Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

NASA data proves global warming computer models wrong

July 29, 2011 by  

NASA data proves global warming computer models wrong

A new study reported in the peer-reviewed journal Remote Sensing examines satellite data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which show that, from the years 2000 through 2011, the Earth’s atmosphere released much more heat than previously predicted by computer models.

“The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed,” read an article for Forbes.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” said study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), in a UAH press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

While this does not necessarily disprove all global warming theories, it does display some glaring flaws in the computer models used to support the agendas of climate change extremists.

“Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized,” the press release read.

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “NASA data proves global warming computer models wrong”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Palin12

    You mean all those cows suffering from flatulence might not be contributing CO2 to the atmosphere after all?

    • http://deleted Claire

      Palin12– And now with the drought in Texas, the cows are dying instead.

    • Jyrine

      Oh yea they are. Pelosi just granted them a deferment and their data can’t be used.

      • Robert Smith

        Actually when it comes to global warming Dr. Roy Spencer is well known. He has been proven wrong several times. For details one can go to: http://www.space.com/12469-climate-change-debunked-fast.html

        There the gist is: “However, mainstream climate scientists say that the argument advanced in the paper is neither new nor correct. The paper’s author, University of Alabama, Huntsville researcher Roy Spencer, is a climate change skeptic and controversial figure within the climate research community.”

        IOW, it looks to me like another right wing cook has stirred the pot for his followers down the primrose path of ignorance, denial, and outright falsehoods.

        Global warming is real. Do you really want to bet your life it isn’t just because you listen to extremists?

        Rob

        • Fed up

          Well maybe you need to beat everyone to the arctic and get your prime real-estate. Hell the as a taxpayer I’ll even chip in to get you there early! I’d be doing our nation a great favor!

    • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

      Probably just methane, which will turn to CO2 and H20 in another Big Bang moment! Suffocating the rampant cattle.

    • Dale on the left coast

      Please explain how 36 Thousandths of the atmosphere can control anything? CO2 is a Rare, Benign, Invisible Gas . . . that enables plants to process sunlight . . . nothing more.

      • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

        Dale,

        CO2 is not that rare. All our fizzy sodas are from CO2 dissolved under pressure in the water. CO2 from volcanic eruptions is heavier than air, and can collect and quietly suffocate people in low-lying areas. Not often, but can. CO2 is a product of combustion of things containing carbon, and lots comes out of our petroluem-burning engines. Forest fires release huge amounts of CO2.

        And growing forests eat it up again!

        • Dale on the left coast

          If the air on the planet was a football field . . . all the CO2 would be less than 1 foot . . . of that tiny amount . . . man’s contribution would be equivalent to a DIME STANDING ON END. CO2 is not CARBON . . . it is an invisible, benign gas without which life on the planet would not exist. Carbon is a SOLID . . . and an element on the Periodic Table . . . only Greensleeze would want to eliminate basic elements of life on the planet.

        • Bob G

          So every time I finish a beer and belch, I’m causing global warming? I’m a big polluter then.

          • Skeptic Al

            Bob G: Flatulence will get you nowhere. Then again, maybe if you’re on a bicycle or swimming…

      • USAF VET

        Really Dale, just how rare is CO2? Think about it, every living thing in the world exhales CO2. Plants absorb it, retain the Carbon molecule, and release the Oxygen back into the atmosphere.

        • Dale on the left coast

          Anthropogenic Gorebull Warming Hypothesis is . . . that man-caused CO2 IN THE ATOMOSPHERE is causing the earth to warm. CO2 in your unopened Beer, or in the Ocean is IRRILIVANT TO THE DISCUSSION.
          380 ppm . . . that’s parts per million is so insificant that it is silly . . . and only 3% of that is created by man.
          The PREDOMINANT GH GAS IS WHAT????? WATERVAPOUR OVER 90% . . . why does no one want to control that??? Because their is NO MONEY TO BE MADE!!!

  • Peter Mizla

    Climate models? Most climate scientists, if not all, use models only as a tool. They in fact go back in time- something called Paleo climatology, to see earths distant past. All significant warming events of the past, including the Mid Eocene Optimum (40 million yrs ago) & The PETM (Paleocene -Eocene Thermal Maximum) 56 million years ago,and the great Triassic extinction, over 250 million years ago where caused by greenhouse gases- huge amounts of C02 and Ch4 methane being thrown into the atmosphere.

    For the PETM- when global temps rose over 6 degrees C- massive amounts of C02- caused by volcano and continental drift tectonics rose C02 to over 1100ppm OVER 20,000 years. Carbon, that same carbon is now being burned by us for energy in 100 years!

    Take your pick, believe in denial, or see capitalism and freedom shattered by a world so changed by those like this site that promote garbage.

    • JimA

      ALL of the rises of CO2 associated with prior warm periods occurred AFTER the temperatures rose. The theory being that warmer temperatures caused CO2 locked in the oceans to be released. Get your facts right.

      • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

        Good point. And today the CO2 curves from glacier-locked gasses show the warming occurred first to force the CO2 from the oceans…CO2 peaks well after the temp peak is on the way down. A well-concealed bit locked in the ice! And cleverly-concealed by the scales used in the published graphs to panic the public.

    • DanB

      Okay, so it rose in the past. Temperatures and those gases. But what came first? The temperatures or the gases?

      All that aside, how about another question or two? Was the global warming in the past always a bad thing? Surely it must have been according to our fear-mongering over future global warming. Except, it seems to me that the earth is teeming with life right now. Doesn’t quite look brown and desolate to me. Well, it is a little brown and desolate where I live, but that is a desert. Man lives here because we learned how to bring WATER to this desolate landscape. Hm, so while man causes “global warming” apparently we also bring life to regions once desolate?

      And here’s another question, you mention past rises in those gases and global warming in ages long forgotten. Interesting. So if we apply the alarmist model, then why do we have ice caps today? Why was there an ice age? What happened to all that heat? Hm, maybe their models are indeed off. Maybe this new bit of news that the CO2 gases have less impact than the models state, and that more heat escapes faster than the models claimed might have something to do with why it was possible for the earth to cool and heat up over the centuries. And someone ought to start asking, if this part of the model is based on false assumptions, or there other parts of the model that have flaws too? I suppose it is safer to assume that you just got a few figures wrong, recalculate and assume that you only ever make one mistake as a scientific community and never again…. Strange, it is questioning accepted science that helped us learn that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. It is questioning accepted science that taught us the earth is round. It is questioning accepted science that brought us space travel and the atomic age. So why should we suddenly stop questioning science?

      As for myself, I think so many are unable to accept the possibility that man-caused global warming may be false is because it has become their god, their religion. They worship the earth, or the science, or man. It does not matter. See, the difference I see between people like myself and those stuck to global warming is that I accept that I could be wrong. It just seems that because I have doubts about man-caused global warming, the more I notice that the theory seems to be fraught with holes and as time goes on there is more and more of it proven in error. Yet I know I cannot prove man-caused global warming false. There are two reasons for this. First, I know that there has been natural global warming in the past. Second, those who believe in man-caused global warming appear to be fanatical, or practically religious about it. They will not tolerate the idea that perhaps they could be misled or wrong about the causes of the earth heating and cooling–which despite this particularly warm summer in the US, the earth has been cooling for the last decade all while the global warming crowd exclaims that the earth has a temperature. Ironic. Now they start calling it man-caused climate change. I hate to burst some reality upon you, but even your argument acknowledges that the earth’s climate has changed in the past. In fact, it is almost constantly changing. It seems to me that the people who want most to deny the natural order of the planet they live on are the climate change alarmists, because they want the earth to do the one thing it has never done–and that is have a constant climate. In fact, when you learn a little about the ecosystem, you might realize that many species actually have adapted to or are even dependent upon changes to their environment. For example, many of the animals we claim need forest land actually live on the edges of forests. Before man fought forest fires, they would have lots of areas to live because it was common for forests to die and be reborn. Thus always refreshing the land they lived on.

