Would I be correct in assuming that it has been extraordinarily warm over the last, say, 10,000 years?

So there was a cave man somewhere 10,000 years ago screaming at his other fellow cave dwellers "manbearpig come and kill everyone! Al Grog say no more debate! manbearpig real!"

hold that candle still Hezikiah whilst I lay down a base line. - Dennis Miller

the "climatologists" will say look at the very end , the data is irrefutable.

This table is pure garbage.

If you go to about 230,000 years ago where the climate change is about -2 degrees C per year, up to about 20,000 years ago where it goes back to about -2 degrees C per year, every year in between the temperature dropped on average about 5 degrees per year. That means that 230,000 years ago the temperature on the Earth was about 1,000,000 degrees celcius. I don't think so.

smarty pants:

"This table is pure garbage."

Follow the link and read the comments by "chance" and then come back and spew some more garbage.

Head.....meet Ass.

Trev , see the comments to the article . " The vertical axis is the difference in temperature from today , not annual change .I retract my criticism ...."

The proper way to read the chart is difference from current temperature, I believe.....

The left hand label would appear to be open to misinterpretation.

Trevor Good:

ROFL!!

Great mathematical interpretation, Braniac.

And way to prove that liberal arts and non-technical types should be summarily ignored in matters scientific, technical and mathematical.

Since you find simple graphing to be an Inconvenient Truth, why not go back to watching Uncle Al's movie.

Why is it the Kyoto disciples cannot figure out that weather changes in the short term and in the long term? By the way if you really want to tick them off just ask them if this really isn't just a case of evolution at work?

I'm reading the chart as a delta from a baseline normalized value, not as a year-over-year absolute change.  Must be the economics training.

However, commenter "Stephen" is correct: the left-hand y-axis is poorly (very poorly) labeled.  The giveaway as to its real interpretation is the beginning of the time-series — the first data point starts at "zero," telling me that it's a delta series from a known starting point.  If you give it the ol' evil eye and put a trend line through it, the whole series appears to be trending roughly downwards over geologic time, with spikes (such as our era) going in the opposite direction.  I imagine this'll continue until the Sun starts burning off its remaining hydrogen and leaving its main sequence, at which time it will start to swell and the world will grow much hotter.

Anybody know where the raw data series is?  I'm thinkin' it'd be fun to do the statistics on it...

Just think of how many hospitals we could build with the money wasted so far on a lie concocted by one of the most devious socialists since Stalin/Mao etc, one Maurice Strong. This piece of shit has started the ball rolling on the biggest theft there will ever be and the parrots that keep his bullshit going will some day have to look at their children and explaain why they wasted billions on a non existant problem. Oh but think of your grandchildren as Susuki would say, well I would be so ashamed to have been in on this scam. But lieberals have no shame, thats why they keep doing what they do best STEAL MONEY!

According to the graph we seem to be on the cusp of a cyclic downturn in global temperature. However the time span shown on the graph would mean that the next four or five generations have nothing to worry about whereas the twentieth generation from now will be wearing fur coats again and they are the ones that'll have to deal with the PETA.

GArth, I think you will find links to the real data at the Junkman's page junkscience.com.

As to the graphm, there appears to be a petty strong 105k year periodicity to this.

Hey, anyone wanna buy a carbon credit?

Garth... The Data is NOAA, based upon drill cores into the ice of Antarctica.
try this link
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt

Remember the dinosaurs!! Canada was subtropical with steamy lowland swamps. This was followed by an ice age--and the cycles go on and on!

Trevor . . since basic arithmetic doesn't seem to be your strength, grab yourself a beer or two and listen:

http://www.officiallyscrewed.com/blog/?p=765

Even Kyotoistas and EnviroJihadis can learn just by listening.

The good news is that Trevor Good can say that he is now an expert in correctly reading 2 (or several) types of graphs in his resume.

You've studied all the data on GW and are a firm believer in AGW aren't you Trevor?

ignore the moonbat troll...they have been wrong on every environmental issue since woodstock...too much lsd I guess...the last moonbat I ever listened to was fruit fly the trough wallower, when he was whining about the coming ice age...and why are we still listening to poets and guitar players when it comes to nuclear power???? totally INSANE!

This graph just proves there have been major surges in SUV sales at regular intervals . . . 350,000 years ago, 250,000 years ago and 15,000 years ago.

So what part of global warming don't people get ?

Rises in CO2 always precede rising temperatures.

Suzuki has said so.

He has said it 3 times.

It must be true.

A graph without supporting information is useless, as is this one.

What you see by the big peaks are normal peaks in an ice age which we are in. What you need to look at is all the red at the far right where temperatures ar no longer dropping. You haven't stumbled across hidden proof of no climate change just a graph that needs to be interpreted. The planet goes through ice ages and hot houses. Like I already said this is an ice age, where average global temperaures are around 2 celsius ( an average of temperatures from all over the planet including arctic/antarctica and equatorial regions for the whole year). When you go from an ice age to a hot house average temperatures will rise to an average of 30 celsius.

