# Doomsday the rapture and glass houses



## billc (May 24, 2011)

this is a column by Dennis Prager where he discusses the fact that the rapture did not in fact occur. He points out all the other doomsdays that also did not occur and some of which have been far more costly in their effect on society.

http://www.dennisprager.com/columns...ays,_the_left_shouldnt_laugh_at_the_religious

from the article:

The secular, especially the anti-religious, left, enjoy these spectacles of religious foolishness. They seem to confirm for them not only how absurd these end-of-days predictions are, but how absurd religion is in general.

But the left should not laugh too loudly. The religious world has far fewer doomsday predictions than the left does. At least every few years, the secular-left frightens itself -- and tries to frighten everyone else -- about another doomsday scenario.
The most obvious current example is, of course, global warming. For years now, we have been told by the world's left-wing media that scientists are united in predicting that there will be worldwide catastrophe as a result of global warming caused by manmade carbon dioxide emissions. Oceans will rise so high that they will drown many of the world's great coastal cities; entire island-countries will disappear; vast areas of the world will dry up; and countries will fight one another for the little remaining fresh water.Compared to the global warming scenario, I'll face the Rapture -- and I'm not even Christian.


----------



## David43515 (May 24, 2011)

Thanks. That was quite interesting.


----------



## fangjian (May 25, 2011)

There is *still* a difference though. The scientific method demands that most will be incorrect in their hypotheses. 


As compared to " Magical beings are coming to Earth to destroy everything"


----------



## Sukerkin (May 25, 2011)

Remember that laughing at the ludicrous is much better for a society than ignoring/excusing an issue or getting medieval on the backside of those that believe something delusional or dangerous.

Laughter is both a medicine and a safety valve for otherwise socially divisive and explosive matters.  This is particularly true when it comes to religion, from both sides of the posit on mythical creator deities.  Watching something like the Mr. Deitiy sketches, for example, is cathartic for both believers and rationalists alike.

Sadly that sort of release is something certain Islamic groups seem to have forgotten when it comes to certain cartoons, or Christian groups about certain works of 'art', which sort of exemplifies the point.


----------



## elder999 (May 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The most obvious current example is, of course, global warming. For years now, we have been told by the world's left-wing media that scientists are united in predicting that there will be worldwide catastrophe as a result of global warming caused by manmade carbon dioxide emissions. Oceans will rise so high that they will drown many of the world's great coastal cities; entire island-countries will disappear;


 
This is happening in the Marshall Islands,:



> Since a nation has never actually disappeared, the United Nations is struggling to figure out what would happen to the 61,000 people of the Marshall Islands should their homes go underwater. The U.N. is currently meeting to try and figure out a legal framework that could be used if a nation&#8217;s land becomes inhabitable, and what would happen to their economic rights, citizenship and sovereignty. The 1951 global treaty on refugees only covers those fleeing because of persecution. It is unclear how or if they will revise it to include those displaced by climate change.


 
and the island country of Tuvalu:



> Deputy Prime Minister of a tiny South Pacific island of Tuvalu calls to the rest of the world to take urgent action as his nation is at danger of disappearing due to global warming. Experts claim that island can sink in less than 50 years
> 
> vast areas of the world will dry up; and countries will fight one another for the little remaining fresh water.Compared to the global warming scenario, I'll face the Rapture -- and I'm not even Christian.


 
and has already happened to at least one inhabited island already



> Rising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth. The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true


 
Note that the above story was reported in *2006.*

Of course, here in the southwest, wer're in the midst of a drought that may just go on long enough to bring about another dustbowl, and I happen to believe that fighting over freshwater-already a reality between Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and California-is inevitable. THe only real question is if we'll still be alive to see it become armed conflict.

Oh, lest we forget

_this is a column_
_the secular left_
_rapture did not occur_
_doomsday did not occur_
_global warming_
_far more costly reality_
_Prager, Prager, Prager_

[yt]0TAzcYYQ5_E[/yt]


----------



## Blade96 (May 25, 2011)

yeah Bill, left will say a kind of doomsday, like about global warming, its true. But they're not the same as the right wing religious nutjobs. Like a short while ago, the world was supposed to end. Its waaaay more credible to say this is what will happen if we don't watch our global warming better. And its based on scientific research.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 25, 2011)

Lo!  Behold the conflagration in the East!  Behold the Warming of the Globe!  Like a serpent, yea verily the dragon, will the AlGore rise from the waters.  His suit shall be as Brooks Brothers and his tie shall be as  Armani.  His heads shall number 7 and the sigil of the UN shall be marked upon his foreheads.  Great shall be the floodwaters that herald his arrival, drowning the World in documentary film and dull speeches.  The Censorius Handmaiden Tipper shall be at his side, armed with the Sticker of Parental Warning that brings sorrow and boredom to the young.  The World trembles at their coming.  Beware your doom O Peoples of the World!  The AlGore is coming for your souls!


