Are we being duped about global warming?

Question

Why wasn't this reported?

See http://devilskitchen.me.uk/

Answer 1

I agree to a degree, we need more research on the matter, but I have to admit the climate/weather has drastically changed even in my lifetime. Something is happening and it's not good, now I don't know if we are doing it or if it is something else.

We need more research by an independent party, not by politicians and not by environmentalists as both have preconceived ideas.

Answer 2

Yes.  Global warming theorists have now become members of the flat earth society.

Global warming was mathematically proven wrong last summer (the data in Gore's movie was wrong). Also, there was worldwide global cooling last year. Too bad liberal media doesn't tell their viewers the truth about the theory.  

2008:

"Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming" Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously."

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mon...

Movie data is wrong:

"The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just second; 1921 is third."

"Last week, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- whose temperature records are a key component of the global-warming claim (and whose director, James Hansen, is a sort of godfather of global-warming alarmism) -- quietly corrected an error in its data set that had made recent temperatures seem warmer than they really were" (Other countries have similar temperature records. Japan's own independent records show 1933 was their hottest year.)

Temperatures in the 1900's fell while CO2 increased. 1998 was not the hottest year on record.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgVDugSuP...

Because of recently launced satellites, we now know the sun's temperature is changing constantly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kriqm3DIT...

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?...

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?i...

NASA data has shown minute changes in the can change the temperature of the earth dramatically. In fact, NASA has proven the sun caused the world to leave the great ice age in less than 20 years. That is extremely fast from a geological standpoint.

The ice age ended with glacier and ice covered Canada and the upper U.S. melting. Melting ice from cycles of ice ages carved the grand canyon and carved undersea canyons in the Gulf of Mexico.

Also, NASA data has proved that the "Little Ice Age" during medieval times was caused by less light reaching the earth ("solar variability", which means changes in the sun). NASA's data about the little ice age: http://tinyurl.com/227h3p (This data can be copied and pasted it into Excel to chart it.)

Other facts:

1) 6,000 years ago, the earth was hotter than it is today. There were no Hummers around back then.

2) 140,000 years ago the earth had record CO2 levels and there were no gasoline powered cars.

3) The temperature of the Earth has only increased by 0.65 of a degree in the last 110 years. There were faster increases in temperatures around 10,000 years ago and there were no gasoline powered cars during that time.

4) Strong hurricanes are normal. Hundreds of years ago, they used to sink ships off of the coast of Florida.

NASA website: "Rapid changes between ice ages and warm periods (called interglacials) are recorded in the Greenland ice sheet. Occurring over ONE OR TWO DECADES [10 or 20 years] , the warming of the Earth at the end of the last ice age happened much faster than the rate of change of the Earth’s orbit."

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/P...

"the Earth will be facing a slow decrease intemperatures in 2012-2015. The gradual cooling will reach itsmaximum by 2040, and lead to a deep freeze around 2050 to2060."

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Ar...

A scientific explanation for climate change:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Ar...

Sea levels will not rise by much says the U.N.'s global warming committee (IPCC). The IPCC predict only a 2 foot rise in sea level.

About The Global Warming Theory, Should Democrats Be Using It For Other Agendas?http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 3

The icebergs have been melting for the last 10,000yrs.Dont tell me that in the space of the last few yrs the Earth is going to suffer such dramatic changes.What is happening now has happened before.This beautiful place we call earth has been here for millions of yrs.The Industrial Revolution that began 100 yrs ago will not materially have effect to the degree of destruction.It will take much more than that to have a marked effect.It is agreed we must be more prudent on emmisions but only for the sake of inhaling the stuff.

    This latest scare will pass its all about money our money.

Answer 4

The length of a human lifespan is like a ripple on the ocean of geological time.  Ice ages are coming and going like the tide, and people are panicking over the position of the current wave... and did we put our foot in that wave?

People saying, "Oh gosh, it's hotter than when I was a kid!"  Really?  Even according to global warming (sorry, 'climate change') proponents, we're talking about 1 DEGREE over the course of a century.  Is that what you felt?  It was 78 degrees today, and someone swears it would have been 77.5 degrees on a day like this 50 years ago?  Maybe they're just a bit more whiny than than when they were a kid?  Oh, no that couldn't be it!

It's all popular nonsense.  With heavy government sponsorship.

Answer 5

It was reported (coverage by CNN at link below).  And the only people being "duped" are those who believe that after 30 years of extensive research and mountains of peer reviewed scientific journal articles, real practicing climate scientists still don't know anything about the cause of our warming.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/20...