All the red on the right hand side of the graph shows a sytem that is changing. Temperatures are no longer dropping like they are supposed to in a natural cycle. These temperatures will increase over the next few centuries to peaks higher than you currently see at any point in the last 400,000 years. Its like saying last week was so cold in comparison to a year. This is just 400,000 years out of 6 billion.

If you go back several billion years you will see we had acid falling from the skies and no Oxygen and iron never rusted. Would you use this to justify doing nothing about acid rain?

Hope that clarifies this graph for everyone. Its nothing new if you ever studied earth sciences.

And just think, if peta had been around we would have had protests of people in purple suits trying to save them. Congrats to Baird to say canada would not be party to a carbon credit world wide credit scam. As Stelmach says that is just a license to pollute.

Awwww cummon don't let rational assesment of all the data stop a good old fashoned left wing hyteria cause!

Cummon, join the moonbats give those emotions a work out...adopt hysteria as you tool for change.

yes,I studied earth science and not junk science and the first one that comes to mind is that it cant rain without dust or smoke in the air.Thats a given.The great push to stop both has resulted in horrific storms when either of these two are present.During the manufacturing age in America it was a common complaint that the weekends were rainy,just when the workers wanted to go to the beach.Then the clouds would clear on the weekdays and be rainy again on the weekend.If you dont believe me,read your history books or listen to the people that lived at that time.

Kate you are so smart...you like a printing press...hahaha wannbe reporter!!!!

Kate you are so smart...you like a printing press...hahaha wannbe reporter!!!!

Jay, is this the same Jay as in "Jay and Silent Bob"? If so then that explains your frikkin' ignorance in reading the chart. Only you could look at a chart with a baseline of 400,000 years and notice a change in the last few years. Maybe you can also explain how the polar cap on Mars is receeding, coincidently with the change in the sun. Please go back to wherever you came from and stuff more "Suzuki For PM" envelopes.

Last week I saw a similar graph/chart at the Tyrell Museun for the Drumheller area. We are just coming out of an ice age and CO2 was much higher than it is today.

Jay... congratulations.. you make a wonderful Suzukite....
Look only at the graph, and not the data behind it....

If you had looked at the underlying data, you would see the first hundred points are about ten years apart (the ice is not as compressed here so the resolution is better) .. Later on you will see a spread of 100 years a point, moving forward to 500 years a point as the ice compresses under its own weight...

Like the Dionites, Suzukites you only see what you want to see...

Jay rockets off into berserk moonbattery, wagging his finger and preaching:

"Temperatures are no longer dropping like they are supposed to in a natural cycle. These temperatures will increase over the next few centuries to peaks higher than you currently see at any point in the last 400,000 years."

What is the basis for this rather bold, in fact wild, prediction? I've been paying attention and reading all I can find, there's still no evidence of abnormal temperature rise or sea level rise. I guess my problem is I haven't seen that politician Al Gore's movie yet.

Global Warming, er, Climate Change (because it's cold today) is hanging over our heads like an axe. We all must focus all of our attention and resources on this for every minute of every day.

Or until a bimbo ho dies... in which case... "climate change, shlimate change...."

I'm killing myself laughing at the news coverage tonight. People get what they demand from the media and our leaders. As a society, we are a joke.

Now we know... Global Warming is nothing more than a media created panic inspiring filler.... in between 'real' news like the passing of a centrefold.

Disproving "Global WARMING" using the "Vostok ANTARCTIC Ice" cores!!!

Not fair Kate. You should have used Greenland and Arctic ice cores.

There, you see, Kate is a latent 'hemispherist'.

Harumph!

God, too funny. I've saved the page source for posterity sake. I just can't get over the fact that SDA (and its more illiterate minions in the comments section) have cited a graph from a study that proves a link between increased CO2 levels and global temperature.

But here's the kicker, you pseudo scientists, you armchair philosphers who disdain academia (except apparently when you -- mistakenly -- think it supports your cause), who've probably never even heard of EBSCOHOST, cite a graph from a study that contains these gems of quotes:

"Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years." p.429

"The extension of the greenhouse-gas record shows that presentday levels of CO2...are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr." p.433

LOL. Go ahead. Read your chart however you like. But the people who collected the data apparently disagree with your interpretation.

*Page numbers listed from article cited as original source within text file cited in graph.

Yes there were ice ages and interglacials. This isn't news. As a material for a two minute hate it's scraping the bottom of the barrel isn't it. Doesn't somebody have quote from a PR consultant who works for Exxon or something?

PS.

Fark is having a photoshop contest that you guys would like. The theme is "Scientists say were to blame for global warming. Pass the buck and photoshop some other reasons why things are getting hotter."

Go to blahblahblah dot fark dot com and scroll down. Or in firefox hit control+f and search for "getting hotter"

Yes Jose, corporations do fund research.
Why are they any less credible than "scientists" dependant on government grants for research? No man-made global warming no more grants.

Toronto Star reporting new Legere Poll Conservatives 38 Liberals 31. Climate could be heating up some more.

Toronto Star reporting new Legere Poll Conservatives 38 Liberals 31.

So, the media flood the zone with global warming hype and articles slagging Harper as a climate change denier - and the Conservatives go up in the polls.