      • patrick H.T. paine

        “To conquer, first divide!”

        The question which came first, temperature or CO2 might be an interesting question if it were the CORRECT QUESTION. Unfortunately,
        it is NOT the correct question…….because it does not DEAL with the
        EVIDENCE regarding the CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere.

        The requires a basic understanding of the oceanic CO2 absorbtion cycle
        which works in the following way, CO2 is absorbed at the poles and released at the equator. The oceans ability to absorb CO2 is temperature dependant, the colder the oceans are on average, the greater the ability to absorb atmosperic CO2, and it decreases as
        average ocean temperature rises……which further confirms the fact
        of CO2 being absorbed at the poles, and released at the equator.

        Now if you are NOT already a closed minded individual, the CORRECT
        QUESTION becomes fairly obvious……….but just to tease you a bit
        an possibly inspire a eureka moment…….or at least an improvement in your empirical critical thinking skills,……..

        Since we are dealing with CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere do you think that understanding the EVIDENCE for this might be useful?

        Still don’t get it? Okay, try this…….

        Where is the EVIDENCE for the atmospheris percentage of CO2?

        Yes, dear, at the poles, trapped in the ice!

        Got a clue what the right question is now?

        How about this question: Which came first the CO2 or the ICE?
        Kinda hard to get that question wrong…and if we substitute
        warming for CO2, we also know that the ice comes last, so now
        when we ask the question of which came first the CO2 or the warming,
        knowing that the EVIDENCE for the answer is in the ICE which comes LAST…….for either one, doesn’t really result in a definitive answer……..but why the percentage of CO2 seems to lag any warming
        indicators is easy enough to understand……

        Since the oceanic release of CO2 occurs at the equator, clearly as a percentage of atmospheric composition, using fluid dynamics, brownian motion, etc…….it is going to take some time to distribute this effect toward the poles. Second, polar air masses become isolated in
        winter, preventing mixing and adding more lag time. Finally, I’m am not certain to what degree of accuracy ice cores can be narrowed to,
        but whatever it is, it is not enough to challenge or discredit the warming effects of CO2 as a percentage of atmospheric gas, which is
        significantly higher than ever before and continuing to rise.

        Clearly what is most ironic to me regarding this site and those who seem to be trying to deny these effects…..is that the general tone here is largely doom and gloom survivalist anticipation……of which
        energy production would be a key component……so what are you going to do…..drill for oil or gas and refine it yourself?

        Clearly, the individual solution is the green renewable technologies
        you all seem opposed to………could be just me, though?

        Anyway, I apologise for interuption, please continue what you were doing.

        “Do not ask for whom the bell tolls………….”

    • Dan az

      Peter
      The plates shifting theory has been disproved awhile back you can catch it on you tube.It was proven the they don’t move like they thought witting on molten beds the earth just expands like a balloon instead.And the BS that they forced on us about the holes in the ozone was caused by burning mile wide hoes in it during the above ground testing of nukes back in the sixties.Research anawektak (spl?) testing site.They have photographs of it.

      • Dan az

        Sorry again about the spelling and typo’s its hard to get started in the morning.

        • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

          I agree, Dan.

          One other factor is the teaching of science is abysmal.

          In high school I heated a Deflagration Spoon red hot and dumped a big lump of Ammonium Chloride into it…and herded the class and teacher into a corner. Nobody even questioned if the infernally smoking tool was dangerous. They just presumed I wielded the Power and it could be exploded at any minute!!

          I got bored and quenched it, but I am sure I could have taken a collection and been given it gladly by the ignorant.

      • Jyrine

        Is that why the edges of the continents fit so neatly together when abuted?

        • Dan az

          Jyrine
          Yep check out you tube there is a lot on it there.We where one land mass at the beginning and as the earth start to expand the masses spread apart and when you deflate the earth the masses come back together perfectly.A simple solution that is impossible to debate any more.

    • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

      Way back, when the earth’s poles were in the oceans, we had a climate that was warm, and rich in CO2, rampant plant life, and eventually huge dinosaurs to eat the plants by the tons.

      Then a wandering asteroid hit the earth a glancing blow, carving out the Gulf of Mexico, incinerating a lot of the vegetation, and moved the earth’s poles to the present areas, where the South pole is on a big land, and the North is a small landlocked ocean, and our present cycles of climate change from lots of cold to short eras of warmth about every 11,000 years. Back in the ’50′s, with old clunky vacuum-tube computers, the science was worked out fundamentally why we have 90,000 years of bitter cold, and 10,000 years of warming…whether or not people are putting off CO2.

      So we naturally have long cold spells, and then some short warming and cooling alterations, until the earth’s orbit moves us back into the cold areas. About a 100,000 year cycle.

      By trapping heat, CO2 would keep us warmer longer, a little, but not a lot of help.

      However, now we are shooting ourselves in both feet…spending big money to try and reduce CO2 that comes in from all sorts of sources, and pulling the natural dust out of the air, which moderates the heat. Check the weather data for the two huge natural dust resources, and see what just dust can do. Look at the two “Years without a summer” at the beginning and end of the 1800′s.

      Taking all the dust out makes the planet much hotter, and it is not more CO2 but less natural and man-made dust, what we spend billions to get rid of, that is the man-made warming!

      Check it out! Nature showed us at the beginning and end of the 1800′s, and Industry showed us in the 1950′s panic of an ice age returning. It is obvious!

      So we can either stop fighting nature, or you can make everybody except a few, poor, and never catch up to the truth!! Or to the forces of Nature’s cycles with the mass of a planet driving them.

      Just BTW, I have a relative. working for the Government, making studies for a Mars lander, and Mars is warming up naturally also! Without man there!

    • Dale on the left coast

      All computer generated climate models are GIGO . . . based on a few elements programed into computers to get the desired outcome. The East Anglia e-mails confirmed this fraud.
      The hockey-stick graph and the numerous prophetic rantings of these Govt. Subsidized so-called Scientists have been 110% wrong for over a decade now . . . HOW DO WE GET OUT MONEY BACK???

  • Doc Sarvis

    Climate change is upon us and it is largely because of our emmissions since the industrial revolution. We can argue about the pace and amount of change but it is happening.
    As for the NASA study, it too is based on certain assumptions. That is why it is placed in a peer reviewed journal – to be reviewed/judged/critiqued for validity.

    • FlaJim

      As usual, you’re abysmally unaware of the facts. Climate change has always been part of recorded history and before.

      The was global cooling that started in the early 15th century and lasted about 400 years. At first, it resulted in widespread famine and ended up causing near anarchy in most of the civilized world and a shortening of lifespans.

      None of this could have been cause by an emissions unless you want to believe that cows stopped flatulating for 400 years. And if you’re thinking of coal consumption. It wasn’t really a widespread fuel until the late 19th century, by which time, temperatures had gotten back to normal.

      • Doc Sarvis

        FlaJim,
        As usual, you jump to conclusions. I never said that climate change never occurred prior to the industrial revoulution; of course it has. The Industrial Revolution I referred to, you should note, began in the late 18th century. That is when we started altering the atomosphere in a significant way.

        You may want to read a bit more carefully.

    • Dale on the left coast

      Doc . . . Climate Change on the earth has been a CONSTANT since day ONE!!! Was there a time when the climate did not change??? When was that? What is the Ideal Temperature???
      A little over 1000 years ago . . . the Vikings settled in Greenland, why did they settle there? Why did they call it Gron Lund???? Maybe you should check into this.
      About 10,000 years ago . . . there was a MILE OF ICE where Minneapolis stands today. Its not there today, why do you suppose that is? Must have been Buffalo Farts eh DOC????
      Climate Modellers have been 100% WRONG for more than a decade . . . even you local “Mystic” has a better record . . . LOL

      • Doc Sarvis

        Please read my post directly above this.