----------



## Ramirez (May 25, 2011)

> For years now, we have been told by the world's left-wing media that scientists are united in predicting that there will be worldwide catastrophe as a result of global warming caused by manmade carbon dioxide emissions.



 Reporting facts is left wing?  Or just reporting facts this columnists doesn't agree with is left wing? 

  This is a CNN report...97% of surveyed scientists agree global warming is human induced.

  Where is the left wing bias in reporting the opinion of scientists?


Earth Scientist Survey


----------



## Empty Hands (May 25, 2011)

Ramirez said:


> Where is the left wing bias in reporting the opinion of scientists?



Reality has a well-known liberal bias.


----------



## WC_lun (May 25, 2011)

Notice any difference in the weather patterns? You know, lots of snow where there hasn't been in the past, 100 degree days in April, more hurricanes than normal, more tornadoes and they are larger than normal in the past, more rain, or floods? These are also signs of global warming. These are effects of the rise in temerature causing more energy in the atmosphere. Now I'm not gonna say all this is caused by man. I really don't think that is important. What is important is we recognize the trend and take steps not to make it worse. The other option is just not very smart when it comes to every life on earth changing, and not for the better otherwise.

As a side note, if 97% of mechanics told me my car has a particular problem, I'd believe them. Sure they might be making money off me, but I find it hard to believe 97% would make up the same lie so one or two could make a buck. If a politician said there is nothing wrong with my car, even though 97% of mechanics say there is, I'd think him a fool. Why is it that scientist who are experts in weather and global weather trends have thier opinions trumped by those of politicians? Especially when many already believe politicians lie as part of thier very nature. It just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 25, 2011)

I'll just leave this here...
http://youtu.be/LiYZxOlCN10


----------



## cdunn (May 25, 2011)

The /really/ funny thing, to me, is that the same actions that will reduce CO2 emissions are the same actions that will, in the long run, lead to energy independence from the Middle East, and break the treasuries of the hostile Muslim theocratic petro-states (oh, and Russia again, to boot), effectively winning the "war" that the right wing wants to declare on this non existent Caliphate.  Do you really think Iran could afford to make nuclear weapons if the US didn't chug oil like a pile of crack addicts, and it was five bucks a barrel again?


----------



## billc (May 25, 2011)

97% of actual climate scientists or 97% of all scientists. That is the rub. A nice little hand book on the subject is the "Politically incorrect guiede to global warming." The author dug through some of the "scientists" who believe in manmade global warming and they aren't exactly climate scientists. The authors of "unstoppable global warming: every 1500 years would also disagree, as would the founder of the weather channel who described man made global warming as one of the biggest scientific hoaxes in history. I saw the climate gate scandal where climate scientists who were unconvinced of the cause of climate changes were denied access to the global warming data, and how the scientists leading the charge conducted campaigns to fire editors of scientific journals who gave doubters space in their journals. So, Please. It is far from fact and the myth of consensus is just that a myth.

http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-G...1245/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1306380810&sr=8-1

From the book:

In this New York Times bestseller, authors Singer and Avery present the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Using historic data from two millennia of recorded history combined with natural physical records, the authors argue that the 1,500 year solar-driven cycle that has always controlled the earth's climate remains the driving force in the current warming trend. 

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-I...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1306380871&sr=1-1

From the book:

Now, in The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Christopher C. Horner tears the cover off the Left's manipulation of environmental issues for political purposes--and lays out incontrovertible evidence for the fact that catastrophic man-made global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science. He explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and UN globalists endlessly bleat that "global warming" is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true. It's the ideal scare campaign for those who hate capitalism and love big government. For, as Horner explains, if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could "solve" it. According to the logic of the greens' own numbers, no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of big government.

