BleepingComputer.com: 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

[quote]Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily Telegraph.

The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".

Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

...

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.[/quote]

Complete article is [url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html#"]h e r e.[/url]

At some point we'll realize that we've been misled and that our CO2 emissions are not causing a catastrophic warming effect on the climate. Then, hopefully, we'll begin concentrating on what we really are doing that is not beneficial to the planet and work to correct those things.

[quote]At some point we'll realize that we've been misled and that our CO2 emissions are not causing a catastrophic warming effect on the climate.[/quote]

I am not sure I agree with that, but I would agree that so far we have been fed junk statistics to prove that global warming is real. For anybody that has read or seen An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore, there is plenty to criticize. For instance, at one point, the case is made that several cities, in a given year, set record high temperatures. That is hardly earth shattering since out of all of the cities from which temperatures are recorded, there is bound to be a few that had record highs. IIRC, it was 6 out of about 6000 cities reporting. And a little extra research that I did found that in the same year, 5 out of those 6 cities experienced record low temperatures.

I have no doubt that man has an impact on the climate though. I just want to see actual irrefutable science before I buy into it.

On another interesting note, the CO2 levels half a billion years ago were 20 times higher than they are now, if science can be believed.

There certainly seem to be differences on the Subject, World wide as this shows?

[quote]Natural disasters 'kill 220,000 in 2008 AEST Mon Dec 29 2008

Natural disasters killed more than 220,000 people in 2008, making it one of the most devastating years on record and confirming that a global climate deal is badly needed, the world's number two reinsurer says.

Although the number of natural disasters was lower than in 2007, the catastrophes in 2008 were more destructive in terms of the number of victims and the financial cost of the damage caused, Germany-based Munich Re said in its annual assessment on Monday.

Most devastating was Cyclone Nargis, which battered Burma in May to kill more than 135,000 people, and the earthquake that shook China's Sichuan province the same month which left 70,000 dead, 18,000 missing and almost five million homeless, Munich Re said.

"This continues the long-term trend we have been observing.

"Climate change has already started and is very probably contributing to increasingly frequent weather extremes and ensuing natural catastrophes," Munich Re board member Torsten Jeworrek said in a statement.

The world needed "effective and binding rules on CO2 emissions, so that climate change is curbed and future generations do not have to live with weather scenarios that are difficult to control," Jeworrek said.[/quote]

[url="http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=704783"]http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=704783[/url]

You are never going to get consensus on this Subject,as even respected Scientists can't agree.
The main thing is that each and every one of us,looks after the environment for future Generations.
I am on the fence,as to whether Global warming is actually taking place or not.
I will say the Earth does an excellent job of regenerating itself.
Found this an interesting read.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

[quote name='DSTM' post='1066077' date='Dec 29 2008, 09:53 PM']You are never going to get consensus on this Subject,as even respected Scientists can't agree.
The main thing is that each and every one of us,looks after the environment for future Generations.
I am on the fence,as to whether Global warming is actually taking place or not.
I will say the Earth does an excellent job of regenerating itself.
Found this an interesting read.
[url="http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html"]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html[/url][/quote]


Actually, DSTM, I was thinking along those lines when I watched a Female Whale and her Calf being winched on board a Whaling Ship! Most people were Horrorfied, but the reality is the Calf would never have survived without her.

Same happens to all Animals, including our Kangaroos?

If you are going to do a Job, just do it Properly?

[quote name='groovicus' post='1065637' date='Dec 28 2008, 09:51 PM'][quote]At some point we'll realize that we've been misled and that our CO2 emissions are not causing a catastrophic warming effect on the climate.[/quote]

I am not sure I agree with that, but I would agree that so far we have been fed junk statistics to prove that global warming is real. [/quote]

Well, we agree on that, at least.

If we are causing "Global Warming", then why do it's supporters need to use junk statistics, junk science and misleading information to show it?

[quote]For anybody that has read or seen An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore, there is plenty to criticize. For instance, at one point, the case is made that several cities, in a given year, set record high temperatures. That is hardly earth shattering since out of all of the cities from which temperatures are recorded, there is bound to be a few that had record highs. IIRC, it was 6 out of about 6000 cities reporting. And a little extra research that I did found that in the same year, 5 out of those 6 cities experienced record low temperatures.[/quote]

That's a good example. In that same movie, Gore shows a thousands of year graph of temperature rising and falling (some 20 plus feet of this line) and then shows a line of CO2 rising and falling on the same graphic. He says of the two lines which match up very well "When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer" (At the 47 second mark, [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRaeEIN5Sh8"]h e r e[/url], and in many other videos that show this). The problem - if you take those two lines and put them on the same graph with the dates on it (rather than just two lines with no reference point, like Gore does), you'll discover that throughout that entire time, temperatures rise and fall first, followed by the change in CO2 levels. Exactly opposite of what Gore says.

Yet, somehow, millions of people believe Gore.


[quote]I have no doubt that man has an impact on the climate though. I just want to see actual irrefutable science before I buy into it.[/quote]

I know we do, at least on the local level, in many places around the world. However, it isn't due to our CO2 emissions. An example - Mt. Kilimanjaro has been losing it's snow and ice. The reason has been determined to be directly related to deforestation around the base of the mountain which has caused less moisture to be released in the air - less moisture equals less snow on the mountain.

Uh, not surprisingly, Al Gore in the movie, doesn't see it that way. Of course, it would be inconvenient to him to discuss the truth.

[quote]On another interesting note, the CO2 levels half a billion years ago were 20 times higher than they are now, if science can be believed.[/quote]

Yes, and the planet was destroyed and left lifeless and remains barren even to this day.