        • Jay

          Climate changes, that’s what it does, it changes, or rather, constantly adjusts!

    • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

      How are our Emissiona also warming Mars? And how did our emissions in stone-age societies warm the earth in cycles before now? Might weant to modify your assumptions and look at more facrts than one paret of one cycle only!

      Also, has there been any correlation between solar activity and the earth’s climate…like say around the Maunder Minimum??

  • Karl

    Nope…but the Ca liberals are…LoL

  • s c

    D, peer-reviewed your rump. Your high priests of green are psychotics who are politically motivated to control and redistribute wealth and power. How did you get through grade school?
    Al “duh” Gore is getting incredibly RICH from greenies like you who dare to proclaim scientific expertise. You forkers couldn’t get anything done without stacking the deck to put fear into men, women and KIDS.
    Between using Ponzi as a role model and having access to politicians who will say and do ANYTHING to stay in office, you compound the problem by sucking up to America’s media whores. You are known by the ‘friends’ you keep, bubba.
    You and your bunkies have all the integrity of cave-dwelling strumpets who cater to feces-throwing, head-up-asterisk, knuckle-dragging retards.

    • Doc Sarvis

      s.c.
      Looks like your expertise is in throwing a fit and name calling. Your weakness is in presenting valid information to the issue.

      • Dan az

        Doc
        In over two yrs I have never seen one piece of proof or site posted by you yet.Care to show and tell?

        • Doc Sarvis

          Gosh, if you can’t find this stuff for yourself you’ve got problems. Here’s one (from hundreds) for a start since this site delays posts with too many links:

          http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

          • Dan az

            Doc
            That explains everything.I’m really trying hard to not insult you but that is one of the most liberal tree hugging environmentalist propaganda ragg’s that I have ever read and fuse to allow to enter my house.I see now why you don’t post what you read.Sorry if it hurt your feelings but you really need to find better research material.

          • Doc Sarvis

            Dan az,
            Time for you to put up; How (in the world) is the National Geographic Society a “liberal tree hugging environmentalist propaganda” site?

          • JC

            Doc is a fully indoctrinated “watermelon” green on the outside and communist red on the inside.
            He is able to pull a great deal of scientific “looking” information out and present it because so much effort was put into conning us into believing it was valid. The reality is that the eco-clowns need a cause and this is a good one for them. Like all Liberal policies it is simple and presumes to act for the “greater good” while reducing our quality of life by spreading the costs to us all and introducing regulations that reduce our choices. These policies are the underpinnings of a communist society.

            I’m all for better stewardship and greater care for the environment, but to think these idiots can change an earth that has been cycling through hot and cold periods for billions of years is absoluitely moronic.

        • Doc Sarvis

          I do post sites so you must not be looking very closely. I just don’t do it repeatidly as many others here do.

          • Dan az

            Doc
            I provide the facts the reason that I haven’t seen anything from you is I try to avoid attacking you because your such an easy target.So I just try to stop reading your post to avoid it.But there are times that I don’t look at who posted it until after I had finished reading and by half way through I can’t help my self.So I will start looking at the names before I read them for now on.Have a nice day

          • Doc Sarvis

            Avoidance is much easier than confronting facts.

          • Dale on the left coast

            CO2 is a trace gas in air and insignificant by definition. It is a poor absorber of IR (heat) energy from sunlight. Water vapor is seven times better and has 80 times as many molecules catching 560 times as much heat or 99.8% of it. CO2 does only 0.2% of atmospheric heating. But…
            Carbon combustion produces 80% of our energy. Control and taxing carbon will give more power than anything since the Magna Carta. Anthropogenic Global Warming or “Climate Change” is a fraud for money and power.

            Entropy or otherwise labled random variables, has an exponentially greater impact on earth’s weather than anything man has done.
            Let’s list a few:
            1. Solar minimum and maximum cycles
            2. Solar flares (CMEs)
            3. Milankovitch cycles (go back and read about them again)
            4. Forest fires (historically, before and after fire suppression)
            5. Volcano eruptions in the atmosphere
            6. Volcano eruptions under the sea
            7. Ocean currents and temperatures
            8. Geography (the surface configuration of the land masses)
            9. Water distribution (fresh and salt, ice, liquid and atmospheric)
            10. Shifting of or the varying strength of the earth’s magnetic poles
            11. The composition of the earth’s atmosphere (nitrogen, oxygen, CO2, methane, ozone, forest fire and volcanic smoke ash and gasses)
            12. The distribution and composition of plant life in the sea and on land

            These are the ones that come to mind but to be honest there are probably millions of random variables that also have local effects that when combined could also be determining factors on a much larger scale.

            There is no way the eco-nuts can even attempt to measure all of these. Ask for a peer review of their so called science and all you will hear is “Oh we can’t show you that. It is proprietary information.

            What they really mean is if we let anyone else see how we came to our conclusions, we will be proved to be outright liars.

          • Doc Sarvis

            Dale on the left coast,
            #1-6, #8-10 are variables not controled by man and occur over VERY long periods of time. It is the rapid change caused by man that is causing the trouble.
            #7 is influenced by the others
            #11 and #12 (12 is perhaps less significant in this discussion) are where we have had our significant impact since the start of the industrial revolution.

          • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

            Yes, you do, and it appears your info is all from politically liberal sources.

            I have stopped the National Geographic, just as I have Scientific American, when they started departing from even-handed science and promoting the Liberal Political opinions and refusing to report science evenhandedly.

          • patrick H.T. paine

            “To conquer, first DIVIDE!”

            Why do you people seem continually impressed with your own stupity?

            At some point, doesn’t it occur to you that being intelligent or the ability to recognise it, should have some semblance of consistancy…a logical framework which builds upon itself to produce a working complex model…..

            Take one of the above statements……CO2 is an insignificant trace gas……which as such is required by ALL PLANT LIFE. So maybe not so insignificant?

            In terms of composition it is fourth after, nitrogen, oxygen. and argon……..and the first gas to appear with heat trapping properties, so regardless of how small a percentage of the total it may happen to be……it is the most signifcant one, with regard to this effect. wikipedia cites it’s current % as 390 ppmv or.0039%

            BTW Water Vapor has an average distribution of .40% atmospherically
            with a varying surface distribution between 1% and 4% which is higher
            than that of CO2…..but by contrast…..it is a dual effect gas….
            in that it reflects light/heat entering, while trapping the heat that
            has already entered…….too hot and it rains…..bye bye cloud…..
            so the question of actual net effect…. not as simple as presented.

            The next gases are neon, helium and METHANE, the next green house gas,
            weighing in at an even more insignificant 1.97 ppmv or .000197% so it can be totally ignored, right? Not quite, because the heat trapping effects are 20X greater than that of CO2, and once again even though as a percentage of the whole it seems small……in terms of the effect……THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH so if there is a significant change with any of these elements that contribute to
            the heat trapping effect….the heat trapping effect increases
            directly……100% increase in gas = 100% increase in effect.

            Final kicker….do you know what a reducing atmosphere is? It represents one of the four types of planetary atmosphere types….
            pre global warming source, Isaac Assimov’s Guide to Science 1968
            edition……..Venus has a reducing atmosphere and you will note
            there are no manned expeditions being planned or colonization scenrio’s being discussed.

            But it really doesn’t matter because we can have Venus right here on earth……all we have to do is change that insignicant 390 ppmv to
            600 ppmv just for CO2 and Venus will come to you……BTW at 600 ppmv
            the green house effect becomes the runaway green house effect, which
            for you linguistically challenged types…means UNSTOPPABLE……choice then is LEAVE or DIE…..and the most interesting part of this is that unlike a meteor strike, when this is finally realised there will be plenty of time to contemplate the ultimate stupidity of all of you engaged in this mindless dialog of
            willful ignorance…..your grandchildren will do this…..and their
            grandchildren, well who knows if THAT will ever happen. Be kinda
            like the closing scenes of “on the beach”…..except no sunshine
            and hurricane force winds, all the time.

