scientific manner. Further, when Friends of Science was finally invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Environment, their testimony was excised from the committees report to then Environment Minister Dion. Further, he ignored our complaint and lacked the courtesy to even reply.

The Debate Deniers-"gut feeling" is the scientific way.

[rover1]

.xxx

[speaker]

canuck e stan this should give you a clear idea of where governments are going with this based on what their science academies are working on.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?tip=0&id=6634

and this is probably an update for you on the friends of science.

http://www.desmogblog.com/discredited-frie...ardship-project

Perhaps if those scientists who were being rejected when trying to have their work published did better work they would find more acceptance.

[rover1]

Here is another article to add to the collection:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...1947248,00.html

[Canuck E Stan]

Well, if we're going to go after articles here's one from today.

So where's the debate?

" Among other things, since the film's release last year, scientists have rejected Mr. Gore's claims that 2005 was the warmest year on record (temperatures have been receding since 1998), that polar bears are heading for extinction (their numbers are growing), that Antarctica is warming (interior temperature readings show cooling) and that sea levels will "rise 18 to 20 feet," swamping coastal cities (the International Panel on Climate Change predicts a few inches).

But others, like Mr. Gore, have an agenda. On a discussion board on the CBC Web site last month, readers debated the Surrey controversy. One commentor, who identified himself as a teacher, wrote this: "Yes students should look at both sides on an issue and learn to judge for themselves. But there are times to do this and times to stop." He is certain Mr. Gore is right. Now, he wrote, "It is time for action."

Love that debate denier- gut feeling science....it's so.....scientific.

[jbg]

Love that debate denier- gut feeling science....it's so.....scientific.

The article below (link) details Al Gore’s artifice and cowardice in ducking debate on this issue. Specifically, he avoided an interview with people who actually know something about the environment and global warming. It seems that he prefers scaring Grade 6 and 7 impressionable little girls, or taking Sunday morning potshots on MSM interviews, where a panel or reporters, half asleep, lob softballs. He realizes that a debate with someone knowledgeable would be fatal to his book and movie sales if not to his political career.

Maybe Dion should step up to the plate that Gore left behind.

Excerpts below (link):

Will Al Gore Melt?

By FLEMMING ROSE and BJORN LOMBORG

January 18, 2007; Page A16

Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Today he is in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune.

The interview had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore's agent yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?

One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore's suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.

*snip*

He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century. Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don't mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn't we hear those facts?

*snip*

Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century. Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global warming. These are best achieved through open debate, and we invite him to take the time to answer our questions: We are ready to interview you any time, Mr. Gore -- and anywhere.

[speaker]

Canuck E Stan, your reference has some validity for sure. If the Gore stuff is going to be shown in schools, and I haven't seen it so can't comment on it's value as educational material, it should have a response from an opposing view as mentioned in the article: " A Washington-state school board now requires that any teacher showing the film must ensure a "credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented" as well." I'm sure the difficulty is in finding such a view.

There are certainly a lot of good concerned citizens mentioned trying to do their best to get information about the threat of global warming before students and the public in general.

When the primary opposition comes from the friends of science though, or the natural resources stewardship project, opposition tends to lose credibility.

jbg, it looks from this link like Mr. Lomborg is a little over his depth in discussing this kind of issue with anyone. Why would someone who has evidently set himself up to carry a banner for the environment like Al Gore put himself at Lomborgs level? Nothing to gain....

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bjorn_Lomborg