Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Media Darling James Hansen Hypes Alarmism
As all of this new data debunking climate alarmism mounts, the mainstream media chooses to ignore it and instead focus on the dire predictions of the number-one global warming media darling, NASA’s James Hansen. The increasingly alarmist Hansen is featured frequently in the media to bolster sky-is-falling climate scare reports. His recent claim that the Earth is nearing its hottest point in one million years has been challenged by many scientists. See: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N39/EDITB.jsp
It's official: global warming isn’t happening
http://monkeytenniscentre.blogspot.com/2008/02/its-official-global-warming-isnt.html
Someone get Al Gore on the phone, and tell him that debate he keeps saying is settled has just been blown wide open again.
There’s been a steady stream of evidence that global temperatures have been falling over the past year or so, capped by reports from around the globe of record cold temperatures and snowfall over the past couple of months.
And now data released by the four major temperature monitoring centres is showing that global temperatures fell by an unprecedented amount – more than half a degree Celsius – over the past 12 months.
Online science magazine Daily Tech reports:
The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C - a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
'But hang on', the alarmists will say. 'Remember that a couple of years back, when we realised that global warming wasn’t keeping pace with our predictions, we started to talk about ‘climate change’ instead, and ‘climate change’ doesn’t necessarily mean hotter; it can mean colder, wetter, drier, or anything else we want it to mean.'
That’s true. But when they say that they’re talking about localised extreme weather conditions, all of which they claim are ultimately caused by steadily rising global temperatures, which in turn they claim are caused by rising CO2 emissions. Nowhere in the alarmists’ spin book is there provision for an entire year of such dramatic cooling over the planet as a whole. And last time I looked, those CO2 emissions were still increasing.
Why isn’t this huge news? Why isn’t this everywhere? It’s on many of the ‘skeptic’ blogs and websites, but it’s apparently yet to be picked up by the MSM.
We know why, of course. Too many environmental groups and trans-national bureaucracies, along with their lackies in the media, have too much invested in the biggest hoax of all time to admit that the game is up.
The BBC, for example, which has been acting as the unofficial PR outfit for the alarmists for years now, is far more interested in publicity stunts by environmental protestors (see this post, and they’re at it again today), than reporting evidence that pretty much proves that the threat the eco-warriors are protesting about doesn’t actually exist.
If the cooling continues eventually even the alarmists won’t be able to ignore it. And then they’ll either claim it’s down to ‘feedback mechanisms’ that we don’t fully understand (despite the fact that the 'science is settled') or they’ll tell us that this is exactly what they expected to see – some kind of correction before the runaway warming begins in earnest (hang on – they’re already doing that).
Maybe the International Conference on Climate Change, which opens on Sunday in New York and features many of the leading ‘skeptics’, will be able to get this development the coverage it deserves, although environmental groups are already spinning against the conference, and it won’t be a big surprise if the media largely ignores it.
Slowly but surely, however, the tide is turning, and eventually the alarmists’ position will become untenable. And when it does, someone will have to decide what we should do with those who have spent years abusing science and distorting truth for financial or political gain. Nuremberg-style trials anyone?
manacker: "This seems to be getting a bit repetitive, with your latest blurb: “Sun was responsible for all the global warming prior to 1970, at the most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin.
Got that yet, manacker?”
Yep. Got it."
That's odd, as you only seem to be getting part of it - the part that, presented alone, is taken out of context and grossly distorts what the authors of the report were clearly and unequivocally stressing.
Gee, what a coincidence.
Here's what the authors were literally stressing, again here with proper context:
We stress that solar variability is unlikely to be the prime cause of the strong warming during the last three decades... even under the extreme assumption that the Sun was responsible for all the global warming prior to 1970, at the most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin.
manacker: "Did you get this quote from another study:
“From the figures` we concluded that, if variability of the solar total irradiance is the main channel of the solar influence on climate” [i.e. ignoring the Svensmark hypothesis of cosmic ray flux impact on cloud formation as a solar influence on climate] “then less than 30% (50% in the Willson composite) of the dramatic temperature rise since 1970 can be attributed to the sun.”
So we are talking 30% to 50%, depending on whose study we are citing."
Of course I did - and if you read my previous post and comprehended it you would have known that.
So what part of:
-----------------
The very first paper you cited in your list, which included one of the same authors (Solanky) nonetheless puts all this in proper perspective:
we stress that solar variability is unlikely to be the prime cause of the strong warming during the last three decades... even under the extreme assumption that the Sun was responsible for all the global warming prior to 1970, at the most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin.
-----------------
in my response from that previous post did you not understand, manacker?
Was it the part where Solanky - again the same author - "stressed" that the 30% number was an "extreme" scenario?
Or was it the part where Solanky declared: "We stress that solar variability is unlikely to be the prime cause of the strong warming during the last three decades"?
Maybe you actually do understand those words and what they mean, manacker, but one would never know it from from your grossly misleading rhetoric.
__________________________
Per the U.S National Academy of Sciences, as well as numerous other national scientific bodies:
There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate... Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