            “Do not ask for whom the bell tolls…….”

          • Dan az

            JT?

          • JC

            Doc Sarvis says:
            July 29, 2011 at 10:59 am
            Dale on the left coast,
            #1-6, #8-10 are variables not controled by man and occur over VERY long periods of time. It is the rapid change caused by man that is causing the trouble.
            ____________________________________________________________________

            Do you include the greatly increased activity of solar flares into any of this, or is that a fact to be ignored as well?

  • http://AOLe-mailwebsite Gary A McKinley

    I think that the globe warming is not really a fact that should not be concern with or should we be cocern.

    • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

      Gary,

      We should be aware, but we also should not pick a political side to be on. Nature and science deal with facts, not politics.

      My position is that we do not scientifically understand the very complex systems, including the sun, and we have way too many politicians making money off pushing one side when we do not yet understand all the interactions.

      Now I know in Viking times, Iceland grew immense crops of grapes, good food. Why to we want to keep Iceland iced and not growing us food? Greeland was heavily wooded until about 7000 years ago; if it warmed up we could have lots of building materials.

      But when politics, and making money and/or having power, gets into the way we have a formula for disaster.

  • brubarnes

    Someone please send this to Al Gore. Maybe he can start a new crusade warning of the dangers of overeating. He can start with himself.

    • Jyrine

      LOL

    • JC

      Does anyone remember the alarmist panic of the 1970′s where we were being warned about a coming ice age? Its the same kind of garbage in a brand new box….

  • northbrook

    The earth is not experiencing the significant global warming that Gore and his progressive environmentalists used to scam the world. I wonder what explaination they will come up with to counter the hard facts and justify their causes to regulate the earth.

    • FlaJim

      The fact is, temperatures have decreased in the past 10 years. That’s why these hoaxers changed from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change.’

      • http://www.scotsrenewables.com Scots Renewables

        Yesterday the usual suspects in the conspiracy to deny global warming splashed the internet with the headline: ‘New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism’

        The paper in question comes from the University of Alabama and is entitled “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” ~ Spencer and Braswell 2011

        Let’s get one thing straight right at the start – this is not a NASA report, it is one man’s interpretation of a limited data set from one satellite used to prop up his publicly stated preconceived position. Spencer has been suggesting for years that global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

        The use of phrases like ‘alarmist computer models’ would in any event suggest that Dr Roy Spencer is not exactly neutral on the subject. He is – like all the other contrarians’, ‘sceptics’ or whatever you want to call them – a fanatical proponent of free market economics and bitterly opposed to all forms of regulation, environmental and otherwise. His website is currently pushing his latest book, ‘FUNDANOMICS: The Free Market, Simplified’.

        (Conveniently Spencer – like so many of his ‘contrarian’ buddies – forgets that his own comfortable professional existence has been spent in government-sponsored institutions and not out in the cold hard free market.)

        To the crux of the report: near the end:

        While this discrepancy is nominally in the direction of lower climate sensitivity of the real climate system, there are a variety of parameters other than feedback affecting the lag regression statistics which make accurate feedback diagnosis difficult. These include the amount of non-radiative versus radiative forcing, how periodic the temperature and radiative balance variations are, the depth of the mixed layer, etc., all of which preclude any quantitative estimate of how large the feedback difference is.

        So – rather than ‘blowing a gaping hole’ in current understanding of climate forcing due to CO2 Spencer is saying that there are difficulties in actually calculating it. This is why the currently generally accepted figure for a global temperature rise based on a doubling of CO2 is 3 degrees plus or minus 1.5 degres – i.e. in the range 1.5 degrees (disruptive) to 4.5 degrees (downright dangerous). This study is yet another attempt by one scientist with a political agenda to obfuscate the issue.

        There are discrepancies between the calculated forcing and the currently observed temperature trend, but these are more likely to be a result of uncertainties in the heatsink capacity of the world’s oceans, a fact which which somehow escapes Spencer somehow fails to notice when he notes towards the end of the ‘report’ that there is a discrepancy between the data and the forecasts . . . especially over the oceans !

        As further background, readers might be interested to know that Spencer believes in intelligent design rather than evolution, and as such his opinions on other subjects are liable to be equally out of step with reality.

    • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

      They all will say what a good job they did against the fanatics, and how they need more power over people to make it even more perfect. Money is a great clouder of eyes, and ethics.

  • Steve

    Seriously, there are those that will try to gain and prosper off of global warming, but take a minute to look around the house right before you clean it. A small environment altered by a small group of people, what happens after a party, depending on the wildness it can get very messed up or even have long lasting damages. We affect our environment, and with 7 billion people using resources, causing polution it is no wonder most scientists (even those who have no profit means) believes we are negatively impacting the environment and support global warming. It is only a few fanaticals that fan these flames. Most people including environmentalists are so in the dark about things though, the coal burning is better than everyone using their own campfire, if we did not have modern technology we would have sufficated a long time ago. Many environmentalists drive suvs, instead of economic cars. Environmentally sound does not mean more expensive, it is cheaper to drive a small car and it is also better for the environment. So all this money being tossed around is less likely to help in comparison to people finding alternatives that are both more econimic and more environmentally friendly. Hiding our heads in the sand and acting like it is not happening is a sure way to ensure our children have no future, but then going against the environment is just as much of a money game as claiming to support it.

    • FlaJim

      I’m not interested in driving around on a lawn tractor or fancy golf cart.

      A few fanatics discount global warming? Define ‘few.’ Last I heard, over 38,000 experts discounted the hoax and they were all climatologists and others who weren’t the usual collection of mathemeticians, anthropologists, computer techs, and psychologists.

    • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

      I’d support you a lot if you left the politics, and funded the impartial scientists. And stopped the compulsion we see where politics forces changes that turn out not so good after all.

      Especially get the UN out of it.

      We need to study and understand before we storm in on hobnails and force changes.

      Like the swine flue where so many had to take poisonous shot laden with Mercury, where ascorbic acid would have done much better for much less…but a few people killed by mercury would not cut the manufacturer’s profits.

  • pennsyltuckian

    As someone who has build various models for a living for economics, steel production, various sales and other things I can guarantee you that it is really simple to get the results you want by tweaking the inputs or the equations. In general modeling can be used to prove anything, just like statistics can.

    • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

      Figures don’t lie, but Liars sure figure!!

      • Jay

        Wow, go figure.

  • Dan az

    The hoax is for one thing only and that was Agenda 21 to be implemented and have cap and trade world wide to redistribute the wealth.Do some actual research libs and stop believing that BS that gore spews.Get the truth by getting out of the tiny little box that you have secured your selves in.The world is much bigger out here than in there.

    • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

      By the way, our B12 comes mostly from a red-purple bacterium living in the medium depths of the ocean. All the temperature arguments will do us little good if we accidentally kill off this bacterium!

      Not seem any studies on how our modifications to the planet will impact this one lowly, crucially important bacterium! Have you?

      • Dan az

        Nope

  • 45caliber

    Not a surprise at this report.

    Back when they were all excited about this, there were photos of various planets such as Mars that showed that the extra heat was system wide and not just on Earth. But all this data was ignored.

    Why? Because a lot of scientists were making 6 figure plus salaries by “researching” this for various governments and they wanted to keep that money coming. Because too many ill-informed “environmentalists” (another word for religion) were certain it was happening because they were told it was and they weren’t interested in learning it was wrong.

    • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

      Not another word for religion, a word for another religion. Get your spiritual facts straight, so your science can be also!

      • Dan az

        Lewis
        That’s Deep :)

      • JC

        Environmentists have for sure invented a new religion…you have to have a lot of “faith” to believe in it.

        • JC

          Typo, yes I know…

  • Jyrine

    Ther should be some form of punishment for the amount of money the lying rats have cost the American taxpayer.

    • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

      There isn’t that much punishment in the whole world anymore.

  • Dale on the left coast

    I have been asking for the “Science” . . . the Real Provable Repeatable Science to prove Gorebull Warming for over a decade now. I have received nothing but “Scientists Believe” . . . if any of you have it . . . please POST!!!
    They lied about the polar bears, the polar ice, the temperature data and the sea levels . . . these folks are complete Frauds!!! Of course they have all received a chunk of the Billions govts have spend on the nonsense.
    The reality is . . . North America is cleaner TODAY than any time in the last 100 years . . . and Al big butt Bore . . . bough a mansion on the Calif. Coast . . . so much for sea level rise . . . LOL

    • Doc Sarvis

      You wrote; “North America is cleaner TODAY than any time in the last 100 years”. Even IF you are right (which really depends on what you measure and how) you would call that an accomplishment????

      • Dale on the left coast

        Doc . . I would bet you are over 60 . . . back in the day, folks burned Coal to heat their homes – where I grew up the Snow was Black most of the winter. Not like that today because the air is much cleaner. Ditto for the automobile. A car today emits 98% less than the average car in the 60′s.
        Ever read about all the horse chit they shovelled up in New York 90 years ago? Where I live in the 70′s we had winter fog that lasted for many weeks . . . as a result of sawmills and industry . . . they are gone today. Not only that lifespans have almost doubled in the last 100 years. Life is much better today than ever 50 years ago. Stop listening to loons like fat Al . . . who just gets richer peddling his junk!!!

        • Jay

          Global warming alarmists are scrambling to save face after hackers stole hundreds of incriminating e-mails from a British university and published them on the Internet.

          The messages were pirated from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and reveal correspondence between British and American researchers engaged in fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own climate change agenda. UEA officials confirmed one of their servers was hacked, and several of the scientists involved admitted the authenticity of the messages, according to the New York Times. The article opined, “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.”

          Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels challenged that position. “This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud.” The e-mails implicate scores of researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

          Among the IPCC elite embarrassingly, if not criminally, compromised is Phillip D. Jones, a Ph.D. climatologist at the University of East Anglia whose work figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001. Jones also contributed significantly to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 (AR4), but he failed to follow through when skeptical investigators asked to review raw data associated with that report. They announced intent to use UK Freedom of Information laws to obtain the data, so Jones sent the following e-mail to one of his collaborators: “Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?… Will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” The Mike in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential “hockey stick” graph warning of pending global warming eco-catastrophe was found by a congressional investigation to be fraudulent.

          In another correspondence about AR4 labeled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, Jones contacted Mann regarding research critical of their global warming platform. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” wrote Jones. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

          Continued: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2377-ipcc-researchers-admit-global-warming-fraud

          • Dan az

            Jay
            Well you did it again.Every time you post truth and facts you just run off the libtards to find another subject to rant on.When are you ever going to learn?Tanks for the site its a keeper! :)

        • Jay

          Sorry Dan, I couldn’t resist.

  • Dale on the left coast

    A scientific definition of carbon is: the chemical element of atomic number 6, a nonmetal that has two main forms (diamond and graphite) and that also occurs in impure form in charcoal, soot, and coal.

    A scientific definition of carbon dioxide (CO2) is; a colorless, odorless gas produced by burning carbon and organic compounds and by respiration. So basically carbon is a solid and CO2 is a gas. They claim CO2 can slow heat escape from the atmosphere and an increase from human activity causes warming. It has not happened at any time and is not happening now. Carbon occurs as particles of soot in the atmosphere causing cooling by blocking sunlight. I expect them to blame soot for failure of their warming predictions.

    “It is human arrogance to think that we can control climate, a process that transfers huge amounts of energy. Once we control the smaller amount of energy transferred by volcanoes and earthquakes, then we can try to control climate. Until then, climate politics is just a load of ideological hot air.” Prof Ian Plimer writes in The Australian.

    According to Aristotle, the first principle of honest scientific inquiry is: “First we must seek the fact, then seek to explain.” But in today’s politically-charged debate over climate change, the “fact” of man-made global warming is considered scientifically proven only because various authorities and some scientists say so. Evidence no longer matters — and any contrary work in peer-reviewed journals is just ignored. Now, in the runaway Australian bestseller Heaven and Earth: Global Warming — The Missing Science, environmental scientist Ian Plimer mounts a withering scientific challenge to global-warming dogma and its dishonest, bullying and anti-scientific proponents.

    “Climate science lacks scientific discipline,” writes Plimer, twice winner of Australia’s highest scientific honor, the Eureka Prize. “An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, paleontology, paleoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history. That is what is attempted in this book.” Its 504 pages and over 2,300 references to peer- reviewed scientific literature engagingly synthesizes what we know about the sun, earth, ice, water, and air.

  • http://fox richard

    Another story about something every one knew from the start. The libs are the problem. They are full of methane producing organic material and also belch massive amounts of hot air every time they open their mouths.

    • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

      Not to mention the emission of various amounts of CO2, H2O, H2S, NH3 and related compounds, all of which may be THE Greenhouse Gas!!

  • Dale on the left coast

    I am always amuzed by the enviro-whacks that tell us that a 2 degree change in the temperature will result in the “Extinction” of many plants and animals . . . LOL
    Ever lived in Minneapolis MN??? In the winter the temp can approach 50 Below Zero and in the summer top 100 degrees. That’s a swing of 150 degrees in 6 months. Where is all the CARNAGE??? Other than a few folks losing a few toes and fingers due to frostbite, there is none.

    • Jay

      What is seldom mentioned is that, beck in the 70′s, the tree-huggers were sounding the alarm for an impending ice-age, or a global cooling, by the year 2000. Well, since the ice age never appeared, the logical next step was to switch to global warming, which, according to the un-corked, will result in our planet’s demise by an all consuming, world-wide inferno. Sounds scary, doesn’t it? Well that’s the whole point. Cap and trade, carbon credits, al gore, get the picture?

  • Jake

    In the seventies, our science books at school said we were heading into a new ice age and that life as we know it now would come to a halt. Of course that was before Al Gore merchandised his brilliant vision for controlling the world and making himself richer and famous in the process. If he really believed his lie, would he spend millions on an ocean front home (soon to be submerged), and be flying around leaving his carbon footprints? If, indeed, we are going into a warming trend, it may be meant to save us from the ice age forecast previously by scientists who wrote my text books.
    And I want to throw out another angle. Someone wrote about how scientists finally figured out that the earth was round, not flat. I want to point out that thousands of years previously, the Bible told us that the earth was round and “hung on nothing”. Of course before the printing press that information was not available to the public and not of much interest to even those who had access to the ancient manuscripts. So, yes, science finally did catch up. But, concerning global warming —- back to the Bible. God destroyed the earth once with water then promised never to completely flood it again. But He also said the next time it would be destroyed by fire. He didn’t spell out how that would happen — by bombs or a collision of planets or something else. We can just count on it happening at some future time and all the green efforts in the world are not going to stop it. Whatever the method, it will be God’s hand at work.
    I think this whole global warming stuff is a fraudulent attempt for humans to take credit for it when it finally does happen. Better warm than cold in the mean time. You can actually raise crops in the warm, and areas not able to raise two crops a year now, will be able to do so with warming. I’ve noticed that weather people on T.V. are constantly promoting their agenda. They compare the “real feel” to previous actual temperatures, and of course they are going to be consistently higher in the summer time. How soon we have forgotten the horrible winters. I no longer plant tropicals because they now freeze and I have lost hundreds of dollars on plants that used to thrive in Florida. The citrus line used to be in Jacksonville (Orange Park), and no one would dare plant a grove there now. They can barely survive in Oak Hill and Edgewater. So you can see why I refuse to get all hysterical about global warming. Change? Yes. But if the weather didn’t change, what would you talk to a stranger about?