Seriously, you are correct, we have had much higher levels of CO2 before. In fact, the plant life on the planet is loving the new CO2 levels. Crops grow faster, healthier, and produce more food. This extra harvest could help feed the hungry around the world. Why would we want to reduce such a positive effect?

[quote]On another interesting note, the CO2 levels half a billion years ago were 20 times higher than they are now, if science can be believed.[/quote]

And The Life Forms on this Planet were?

Certainly not Human!

As that Level changes, so will we! It is Fact, Mate!

Hey Abacus 7 -

Your linked article shows that weather can be dangerous, but it proves nothing regarding whether man's CO2 emissions are causing the weather conditions.

The assertion that man's CO2 emissions into the atmosphere is the cause of warming is the foundation of the Global Warming scare.

Right now, much of Canada and the northern section of the US is experiencing abnormally low temperatures and higher levels of snow fall. Should be blame this unusual cold on man-made Global Warming?

Doesn't "it's cold outside, must be Global Warming" sound just a little off kilter?



DSTM's Lord Monckton's article is worth a read.

Again, not surprisingly, Al Gore has refused to debate face to face with Monckton.

Why do so many people blindly accept the phrase "the debate is over" when there is so much controversy based on actual science?

[quote]Doesn't "it's cold outside, must be Global Warming" sound just a little off kilter?[/quote]

Might be why some people use the term climate change.

Not that I disagree with you overall.

Well since my last post diddn't make it, I guess I should shut up?

[quote name='KingOfIdiocy' post='1066278' date='Dec 29 2008, 09:58 AM'][quote]Doesn't "it's cold outside, must be Global Warming" sound just a little off kilter?[/quote]

Might be why some people use the term climate change.

Not that I disagree with you overall.
[/quote]

Yes, some have taken to using that phrase.

Even so, "climate change" does not match up with "Global Warming caused by Man's CO2 emissions" which is the primary basis of the GW supporters stance, since climate change also includes cooling.

[quote]And The Life Forms on this Planet were?[/quote]

The point is that people have been trying to make the claim that CO2 levels have never been higher, and that is not true. The life forms of the planet were invertebrates, and our ancestors.

[quote]Doesn't "it's cold outside, must be Global Warming" sound just a little off kilter?[/quote]
Not if you understand what happens as the earth warms.

[quote name='groovicus' post='1067950' date='Dec 30 2008, 11:20 AM'][quote]Doesn't "it's cold outside, must be Global Warming" sound just a little off kilter?[/quote]
Not if you understand what happens as the earth warms.
[/quote]

Or what happens as the earth cools, which it is now however slightly.

But, it still sounds odd.

[quote name='groovicus' post='1067950' date='Dec 30 2008, 08:20 AM'][quote]And The Life Forms on this Planet were?[/quote]

The point is that people have been trying to make the claim that CO2 levels have never been higher, and that is not true. The life forms of the planet were invertebrates, and our ancestors.

[/quote]

I thought the source of concern was not the total amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere but the rate at which it is rising in the short time frame since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

I am not an alarmist; however I do think there is still merit to the argument that increasing levels of CO2 can have long-term effects on global temperature. I agree with both of you, however, that the use of very short-term weather trends to prove/disprove long-term climate change is not very constructive for anyone.

[quote name='locally pwned' post='1072051' date='Jan 2 2009, 11:00 AM']I thought the source of concern was not the total amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere but the rate at which it is rising in the short time frame since the beginning of the industrial revolution.[/quote]

No, LP, but that is one of the "smoke screens" that aid in the confusion.

The bottom line "source of concern" is the idea that rising atmospheric CO2 (being a part of the "Green House Gas" effect), is causing the climate to warm on a global scale and will continue to do this resulting in catastrophic results.

Ignored by it's supporters is the fact that all the ice core records show exactly the opposite - temps rise first, then CO2 levels rise, or temps drop first, then CO2 levels lower.

They also don't like to talk about the fact that CO2 levels have been higher in the past and the catastrophic results they predict did not happen.

Nor do they like to discuss the fact that even though atmospheric CO2 levels have risen every year this century, the global temperature has not risen the way they predicted and has, in fact, slightly cooled in the last 8 years.

They will tell you that the "science is settled", even though this is not true.

They will tell you that the "debate is over", even though there is continued debate.

They will tell you that there is a "scientific consensus" regarding AGW by CO2, even though this is also not correct. Not to mention that, in Science, "consensus" is meaningless, only facts are important.

They'll even tell you that it is only a small number of scientists who do not agree that man's CO2 emissions are causing global warming. This is also not correct.

It is very difficult to engage in a purely scientific discussion with supporters of AGW by CO2. Primarily because they know that the facts do not support their assertions. What you will get from them if you try to discuss this on a scientific level is: [quote]Anything but evidence of cause - attack people's motives, someone else "has the evidence", theoretical models, evidence that global warming is occurring, how important they are, what credentials they have, how worthy they are, the dog ate my evidence, "the science is settled", polar bears, anything. Talking about the evidence of the cause of global warming does not advance their cause.[/quote]

(Quote from: [url="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2451051.htm"]David Evans on the Politics of Global Warming [/url])

Heck, some AGW by CO2 alarmists will even try to convince you that CO2 is a pollutant! If we could somehow remove all of this "pollutant" from the atmosphere, virtually all life on the surface of the planet would die.

I believe if we did that, it really wouldn't matter whether the temperatures were either much higher or much lower, do you?