I just loved the title... 
Posted: October 20, 2008, 10:26 AM by Kelly McParland
Lorne Gunter, Ful Comment

In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.

Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures -- they're going down, not up.

On the same day (Sept. 5) that areas of southern Brazil were recording one of their latest winter snowfalls ever and entering what turned out to be their coldest September in a century, Brazilian meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart explained that extreme cold or snowfall events in his country have always been tied to "a negative PDO" or Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Positive PDOs -- El Ninos -- produce above-average temperatures in South America while negative ones -- La Ninas -- produce below average ones.

Dr. Hackbart also pointed out that periods of solar inactivity known as "solar minimums" magnify cold spells on his continent. So, given that August was the first month since 1913 in which no sunspot activity was recorded -- none -- and during which solar winds were at a 50-year low, he was not surprised that Brazilians were suffering (for them) a brutal cold snap. "This is no coincidence," he said as he scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate.

Also in September, American Craig Loehle, a scientist who conducts computer modelling on global climate change, confirmed his earlier findings that the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of about 1,000 years ago did in fact exist and was even warmer than 20th-century temperatures.

Prior to the past decade of climate hysteria and Kyoto hype, the MWP was a given in the scientific community. Several hundred studies of tree rings, lake and ocean floor sediment, ice cores and early written records of weather -- even harvest totals and censuses --confirmed that the period from 800 AD to 1300 AD was unusually warm, particularly in Northern Europe.

But in order to prove the climate scaremongers' claim that 20th-century warming had been dangerous and unprecedented -- a result of human, not natural factors -- the MWP had to be made to disappear. So studies such as Michael Mann's "hockey stick," in which there is no MWP and global temperatures rise gradually until they jump up in the industrial age, have been adopted by the UN as proof that recent climate change necessitates a reordering of human economies and societies.

Dr. Loehle's work helps end this deception.

Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, "It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling," as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an "almost exact correlation" between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost "no correlation at all with CO2."

An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, "Man-made global warming is junk science," explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ... This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number."

Other international scientists have called the manmade warming theory a "hoax," a "fraud" and simply "not credible."

While not stooping to such name-calling, weather-satellite scientists David Douglass of the University of Rochester and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville nonetheless dealt the True Believers a devastating blow last month.

For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide."

Moreover, while the chart below was not produced by Douglass and Christy, it was produced using their data and it clearly shows that in the past four years -- the period corresponding to reduced solar activity -- all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared.

It may be that more global warming doubters are surfacing because there just isn't any global warming.

That's so full of lies, half truths and contradictions that I don't know where to start.

The one by the good ol' boy Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C might be interesting to pull apart. When I have more time, I'll demonstrate the amazing slight of hand in that comment.

You must admit, they do a good job in churning this stuff out.

If I can show that a single part of that article is a tad on the nose, then the rest of it should be at least suspect of being extremely stinky.

The ironic thing about your remarks about astroturfing is that this article is an example of astroturfing par excellence.

- As for now, I have  work to do. Some bastard government has brought in new legislation, which means I have to be bored out of my skull for 3 days in Brisbane going through a formal training course, which will take me just as long to RPL, so it's easier just to attend, bite my lip and not complain.  

I'll tell you what. I'll post an explanation (OK a proof in your terminology) of how we know conclusively that increases in greenhouse gases result in accelerated warming, and you can try to find any mistakes, Grendel. (haven't I done that already? - oh that was the time you had to be somewh

How does that sound? I'll start on that next week.

The title of the thread? Who cares? Everybody has seen the graphs, and they know that something is definitely on the nose about everything (well almost everything) you cut and paste here.

Next time you're in the shopping Centre, just be careful to pick the right escalator. You seem to have a problem telling up from down.   

You know...  other people can read graphs.... 

Lots of scientists you don't recognise have cited that gem.

Nice try...  typical...  but not in the least convincing.  

Quote:

Read stuff from both sides mozz...  don't lie about me ok.

If you didn't ignore climate scientists who dissent from the AGW viewpoint we might make progress. 

I have engaged with Muso...  so far he proves to be a hypocrite and a liar.  oh dear.  I have no time for people who just like to name call and ridicule, whose main argument is shooting messengers and ignoring other points of view.

I don't have an extremist position.  In fact my position isn't fixed I have an open mind on the subject unlike yourself and Muso the Astroturfer.  I am as yet unconvinced that manmade co2 emissions is the major climate driver.

In fact Mozz NO ONE has proven that yet.  A FACT you keep ignoring.

Ahhh the truth is a powerful thing.

Grendel wrote on Jun 15^th, 2009 at 8:58pm:



Strawman. There was no huge input of CO2 during the periods cited.
The main driver then was fluctuations in Solar irradiance due to the Milankovich cycles.

However, it's true that there is a lag in temperature response. That basically means that the worst is yet to come.