  • Dan az

    Did I screw my screen up by pushing the wrong button or did you guys change something while I was away?It looks nothing like when I left it this morning!!!!

    • libertytrain

      remember – they are upgrading….

      • Dan az

        libertrain
        I don’t like it!!!!Does yours show that you are under some tabs?

        • libertytrain

          I think it’s still be worked on. I always find it difficult when sites change layout, but it only feels that way the first day or so. Give it a while, I don’t think they are finished as Bob mentioned the other day. And there seems to be more news now and more breaking news as well.

          • Dan az

            Libertytrain
            Thanks so yours looks like mine I thought I did something to it and didn’t know how to change it back.BUT I still hate change!!! :)

  • Jay
    • Dan az

      Jay
      Good find!It cracked me up!I’ll bet that did take place in the white house.There were reports of him going of on people behind closed doors but they didn’t say what it was about but the timing was right.Would it be funny if this was what it was about? :)

  • Terry M. Campbell

    GLOBAL WARMING HOAX and CAP & TRADE SCAM

    “Global Warming” is a real misnomer. Plus, the earth has been cooling for the past twelve years, not warming. It should not even be referred to as climate change, but as weather cycles. The temperature of the earth’s atmosphere is gradually and continuously changing all the time, it is never stagnate and is a natural occurring weather phenomenon. That is why most of the intelligent people referred to the ever changing climate as weather cycles. Simple thermodynamics of the suns energy output, the earths distance from the sun and the earth’s direct or indirect exposure to the sun’s energy easily explains the temperature variances on the surface of our planet. There are cycles within cycles within cycles. Each longer cycle includes all the shorter cycles within it. All major temperature variances are caused by the following physical cycles, each cycle containing all of the previous cycles:

    1st cycle (24 hour or one day cycle – rotating): This first weather cycle is determined by the earth rotating on its’ axis, hence we have the temperature variance between cooler nights and warmer days (indirect verses direct exposure to the sun’s energy).

    2nd cycle (365 ¼ day or one year cycle – orbital): This second cycle is determined by the earth’s rotation around the sun, which is manifested by the weather changes we refer to as the four seasons (summer, fall, winter and spring). This weather change occurs because of the earths tilt on its axis in reference to its position in its orbit around the sun. It is warmer in the northern hemisphere while it is cooler in the southern hemisphere and visa versa (axis tilt)

    3rd cycle (an 11 year with a sliding variable beginning cycle – sun spots): This cycle is another natural factor that has a large short term effect on our weather. It is the variance in the energy released by the sun. This variance in the energy from the sun, some people refer to this as sun spots or no sun spots, causes the temperature to rise or fall. The more sun spots the warmer the temperature and the fewer the sun spots the cooler the weather. Most of the sun spots are around the equator of our spinning sun that we are orbiting in the same direction. The current surface of the sun facing the earth has very few sun spots, therefore this is one of the reasons the temperature is cooling and has been for the past twelve years. Heavy sun spot activity is credited for slight global warming in the 1980’s, what there was of it. In the highly publicized global warming swindle, they never mention sun spots. Records of sun activity have been kept quite accurately for hundreds of years. It’s also amazing that the sun spot activity mirrors the short term (years to tens of years) temperature as it rises and falls. Could it be that that big fire ball in the sky actually has something to do with the temperature here on the earth?

    4th cycle (26,000 year cycle – axis wobble): The next predictable cycle is determined by the variance in the earth’s rotation on its axis (earth’s wobble on its axis). The current tilt on earth’s axis is causing the summers to be warmer and cooler in the winter in the northern hemisphere. This tilt is the reason for thirteen thousand (13,000) successive years of over all gradually warmer weather followed by thirteen thousand (13,000) successive years of gradually cooler weather in the northern hemisphere. This also causes north to get warmer as the south to get colder and visa versa depending on the tilt of the earth on its axis. The ice in Antarctica, a continent larger than North America, is getting thicker in many places. The summer ice in artic is decreasing. This is due to the current tilt in the earth’s axis, nothing to do with so called man made global warming. The North is currently getting warmer, because it is closer to the sun. The South is getting colder, sense it is pointing away from the sun.

    5th cycle (hundred thousand year cycle – expanding/contracting orbit): This cycle is the variation in earth’s orbit around the sun. This expansion/contraction is caused by the variances in the gravitational forces from the planets and other gravitational forces as we move through space. Currently the earths orbit around the sun is slowly lengthening. Therefore, the entire earth is gradually cooling, because it is moving farther from the sun. This is the longest period weather cycle. This variance has caused the many ice ages and the long time periods of extreme heat that formed most of our deserts over the last few hundreds of thousands of years. The longest time period, that we have data on, goes back a little less than six hundred thousand (>600,000) years. During this period of time there has been five (5) major ice ages, spaced a hundred thousand (100,000) years apart. Each ice age lasted only a few hundred years, almost eliminating all life on this planet. But, there were thousands of years of major warming periods between each, with no fossil fuels being used, when life flourished. The last major ice age ended ten thousand (10,000) years ago and there has been gradual warming ever sense, with minor fluctuations up and down.

    These are the physical things that cause the temperature on earth to constantly change. The climate (temperature) is never stagnate it is continually changing, because the earth is never standing still in reference to our spinning sun, our heat source. Bottom line: “Most major climate changes are the direct result of the earths’ axis wobble, orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun’s energy output.” Basically, climate change is a natural phenomenon, not something that can be altered by us mere mortals. There is one more physical entity that affects the weather of the various hemispheres, but not globally. This is the ocean currents. Their temperature, volume, direction and speed have large effect on local weather but are globally neutral.

    It takes a very inflated ego to assume that we humans can have a major effect on the entire planets weather. If we could control the weather, we would be able to prevent hurricanes or blizzards. Only GOD can control the weather! (Genesis 8: 21-22). Right now the earth is coming out of a warming cycle and is headed toward a cooling cycle, regardless of what we humans do! Therefore, trying to stop the Artic from warming, the Antarctic from cooling and the entire planet from slightly cooling (the current situation) is a waste of time, effort and resources.

    Here is another minor slightly off the subject thing to consider. All life on this planet will be extinguished by gamma radiation long before the weather be comes unbearable or the sun turns into a red giant engulfing the inner solar system before shrinking into a white dwarf. The earth is protected from gamma radiation by the magnetic field surrounding it. This magnetic field is generated by the spinning magma (made up of mainly 1,849 degree F. molten iron) just below the earth’s surface. As the magma cools and solidifies over time, the magma will move slower weakening the magnetic field. When the magnetic field finally collapses the gamma radiation will kill all living things on the planet. Not to worry though, the good thing is, this will not happen for many hundreds of millions of years from now.

    Let’s get back to the subject of ever changing weather. Now that we have established what actually causes the major weather changes, let’s have a look at what the leftist non-scientific environmentalists, liberal socialists progressive politicians, Hollywood liberal dunces and the liberal sheep media are all spouting. They all think an increase in CO2 is bad for the planet and is causing global warming. They are all dead WRONG!!! Levels of CO2 have absolutely nothing to do with the weather!! The above and the following together explain why.

    Now let’s look at some facts, analyze them and try to draw some reasonable conclusions. To fine these facts we must do a little looking around and ignore the liberal press while you do it. Most of the liberal non-scientific environmentalists who are talking global warming are also the ones who use to spout an ice age is coming theory and the non-existent ozone layer problem, in the not to distant past. I think we can discount all of them right off the bat. A person can only cry wolf so many times before he is ignored.

    Here are a few facts more about the earth’s atmosphere:
    Our atmosphere (air) is made up of five major gases (nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide and water vapor) plus 12 measurable trace gases. Not all of these gases are greenhouse gases. There are four major greenhouse gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide). The fact that the greenhouse gases exists is a good thing. Without green house gasses to lock in the energy from the sun the global temperature would be -459% F, we would all freeze and die.

