Does it seem that everyday another death blow is delivered to the Global Warming hysteria?

Question

"First, new research indicates that our climate may be only one-third as sensitive to C02 as has been assumed.

"Secondly, corrected temperature figures for America from Nasa indicate that the hottest year in the 20th century was 1934, not in the 1990s.

"Thirdly, recent satellite figures from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration demonstate no mean global warming since 1998. Indeed, the curve has flattened below 1988 levels.

"And finally, our British weather continues to contradict all predictions."

Yet one more death blow to the hysteria, at some point the consensus is going to be no one believed this hoax in the first place, because you know the supporters will never admit they were duped.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/21/nosplit/dt2101.xml

Answer 1

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age.

From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.
The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth’s climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’”

What follows is a very brief summary of the science that the former Vice President promotes in either a wrong or misleading way:

• He promoted the now debunked “hockey stick” temperature chart in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate

•He attempted to minimize the significance of Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age

•He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most sciences believe does not exist.

•He asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930’s were as warm or warmer

•He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.

•He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing

•He erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices

•He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any supposed scientific “consensus” and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.

•He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing

•He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits

•He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving

•He completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004

Now that was just a brief sampling of some of the errors presented in “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Answer 2

No, it seems that every day the global warming deniers' story changes and I have to correct a new set of errors. Here are yours:

1) What new research are you talking about? That one climate model which predicted a 1°C average temp increase if CO2 levels double? Hard to correct you when you don't cite a source, but that's what it sounds like.

See this question for an explanation about why your statement is incorrect:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak2EhMCzXDnChAXwiNCMt5EjzKIX?qid=20070821124257AA27ULZ

2) Wrong. 1934 was the hottest year in the lower 48 United States. It was a relatively cool year globally (relative to current temps, that is). Not even close to 2005 or 1998.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif

3) As you can see from the link above, this is an incorrect statement. Global temperatures continue to rise.

4) How the hell does British weather contradict predictions? One result of global climate change is increased flooding.

Why are you using a letter to the editor as evidence to support your beliefs, anyway? Next you'll be citing 'Dear Abby' and 'Dennis the Menace'.

Please take some time to learn about the science behind global warming rather than simply spreading a bunch of misinformation from an anonymous and clearly uninformed source. Global warming is a scientific issue, not a political one.

Answer 3

I think what you have to do is read and research both cons and pros for global warming causes (there is no doubt that the earth flutuates between warming periods and cold).

Personally I don't put much credence in anything politicians say and do or scienctists who work for them, the more they push and repeat something the more it makes me believe it is frogs croaking again

by the way if they get their way we will be paying taxes on oil gas coal and breathing (we breath out co2) and taxes on our animals since they emit co2 and we will be forced to eat less meat which means more vegies which produces even more gas emissions. vegies require more bacteria digestion and gas to extract the nutrients. fo course this is what the real reason for taxation here, to get our money, it is a justification for theft under the color of law. look that up in the dictionary especially a law dictionary.

But even all this is a red herring as all this talk and push for taxes just distracts from the fact that it will do nothing to stop global warming or reduce co2 as co2 is not the culprit. But it will make us poorer, rich richer etc. And if it continues to warm despite taxation, what will they do then? what excuses will they use that co2 is not decreasing (so they say it isn't decreasing how do we know they are being honest?) more taxation?

as the wages go down, taxes up and cost of living goes up as supplies are deliberatly manipulated, one will have to go into more debt for longer, a house will take 50 years to pay off, and a car 15 years. debt is how they legally steal property from people. Usery, was against the law in israel. Usury in older dictionaries says charging of interest, newer ones say charging excessive interest. One dictionary at the library didn't even have usury in there. the federal reserve (a private bank) loans the US money and charge interest in the 30 percentile range. That is why the national debt keeps going up. What they say is the amount of interest americans are said to owe not the principle. I can only imagine how much the principle is, I probably would die of shock!

Does anyone hear full flegde slavery in the air? Even worse then serfdom which we are now in, look it up in the dictionary.

RRRRR

Answer 4

The only hysteria I've ever seen is by people who are duped by big business into believing that thermometers lie.
The change is not a steady rise to the boiling point.
And its not contingent on what the weather was in your backyard yesterday.
I don't care personally, I won't live long enough to buy waterfront property in Kansas. But I've seen too many lies told by businesses who don't want to clean up their mess to trust them. I suppose, since I have a choice, I'll believe the scientists above the men who will have to spend money if we all believe it.
How old are you?
I heard there are some very strange weather, floods and snows, wasn't there an epic heat wave in Europe last year?. How many feet above sea level is England?

Answer 5

You ought to read the article in the august 13, 2007 issue of Newsweek. Title, Global warming is a hoax.* *Or so claim well funded naysayers who still reject the over whelming evidence of climate change. Inside the denial machine. By Sharon Begley. Before you make a judgment.

Answer 6

it still doesnt mean we should keep polluting and treating the earth like a renewable resource like we do with everything else.we do need to get off oil and probably to hydrogen or biodiesel so we can be free of depending on other countries.at least we will have our own sources of energy and that will be good for america.

Answer 7

Yes, there is, lol.
Why does it seem like the same people that believe global warming is going to burn them up think terrorism is nothing more than a bumper sticker? LOL!

Answer 8

Amen!

Answer 9

your cite seems to be a letter to the editor?

I could write a letter that says "I am God"... and they would probably print it...

there are three issues here... with zero actual cited facts to back them up...

Answer 10

find the truth at www.globalwarmingheartland.org