Northeast/midwest DEEP FREEZE

[RiverRat]

So where have the global warming proponents been these last two weeks? Its super cold here in NY, one of the coldest February's on record thus far and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight to this cold spell...what are you doing to keep warm?

edit: whoops, move to clubhouse!! didnt mean to put this in debate

[siamiam]

this has been one of the warmest winters in my area in many years yay global warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-GSrrk_ATM

[1SICKLEX]

A week of cold weather does not make for a trend. Temperatures have simply gone up worldwide. This is a fact.

The argument is; has the temperature gone up b/c of us or b/c it is a natural cycle.

To our knowledge there has been no civilization like ours on this planet before and it CANNOT be a coincidence temperatures are going up as we are an industrialized planet.

[Lexmex]

It was freezing down here (still is), weather.com shows 48F in Mexico City and on the way to work got as low as freezing. The mountains have snow and if it is still there on the weekend will drive up and take some pictures.

[mmarshall]

Originally Posted by 1SICKLEX

To our knowledge there has been no civilization like ours on this planet before and it CANNOT be a coincidence temperatures are going up as we are an industrialized planet.

No offense, Mike, but if that was the case, then why have temperatures gone up and down throughout history.....LONG before the Industrial Age or even humans?
Even supercomputers can't answer that one....nor can they figure out just HOW the earth's oceanic and atmospheric temperatures intertwine and affect each other...the issue is THAT complex.

[JLSC4]

Global warming doesn't mean it can't get cold anymore. I love how people judge a 2 week period or even just a year to determine something. Look at the last 1000 years and we are at our overall warmest. But we still have ups and downs and always will. You just have to look at the overall data.

[cpone]

You want to look at the last 1,000 years?
LOL then you are 100% INCORRECT!
The data that MANY are looking at is ONLY data from the last 100 years of ACCURATE temperature recordings.

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

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. (No industrial revolution in the WORLD till 1930!) These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, (GORE!?) especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

Again highlights the point that the Socialist movement to CRUSH America in any way possible is well under way.

China is not on Kyoto, Neither is Russia nor India. Wonder why?

[mmarshall]

Originally Posted by JLSC4

Global warming doesn't mean it can't get cold anymore. I love how people judge a 2 week period or even just a year to determine something.

Well............we heard the same thing from the greenhouse people all during December and early January, when the temperatures in the East and Midwest averaged far above normal....the "normal" defined as the commonly accepted 1941-1970 period. They all tried to use that temporary warm stretch ( actually caused by an abnormal jet stream shifted far north) to predict doomsday global warming and floods.

[JLSC4]

Originally Posted by mmarshall

Well............we heard the same thing from the greenhouse people all during December and early January, when the temperatures in the East and Midwest averaged far above normal....the "normal" defined as the commonly accepted 1941-1970 period. They all tried to use that temporary warm stretch ( actually caused by an abnormal jet stream shifted far north) to predict doomsday global warming and floods.

I knew it was jetstream effects at that time. I'm a believer of the negative effects we are having on earth but am not quick to yell "global warming!" with each mild stretch. Yeah, we had mid 60's in December in Mass and it
was amazing. Now we've been in a frigid stretch (averaging 0-25 degrees in the last month). Changes quick in New England!

Again, I'll say that we can't dismiss both sides of the argument. Nothing is proven yet. You guys on the right shouldn't just thow a possible theory in the garbage because it has yet to be proven. Imagine if every scientist, inventer, or engineer did the same thoughout history. Man, we'd still be living in caves.

[mmarshall]

Originally Posted by JLSC4

Again, I'll say that we can't dismiss both sides of the argument. Nothing is proven yet. You guys on the right shouldn't just thow a possible theory in the garbage because it has yet to be proven. Imagine if every scientist, inventer, or engineer did the same thoughout history. Man, we'd still be living in caves.

Well, that way, at least, you wouldn't have to worry about a mortgage.

No, seriously, there is no such thing as "left" and "right" when it comes to climatic science. It is an enormously compex subject that not only transcends politics but is SO complex that even supercomputers cannot sort it all out. The more questions that are answered, the more pop up. The main sticking point is how the ocean and air currents interact with each other in a cause-and-effect relationship...that has never been fully explained, even, like I said, by supercomputers.

[JLSC4]

Originally Posted by mmarshall

No, seriously, there is no such thing as "left" and "right" when it comes to climatic science...

Yeah, I never thought it could turn political but somehow it has. Especially on the "global warming" theory. When I started the other thread about "An Inconvenient Truth", I asked that politics be left out of it but it quickly went political. It seems that the left does give credibility to the theory and the right just doesn't believe a word.

I really don't know how a scientific theory once again divided Democrats and Republicans. It's pretty interesting though.

[RiverRat]

Originally Posted by JLSC4

Yeah, I never thought it could turn political but somehow it has. Especially on the "global warming" theory. When I started the other thread about "An Inconvenient Truth", I asked that politics be left out of it but it quickly went political. It seems that the left does give credibility to the theory and the right just doesn't believe a word.

I really don't know how a scientific theory once again divided Democrats and Republicans. It's pretty interesting though.

Well, I personally don't give global warming credibility but I am by no means an all out conservative...