I sometimes really do think there are benefits to having the media so out of touch with typical Canadians. If they're only a little out of touch it's harmful, but when they're bug-eyed batty over something they only make Harper look responsible and trustworthy in an asylum of nutcases.

Jose,

Thank you for your careful analysis. It means so much coming from a blog troll.

Jay,

Thank you for your careful analysis. It means so much coming from a blog troll.

Would not Hans Island ice cores have been the most suitable?
There's a rumour that the Lie-beral's are plotting to invade Hans Island, hoping that their gray matter will deteriorate at a slower pace if they dwell in a colder climate.

Sorry mitrandir, are you making fun of those who know that the left are idiots and liars or are you being sarcastic. This topic has brought the best ie:Tim Ball, out of the shadows of knowledge and it has also brought the buffoons and out right liars out from under their ho's heels ie; algore, davidthesqueakie, and an assortment of other miscreants that think their 40 years on this planet give them licence to spew shit about things more complicated than their thermostats that they obviously hav'nt learned to run yet.

Kate
Please forgive the length of this comment.

I think there might be enough information available from main stream climate scientists (those contributing data to the IPCC) to make a case for urging if not caution then prudence in in our approach to dealing with the global warming/climate change issue. It might at least be possible to reduce some of the hysteria around this issue by emphasizing the doubts expressed by these scientists and even that would be worthwile For example, a bit from an article in the Boston Review "Phaeton's Reins" by Kerry Emanuel has sections like this

"Why the Climate Problem is Difficult
This basic climate physics is entirely uncontroversial among scientists. And if one could change the concentration of a single greenhouse gas while holding the rest of the system (except its temperature) fixed, it would be simple to calculate the corresponding change in surface temperature. For example, doubling the concentration of CO2 would raise the average surface temperature by about 1.4°F, enough to detect but probably not enough to cause serious problems. Almost all the controversy arises from the fact that in reality, changing any single greenhouse gas will indirectly cause other components of the system to change as well, thus yielding additional changes. These knock-on effects are known as feedbacks,"

He goes on to talk about the difficulties presented by the behaviour of clouds and water vapour and later about the about the uncertainties that are introduced by the effect of aerosols

"A further complication in this already complex picture comes from anthropogenic aerosols—small solid or liquid particles suspended in the atmosphere. Industrial activity and biomass burning have contributed to large increases in the aerosol content of the atmosphere, and this is thought also to have had a large effect on climate."

my note
(The chart provided in the latest update to the SPM report shows how the radiative effect of CO2 is measured at +1.6 W/m2 (watts per square meter). A positive value because it increases global temperatures.
Aerosols have a comined effect of - 1.3 W/m2. A negative effect or forcing causing global temperatures to cool. Almost balancing the CO2 effect.)

"Important uncertainties enter the picture, then, with water (especially clouds) and airborne particulates. But the uncertainties actually go much deeper: indeed, to understand long-term climate change, it is essential to appreciate that detailed forecasts cannot, even in principle, be made beyond a few weeks. That is because the climate system, at least on short time scales, is chaotic."

His article describes how scientists have dealt with these issues in arriving at the "consensus".
I found the article at realclimate.org which is a forum for climate scientists. It was well received except for the bit about Science, Politics and the Media - for example his take on what followed from 1988 when

"James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, set off a firestorm of controversy by testifying before Congress that he was virtually certain that a global-warming signal had emerged from the background climate variability."

"At roughly this time, radical environmental groups and a handful of scientists influenced by them leapt into the fray with rather obvious ulterior motives. This jump-started the politicization of the issue, and conservative groups, financed by auto makers and big oil, responded with counterattacks. This also marked the onset of an interesting and disturbing phenomenon that continues to this day. A very small number of climate scientists adopted dogmatic positions and in so doing lost credibility among the vast majority who remained committed to an unbiased search for answers. On the left, an argument emerged urging fellow scientists to deliberately exaggerate their findings so as to galvanize an apathetic public, an idea that, fortunately, failed in the scientific arena but which took root in Hollywood, culminating in the 2004 release of The Day After Tomorrow. On the right, the search began for negative feedbacks that would counter increasing greenhouse gases: imaginative ideas emerged, but they have largely failed the acid test of comparison to observations. But as the dogmatists grew increasingly alienated from the scientific mainstream, they were embraced by political groups and journalists, who thrust them into the limelight. This produced a gross distortion in the public perception of the scientific debate. Ever eager for the drama of competing dogmas, the media largely ignored mainstream scientists whose hesitations did not make good copy. As the global-warming signal continues to emerge, this soap opera is kept alive by a dwindling number of deniers constantly tapped for interviews by journalists who pretend to look for balance."
Some responses seemed to indicate that he had tread on some toes.

The article is lengthy but is one of the most informative summaries I have read. It seemed reasonably balanced to me and given that our Prime Minister has stated that he accepts the mainsteam science perhaps it would be a good idea to try to make the discussions on the conservative side as balanced and rational as possible using the same very same science.
My conclusion at this time is that the science behind the theories can be taken to be just a creditable as the science behind many other theories and should demand our attention due to some of the inevitable and possible consequences. My concern is that we will be bamboozeled into either over reaction or inaction.