    The following is the make up of the natural occurring greenhouse gases:
    95% of it is water vapor and 4.964% is methane, nitrous oxide and trace gases .036% is the natural occurring trace gas carbon dioxide (97% produced by nature, 3% attributed to man, <.001% of the carbon dioxide in the total atmosphere is attributed to man). All Trace gasses are measured by parts per million (ppm). Currently the average global carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is about 380 ppm with a miniscule amount attributed to man (<.004 ppm). The figures of the UN’s political non-scientific IPPC are different and very wrong. In Europe they have been using heavy sulfur coal for heat and to cook for thousands of years and to produce electricity for the past hundred years. This has contaminated the entire continent with high carbon and sulfur ash. Any readings taken in Europe are not representative of the rest of the globe. I tend believe NOAA and NASA, they are not political organizations, have far more accurate equipment and much better trained engineers and technicians.

    It is easy to conclude from the above that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a rare or trace gas. There is not enough of it to have a measurable effect on the planets weather. A rise in temperature is the main cause of a rise in CO2 levels and lags a temperature rise by months sometimes years. There are true scientific atmospheric papers and charts about temperature and carbon dioxide in the air measured over a period of thousands of years. These charts were from an in depth analysis of ice cores and tree growth rings. What was interesting is that the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere lagged the temperature rise by at least several months some times years. Therefore, elevated levels of carbon dioxide did NOT cause the temperature to rise but the reverse is true.

    Here are some other things about carbon dioxide (CO2): it is NOT an air pollutant; and it is required for plants to live, plus the heaver the concentration of CO2 the less water plants require to flourish. Plants absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) and give off oxygen (O2) through photosynthesis. We humans breathe oxygen (O2). Without CO2 all of the plants die, stop producing oxygen, then we would all die. We need more CO2 not less. Plus, without CO2 all plant life would die and all of us would starve to death, if we had not already died of suffocation from the lack of oxygen.

    What the non-scientific environmentalists consider pollution is not all greenhouse gases, but all carbon based gases. What the eco-idiots are spouting about is between what CO2 occurs naturally and what is produced by the human population (.036% verses <.001% of the total air in the atmosphere).

    Why is the wacko non-scientific environmentalist only picking on carbon emissions (carbon dioxide)? There are other green house gases. The second most prevalent greenhouse gas is methane next to water vapor. Here in Texas we call methane “natural gas”, because it is. Natural gas seeps out of the ground, we drill wells for it, and we use it as fuel. Besides what seeps out naturally on a global bases mammal, live stock (cows, sheep, goats, deer, etc.) flatulence is one of the larger contributors to greenhouse emissions (methane, not carbon dioxide). Plus, they breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. This I do not see changing in the near future for various reasons. On the other hand natures plant life on the planet (trees, grass, plankton in the ocean, etc.) absorb carbon dioxide and give off oxygen through photosynthesis which partially counters the mammals thereby balancing things out. Therefore, the balance of nature is maintained as designed by God.

    Climate change and air pollution are two totally different subjects with very little relation to each other and should be treated separately. Air pollution is from emissions of Sulfur Dioxide, Nitric Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide (CO), Ozone (O3), Methane, etc. in vary localized/industrialized areas, not globally. We can and should work on air pollution. I repeat CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) IS NOT A POLLUTANT. All of the dooms day weather predictions are from faulty computer simulations with faulty input data, real facts were ignored. Professor Phil Jones generated his famous “hockey stick graph” back in the mid-eighties when he was the director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. The raw data he used to produce this fraudulent graph has never been produced for peer review (now has been deemed lost or nonexistent). After the East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit released the results of their multimillion dollar research grant in 1984, I requested a copy of the raw data through the United Nation’s (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) they used to generate their “Relative Forcing Formula” (delta F = 5.35 x In C/Co Wm to the -2). They informed me that the data was not available to do a peer review and that East Anglia had moved their archive storage to a new facility and the data could not be located. Now we find out that it may never have existed (current e-mail releases). Their “Relative Forcing Formula” with the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph it generated is what all the environmentalists have used to forward their cause is not supported by current temperature readings. As a mater of fact the formula has be proven to be bogus. The UN’s political non-scientific IPPC has based their global warming dooms day predictions on this graph and his faulty non-science. They cannot predict accurately the weather next week much less hundreds of years in the future. All of these simulation programs use statistical analysis as their basic or root algorithm. These fake-scientists chose a predetermined result then adjust the parameters of the simulation and/or raw data until the desire, predetermined result is derived. Using this method I can prove either side of any subject using the same data.

    Good science is the process of thought, observation and/or experimentation to formulate a theory looking for an answer to a particular situation. Once the theory is established then it is subjected to factual analysis. This is to determine if the theory is correct or not.
    Bad science (which is to say non-science) is the process of thought, observation and/or experimentation to formulate a theory to support a preconceived conclusion already derived. They modify the theory as needed to explain their conclusion and then focusing only on what they perceive as facts which support their theory while ignoring those that do not. This is a common statistical analysis practices taught in all liberal colleges and universities. Bad science is even worse when it is motivated by and conducted to promote a political agenda as in this case.
    If climate change sounds similar, it is. Right now, like in the not to distant past, the earth is cooling from a lack of solar activity and an elongated orbit which indicates an upcoming mini ice age and the sea recedes. It happens every several hundred years or so – go look to history. Europe had severe cold seasons within written memory that caused significant crop failures. This is a natural occurrence nothing to do with the CO2 emissions by man.

    The bottom line is not natural science, it is the world is engaged in a war of information, much of which is false or exaggerated and aimed for political ends and has no origin in any kind of physical science. The real information we are looking for is found only through Natural Science. But when we start talking about global warming we are talking about Political Science. The successful Political Scientists are the one's who get elected and re-elected year after year. Natural scientists may know a lot about nature, but it is the political scientists who know the most about how to gain and maintain political power. Thereby they control the flow of information.

    That is why we have a professional politician like Al Gore is capable of promoting this scam. The two sciences have their place, but intelligent people do not mix the two. That is how we have got into this current mess in the first place

    The largest producers of carbon emissions and air pollution we can do something about are coal fired and oil burning generator plants, with Eastern Europe, China and India being the largest problems. In the United States most of our coal furnaces and oil burning generators have scrubbers on the exhaust, which greatly reduces the hydrocarbon emissions but does not fully eliminate sulfur emissions. Pressure should be put on Eastern Europe, China and India to install scrubbers on the exhaust of the coal fired generator plants or change to nuclear power. The past acid rain in Eastern Europe and the coming acid rain in China and India are caused by sulfur dioxide emissions from these power plants. The SO2 converts to sulfuric acid in the atmosphere. carbon dioxide is not the problem. The United States should convert to nuclear power as soon as possible to promote energy independents. There are a lot of technologies emerging that can help with this problem by generating electricity, such as wind power, solar cells, more hydroelectric, geothermal, etc., all of these will help but these can not meet the growing need for electricity. All of the coal furnaces and oil burning generators together only produce a fraction of a percent of the hydrocarbons in the atmosphere.

    Another contested producer of hydrocarbons and non-polluting carbon dioxide is the internal combustion engine. This is a situation that is going to be with us for a long time. But, it is not a global problem. It is isolated to only heavily populated areas. The clean air act of 1962 greatly reduced the smog in heavily populated areas in the United States by eliminating lead and reducing sulfur in gasoline and diesel fuels. Some of the promising alternatives are electric (battery powered) cars, electric (fuel cell powered) cars, hydrogen powered cars, kinetic energy, compressed air, etc. The basic fact is that the U.S. is an oil driven nation and has an oil driven economy at the present time and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Therefore, we need to uncap our oil reserves (in Texas, Oklahoma, California, etc.) and start drilling for domestic oil NOW for several reasons. The number one reason is to lower the price of gasoline and diesel. The increased cost of transportation is increasing the price to the consumer of just about every thing (food mainly). Every household is being affected. Another major reason, if not the most important one, is to stop importing oil from our enemies, there by financing global terrorism. The affects of the internal combustion engines are localized around large population area and has very little effect globally and only produce a fraction of a percent of the hydrocarbons in the atmosphere.