Answer 6

Yes..... Big Time!

Answer 7

Go to

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p.htm

CO2 studies & Temperature



Figure 1: Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (3). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000-year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean. A value of 0.25 °C, which is the change in Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975 data in order to provide a 2006 temperature value.

The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age, as shown in Figure 1. George Washington and his army were at Valley Forge during the coldest era in 1,500 years, but even then the temperature was only about 1° Centigrade below the 3,000-year average.



Figure 2: Average length of 169 glaciers from 1700 to 2000 (4). The principal source of melt energy is solar radiation. Variations in glacier mass and length are primarily due to temperature and precipitation (5,6). This melting trend lags the temperature increase by about 20 years, so it predates the 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use (7) even more than shown in the figure. Hydrocarbon use could not have caused this shortening trend.

The most recent part of this warming period is reflected by shortening of world glaciers, as shown in Figure 2. Glaciers regularly lengthen and shorten in delayed correlation with cooling and warming trends. Shortening lags temperature by about 20 years, so the current warming trend began in about 1800.



Figure 3: Arctic surface air temperature compared with total solar irradiance as measured by sunspot cycle amplitude, sunspot cycle length, solar equatorial rotation rate, fraction of penumbral spots, and decay rate of the 11-year sunspot cycle (8,9). Solar irradiance correlates well with Arctic temperature, while hydrocarbon use (7) does not correlate.

Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity as shown in Figure 3; by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood. While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length.

While Figure 1 is illustrative of most geographical locations, there is great variability of temperature records with location and regional climate. Comprehensive surveys of published temperature records confirm the principal features of Figure 1, including the fact that the current Earth temperature is approximately 1 °C lower than that during the Medieval Climate Optimum 1,000 years ago (11,12).



Figure 4: Annual mean surface temperatures in the contiguous United States between 1880 and 2006 (10). The slope of the least-squares trend line for this 127-year record is 0.5 ºC per century.

Surface temperatures in the United States during the past century reflect this natural warming trend and its correlation with solar activity, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. Compiled U.S. surface temperatures have increased about 0.5 °C per century, which is consistent with other historical values of 0.4 to 0.5 °C per century during the recovery from the Little Ice Age (13-17). This temperature change is slight as compared with other natural variations, as shown in Figure 6. Three intermediate trends are evident, including the decreasing trend used to justify fears of "global cooling" in the 1970s.



Figure 5: U.S. surface temperature from Figure 4 as compared with total solar irradiance (19) from Figure 3.

Between 1900 and 2000, on absolute scales of solar irradiance and degrees Kelvin, solar activity increased 0.19%, while a 0.5 °C temperature change is 0.21%. This is in good agreement with estimates that Earth's temperature would be reduced by 0.6 °C through particulate blocking of the sun by 0.2% (18).



Figure 6: Comparison between the current U.S. temperature change per century, the 3,000-year temperature range in Figure 1, seasonal and diurnal range in Oregon, and seasonal and diurnal range throughout the Earth.

Solar activity and U.S. surface temperature are closely correlated, as shown in Figure 5, but U.S. surface temperature and world hydrocarbon use are not correlated, as shown in Figure 13.

The U.S. temperature trend is so slight that, were the temperature change which has taken place during the 20th and 21st centuries to occur in an ordinary room, most of the people in the room would be unaware of it.



Figure 7: Annual precipitation in the contiguous 48 United States between 1895 and 2006. U.S. National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce 2006 Climate Review (20). The trend shows an increase in rainfall of 1.8 inches per century – approximately 6% per century.

During the current period of recovery from the Little Ice Age, the U.S. climate has improved somewhat, with more rainfall, fewer tornados, and no increase in hurricane activity, as illustrated in Figures 7 to 10. Sea level has trended upward for the past 150 years at a rate of 7 inches per century, with 3 intermediate uptrends and 2 periods of no increase as shown in Figure 11. These features are confirmed by the glacier record as shown in Figure 12. If this trend continues as did that prior to the Medieval Climate Optimum, sea level would be expected to rise about 1 foot during the next 200 years.

As shown in Figures 2, 11, and 12, the trends in glacier shortening and sea level rise began a century before the 60-year 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use, and have not changed during that increase. Hydrocarbon use could not have caused these trends.