Sorry for the typos - I graduated from Hunt and Peck school of typing

yes, the scientist behind IPCC have never seen this data before. (yet) another one-line demolition of global warming.

Score:
bloggers: 1,000
mainstream "scientists": 0

The vostok Ice Core's are data that get used in multiple studies.

Here is an abstract of one the, in your language, "proves" that C02 concentrations rose in the past AFTER the warming started.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html

There are others.

The greenhouse effect is real, without it we would all be living in weather that was on average 34C colder, the earth without an atmosphere.

But it really isnt clear what the main driver is...the debate is really just happening and there are competing theories....Is there some manmade effect....sure....is it the majority, will it cause runaway heating? Doesnt seem to be support for that....

By the way St James Hansen predicted we would have a "mega el nino" this year, he predicted it in April...he was one of the few predicting it and guess what...he wasnt correct....maybe his temperature predictions 10 years out arent correct either.....

Climate change killed the dinosours and I'm fairly sure that wasn't man-made.

I guess Mithrandir takes exception to common folk like us "illiterate minions" questioning the science which he subscribes to. So I suppose I would have nothing to offer, other than being an obtuse ignoramus, when I say that CO2 seems to be really letting us down this current interglacial period. I mean looking at the pleasant highs attained in those previous millenniums, this go around seems to be a real whimper. What are we doing wrong this time?

I'm coming out with a scientific theory to explain how man is NOW causing the sun to set at night.

Funny, but the chart also looks alot like that one.

Dion proposes Canada purchase overseas Kyoto credits

Get ready to pay for hot air fellow Canadians. Sheesh. Will this Ponzi scam of the century never stop?

[PoliticsWatch updated 5:45 p.m., February 8, 2007]

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion
OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said Thursday that he would create a $5 billion fund that could be used to purchase green international credits to help Canada meet its Kyoto targets.

Well Schwarze, seeing as how I actually read the "original source" of that chart, and seeing as how that is what is put out by you "illiterate minions" when you question the science, and seeing as how it says that "presentday levels of CO2...are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr", then yes, I take exception.

:)

My God! All the better things they could do philanthropically with $5 billion dollars. That idiot Stephane. He isn't even funny anymore!

Mithrandir, this chart and that thing about the unprecedented levels of CO2 today, that's (one of) the problems with the man made global warming debate. Okay so if there's this hitherto unseen levels of carbon dioxide in the air, then it's effect seems to be negligible when compared to the earlier overall high temperatures experienced in previous interglacial periods. Granted I was being facetious in my previous post, but really, dollars to donuts, this chart dismisses CO2 levels as being a cause for concern, if you want to look at it that way. I mean, look at it my way. ;)

Schwarze, I recant my illiterate comment. It was clearly unjustified, and I thank you for your cogent and intelligent response. Your criticism is a valid one based on the evidence presented herein. In fact, the authors of this study draw NO conclusions about the affect of man. All they say, is that "CO2 and CH4 concentrations are strongly
correlated with Antarctic temperatures; this is because, overall, our results support the idea that greenhouse gases have contributed
significantly to the glacial–interglacial change. This correlation, together with the uniquely elevated concentrations of these gases today, is of relevance with respect to the continuing debate on the future of Earth’s climate."

This chart, says nothing at all about the cause of the increaes in greenhouse gases, only that they are unique within the period examined. Neither does it draw any dire conclusions. It only claims that the historical record of a) an increase in greenhouse gases, followed by b) an increase in temperature, is 'relevant' to the debate about earth's climate.

Your colleagues on this thread that use this chart to ignore or disregard the debate on global warming, have clearly missed the point of the graph and the article on which it was based.

Best,

PS. I've had a few glasses of wine, in my mirth. ;) But I noted the incorrect use of "affect" and the mispelling of "increase". I hope that won't detract from the obvious and compelling nature of the content of my posts.

(very) warmly,

Dion better not be planning on getting that money from Alberta. Better to get it from the ont auto industry, (if it is still around in a couple of years). What does a 20% decrease in your own lifestyle mean. And don't tell me to turn down my heat and put on a sweater. Do you know how many emmissions are caused to make that sweater. Wonder if New York and northern ont would like some global warming about now. This winter is probably going to go down as one of the coldest, with the heavies snowfall in many years. I think the liberals will get a huge shock if they cause an election over kyoto. I am sure the conservatives have all kinds of scary ads ready about what 20% reduction in your life will mean. McGuinty saying, what will it cost if we dont is not an answer.

Mithrandir, you're a good sport and I appreciate our exchange. That's the great thing about blogs and blogging. Now back to CSI Vegas. Good show tonight.

/thumbsup

Borat Dion is proud to say that in his little environmentally-friendly family of 2 he owns only 1 car. So by extension my little family of 6 could get off with 3 cars?

Well we'd better pump a whole lot more CO2 into the atmosphere if we want to prevent the next ice age.

Seriously, did none of you go check out the fark photoshop thread? I laughed my ass off at the one of Gore blowing hot air on the eart.

Hilarious!

Those guys are super talented.

Mithrandir: Is this graph and its imiplications (without background) any more misleading than what Gore and the MSM are pimping?

