John, good post and well articulated except for just one small detail.

 

The average global temperature is not rising.  In fact NASA and other
recording agencies have reported that in the last 12 months the average
global temperature has DROPPED by close to one degree Celsius, effectively
erasing the one degree gain over the last century.

 

Not one of the many climate models predicted this event, effectively
demonstrating they are all useless.  Science magazine in its November 2007
issue clearly stated that climate was impossible to predict via computer
models, it was far too complex.

 

The Hockey Stick (MRH 98) model has been shown to be deeply flawed, so
flawed as to make it a scientific hoax.  When the computer code was finally
made available for peer review, it was shown that irrespective of data
entered into it,  the program would always create a hockey stick.

 

NASA recently produced a new set of temperature data when it was revealed to
them that their algorithms used to massage the raw data had problems; the
upshot of this was that recent temperature figures had to be lowered and
1998 took its place behind 1934 as the hottest year on record.  Record,
being only the last 100 some years.  In fact the years since 1998 have shown
no increase in the average global temperature and indeed in the last 12
months the temperature has started to drop.

 

I understand what you are saying about trying to think for yourself, it
helps when you have the facts, not the slogans.

 

There is no "consensus," there never was.  When Algore is confronted to
explain his position, he says "the science is settled, there is nothing to
discuss."  That is another slogan.  The science is not settled, it's in its
infancy.  The entire Anthropogenic Global Warming is the perfect example of
politics corrupting science.  You will notice the full IPCC scientific
reports are always preceded by political reports, called "Summary for
Policymakers," aimed at telling governments what to do and think.  These
summaries are issued months before the main reports and are not written by
scientists but by politicians, bureaucrats and activists.

 

There is indeed a lot of disagreements on these reports and the "consensus,"
you just choose not to see that, thinking that such scientists must be
funded by Big Oil; unlike the Dr James Hansen of NASA who is funded by
George Soros.

 

By far the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor; carbon dioxide is a trace
element in our atmosphere, 38 molecules per 100,000 of atmosphere.  Man-made
emissions make up about 3% of this amount.

 

When Algore shows his little PowerPoint presentation, you will notice that
he does not overlay the CO2 curve on top of the temperature curve.  There is
a reason for that, the rise in CO2 levels follows, the rise in temperature,
it does not precede it.

 

Your final premise is also deeply flawed; carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant,
it is part of life.

 

Any way you want to look at or interpret the historical data, it does not
change the fact that by everything we have been told about AGW, there is
absolutely NO WAY the average global temperature would have dropped in the
last 12 months and by a significant amount.  But it did and that's not up
for dispute.

 

If you dispute it, you are simply a global cooling denier.

 

So what happens if the average temperature continues to fall as this rate?
That's the question you should be asking.

 

But beyond that, now that we know for certain that AGW does not exist, what
causes the variations in climate on a planetary scale?  As someone who
prides himself on being able to think for himself, I invite you to perform
the following little experiment tomorrow.  When it is still dark outside,
go out and look towards the East.  After a while you will notice a rather
large thermonuclear device appear on the horizon.  Along with the blinding
light, you will notice that your face will start to warm up.  I wonder if
you will be able to make the connection.

 

Once you have performed this experiment and have figured out that it is just
possible that warming can be associated with that thermonuclear device, come
back here and we can discuss it further.

 

If you still insist, in spite of all the evidence that AGW is real, please
explain to me how the Medieval Warm Period occurred without SUVs running
around.  Then also explain The Roman Warm Period and other past ears when
the temperature was warmer than it was in 1998.  For bonus points, explain
the Little Ice Age.   Heck, just think for yourself and explain to us why
1934 was warmer than 1998.

 

 

Denys...

From: John Clogg [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 6:55 PM
To: Denys Beauchemin; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: [HP3000-L] OT: Which is your favorite?

 


Denys wrote:

> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:55:41 -0600
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Which is your favorite?
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> A is Anthropogenic, which means man-made. This is the correct name of the
> hoax that Man is responsible for the planet warming and cooling.
> 
> Denys...

Denys makes an important point.  It is not the fact of global warming that
is being debated, but whether it is man made.  The question of whether or
not global warming is happening is not a matter of opinion; it can be
empirically determined simply by observing whether the average global
temerature is rising or not.  
 
It is.  
 
Global warming is happening.  The question is whether it is being caused by
the actions of humans.  Regarding that question, I am amazed at the utter
certainty with which those who would like to believe GW is not anthropogenic
insist on their position.  It's no coincidence that such absolute certainty
seems to go along with a certain political leaning.  It seems many accept
the mantra of the media pundits who have made a career of insisting that if
you call yourself "conservative" you are required to subscribe to a whole
litany of beliefs that have nothing to do with the liberal/conservative
dichotomy, at least as those terms used to be defined.
 
I prefer to think for myself.  I believe very strongly in some
"conservative" positions, and equally strongly in some "liberal" ones.  I
prefer to decide each question on its own merits, rather than on the basis
of a label assigned by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.  
 
With respect to the AGW question, I am less certain, because I prefer to
take my position on the basis of science rather than politics or wishful
thinking.  I lean more toward accepting the AGW model than rejecting it for
the following reasons:  (1) There seems to be little disagreement among
those who make their living as climate scientists, as opposed to those who
have a political axe to grind; (2) We do know that carbon dioxide is a
greenhouse gas, and that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been
increasing for some time, mostly through human activity; (3) Glacial core
samples show a correlation between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere
and global temperatures.  I realize that a correlation does not prove a
cause/effect relationship, but it at least seems to help support the
premise; and (4) even if AGW is not true, it is a good thing to try to find
ways to be less dependent on fossil fuels and to put fewer pollutants into
the atmosphere.  
 
My $.02
 
John Clogg

  _____  

Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your HotmailR-get your
"fix". Check it out. <http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx> 


* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *