HT Tom Nelson
Yes, we are emerging from an era of benign indifference. In 1995 I convened the first global warming conference in Manila. At that point, an American president scorned the persistent voices of concern in the world to organize against global warming and climate change.
He said that global warming was a “hoax.”
Canadian, Conservative and Sour. Satire, Cynicism, Snark and Sarcasm is Often the Best Medicine............... Stephen Harper's Favorite Blog
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Sea Level Alarmists Think We're Really Stupid
The point I think that is the stupidist thing about the whole looming global warming catastrophe and the subsequent sinking of Manhattan Island, Great Britain, PEI and Salt Spring Island is the forecasted rises in sea level.
It's about 1 Foot!
Maybe as much as 3 Feet!
So, each year for the next 100 years we are gonna see the beaches rise by about 1/8 to 3/8 of an inch...
And each of us are gonna stand there for 8 years and see the water come up an extra one full inch and drown...
But maybe the best argument against sea level increases is made by Al Gore his-self. He went and bought a condo on San Francisco Bay.......
Speaking of which here's some interesting reading from the Gore Days.
Estimates vs. Observations of Sea Level Changes.
Coming out of the Ice Age, sea levels rose at an annual rate varying from 1/16 to 8/16 inches. Over the last 7,500 years the rate has averaged 1/16 inch per year. The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted that there is no evidence of an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise over the past century.
The IPCC report presented a range of estimated rates of rise that average approximately 1/16 inch per year over the past 100 years. The median of the observed rises for the century was approximately seven inches, but scientists' measurements range from as low as four inches to as high as 10 inches. This six-inch range of observed sea level rise is almost as great as the median rise of seven inches; which demonstrates the difficulty of measuring sea level rises. Since it is so difficult to measure past rates of rise, it will surely be far harder to predict future rates.
Explaining Continuing Sea Level Rise.
The IPCC report asks whether the observed rise - however much it is - can be tied to the estimated average global temperature increase of 0.5 to 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit during the century. The IPCC examined five possible sources of sea level rise: thermal expansion of water as temperature rises, melting of inland glaciers, melting of Greenland's ice sheet, melting of Antarctica's ice sheets and changes in surface and ground water levels.
* The IPCC concluded that, except for data from inland glaciers, there were insufficient data to demonstrate a temperature effect on sea level rise for the past 100 years.
* The available data indicated that, based on models, the temperature increase could have caused anything from a 7 1/2-inch decline to a 14-inch rise in sea levels - amounting to a 22-inch range of uncertainty.
Since the 22-inch range of uncertainty in the IPCC's estimates of past sea level change is four times greater than the six-inch range of measured sea level rise, one could argue that our ability to forecast the effects of temperature on sea level rise is so limited as to be virtually worthless.
It's about 1 Foot!
Maybe as much as 3 Feet!
So, each year for the next 100 years we are gonna see the beaches rise by about 1/8 to 3/8 of an inch...
And each of us are gonna stand there for 8 years and see the water come up an extra one full inch and drown...
But maybe the best argument against sea level increases is made by Al Gore his-self. He went and bought a condo on San Francisco Bay.......
Speaking of which here's some interesting reading from the Gore Days.
Estimates vs. Observations of Sea Level Changes.
Coming out of the Ice Age, sea levels rose at an annual rate varying from 1/16 to 8/16 inches. Over the last 7,500 years the rate has averaged 1/16 inch per year. The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted that there is no evidence of an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise over the past century.
The IPCC report presented a range of estimated rates of rise that average approximately 1/16 inch per year over the past 100 years. The median of the observed rises for the century was approximately seven inches, but scientists' measurements range from as low as four inches to as high as 10 inches. This six-inch range of observed sea level rise is almost as great as the median rise of seven inches; which demonstrates the difficulty of measuring sea level rises. Since it is so difficult to measure past rates of rise, it will surely be far harder to predict future rates.
Explaining Continuing Sea Level Rise.
The IPCC report asks whether the observed rise - however much it is - can be tied to the estimated average global temperature increase of 0.5 to 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit during the century. The IPCC examined five possible sources of sea level rise: thermal expansion of water as temperature rises, melting of inland glaciers, melting of Greenland's ice sheet, melting of Antarctica's ice sheets and changes in surface and ground water levels.
* The IPCC concluded that, except for data from inland glaciers, there were insufficient data to demonstrate a temperature effect on sea level rise for the past 100 years.
* The available data indicated that, based on models, the temperature increase could have caused anything from a 7 1/2-inch decline to a 14-inch rise in sea levels - amounting to a 22-inch range of uncertainty.
Since the 22-inch range of uncertainty in the IPCC's estimates of past sea level change is four times greater than the six-inch range of measured sea level rise, one could argue that our ability to forecast the effects of temperature on sea level rise is so limited as to be virtually worthless.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Climate Modelling Anyone?
if such assumptions are correct, then the average income of South Africans will have overtaken that of Americans by a very wide margin by the end of the century. Because of this economic error, the IPCC scenarios of the future also suggest that relatively poor developing countries such as Algeria, Argentina, Libya, Turkey, and North Korea will all surpass the United States.