Ward... I enjoy dialogue and debate. Especially trouncing another in debate. Unfortunately, your comment is too vague to respond to. I believe I understand the reason this graph and its implications,but I am unaware what you may conceive of as the implications of Gore and the MSM and all their comments/commentaries over the years. Thus, I cannot answer your question.

Kind regards,

I thought I'd contribute to the fun by providing this story about greenhouse gases /saving/ the ancient Earth: http://tinyurl.com/36q2t6

Life isn't this simple - I am still trying to validate the raw data. Anyone know the CO2 mobility through strained ice, particularly the effects of sudden shears?

Mithandir: Apart from Yoop and perhaps one or two other commenters here, the majority of us SDA commenters are not earth scientists or scientists. Several of us have BSc and BASc degrees, though...Kate is a member of Mensa, indicating a high IQ. We are not (all) saying we know more than the scientists behind the IPCC...but we ARE saying that we are intelligent. We will not accept phrases such as "scientists say" at face value.

Climate Change IS being hyped by the media and those rabid folks in the AGW-religion are attempting to quash any debate of the science. That must be clear to you...read Doug Newtons article clip...read other clips presented at SDA about this shut-down of debate. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE, that is fear-mongering and intimidation. Intelligent people should not be swayed by fear-mongering and intimidation. We WILL BE swayed by cold, hard, irrefutable data and robust and complete analysis. When something is hyped by the media, my first reaction is to say "B___S___!".

We are asking basic questions about the climate change science and we are not getting the answers. We're being presented with "the science is solid...very solid" which is meaningless babble. For example, find a robust and complete analysis that proves that solar activity is NOT affecting the climate. Analyse the IPCC data without the use of the "hockey stick" graph. Answer our questions.

In the meantime, we will be AGW-skeptics, if not AGW-deniers.

Thanks.

It was just on Pravda that Branson and Gore have teamed up to offer $25 million to the first person to develop a means to "save the planet" by removing the excess CO2 in the atmosphere.

I recommend planting more trees and plants combined with a policy of loading all "climate change" true-believers onto spaceships and sending them to Mars so that their hot air will help thaw the planet out and make it habitable for colonization.

Where do I collect my cheque?

DDT "Yes Jose, corporations do fund research.

This comment of yours is the best comeback on this point that I've recieved so far on SDA. Most people stick to insults and adhominems. However relabelling "Public Relations" as "Research" is still a cheap trick.

Send it to Al Gore, where's that puke smiley when I need it most?

It is a religon....at this stage. There are too many legitimate voices questioning key elements of the "Holy Book of AGW"

It may ultimately turn out to be proven but right now the debate isnt over.

Not ONE of the predictions of the AGW team has come true, not ONE! That means their models, which may explain part of the past dont work.

The point of science, as opposed to rhetoric, is to come up up with robust models that explain past behaviours and predict future behaviours.

To summarize, we have a couple of competing theories
1) AGW lead largely by humanity's release of Co2.
2) Natuaral variability, sun etc etc (lots of debate here)
3) A combination of the above, largely with 2 being the major influence.

Regardless of what the authors put in their study, and you are right to parse it for the subtleties, the graph looks pretty clear...there are cycles and it has been warmer in the past....

we are too early in this cycle and the graph doesnt really have proper resolution to really say much more than that.

But as I pointed to in a previous post there is a raging debate over whether or not rises in C02 in the past are a result of warming or a cause of warming.

One question that really is not well understood is why is there no "runaway" warming if CO2 is the causem and CO2 has been high in the past? If this process is real, why does it stop, what causes its reversal etc etc.

Too many questions for "the debate to be over".

If the question is should we use resources efficiently and reduce pollution as much as possible....yeah I am all for that, but you dont need the false cross of Kyoto to make that work, unless of course your being political about it......

Finally, while I like markets...and pollution credit markets work pretty well...they arent tied to old timelines and they arent, to the best of my knowledge international. You buy and sell credits within a home market.

Being political for a moment, isnt it better to spend the money at home and affect our own environment? Then we can impose taxes and tarrifs, if we wanted on others, and if we felt comfortable enough with their regulatory regime we could sign joint agreements to share carbon markets.

Kyoto is a bad treaty that doesnt solve the problem it says exists. It will be nice when someone really explains Kyoto to the Canadian public....hmmm maybe the notes on surrounding the Canadian decision need to be accessed through access to information....maybe some crusading journalist should do this, certainly some political science student.

Now I wish I was an undergrad again doing a my honours thesis....

Mitrhandir. I would like to thank your valuable contribution. You have clearly pointed out that CO2 and CH4 are linked to global warming. What you have failed to point out (whether through intent or ignorance I am not sure) is that these "greenhouse gases" have always increased with global warming even in the absence of man. I can't find the link but I've seen it before somewhere on the interweb.

The only problem with Gorizuki is that CO2 increases follow global warming, they do not precede it. Would you argue that lung cancer causes smoking also?? CO2 atmospheric increases are a result of global warming not a cause.

The planet has been warming for several thousand years now. The result of this warming is making the planet more hospitable for man to take advantage of advanced agricultural practices etc. CO2 increases the same as it always has, it just so happens that this time humans also increased. I can see where it would be easy for a naive person to mangle the cause and effect relationship.

