Global Warming is Natural

[Justin]

Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural
Attempts to reduce CO2 emissions "pointless" as sun is cited as climate change culprit

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/121107_global_warmin g.htm

The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.

The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.

(Article continues below)



Authored by 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 study appears in this month's International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society.

“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," said lead author David H. Douglass.

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.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
PRISON PLANET.TV CHRISTMAS SPECIAL - IT'S BACK!
Subscribe today for just $39.95 and get the equivalent of 5 months free!
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate. Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless – but very costly."

The findings of the report help to explain why we are witnessing climate change in almost every corner of our solar system, from Mars to Pluto, to Jupiter and to the moons of Neptune - and clearly identify the sun as the main culprit and not CO2 emissions - which are being used as a pretext for control freaks to completely dominate every aspect of our lives.

Man-made global warming advocates have often made their case by claiming that the scientific consensus is fully behind CO2 emissions as the main driver of climate change, when in fact the UN's own IPCC report was disputed by the very scientists that the UN claimed were behind it.

In reality, a significant number of prominent experts dispute the global warming mantra, but many have been intimidated into silence and had their careers threatened simply for stating an opposing view.

HAT TIP: Canadian Free Press

[marky 54]

this video is worth a watch, apparently in the early 90's(i think) they were talking about global greening because of the increase in carbon dioxide.

if true it could feed the world, why reduce it and start a doomsday campaign? ah wait a minute, i'm presuming they want to feed the world.
cut down your carbon dioxide so food can still be used as a weapon!

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8110948172856724694&q=truth +about+earth+duration%3Along&total=548&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search &plindex=3

i don't know if that is the case but if the mainstream media are promoting global warming, you can gauentee thats what they want you to think regardless of truths.

[TonyGosling]

Two possible explanations for 'Climate Change'

Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor
The Sun, Stanford University
Sunspots are plentiful nowadays
A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

have a listen here
British Royal Family: Depopulation and Global Warming
http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=25586

[Reflecter]

Interesting film marky 54. A very believable account from some varied scientists. Appears to be made in 1998 and to be semi tied to some consumer owned power companies. (A coal consortium apparently)

The greening earth website is here but appears to contain nothing of any use
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/

a related powerpoint piece
http://cliveg.bu.edu/greeningearth/ge.html

whilst Wikipedia casts some doubts on the motives of the organisation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greening_Earth_Society

as does this blog that also attacks the Great Warming Swindle film of Durkin's.
http://earthfamilyalpha.blogspot.com/2007/03/swindling-of-earth.html

[xmasdale]

[marky 54]

[xmasdale]

And another thing:

To me the important point does not seem to be whether or not global warming is mainly man-made, as much as whether warming, if it is happening (and it does appear to be, and appears through resultant sea-level rises to be threatening low-lying human communities) can be reduced by the prescriptions of mainstream climatologists: reduction of carbon emissions and increased carbon absorbtion through afforestation.

There appears still to be some doubt among climatologists as to whether increased CO2 increases temperature through the greenhouse effect or whether it reduces global temperatures due to the albedo (reflectance of the sun's energy through increased cloud and snow cover) effect. http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84 068db11f4&p=4

If there is currently a peak in sunspots, warming of planets including Earth seems a likely consequence based on previous astronomical and meterorological records. During the Little Ice Age astronomers observed sunspots to be at a minimum. http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011207iceage.html

In any case, based on natural cycles which produce ice ages of around 100,000 years duration, interspersed with warm interglacial periods lasting 11,000 years or so, we are now near the end of a warm interglacial and are therefore probably due for a new ice age. No one seems to know why solar output is currently at a high but, given the fact that these things tend to go in natural cycles, it could be that the current warming is primarily due to increased solar output (increase in sun-spots) and that it will soon come to an end. We could then plunge into an ice-age.

Whether increased carbon emissions will increase or reduce the intensity of that ice age, I have no idea.

But I cannot believe that removal of the natural forest cover of planet Earth, burning it and also burning carbon based fuels extracted from the ground can be good for Mother Earth. Moreover, deforestation is a disaster for biodiversity. Therefore whether current warming is due to human activity or not, I am in favour of conserving and expanding forests, increasing soil mineralisation which improves its fertility, reducing the amount of carbon we burn and developing alternative sources of energy, but not nuclear fission.