A readers review of the book:

Despite these stunning indictments of some of the more popular claims for global warming, this book is not primarily a review of the scientific evidence. Horner is far more concerned with motives and the psychology of those who embrace global warming than he is with the arguments used to advance it. In some cases, these motives are fairly obvious. Despite the mantra that "Big Energy" opposes the "scientific consensus" about global warming, the fact is that some companies, like Enron (formerly) and Dupont (at present), lobby for the passage of legislation similar to the Kyoto treaty because they stand to profit from it. Cap-and-trade policies for limiting carbon dioxide emisions can substantially increase the bottom line for many companies, even as they increase costs for customers with no discernable benefit for the environment or the economy. Similarly, journalists and major news outlets sell more by reporting sensationalist headlines than by carefully examining the evidence for such claims. This is one reason Mann's "hockey stick" went unchallenged for as long as it did. It was a nice visual for news consumers. But the bulk of this book is an analysis of ideologues and true believers: people who are so passionate about their cause that they will brook no dissent; people like history teacher Naomi Oreskes. Ms. Oreskes claimed she did an analysis of all 928 articles on climate change and found none that disputed the claim of manmade global warming. The fact that she cherry picked her 928 articles from a total of over 11,000 did (eventually) receive some coverage. Readers of this book will further learn how she intentionally distorted the findings of the limited articles she bothered to peruse. For the record, only 13 of those articles actually defended manmade climate change. This says much about the so called consensus, but even more about the tactics and mentality of those who believe in environmental Armageddon. This is the actual focus of Horner's book. 


Let me start the criticism...These guys are just corporate stooges, and shills for big oil...there, that is out of the way.

A list of global warming heretics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

A few heretics (a.k.a. shills for big oil...) speak:

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankinds role is relatively minor".[39]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."[40]
Henrik Svensmark, Pubs Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earths surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."[41]

More heretics ( shills for big oil...):

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22529/Scientists_Doubt_Climate_Change.html

By S.A. Miller -- More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says.
The scientists -- many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis -- cast doubt on the "scientific consensus" that man-made global warming imperils the planet.
"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting -- a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number -- entirely without merit," said Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, one of the researchers quoted in the report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
"I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached," Mr. Tennekes said in the report.
Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report debunks Mr. Gore's claim that the "debate is over."
"The endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day," he said.

And the scandal that rocked the man made global warming world:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

from the article:

The reason why even the _Guardian_'s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case. 
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself. 
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 26, 2011)

But at the end of the day, it *is* getting warmer, Billc.  At least it is here in good old Blighty.  This is to the extent that certain signature events, such as the flowering of the azure carpet of bluebells is happening a number of weeks earlier than it used to just a few decades ago.

The fact that our weather has gone hayware is also a sign that all is not well in the Atlantic Conveyor (the Gulf Stream current, not the ship).


----------



## Carol (May 26, 2011)

Uhhh....am I the only one that actually read the info on the link that Ramirez posted?


----------



## granfire (May 26, 2011)

Carol said:


> Uhhh....am I the only one that actually read the info on the link that Ramirez posted?



Probably


----------



## billc (May 26, 2011)

When you are done with ramirez, then read the info. I posted.  It goes a little more in depth.


----------



## billc (May 26, 2011)

Hmmm...are some of these scientists basing their beliefs on the IPCC report that is at the heart of the climate-gate scandal where the supporters of manmade global warming were cooking the books and hiding contradictory data.

Also from wikipedia:


Position: Accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable

Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Richard Lindzen,Pubs Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But  and I cannot stress this enough  we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[5] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas  albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[6][7]
Garth Paltridge,Pubs Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre."There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."[8]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[9]
Antonino Zichichi,Pubs emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[10] He has also said, "It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it"[11]


----------



## billc (May 26, 2011)

One of the things I love about the internet is that information is so easily found.  This is a counter article about Ramirez's article:

http://www.science20.com/news_relea...bal_warming_real_other_scientists_not_so_much

From the article that looks at Ramirez's results:

Doran says the petroleum geologist response "is not too surprising" - one would presume that he means because of their jobs, their integrity is for sale, whereas climatologists rely on government grants and there's no way to know how many government grants were turned down for skeptics of global warming theory.  Generally we have to protest when it is alleged that any science group is going to disagree for reasons that are personal and not scientific but we are a science site and not an advocacy one so our noting of his qualifier will likely get us lumped in as Holocause deniers or shills for Big Oil.  

Meteorolgists are dismissed out of hand by him.   "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."   So the next time you need an accurate hundred-year climate forecast, go to a climatologist and see how well it works.