Hopefully this made sense to you and you can now begin telling all your friends that AGW is a fraud being perpetuated on unsuspecting sheeple in the hopes of garnering their support and money.

Enjoy you wine.

johnboy,

Thanks for reiterating this. Stephen has a link further up that I was going to re-highlight. Evidence shows that the CO2 increases AFTER the warming, and is not the CAUSE of the warming. From other sources, this is due to the lessened ability of water to keep gases dissolved when warmer.

JCL

Can someone pass this on to the IPCC scientists? Maybe they can do this little thought exercise before they release the final report?

http://earth.rice.edu/activities/earthupdate/activities/EU07_CO2andTemp.pdf

Here is my take on the debate regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW)after becoming semi-retired from a career that spanned over 48 years. That time was as a 'field grunt and administrator' as opposed to the academic or research field. Of course I was exposed to the thinking processes of countless scientists and engineers from all of the niches.

1) In reality AGW has evolved from being a theory to being a fact in the minds of a majority of the population. It is not difficult to see why, when the presentation methods presently being used regarding the issue are scrutinized.

2) In reality AGW has evolved from being a theory to being a debate, then to being an accepted fact that has moved beyond reproach, to it's final form: a 'business'.

3) A significant, and growing, number of people have a vested interest in that 'business'.

4) The earth is in one of it's numerous interglacial periods. Of course it is a warming period for the globe. Otherwise it would not be 'interglacial'.

5) The 'anthropogenic' aspect should still be openingly debated since there remains too many interrelated, but poorly understood, variables in the equation for any results to be represented as undeniable proof.

6) #5 above is not good for business.

7) Those with a vested interest in the 'business' of AGW are now realizing that the downside of a interglacial period is the other side of the average temperature curve. It will eventually enter a declining mode.

8) #6 above is not good for business.

9) Anthropogenic global warming is not a good, nor will it be an aptly descriptive, term for the latter part of an interglacial period. Thus a name change would be in order. So, how about Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC)? That way all bases are covered as the average temperatures begin to bounce around, or start a slow decline. The 'business' is still viable.

10) Open debate, especially the kind that ask the *messy* questions, is no longer acceptable since it is not healthy for the viability of the 'business'.

11) When Dr. Heidi Cullen suggested that any meteorologists that dissented from the *fact* of AGW should lose their accreditation she essentially let the cat out of the bag. Notice has been served. Debate is closed, and the 'business' is open.

12) If one were able to look at the temperature curve for the earth over 5+ billion years, since initial formation, I believe the graph would show a slowing cooling orb, with warming spikes correlating with sun activity. I suspect the rest of the solar system would exhibit the same trend.

13) Can man affect climate to some degree? Undoubtedly. To what extent? We are far from knowing the answer to that. One really large, sustained erruption from a super volcano could dramatically change the entire aspect of the climate debate, and dwarf the anthropogenic aspect right off the front page of the MSM. The ACC (aka AGW) business would take a hit, and the vulcanolgy business would thrive.

14) A LOT of money is going to change hands.

And 10:000 years ago there ware no industries,cars,airplane and at least no AL GORE

Jose so when government funds research its always research and when corporations fund research it's PR. Rememeber that next time you take a prescription drug or are in need of a medical device. The government didn't pay to research those, a corporation did.

DDT "Jose so when government funds research its always research and when corporations fund research it's PR."

If you could kindly point me to a research paper denying AGW that was funded by a corporation I'd appreciate it. Now just in case we get definitional drift a press release doesn't count as "research" for these purposes.

On the other hand it's hard to interpret the gutsy work of NASA scientists in publishing research that advances the case for AGW against the will of their political masters as a Public Relations excersize.

Apparently the latest IPCC report from the UN will show that there has been no statistically significant rise in temperature since the last report in 2001. Further, the scientists involved have not only scaled back their estimates of human contributions to warming by more than a third, but also reduced their estimates for both warming and sea level rise.

Now, if such dramatic changes can be made to estimates in just 5 years, who in their right mind can suggest that the debate is over?

No change upward since 2001....couldnt be related to this could it?

http://sidc.oma.be/html/wnosuf.html

Lorraine at February 8, 2007 11:43 PM

Thanks for the note. Harper really should go on the offensive on this.

We're a population of what, 30 million? Say - conservatively - that 40% of us are taxpayers. Five billion divided by 12 million is roughly $400 apiece.

Harper should ask the libs for the timeline when, if it were up to the Liberals:

1. This $400 carbon tax would kick in

2. Gas taxes would be hiked precipitously to reduce usage, ditto reducing speed limits to 80kmh

3. Natural gas and electricity taxes would likewise increase to reduce usage

4. Why the liberals didn't do either of #1-#3 above in EIGHT years they were a majority government following their ratification of Y2Kyoto.

The implementation #1, #2 & #3 are all useless anyway, since our payments just fund new Chinese coal-fired stations (565 of 'em being built), and the IPCC report states that taking us back to a pre-industrial society would only retard the growth of GHG.

I wish somebody in the CPC would have the courage to explain the economics of this Kyoto scam to the taxpayers: it's merely a wealth redistribution scheme that stinks of Maurice Strong and his UN cronies, and does nothing on GHG. Not to mention that the link between AGW and human activity hasn't even been closely proven, despite the claim of the AGW propagandists.

Just more taxpayer dough to shovel at Strong's Chinese Connection.

mhb23re
[at gmail d0t c0m]

Jose,

Do you know how peer review in the granting of research dollars, publication, tenure and hiring effects opinion in the government sector?

If you are trying to be hired, promoted, get grants or tenure and you go against the dogma of the senior people reviewing your applications, what chance of success would you say you would have?

Peer review is responsible for enforcing conformity. Peer review is the method that heretics are punished in the church of bad science.

Peer review is marginally better than review by the uneducated politicians or bureaucrats but it stifles diversity and hamstrings new and/or contrary thought.

So, if you only get grant money if you tow the party line, then funding by government is no less biased than funding by Exxon.

Climate "science" is a cult and peer review is responsible for the decline in the quality of higher education, research and public sector institutions of every subject of study.

For the record, NASA is no different than science departments on campus. In fact, a lot of the research that NASA does is done on campuses like MIT. NASA has been criticized for the way it does business loads of times. Too bureaucratic, too expensive, too slow to adapt... The list is long. NASA has failed and been wrong many times. They may be filled with over-achievers but they aren't filled with gods.

MHB....where do you think the story on the front page of the Globe came from today?

My bet is a little leaking and coaching from Mr. chretiens consulting group.....

Warwick "If you are trying to be hired, promoted, get grants or tenure and you go against the dogma of the senior people reviewing your applications, what chance of success would you say you would have?"

Following that logic to its natural conclusion scientists employed by the Federal goverment of the United States should be publishing research that contradicts Global Warming. The reality is they haven't. I'm not aware of a single instance actually.

The entire argument that these scientists are somehow being incentived or coerced into publishing this research is absolutely ridiculous. There's actually a lot of friction between these scientists and the administration.

We're not talking about a few select cases here. Scientists employed by the Federal government of the USA (Chief Executive: George Bush) are the single biggest source of published research supporting AGW.

Politicaly of course the government of the USA applies political pressure through its delegation to the IPCC to qualify and equivocate as much as possible. And the IPCC have accomodated them to a certain extent.

But you make a valid point Warwick I've no doubt that some of the 928 published studies supporting AGW have been influenced by politics. I can't speak of the politics of published studies to the contrary because I'm not aware that any exsist (If I'm wrong please correct me).

I have examined the funding of a number of press releases and "information" websites that criticize AGW. And in every case they're funded by oil and gas interests and conservative lobby groups. I've never come across an instance where these people perform anything other than Public Relations.

chip "Further, the scientists involved have not only scaled back their estimates of human contributions to warming by more than a third, but also reduced their estimates for both warming and sea level rise."

Sea level rise has come in slightly above projections actually and those projections are being revised *upwards*. The discrepancy is largely due to underestimating how fast polar ice melts. Their track record for predicting temperature rises for the past fifteen years have been eerily bang on.

This thread is dead Jose....like your ideas....go back to DU and KOS.

Jose, you got it backwards. The consensus on campuses is that GW is man-made.

You have this misunderstanding of government funding and the peer review process. George Bush, congress and the senate do not choose who gets funding in the US.

Harper (or the Liberals before him) does not chose who gets funding in Canada.

In a peer review situation, the scientists who have served in the field of study (usually the ones who have been there longest, the chairs, the people who do the hiring for profs, etc) are the ones who decide.

GWBush is not a climate scientist any more than Dion is. Neither of them get to approve grants.

Do you not understand the process? Peer review was instituted to eliminate political control over grants. It just ended one group's power and handed it to another group.

The scientific community is driving out contrary opinion using the peer review process to deny funding, jobs, tenure and publishing to anyone who dares contradict those with the power. This happens in every subject - not just GW.

Published studies are only published if the same peers who review grants approve your study for inclusion into an academic journal. In the rare cases (usually senior researchers) who have tenure and have grants who question GW, they are not published by their peers if they contradict the consensus.

Next point: IPCC is not an academic report. It's a political report issued by the UN.

If you don't know of any studies contradicting GW, you haven't a clue about any studies at all. How many studies have you read out of university academic journals on any subject? I doubt any.

Note also that academic journals are obscenely expensive and most are not available online - except to subscribers. If you claim to have read a bunch of academic papers online you are most likely lying.

Some good points Warwick. I do understand the peer review process and no I don't read academic journals. I read the coles notes versions online.

But essentialy your argument boils down to "they all think like that because they all think like that" which is a hairs breadth away from conspiracy. Most AGW contrarians are basicaly subscribing to conspiracy theory. Your line of thinking is more rational than that but doesn't pass Ockam's razor in my view.

"The scientific community is driving out contrary opinion using the peer review process to deny funding.."

But there are contrarian climatologists and they have no shortage of funding. And they have access to extensive Public Relations apparati in the form of think tanks, they're frequently quoted in the media and they've got the friendship of the Republican Party, The White House and up until recently Congress. These people are hardly left out in the cold, they have powerful friends, plenty of funding and lots of media access.