Figure 8: Annual number of strong-to-violent category F3 to F5 tornados during the March-to-August tornado season in the U.S. between 1950 and 2006. U.S. National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce 2006 Climate Review (20). During this period, world hydrocarbon use increased 6-fold, while violent tornado frequency decreased by 43%.

During the past 50 years, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 22%. Much of that CO2 increase is attributable to the 6-fold increase in human use of hydrocarbon energy. Figures 2, 3, 11, 12, and 13 show, however, that human use of hydrocarbons has not caused the observed increases in temperature.

The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has, however, had a substantial environmental effect. Atmospheric CO2 fertilizes plants. Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century. Increased temperature has also mildly stimulated plant growth.



Figure 9: Annual number of Atlantic hurricanes that made landfall between 1900 and 2006 (21). Line is drawn at mean value.

Does a catastrophic amplification of these trends with damaging climatological consequences lie ahead? There are no experimental data that suggest this. There is also no experimentally validated theoretical evidence of such an amplification.

Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence – actual measurements of Earth's temperature and climate – shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, during four of the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels steadily increased, U.S. average temperatures were actually decreasing. While CO2 levels have increased substantially and are expected to continue doing so and humans have been responsible for part of this increase, the effect on the environment has been benign.

There is, however, one very dangerous possibility.

Our industrial and technological civilization depends upon abundant, low-cost energy. This civilization has already brought unprecedented prosperity to the people of the more developed nations. Billions of people in the less developed nations are now lifting themselves from poverty by adopting this technology.



Figure 10: Annual number of violent hurricanes and maximum attained wind speed during those hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean between 1944 and 2006 (22,23). There is no upward trend in either of these records. During this period, world hydrocarbon use increased 6-fold. Lines are mean values.

Hydrocarbons are essential sources of energy to sustain and extend prosperity. This is especially true of the developing nations, where available capital and technology are insufficient to meet rapidly increasing energy needs without extensive use of hydrocarbon fuels. If, through misunderstanding of the underlying science and through misguided public fear and hysteria, mankind significantly rations and restricts the use of hydrocarbons, the worldwide increase in prosperity will stop. The result would be vast human suffering and the loss of hundreds of millions of human lives. Moreover, the prosperity of those in the developed countries would be greatly reduced.



Figure 11: Global sea level measured by surface gauges between 1807 and 2002 (24) and by satellite between 1993 and 2006 (25). Satellite measurements are shown in gray and agree with tide gauge measurements. The overall trend is an increase of 7 inches per century. Intermediate trends are 9, 0, 12, 0, and 12 inches per century, respectively. This trend lags the temperature increase, so it predates the increa

Answer 8

"a bush family member" You should check your facts you mention 'Australia' in your list of cold places this is simply not true Melbourne has been in the mid 30c's for a week with a 40c a few days ago (104F) which is a ten years record for March. Melbourne also had heatwaves in January when it hit 41, not that cold really. Adelaide has just broken its record for consecutive days (8) with a temp over 35c. This doesn’t seem like cold to me.

Edit: "Tuba in the Rose Parade" for me it's not really analysis I just have to open a window, I’m in Adelaide, although I do like bananas.

Answer 9

GLOBAL WARMING FEAR MONGERS ARE MERELY A CULT!

The sun cannot be attributed to global warming????  ROTFLMAO

That kind of thinking makes me feel much better!

Answer 10

Yes, the anthropogenic global warming group is all about control.  They really do not give a d@mn about the planet, its resources, or the people.  They want control.

Here is truth about global warming:

Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.

The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.

This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.

Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is

becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).

As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).

When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.

It's been happening for millions of years.

The worrisome and brutal predictions of drastic climate effects are based on computer models, NOT CLIMATE HISTORY.

As you probably know, computer models are not the most reliable of sources, especially when used to 'predict' chaotic systems such as weather.

Global warming/cooling, AKA 'climate change':

Humans did not cause it.

Humans cannot stop it.

Answer 11

We're being duped by both sides. The only way to get a clear image is to look at the pure data. However, most of us aren't capable of analysing the data without bias, which is why we must rely on scientists. And the most accurate thing to do is listen to the majority of scientists (peer-reviewed organisations), or find the most credible sources.

Its very easy to mislead people with science.

(By the way, what has your link got to do with climate change? Even if it did have something to say, i'd rather listen to scientists than politicians).

Answer 12

Yes, we are being duped with propaganda that proposes that there is doubt about global warming and its causes.  The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change was created by a special interest group, the Heartland Institute:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfact...