Climatologist opinions certainly carried more weight with him.   "They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

From another article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1112950/

Editor&#8212;The apocalyptic tone that Smith adopted in relation to the environment bears little relation to reality.1 In his editorial Smith asserts, &#8220;virtually all scientists agree that global warming is happening.&#8221; Global warming is now joining the list of &#8220;what everyone knows.&#8221;
Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. &#8220;The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.&#8221;2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to &#8220;prove&#8221; that climate change induced by humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What happened was that the policymakers&#8217; summary (which became the &#8220;take home message&#8221; for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, &#8220;In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.&#8221;4
Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. Most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that current climate models do not accurately portray the atmosphere-ocean system. Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13°C between 1979 and 1994.5 Furthermore, since the theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50 years?5

And some more:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/father-of-climatology-calls-manmade-global-warming-absurd/

From the article:


Father of Climatology Calls Manmade Global Warming Absurd
Dave S.

Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd....

PROF REID BRYSON, DEAN OF US CLIMATOLOGISTS, DISCOURSES ON GLOBAL WARMING

2. Global Warming? by Reid A. Bryson Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr.1

The Built-in Nonsense Detector:
Hardly a day goes by without a news article in the paper containing a reference to someone&#8217;s opinion about &#8220;Global Warming&#8221;. A quick search of the Internet uncovers literally hundreds of items about &#8220;Global Warming&#8221;. Issues of atmospheric science journals will normally have at least one article on climatic change, usually meaning &#8220;Global Warming&#8221; or some aspect thereof. Whole generations of graduate students have been trained to believe that we know the main answers about climate change and only have to work out the details.
Why then do I bother you by introducing this section with such a ludicrous title?
I do it because, as one who has spent many decades studying the subject professionally, I find that there are enormous gaps in the understanding of those making the most strident claims about climatic change. In order to read the news rationally, the educated reader needs a few keys to quickly sort the patently absurd from the possibly correct. I propose to supply some of those keys to give the reader at least a rudimentary nonsense detector....

Some Common Fallacies
1. The atmospheric warming of the last century is unprecedented and unique. Wrong. There are literally thousands of papers in the scientific literature with data that shows that the climate has been changing one way or the other for at least a million years.
2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission. Wrong. That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone.
3. The most important gas with a &#8220;greenhouse&#8221; effect is carbon dioxide. Wrong. Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide, so small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes in carbon dioxide.
4. One cannot argue with the computer models that predict the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide or other &#8220;greenhouse gasses&#8221;. Wrong. To show this we must show that the computer models can at least duplicate the present-day climate. This they cannot do with what could be called accuracy by any stretch of the imagination. There are studies that show that the average error in modeling present precipitation is on the order of 100%, and the error in modeling present temperature is about the same size as the predicted change due to a doubling of carbon dioxide. For many areas the precipitation error is 300-400 percent.
5. I am arguing that the carbon dioxide measurements are poorly done. Wrong. The measurements are well done, but the interpretation of them is often less than acceptably scientific.
6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon dioxide induced warming of the climate is a fact. Probably wrong. I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.
So What Can We Say about Global Warming?
We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind&#8217;s addition of &#8220;greenhouse gases&#8221; until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used.
We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question &#8212; too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem. What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!

and another article:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

the article headline:

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out


----------



## billc (May 26, 2011)

After reading a few of the articles I have found, can you really believe the CNN poll?

One of the co-authors of "Unstoppable global warming...every 1,500 years" http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Updated-Expanded/dp/0742551245/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1

Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, is one of the world's most respected and widely published experts on climate. He is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He directs the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project, which he founded in 1990 and incorporated in 1992 after retiring from the University of Virginia.
Dr. Singer served as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (1971-94); distinguished research professor at the Institute for Space Science and Technology, Gainesville, FL,&#8230;

Another book about global warming alarmism:

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Chang...ternational/dp/1934791288/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2

About the book, "Climate change reconsidered."