[xmasdale]

[marky 54]

[GazeboflossUK]

It seems that the huge push to agree on a mass reduction of human activity produced CO2 (and a global carbon tax) is going forward, day by day. Now, it feels like the whole issue of gaining Americas Neo-con (plus others) support is building up to some sort of battle - between "global warming" religion type groups and the folk currently against the UN/IPCC based proposals.

It's quite possible that this battle/obstacle is engineered.....

So - Consider that most people (in UK from my experience) believe 'man made' global warming is the problem - and groups like greenpeace/friends of the earth do get large public support on this.

Now, if/when a mass CO2 reduction treaty (and a sly carbon tax) is agreed it will feel like a win for the PUBLIC....and a loss for the big governments/neo-cons.

When in reality it's a victory for the PTB/NWO that was fought and won by the 'people'. "WE DID IT!!" headlines.

Just a thought.

[Andrew.]

''Alas! if only it were that simple….''


RealClimate - Commentary on climate science news ''by working climate scientists''

http://www.realclimate.org/

On Thursday March 8th, the UK TV Channel 4 aired a programme titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". We were hoping for important revelations and final proof that we have all been hornswoggled by the climate Illuminati, but it just repeated the usual specious claims we hear all the time. We feel swindled. Indeed we are not the only ones: Carl Wunsch (who was a surprise addition to the cast) was apparently misled into thinking this was going to be a balanced look at the issues (the producers have a history of doing this), but who found himself put into a very different context indeed [Update: a full letter from Wunsch appears as comment 109 on this post]
So what did they have to say for themselves?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/


12 February 2007
Nigel Calder in the Times
Filed under: RC ForumSun-earth connectionsClimate Science— group @ 1:24 PM
As a prelude to a new book, Nigel Calder (who was the editor of New Scientist for four years in the 1960s) has written an op-ed for the Times (UK) basically recapitulating the hype over the Svensmark cosmic ray/climate experiments we reported on a couple of month ago (see Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin). At the time we pointed out that while the experiments were potentially of interest, they are a long way from actually demonstrating an influence of cosmic rays on the real world climate, and in no way justify the hyperbole that Svensmark and colleagues put into their press releases and more 'popular' pieces. Even if the evidence for solar forcing were legitimate, any bizarre calculus that takes evidence for solar forcing of climate as evidence against greenhouse gases for current climate change is simply wrong. Whether cosmic rays are correlated with climate or not, they have been regularly measured by the neutron monitor at Climax Station (Colorado) since 1953 and show no long term trend. No trend = no explanation for current changes.
Share This Comments (pop-up) (213) Blog reactions

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science  /sun-earth-connections/


Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin
Filed under: AerosolsSun-earth connectionsClimate Science— gavin @ 8:38 AM
In 1859, John Tyndall's laboratory experiments showed that water vapour and carbon dioxide absorb infra-red radiation and that they could therefore affect the climate of the Earth. As soon as his paper was published (1861) in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, he put out a press release for the London newspapers explaining that this result implied that all past climate changes were now understood and all future climate changes could be predicted simply from a knowledge of the concentrations of these 'greenhouse' gases…
Fast forward to 2006: Svensmark and colleagues' laboratory experiments show that highly ionizing radiation can create ultra-small aerosol particles. As soon as the paper is published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, they put out a press release for the world's newspapers explaining that this result implied that all past climate changes were now understood and all future climate changes could be predicted simply from a knowledge of the intensity of these 'cosmic rays'….
History repeating itself? Well, not exactly. Tyndall actually restricted himself to describing his experiments and simply linking it to the work of Fourier a few decades earlier. It took more than another century before the credible quantitative estimates of these effects and their influence on past and possibly future climate were made, along with good enough observations of the gases to know that they have (and continue) to change significantly. However, Svensmark and colleagues, not wanting to wait for the credible quantitative results to come in, instead short circuited all of that tedious follow-up work, scaling up to realistic conditions, theoretical and modelling studies demonstrating that their effect was indeed viable, and simply declared in their press materials that the team had 'discovered that cosmic rays play a big part in the everyday weather' and 'brings to a climax a scientific quest that has lasted two centuries'. Nobel prizes all round then.
Alas! if only it were that simple….



LLTF

Andrew.

[Alex_V]

For a direct response to the study...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposp here-trends/#more-509

Perhaps the consensus is not quite as shattered as Paul Watson would like to believe.

