From Canada Free Press:
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.
These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).
The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”
Carpe Diem has a link to the actual report, but I was unable to access it – it’ll be interesting to see just how our global warming zealots deal with this report.
It has long been my opinion that if the earth is, indeed, in a long term warming trend, then there is pretty much nothing we can do to stop it. If it wasn’t caused by us, then that is just a natural position to hold – but even if it were caused by us, then it took more than a century to put into effect, and it would likely take longer than that to stop and then reverse the effects…meaning, of course, that there’s no point in trying to reverse it (though it still is wise to reduce pollution on general principle), and we might as well adapt to it. In addition to this, I hold that the doomsday predictions of the global warming zealots are just absurd – they have no idea what would really happen if the world warmed up by a few degrees over the next 100 years. Scare stories based on guesses just don’t impress me much.
Blogs For Victory 
The personal attacks on these scientists, and the effort to link them to big oil by our resident lefty lemmings begins in 3…….2………1
Have them thrown out of academia! Strip them of their credentials! Have them sent to re-education camps! The science is settled! Al Gore told us so!
Only ‘consensus science’ is allowed by the Central Committee!
Any time someone disputes the IPCC’s conclusions or makes a statement saying it’s a hoax that there’s manmade glbal warming my first thought is… hm … maybe they are funded by the people who want you to believe that. The people who want you to believe it’s a hoax and that science indeed backs that claim up tend to be the energy companies who, if people took action to reduce their carbon emissions, would lose profits if people began to believe the science that says humans are indeed causing this climate change.
I have mentioned this before on here. Of course with one simple two-second google search I find that two of those authors are already known for being funded by one of the biggest companies in the world. EXXONMOBIL.
I’m telling you guys. Every time these people dispute the science of cliamte change and say it’s natural or it’s the sun or ect etc, as in “no need to worry or change anything”…. they are traced back to an energy company.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1175
So what? So what if the only proof you have that climate change is caused by the sun comes from someone who gets grants from ExxonMobil.
Nice job guys.
Try again.
“Scare stories based on guesses just don’t impress me much”.
Unless, of course Iraq and Iran are concerned, eh Mark?
Neither of the academicians receive any grants or remuneration of any kind from oil companies, neither is affiliated with the Heartland Institute. And steam is a useful idiot, a dupe of his socialist masters.
neocon, it only took them an hour for the subjugated trolls to scurry to their socialist Masters for counsel; “Accuse them of being servants to evil oil!” sayth the Goracle, “No need to discuss facts; as I have told you all the facts you need! So it is written; so shall it be done!”
Amazing the lengths these socialist eco-zealots will go to in an effort to contempt actual scientific evidence in favor of a consensus of true believers.
MeatS…..
GREENPEACE?!? GREENPEACE?!?
Oh, please. Your source does not even show links or funding, amounts, dates or NOTHING but their quotes stating that they are skeptics.
The reverse can be said to be true. The IPCC and nations friendly to them are set to reap huge “profits” if the “carbon credits” plan that they want is implemented. These “consenting scientists” can be said to be funded (they receive grants too!) by big government.
Note as an example: Al Gore’s own “documentary” shows what these “skeptics” are saying. Look at his temperature vs. CO2 graphs. He states that every time CO2 rises so does temperature. His own graph shows that CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, not the reverse.
Also note, that the “believers” NEVER EVER want to debate the non-believers. Says something about their “facts” vs the actual facts.
Why can’t the climate models used by the almighty IPCC can’t predict climate conditions that have already been documented?????
Nice try – you present “facts” just like the GW radicals and alarmists.
Digital journal also has
“Beyond that, it also explains why we are seeing temperature increases on Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptunes moon, Triton.”
This is proof the Haliburton is already out there drilling for oil and warming the solar system, not solar energy causing warming.
The fact that Professors Douglass, Christy and Singer have their work published in the International Journal of Climatology demonstrates the fact that they and their views on the causes of global warming are not subject to review by a “Central Committee” as suggested by hermie. The fact that they are part of a tiny scientific minority means that, to date, their views have not been persuasive to their fellow researchers. This back-and-forth process is called the scientific method.
Apparently, for Mark and others whose opinion is that global warming is not primarily caused by human activity, the best “scientific” explanation is a massive conspiracy among some vast powerful groups to economically cripple the United States and make us a Third World country or somesuch. Not making changes to how we produce and consume energy in this country is much less preferable to a comforting opinion that only a few scientists know the truth and all the others are part of a conspiracy against us. This is all well and good if one is inclined to be cavalier about the future inhabitants of this planet. However, the resultant stance is similar to that of one of the possible choices laid out in Paschal’s Wager.
Of course, the White House has accepted that human activities are at least part of global warming for at least five years:
The ideas about how best to go about it are their own, but the underlying premise is not that of the “global warming caused by human beings is a hoax” school of opinion.
As academicians, the publications of Prof. David H. Douglass, Prof. John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson and Prof. S. Fred Singer are subject to more scrutiny from peers than the IPCC’s conclusions. The “tiny minority of scientists” are actually the majority of those in the study of climatology, whereas only a small handful of IPCC “scientists” agree with AGW in its entirety; the majority of signatories are policy wonks and many IPCC scientists actually believe the Earth is warming but are skeptical about the amount of human influence.
To be truly “ cavalier about the future inhabitants of this planet” one must first accept the radical and precipitously arrogant philosophy that socio-engineering can counteract the planet’s natural ebb and flow of climate change; further that a small minority of Socialist eco-zealots hold the only key to the survival of the planet and future inhabitants.