The Heartland Institute created a website in the Spring of 2007, www.globalwarmingheartland.org, which asserts there is no scientific consensus on global warming and features a list of experts and a list of like-minded think tanks, many of whom have received funding from ExxonMobil and other polluters."

"The Heartland Institute formerly sponsored and hosted www.climatesearch.org, a web page ostensibly dedicated to objective research on global warming, but at the same time presenting heavily biased research by organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute as an FAQ section."

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.p...

Funding

Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1997 $unknown Mobil Corporation

Source: Heartland material, present at 3/16/97 conference

1998 $30,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list

2000 $115,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Climate Change

Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2001 $90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report

2002 $15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

2003 $7,500 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

19th Aniversary Benefit Dinner

Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2003 $85,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

General Operating Support

Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2004 $10,000 Exxon Corporation

Climate Change Activities

Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2004 $15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Climate Change Efforts

Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2004 $75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

General Operating Support

Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2005 $29,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

2005  $90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

2006  $90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

General Operating Support

Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

2006  $10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Anniversary benefit dinner

Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

2006  $15,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

General Operating Support

Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

So yes, I believe that organizations such as this will dupe you every chance they get, and that they are paid to do so.

Apparently the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change wasn't widely reported because it was recognized as a Heartland Institute publicity stunt.

Answer 13

It's fascinating to watch you guys "analyze" random scientific (and other) data you pull in from hither and yon.  It's sort of like watching a roomful of gibbons trying to figure out a television set.

Answer 14

My take on this is that the sun is radiating electromagnetic energy in a non constant manner coupled with the earth being infulence by gravitational force which makes it at times farther and at times neared to the sun. This I believe makes up the earths climatic cycle. Of course theres also the factor of other cosmic bodies colliding with earth thus triggering a change.

Answer 15

No we are not

Try coming to Australia at the moment if you can handle the heat we are having here in March.

I see USA is still getting snow so is Canada now the UK is getting some pretty awful storms,its a bit more than evolution and to tell the truth I did not think I would see it in my life time

Answer 16

No, we're not being duped..

This "conference" was just a publicity stunt by a right wing organization.  Few of the attendees were climatologists.  The arguments that were raised were tired, and long discredited by science.  See  "26 myths" here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

The legitimate skeptics like Richard Lindzen of MIT did not attend, quite likely because they didn't want their work tainted by this association.

It was reported widely.  But it wasn't front page news because....   it wasn't front page news.  The appropriately small story in the conservative Wall Street Journal was balanced, and had an appropriate title:

"Heating up the Global Warming Debate, If There Still Is One"

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapita...

Answer 17

Hmmm, not so sure about some of the sources quoted above:

From Yahoo news (December 2007):

'PARIS (AFP) - Scientists on Wednesday said that the rise in global temperatures that has been detected over the past two decades cannot be blamed on the Sun, a theory espoused by climate-change sceptics.

British and Swiss researchers looked at data for radiation from the Sun, levels of which can cool or warm our planet's atmosphere.

They factored in a cycle which solar radiation goes through peaks and troughs of activity over a period of about 11 years.

Writing in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, a journal of Britain's de-facto academy of sciences, the team said that the Sun had been less active since 1985, even though global temperatures have continued to rise.

"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures," they write.

The study is co-authored by Mike Lockwood of Britain's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Centre in Switzerland.

The overwhelming consensus among scientists is that human activity is to blame for the rise in global temperatures. In its latest report, issued this year, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that this warming is already affecting the climate system.

Since 1900, the mean global atmospheric temperature has risen by 0.8 C (1.44 F), and the sea level by 10-20 centimetres (four to eight inches).

Levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, have risen by around a third since the Industrial Revolution and are now at their highest in 650,000 years. Eleven of the past 12 years rank among the dozen warmest years on record.

In the past few years, glaciers and snow and ice cover have fallen back sharply in alpine regions, the edges of the Greenland icesheet and on the Antarctic peninsula have shrunk, Arctic summer sea ice has thinned and retreated and Siberian and Canadian permafrost have shown signs of thaw and fallback.'

There's this too, from The Guardian newspaper:

'Drs Etherington and Bellamy claim global temperatures have fallen since 1998 and are now close to the 1961-90 average (Letters, March 4); they are wrong. The latest data from the Climate Research Unit at Norwich shows a spike indeed in 1998, but thereafter a return to the steadily rising trend. The 2007 average temperature is some 0.6 degrees warmer than the 1961-1990 average.

Rev Professor Ian James

School of physics, University of Reading'

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/20...