[Justin]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/121207_scientists_sh unned.htm

[rubber_ritchie]

I find it funny how Prison Planet i.e. Alex Jones puts so much energy into attacking the environmental movement. I am skeptical about the science of 'climate change' but it is raising issues around the environment; deforestation, cleaner energy, etc. Can that be a bad thing? I suspect some in the 'truth' movement such as Alex Jones don't like environmentalism becuase it suggests we may have change our lifestyles like driving a smaller (or no) car, flying less, eating less meat and dairy. It's easy to point the finger...'It's all the New World Order'. How about 'be the change you wish to see in the world'. Now that is a lot harder.

[TmcMistress]

I suspect that Jones doesn't like it because, deep down, he's really a right-winger trying to pass himself off as non-partisan, and railing against the environmental movement is one of those few moments when his 'true colors', so to speak, really shine. For all his talk of freedom, dude is pretty obviously frightened of change in a lot of areas, or at least those areas that don't coincide with his idea of a better world.

It's a bit like listening to Jesse Ventura on Politically Incorrect years ago, going on about how "Americans have the god-given right to drive b****** gas-guzzling SUV's!" (paraphrased just slightly)

[Justin]

Both David Icke and myself started out as Green Party activists - in fact we first met twenty years ago in 1987 when we were both serving on Green Party Council. Then we believed that the Greens' political manifesto was one hundred per cent right and any person who questioned it was either simply ignorant to, or dreadfully selfish of, the planet's woes.

David has been at the cutting edge of exposing the appalling global agenda that the NWO has lined up for all of us since 1990. He has been right everytime about how things would turn out. He has also directly accused dozens, if not hundreds of high profile people of involvement with the NWO and not one high profile person has dared to threaten legal action against him......that speaks volumes.

Alex Jones is absolutely right in that he sees, like David and I do, that the Green Movement, (which is largely made up of lovely, sincere and gentle people who genuinely want to see the world made a much, much better place) has been hijacked by operatives of the NWO. The Green Parties in the UK have never questioned the existence of the network of secret societies and organisations (Bilderberg et al) that clearly exist to coordinate the NWO's activities. They, especially their leadership, don't want a new enquiry into what really happened on 9/11. They have never looked at REAL history....ie. who really started and funded WW1 and WW2. They are oblivious to the Banking scams that are putting people and countries into appalling debt. They refuse to look deep down the Rabbit Hole at cutting edge Quantum Physics (that amongst other things exposes the lie that everything is finite!). And whilst they support the rights of the indigenous peoples of the world to continue to live in harmony with nature, they won't look at and take on board the wisdom and oral histories of these wonderful peoples - especially their 'memory' of what happened thousands of years ago (Atlantis, Lemuria etc.). And now they have jumped into bed with Al Gore (a practising satanist) over Man Made Global Warming - not suspecting for a moment they are being used in the slow but determined build up towards a Malthusian cull of the world's population.

If you doubt any of this, please either buy or borrow from your local library David's latest book 'The David Icke Guide to the Global Conspiracy (and how to end it)':

http://www.davidickebooks.co.uk/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=50

Don't be afraid to go deep down that Rabbit Hole - it's all fantastic what's coming!

[TmcMistress]

I respect Icke in that he totally supports people who disagree with him, and doesn't try to shout them down, a la Mr. Jones.

Which is good, because I disagree with dear David on a great many things.

(note to self: Must try to remember that ba***rd counts as foul language on that side of the pond...)

[outsider]

In the '60's I remember reading an article claiming it was criminal to burn hydrocarbons when they could be used as building blocks for all kinds of useful products. I cannot muster any convincing statistics or arguments, but I don't want readers of this forum to think most of us don't believe that deforestation and burning fossil fuels causes 'global warming'. I for one do believe we are causing this, but frankly I couldn't care less, as the NWO have other 'nasties' lined up for us, which should be our priority.
The Neo-Con/Neo-Fascists know very well the damage that is being caused, but they're 'not boverred'; they know there will be enough for them, after they 'cull' 80% of the world's population, as is their avowed plan, alluded to in 'Project For A New American Century' document.
I must admit I'm surprised so many posters support the 'Natural Cycle' argument, but then there are many 'Beamers', 'Space Visitors', 'No Planers' and 'Video Hoaxers' (such as myself). Ah well, live and let live.
Perhaps the only proposition we are not likely to get from our posters is a recommendation for Bush/Bliar to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, but perhaps I'd better not rule it out...

[GazeboflossUK]

[Leiff]

Are Carbon Emissions the Cause of Global Warming?
By David Evans 12/11/2007

http://www.mises.org/story/2795

The natural science of climatology and the social science of economics find themselves bound up with each other in the debate on global warming.