Hey DL, how’s the bike riding these days?
I was going to repond to DianakeepitlongcauseIliketohearmyselfPowe, but you took the words right outa my mouth…LOL!
OT, but send me your email address and I’ll forward pics of a new hitch mounted bike rack that a friend of mine is developing. karluver1@hotmail.com
Darn, I responded to ToLBS’s mention of this paper by Douglass, et. al. on the previous “Global Warming Update” thread. The first comment I made is still “awaiting moderation”. The second has been scrubbed. The third is basically the same thing, only sanitized — I point you to where you can find the article and a cogent criticism of it, but it requires some copying and pasting. The point I tried to make on those comments (implicitly of course) is this: who among us really understands the science underlying this paper?
Finally, I just posted a fourth comment on that thread (to me it appears as #41, but I don’t know how “awaiting moderation” comments appear on other people’s screens) that attempts to deal with the bigger issues involved.
Rico, Navydad,
As you know I don’t normally indulge in AGW threads as we who know just enough to be dangerous have already said all there is to say on the subject (AGW will be the Pet Rock of the 21st Century). The thing I find most compelling in the discussion is that the advocates of natural warming (solar and cyclical) are most willing and even invite debate, whereas the socialist eco-zealots are unwilling, unable, and vehemently opposed to any dissenting opinion or evidence contrary to their orthodoxy.
Ok, since we are dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, what, say you, happens when this flow continues and grows over the next hundred years or so?
Does the CO2 increase … and then … magically, one day, the climate balances back out and returns to what we have seen as a norm in these natural cycles? …all the while the CO2 is still increasing?
CO2 holds in heat. More CO2 more heat.
Unless Jesus returns and saves us first. har har
steve,
Do you have anything to add to the discussion?
Steam, Your assesment is wrong;
And condescension from one so terminally ignorant is amusing.
Or unless we impose emission restrictions on China and India, which both have stated they will not oblige.
I guess they don’t care future inhabitants.
Dasein Libsbane,
Having followed your link and discovered that 100 is actually “the majority” of 8,800 here in the United States (Source: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos051.htm) you’ll forgive me if I don’t find the story (which ultimately traces to the Canadian National Post newspaper which brought us the false story about Iran planning to make Jews wear badges last year) very compelling. What is the terrible threat of the global warming “hoax”. The letter says this:
So, we have people who are both experts on climatology and global macroeconomics. Amazing! A new joint-discipline.
What reducing global greenhouse gas emissions involves is doing something that we must do anyway. Change our global patterns of energy production and energy usage from ones that are centered around the limited resources of fossil fuels to other sustainable sources. Now, the United States could see this (being a country chock-a-block with entrepreneurs) as an opportunity to race ahead using our technological prowess or we could cling to the past and hope for the best.
navydad,
I’m sorry that I tend to go on a bit and that offends your sensibilities. However, don’t you think that if I could seriously challenge Matt and Mark’s points of view in two sentences that it wouldn’t tend to mean that their points of view were pretty clearly lame on their surface? Of course, if Blogs For Victo(r)y is only properly an echo chamber in your mind, then I guess points of view that involve chains of logic don’t fit in.
SteaM,
So, Greenpeace – which has a vested interest in keeping up a very alarmist vision of global warming in order to keep the donations rolling in – says that one of the lead authors is connected to ExxonMobile…and what is the connection? From your link, it is that one of the authors is connected with the Heartland Institute and that an ExxonMobile executive is part of Heartland…except that when I went to Heartland, I didn’t find the ExxonMobile executive Greenpeace says works there.
Essentially, you are coming here to lie about the background of a man based upon the false word of a group which has a vested interested in discounting all global warming doubts. Instead of doing this, why don’t you try to refute the assertions?
So the last top 5 warmest years have occured since 1998. With all of them, other than 1998, being in the last 5 years. My source for that is NASA. So your proof is that no ground-based warming has occurred? Head-In-The-Sand.
Mark,
The last part of that article says:
Pointless and costly. Hm … wait a minute. I want a second opinion because I think these guys are playing a risky guessing game here. It’s only pointless if you can prove that without a doubt. If there’s any doubt, which there is a lot of, not just a little, then we are better off being safe than sorry. If it’s costly… well, what does a scientist care about the cost for? And how does he know? Maybe he’s underestimating the ingenuity of the American people and humans in general.
I’m just saying, nothing in that story convinced me to back down on my “better safe than sorry” position. I’m not that stupid.
I don’t know what NASA you’re looking at, but According to NASA’s newly published data:
— The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998;
— The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006;
— Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; and
— Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century occurred.
If you’re not that stupid; Just how stupid are you?
Getting to the bottom of Dasein Libsbane’s post, we find this full-blown explanation of the change in the data from NASA:
Then, if you go to Dr. Hansen’s site, you will find this, among other things:
SteaM is going on the old report early this summer before NASA found out the data was faulty or corrupt. Never mind the new corrected report, the original faulty report supports his delusion. The corrected report, or factual report, was paid for by big oil.
Can someone give me a link to NASA’s website where they state these corrections?
I will note that the IPCC instructed its staff to exclude from consideration any scientific articles, measurements, or findings published or released subsequent to 2005 in preparing its report for the 2007 Bali conference. Most of what’s been referenced above, and all of the work by astrophysicists, refuting the “consenus” of a man-made warming theory was consciously ignored by the IPCC and the Bali participants in order to maintain momentum for a ‘warming’ religion.