    In the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s the ocean levels dropped and from the early 80’s to the present the ocean levels have risen. The total deviation in level is about 100 mm (about a quarter of an inch (1/4 “)). Question? How can the global ocean level be measured that accurate when we have normal wave action of 40 to 50 feet high in the north Atlantic and south Pacific? Plus the every six and a half (6 ½) hour cycle tidal effects caused by the moon is constantly changing the water levels around the planet. Currently the North Pole ice is melting and the South Pole ice thickness is increasing. God created nature to always maintain a balance, therefore a constant sea level. The catastrophic “Dooms Day” rising sea level forecast was generated from another faulty computer simulation using modified parameters, imaginary data and not based on any of the obvious facts.

    The Eco-idiots claming the polar bears are dying because of global warming is completely false. Polar Bear population has increased five (5) fold in the last 20 years. It is slightly warmer in the north, therefore more food, therefore more bears. The Polar Bear should be and is being removed from the endangered species list. Alaska and Canada are even considering having a hunting season for polar bear, because of their abundance.

    Without these greenhouse gases locking in the heat of the sun, we would freeze and die. Without this greenhouse effect, the earth's temperature would be hundreds of degrees below zero Fahrenheit (-459 degrees F.). Therefore, I think the greenhouse effect is a good thing. What the eco-idiots and progressive politicians are spouting about is not CO2 occurring naturally (97% of the .036% of the atmosphere) but, the miniscule amount (almost un-measurable, .001% of the atmosphere) produced by the presents of the entire human population.

    Global Warming is only a hypothesis, dreamed up by a Swedish scientist over 100 years ago. It's not even a theory. Contrary to his hypothesis, CO2 levels always follows a temperature rise by many years, it does not cause a temperature rise.

    Why is all of the above important? The CAP and TRADE SCAM! This is a TAX on all energy production based on political science not physical science. Physical science is exact; it is not a consensus of opinions. A fact is either right or wrong. In this case man made global warming is a hoax and Cap and Trade, energy tax, should be completely deleted from any consideration by all governments, including the United States of America. This is only a way for a few dishonest people (Al Gore for one) to get rich by trading carbon credits at the cost of all us, the average citizen.

    H.R. 2454 and S. 1733 (the Cape and Trade SCAM Legislation) are blatant attempts of the progressive liberal – no socialistic, bordering on fascism crowd – in Washington D.C. not only to take over the energy industry, but to consciously continue their effort to bankrupt this country and resurrect it as an oppressive socialistic nanny state. This is an excessive tax on all forms of energy production based on political science, social engineering and misguided non-scientific environmentalist false conclusions, not from actual physical science, to limit the production of carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting, naturally accruing rare gas. We need more CO2 not less. Leftist environmentalists and liberal socialists are attempting to destroy the economy and life as we know it in this country, because they believe that just the presents of humans on the planet are an affront to nature. This collection of non-scientific politicians are using faulty information to make decisions that they are NOT qualified to make based on faulty assumptions that they do not even understand. If either these bills pass it will cause the cost of every thing to take a giant leap, this includes all forms of transportation, electricity, food, clothing, etc. Plus, it will set up an extremely large government bureaucracy that will take years if not forever to get rid of. This Cap and Trade scam is based on what a few eco-idiots have proclaimed that man generated carbon dioxide is causing global warming and destroying the planet. Man made global warming is a complete and total HOAX. The planet has been cooling for the past 12 years. +59 degrees F. is current average annual global ambient air temperature on the surface of our planet.

    Many of us Patriotic Christian Senior Citizens want to skip voting the current progressive socialist politicians out of office or impeaching them and go straight to TREASON followed by life in prison for all of the misguided politicians who keep voting to destroy our hard fought American way of life. We have access to all of their voting records. We have been observing and will continue to observe all of their actions. We will be watching and analyzing all of the votes in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, all the speeches they make and which bills they support and oppose. We are especially concerned with the congressional bribes being used by the leadership of both houses (Reid and Pelosi) to influence the votes for their socialistic agenda. Termination Day is coming for all Progressive, Socialistic, Liberal Agenda supporting politicians. On November 2, 2010, we made start to restoring Sanity, Honesty, Faith and Leadership in both houses of Congress. Plus, the Executive branch of government, the President and all of his Radical Progressive, Socialist Department Secretaries and Illegal Czars need to be controlled and replaced or positions eliminated as soon as possible, in 2012 at the latest.

    Please stop this insanity before it is too late or we will.

    Terry M. Campbell, EE, PE, CS
    Retired Senior Scientist
    Long Time Voting Conservative
    3016 Clearview Drive
    San Angelo, Texas 76904

    Note 1: I have multiple engineering and scientific University degrees. I have spent 40 years studying weather in South Florida. I have had over two dozen near misses and 5 direct hits from Hurricanes. One of my responsibilities when I held a position with the J.I.A.T.F.–South (counter-drug intelligence agency) in Key West was being the Hurricane Officer for the command. Therefore, I spent a lot of time studying ocean currents, pressure gradients and the cause of weather patterns. I had daily access to Navy Ship Ocean Temperature and Current Raw data; and Air Force Pilot Atmospheric Raw data that effected weather patterns for over 12 years. Therefore, I am qualified to explain what causes and what does not cause weather changes. Plus, I have spent 30 years designing computers for International Business Machines (IBM), therefore I know a lot about computer simulation, having designed the hardware that these simulations run on. I have designed, programmed, implemented and ran thousands of simulations of many kinds.

    Note 2: I wrote this paper partly to vent and let off steam from the UN IPCC claiming to be scientists and giving all real scientists a bad name by association.

    Note 3: I wrote this paper in October of 2009, before the Iceland volcano and the gulf oil rig explosion. These two incidents have wiped out six to eight years of environmentalist efforts to limit carbon in the atmosphere. These have increased the amount of CO2 in the air from what is stated in this paper.

    • Jake

      Wow!, Terry, your article blew me away. Since you are good on the computer, would you tell me how to print out the comments from on this web site? I can print out the main article, but not the comments. I wanted to print out your article for my brainiac son who stupidly swallows what the liberal media spews out. If it cannot be printed out from my computer, do you have another way you could send it to me?

      • Jay

        Jake, in the upper left hand corner of your computer screen you will note a tab “File”. Clicking on it will reveal a menu, scroll through the menu until you arrive to the tab “Print”. Click on “Print”, and your target data will begin printing.

      • JC

        Or copy and paste into a word document and print that.

    • Dan az

      Terry
      That was one of the best articles that I have read and the most clearly stated facts.Thank you
      I would like to ask a questioned about the use of those small pellets that absorb water at high concentration level that are being used on hurricanes.I see that it works great but I have found evidence that the gubmnt is using them to also, with chemicals added to the water before letting it out in the way of cloud seeding.I have seen you tubes on this in one of the east coast cities that killed all the locals pets if I can find it I’ll post it. Any one can buy this stuff at your local garden store I can’t remember the name of it but its is like white tiny little grains of salt but expand to 100 times there size and shed water off a little at a time for plants.Thanks

  • Dan az

    Sorry I had know idea that this would do this!

  • Dan az

    phew that was close my you tube ended up on the front page when I posted it here but left when I added that I was sorry for wrecking your new screen page.Better see what happens when the nest two get moderated because there’s two you tube’s on it. Yikes! :)

  • James

    Whether the Earth gets warmer or colder is determined by the sun. The sun isnot a constant source of heat, it has flareups and occassional black spots. When the sun burns out the Earth will be solid ice.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.