I suspect there's another reason why they're not publishing. Tobacco companies published bogus studies asserting that there was no link between smoking and cancer. That funding was a driving factor in the massive judgements against them. Perhaps ExxonMobil's lawyers have advised them to restrict their funding to PR efforts for legal liability reasons. Most people can't seem to tell the difference between a press release and published research anyways.

That last bit is purely a geuss on my part. I can't come up with an explanation for why a group of such well funded scientists would refrain from publishing research.

Has anyone seen a chart that correlates magnetic field strength and orientation with temperature?

Jose is a proponent of Truthyism and Scientism.
It looks like science, sounds like Science but it not science. If one wants evidence that those who do not believe in the Scientism of Climate Change, are not published go to www.oism.org. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has a petition signed by nearly 20,000 Scientists that states:"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth".
An astonishing 20,000 Scientist whose voices are not heard.

Jose go over to the freinds of science web and check the references there. They even have papers from before Kyoto.

Here are a few prominant scientists that recently advocated against jumping on the AGW bandwagon.
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa.
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa.
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards.
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant.
Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology.
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member, and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa.
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Department of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta.
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
Dr. Peter Chylek, adjunct professor, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax.
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta.
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Virginia, and Sioux Lookout, Ontario.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary.
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey.
Mr. George Taylor, Department of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists.
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review.
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand.
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia.
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics and geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville.
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health).
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland.
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy and Environment.
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), and an economist who has focused on climate change.
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey.
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway.
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand.
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC, and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut.
Dr. Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service.
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society.
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University.
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland.
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland.
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden.
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Oregon.
Dr. Arthur Rörsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food, and public health.
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist.
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Source: http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html
Should we beleive in only those scientists that are accepted by the media as credible? Obviously skeptisim is the only answer to those promoting the new religion of AGW.

DDT- Cheers for the link. I read a few of the articles. There's nothing new there.

Friends of Science aren't all contrarians however:

"Nevertheless, practical constraints on changes in emission levels suggest that global warming at a rate +0.15 ± 0.05°C per decade will occur over the next several decades."

"Ignoring or downplaying the probability of abrupt climate change could prove costly."

"This table is pure garbage."

How about this one?...

3w dot geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Also, how about this quote?
"Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm." from:

3w dot geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Charts can be a good indication of past performance, provided the data is accurate. As for their predictive value, good luck. It reminds me of charting the stock market or the numbers drawn in 6-49. So if you think that just because the temperatures have dropped in the past that they'll follow similar patterns in the future, you're likely to be mistaken.

We can engage in all the debate we want about whether climate change is a reality or not. Meanwhile, we continue to pollute the hell out of our planet. We're leaving a nice mess for our children to take care of, political and otherwise.

Hopefully one of those asteroids will come along and destroy this pathetic planet.

Charts can be a good indication of past performance, provided the data is accurate. As for their predictive value, good luck. It reminds me of charting the stock market or the numbers drawn in 6-49. So if you think that just because the temperatures have dropped in the past that they'll follow similar patterns in the future, you're likely to be mistaken.

We can engage in all the debate we want about whether climate change is a reality or not. Meanwhile, we continue to pollute the hell out of our planet. We're leaving a nice mess for our children to take care of, political and otherwise.

Hopefully one of those asteroids will come along and destroy this pathetic planet.

Ummm. The one thing I can agree with the AGW alarmists is that yes there is climate change. There always has been and always will be. It's just not caused by humans.

Hopefully that asteroid is a very small one and wipes out your medicinal marijuana garden.

The graph is interesting in that it clearly demonstrates the last interglacial,and probably the 3rd last too, were warmer than the one we are in now. Without help from anthropogenic CO2.

However, for the argument at hand, the real issue is what is going on in this interglacial (the Holocene).

We all know the global temperature has been going up for most but not all of the last 100 years or more. But how many know the earth has cooled for the last 5 years?

Linear regression of satellite data covering the the last 5 years indicates the mid troposphere has lost heat. Plus there has been a substantial heat loss in the upper oceans between 2003 and 2005.

The surface temperature is flat, not cooling but certainly not warming. It appears for the time being that global warming is stalled.

amiindenial you must really hate yourself if you wish for selfdestruction via an asteroid. Get some help. By the way I think your right about polluting the planet. The problem is treating CO2, a gas thats essential for plant life and therefore our life, as a polutant takes away the focus on getting the really nasty stuff like sulphur dioxide and cardon monoxide out of the air. We are told to waste billions on CO2 control but just ingore the truly toxic stuff. Like all leftist ideas sad and self loathing.

600 MILLION years of climate history is even more fun, see http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm, (scroll down when you get there),

Temperature variations and glacial growth and retreat over the past mere 10-20 million years are just mild fluctuations in the depths of one of the great Ice Ages in earth history - one in which we are still living.

There were two other such, I believe, prior to the start of the chart - including the Huronian, 2.7.BILLION years ago, but by and large the earth has had a warm wet climate 7 degrees C nicer than what we have to endure now.

How the global warming idiots manage to stay credible in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence is beyond rational comprehension.