*Product Description*

This 880-page rebuttal of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), three years in the making, was released in June 2009 by The Heartland Institute. Coauthored and edited by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., and Craig Idso, Ph.D. and produced with contributions and reviews by an international coalition of scientists, it provides an independent examination of the evidence available on the causes and consequences of climate change in the published, peer-reviewed literature examined without bias and selectivity. It includes many research papers ignored by the IPCC plus additional scientific results that became available after the IPCC deadline of May 2006.
Chapter 1 describes the limitations of the IPCC s attempt to forecast future climate with computer models. The IPCC violates many of the rules and procedures required for scientific forecasting, making its projections of little use to policymakers.
Chapter 2 describes feedback factors that reduce the earth s sensitivity to changes in atmospheric CO2. Scientific studies suggest the model-derived temperature sensitivity of the earth for a doubling of the pre-industrial CO2 level is much lower than the IPCC s estimate.
Chapter 3 reviews empirical data on past temperatures. We find no support for the IPCC s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.
Chapter 4 reviews observational data on glacier melting, sea ice area, variation in precipitation, and sea level rise. We find no evidence of trends that could be attributed to the supposedly anthropogenic global warming of the twentieth century.
Chapter 5 summarizes the research of a growing number of scientists who say variations in solar activity, not greenhouse gases, are the true driver of climate change. We describe the evidence of a solar-climate.
Chapter 6 investigates and debunks the widespread fears that global warming might cause more extreme weather. The IPCC claims global warming will cause (or already is causing) more droughts, floods, hurricanes, storms, storm surges, heat waves, and wildfires. We find little or no support in the peer-reviewed literature for these predictions and considerable evidence to support an opposite prediction: That weather would be less extreme in a warmer world.
Chapter 7 examines the biological effects of rising CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures. This is the largely unreported side of the global warming debate, perhaps because it is unequivocally good news. Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests. It is a boon to the world s forests and prairies, as well as to farmers and ranchers and the growing populations of the developing world.
Chapter 8 examines the IPCC s claim that CO2-induced increases in air temperature will cause unprecedented plant and animal extinctions, both on land and in the world s oceans. We find there little real-world evidence in support of such claims and an abundance of counter evidence that suggests ecosystem biodiversity will increase in a warmer and CO2-enriched world. 
Chapter 9 challenges the IPCC s claim that CO2-induced global warming is harmful to human health. The IPCC blames high-temperature events for increasing the number of cardiovascular-related deaths, enhancing respiratory problems, and fueling a more rapid and widespread distribution of deadly infectious diseases, such as malaria, dengue and yellow fever. The peer-reviewed scientific literature reveals that further global warming would likely do just the opposite and actually reduce the number of lives lost to extreme thermal conditions.

The following book I found while digging up the link to Singers book...

http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315/ref=pd_sim_b_7

from "Deniers"

*Product Description*

The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud*
*And those who are too fearful to do so _--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title._ 

*From the Publisher*

*Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook. Guess he never met these guys*


----------



## Blade96 (May 26, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> But at the end of the day, it *is* getting warmer, Billc.



yep. There was a time newfoundland used to have snow til like june. Now, our snow disappears before may 24 weekend.

And we used to have snow like 7 feet high. Now, our winters have much very less snow.


----------



## Ken Morgan (May 26, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> yep. There was a time newfoundland used to have snow til like june. Now, our snow disappears before may 24 weekend.
> 
> And we used to have snow like 7 feet high. Now, our winters have much very less snow.


 
and 1000 years ago you could grow grapes in Scotland and farm successfully in Greenland.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 27, 2011)

BillC, altho this is a discussion forum with, occasional spats not withstanding, participants who I consider to be well above average in their intelligence and education, wall-of-text posts are just not going to be read in this format - not by me at any rate.

That means that you're losing your 'audience' not necessarily through the 'message' but through the presentation.  I'd suggest posting the core points in your own words, thus giving your preceptions of what you have read and then linking to the supporting documentation if you think it's necessary.

Of course, by all means it is up to you how you post and you are quite free to tell givers of unsolicited advice to take a hike :lol:.


----------



## billc (May 27, 2011)

Well, Elder said that when I gave little snippets, I was assuming the reader wasn't smart enough to read a larger sample, Tez said that the larger sample was too much, so, I do what I can to keep my fans happy.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 27, 2011)

Hmm, interesting! This is how I see it, Harold Camping is a true believer and on May 22, I felt sorry for him. He really thought this was going to happen. I stopped feeling sorry for the guy when he updated his so called mathematical prophecy, which now states that the rapture will occur in October of this year. The guy's teachings have caused people to lose their life savings and in some cases their lives.

Now, I do believe that the global war.....ugh, I mean Climate Change movement has some nutty people involved, and when it comes to the science, I don't really have a clue. It seems that some believe in this type of climate change as cyclical and some believe it's man made. What I do know is that the world has become a dirtier place, especially since the industrial revolution. So regardless of what any of us believe about climate change, surely we would all be better off trying to clean our own little plot on this beautiful blue and green ball. May be by doing so we can all be a little more healthy, wealthy and self reliant.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 27, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Well, Elder said that when I gave little snippets, I was assuming the reader wasn't smart enough to read a larger sample, Tez said that the larger sample was too much, so, I do what I can to keep my fans happy.


 
:chuckles: Rock and a hard place it seems . 

I think the key is to say what you think in your own words rather than simply pointing off to what others have said or transplanting others words wholesale into a medium that's really not up to the job (for those of us without wall-screens at least ).

As I say, it's not a criticism, just a comment - for I freely admit that I didn't read any of the 'barrage' above ... one post that takes three rolls of my mouse wheel to get past is too long for me in a web forum  ... and that means that I missed out on what contribution you wanted to make to the debate.


----------



## billc (May 27, 2011)

I agree with you yorkeshirelad, everyone wants a clean place to live.  The problem with the global warming movement is that it is being used to increase government intervention in people's lives.   Is global warming happening, possibly, but I have heard that we are now entering a cooling period similar to the one between 1940 and 1980.  We warmed up between the 80's and today and we are now about to start cooling again.  Add on top of that the fact with the climate-gate scandal, that the leading experts in climate research were found to be destroying contrary data, cooking the books on temperature readings, and trying to prevent skeptical scientists from getting data or being heard, and you have a problem.

One of the big things for me is the fact that Ice, miles deep, used to cover the northern part of the world, it melted without the aid of modern industry.  Yet, man is supposed to be responsible for minute changes in the climate.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 27, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I agree with you yorkeshirelad, everyone wants a clean place to live. The problem with the global warming movement is that it is being used to increase government intervention in people's lives. Is global warming happening, possibly, but I have heard that we are now entering a cooling period similar to the one between 1940 and 1980. We warmed up between the 80's and today and we are now about to start cooling again. Add on top of that the fact with the climate-gate scandal, that the leading experts in climate research were found to be destroying contrary data, cooking the books on temperature readings, and trying to prevent skeptical scientists from getting data or being heard, and you have a problem.
> 
> One of the big things for me is the fact that Ice, miles deep, used to cover the northern part of the world, it melted without the aid of modern industry. Yet, man is supposed to be responsible for minute changes in the climate.


 
I have no problem with the above post, but the title of the thread is a little strange to me. There is no moral equivilance to camping and the Climate Change movement. Camping's supernatural teachings caused people to lose their lives, life savings and dignity in one foul swoop, and the bastard still keeps the kindling on the fire with his new October predictions.


----------



## billc (May 27, 2011)

Here is a quick article about one of the costs of the global warming scare, higher food prices due to using food for fuel:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/01/29/opportunity-cost-of-the-global-warming-scare/

This affects more than a few people who squandered their life savings following a religous leader.

From the article:


Increased bio-fuel production has contributed to the rise in food prices. Concerns over oil prices, energy security and climate change have prompted governments to take a more proactive stance towards encouraging production and use of bio-fuels. This has led to increased demand for bio-fuel raw materials, such as wheat, soy, maize and palm oil, and increased competition for cropland. Almost all of the increase in global maize production from 2004 to 2007 (the period when grain prices rose sharply) went for bio-fuels production in the U.S., while existing stocks were depleted by an increase in global consumption for other uses. Other developments, such as droughts in Australia and poor crops in the E.U. and Ukraine in 2006 and 2007, were largely offset by good crops and increased exports in other countries and would not, on their own, have had a significant impact on prices. Only a relatively small share of the increase in food production prices (around 15%) is due directly to higher energy and fertilizer costs.


----------



## billc (Jun 1, 2011)

Here is an article about the freedom of information act and the people who defend access...until you try to investigate the climate-gate scandal at the Universtity of Virginia.  the author of the article is being attacked because he had the nerve to request records from the university about their part in the scandal.  It goes to the credibility of the community that promotes the theory of manmade global warming and its defenders in the main stream media.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/wapo-op-ed-laws-for-the-masses-shelter-the-elites/

From the article:

The Washington Post has printed an editorial sniveling about a court order, prompted by a lawsuit, laying out how the University of Virginia must release certain records. These records relate to a former faculty member and pertain to the Climategate and &#8220;hockey stick graph&#8221; scandals.

The editorial expresses umbrage with my seeking out the records on behalf of the America Tradition Institute, which I suppose is more palatable for the WaPo to do than actually reporting that the school in fact agreed to hand over the records &#8212; just one day before having to go before a judge who would likely have ordered the release.

But how dare I, a &#8220;skeptic,&#8221; utilize a law the Left passed! Says the piece:

Freedom information laws are critical tools that allow Americans to see what their leaders do on their behalf. But some global warming skeptics in Virginia are showing that even the best tools can be misused.


----------