There are many economic issues to discuss concerning the government's ability to control the future of weather patterns through regulation and the like.

But so far, the debate has focused on the natural-science question of whether global warming is actually occurring, and, if so, what its cause is. Here is where the popular understanding is very much in need of correction.

A paper I wrote, "I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train," briefly describes the history of why we used to believe that carbon emissions caused global warming, and how we got to where we are now in the debate.

Ice Core Data Reverses — 2003

First crucial point, 2003: We've all seen Al Gore's movie. It was the early, low resolution ice core data first gathered in 1985 that convinced the world that CO2 was the culprit: CO2 levels and temperature rose and fell in lockstep over the last half a million years, to the resolution of the old ice core data (results from 1985–2000, data points over a thousand years apart). It was assumed (bad assumption #1) that CO2 levels controlled the world's temperature.

After further research, new high-resolution ice core results (data points only a few hundred years apart) in 2000–2003 allowed us to distinguish which came first, the temperature rises or the CO2 rises. We found that temperature changes preceded CO2 changes by an average of 800 years. So temperature caused the CO2 levels, and not the other way around as previously assumed. The world should have started backpedaling away from blaming carbon emissions in 2003.

Greenhouse Signature Missing — 2007

Second crucial point, August 2007: There are several possible causes of global warming, and they each warm the atmosphere at different latitudes and altitudes — that is, each cause will produce a distinct pattern of hot spots in the atmosphere, or "signature." The greenhouse signature is very distinct from the others: warming due to greenhouse would cause most warming in the tropics at about 10 km up in the atmosphere:

As of August 2007, we've measured where the warming is occurring in a fair bit of detail, using satellites and balloons. The observed signature is nothing like the greenhouse signature. The distinct greenhouse signature is entirely missing:

There is no hotspot in the tropics at 10 km up, so now we know that greenhouse warming is not the (main) cause of global warming — so we know that carbon emissions are not the (main) cause of global warming.

Of course these observations need to be repeated by other researchers before we can be completely sure, but they are made by top-notch researchers and reported in top-of-the-line, peer-reviewed journals; so at this stage they look solid. This article from August 2007 is a hard read, but the results are new, it is the most accessible on the web so far, and is much easier to understand than the raw scientific papers:

Where the IPCC Models Went Wrong — 2007

So why did we go wrong? Another set of recent observations show why the UN climate models got it wrong.

Doubling atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280ppm up to 560ppm (which is roughly where the IPCC says we will be in 2100) is calculated to raise the world's air temperature by 1.2C in the absence of feedbacks such as convection and clouds. This is what you would get if the air was in a flask in a laboratory. Everyone roughly agrees with that calculated result.

But the modelers assumed (bad assumption #2) that increased warming would cause more rainfall, which would cause more clouds high up in the atmosphere — and since high clouds have a net warming effect, this would cause more warming and thus more rainfall and so on. It is this positive feedback that causes the UN climate models to predict a temperature rise due to a rise in CO2 to 560ppm to be 2.5C - 4.7C (of which we have already experienced 0.7C).

But in September 2007, Spencer, who spent a few years observing the temperatures, clouds, and rainfall, reported that warming is actually associated with fewer high clouds. So the observed feedback is actually negative, so we won't even get the full 1.2C of greenhouse warming even if carbon levels double!

As Spencer says with such understatement, Global warming theory says warming will generally be accompanied by more rainfall. Everyone just assumed that more rainfall means more high altitude clouds. That would be your first guess and, since we didn't have any data to suggest otherwise….

Science is about observational evidence trumping theoretical calculations, which is exactly what is happening here:

Warming Already Waning

The only temperature data we can trust are satellite measurements, and they only go back to 1979.

They show no warming in the southern hemisphere, and the warming trend in the northern hemisphere appears to have waned since 2001:

Three Stages of Knowledge and the IPCC

Our scientific understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:

1985–2003
Old ice core data led us to strongly suspect that CO2 causes global warming.

2003–2007
New ice core data eliminated previous reason for suspecting CO2. No evidence to suspect or exonerate CO2.

From Aug 2007
Know for sure that greenhouse is not causing global warming. CO2 no longer a suspect.

The IPCC 2007 report (the latest and greatest from the IPCC) is based on all scientific literature up to mid 2006. The Bali Conference is the bureaucratic response to that report. Too bad that the data has changed since then!