Sounds viable to me - especially after the USA's economy is ravaged by the Climate modellers.
Sounds viable to me - especially after the USA's economy is ravaged by the Climate modellers.
Once Young People Come to the Logical Conclusion that Al Gore is Barking Mad...
...then there is hope for relief from the insanity:
Click Here
Click Here
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Global Warming will Save 40,000 lives per year in USA
An Oldie but a Goodie
A somewhat warmer climate would probably reduce mortality in the United States and provide Americans with valuable benefits. Regressions of death rates in Washington, DC, and in some 89 urban counties scattered across the nation on climate and demographic variables demonstrate that warmer temperatures reduce deaths. The results imply that a 2.5 deg. Celsius warming would lower deaths in the United States by about 40,000 per year. Although the data on illness are poor, the numbers indicate that warming might reduce medical costs by about $20 billion annually.This from back in the day when the IPCC suggested a much higher temp increase.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Refuting James Hanson's Denial . . .
Alert: James Hansen Responds to John Theon! - Theon Fires back - Decries Smears on Skeptics
Retired NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. John S. Theon’s Response to James Hansen’s Reported Comments – February 5, 2009
NASA’s James Hansen reportedly responded to comments made by retired NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. John S. Theon’s . Theon, one of Hansen’s former supervisors, declared himself a skeptic and said Hansen had “embarrassed NASA.” See: “James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic: Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’ – January 27, 2009 - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40edecd53cd3d320& Issue_id=
Hansen’s reportedly responded to Theon via email to M.J. Murphy of BigCityLib blog and wrote the following on February 5, 2009:
Hansen wrote: John Theon never had any supervisory authority over me. I remember that he was in the bureaucracy at NASA Headquarters, but I cannot recall having any interactions with him. His claim of association is misleading, to say the least. What he can legitimately say is that he had a reasonably high position in the Headquarters bureaucracy. A job in that bureaucracy is not considered to be a plum, so we should probably be grateful that somebody is willing to do it, and I don't particularly want to kick the fellow around. You should investigate his scientific contributions to evaluate the degree to which his opinions might be listened to. Of course you are free to quote me. - Jim Hansen - End Hansen Email
Theon fired back at Hansen. “It is absurd that Hansen denies ever meeting me. We have met on numerous occasions. This just demonstrates that Hansen has a poor memory,” Theon wrote on February 5, 2009. [Note: Theon’s complete email response is reprinted below] “I worked with Hansen from about 1983 to 1994 during which time he was at GISS in NYC and I was at NASA HQ in Washington DC. I retired from NASA in 1995. I had completed 37 and 1/2 years of federal service (civilian Navy, USAF, and including 33 years with NASA.)
The money came through me. We were in the Earth Observations Program which later became the Mission to Planet Earth Program. I visited GISS at least once a year to review and evaluate the GISS work. When I visited NYC, to review the research that GISS was funded to do out of the program for which I was responsible, Hansen was most cordial. When I asked him to give a lecture in Japan, he complied,” Theon wrote.
“It was what it was, and no amount of denial will change that,” Theon explained. “I repeat what I wrote to you in January: “I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation,” he added.
Theon also noted the attacks on him by many of the websites devoted to smearing anyone who questions claims of a man-made climate catastrophe.
“Regarding some of the other attacks that have been aimed at me: I am truly appalled at the backbiting, vitriol that is sent by people who have nothing better to do than try to smear other people's reputations because they do not agree with their own thinking. To them, I recommend that they get a life,” Theon concluded.
Retired NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer weighed in on Hansen and Theon controversy on January 29, 2009:
“And now my old boss when I was at NASA (as well as James Hansen’s old boss), John Theon, has stated very clearly that he doesn’t believe global warming is man-made…and adding ‘climate models are useless’ for good measure.” See: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/another-nasa-defection-to-the-skeptics-camp/
Even websites devoted to smearing and attacking scientists skeptical of anthropogenic climate fears are finding the attacks on Theon way over the line. At the Deltoid blog -- no friend of climate skeptics -- several readers are lamenting the disparaging remarks against Theon. Some of its readers are now essentially screaming “Enough” in response to the attacks on Theon.
A January 31 comment on Deltoid blog stated: “Theon did some serious work (about 30 papers, some edited books, plus lots of monographs), including a couple of Science papers in the 60’s, so he wasn’t puffing up his accomplishments like some, and an h-index of 6.” Again, these comments are coming from a website devoted to vilifying global warming skeptics.
A February 1 comment on Detloid stated: “This attempt to smear Theon is terribly, terribly thin.”
Here is a Google scholar search on Theon: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="author:JS+author:Theon"
[Morano Note: The question that needs to be answred by those who attack Theon is:
Would you be so quick to slam Theon if he came out and praised Hansen? All of the voices seeking to discredit Theon’s career and reputation would have remained completely silent if Theon had instead praised Hansen and asserted that mankind faced a “climate crisis.” For more information on how scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears are treated see: 1) A July 2007 Senate report details how skeptics have faced threats and intimidation - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=04373015-802A-23AD-4BF9-
C3F02278F4CF - 2) Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression –
March 6, 2008 - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865DBE39-802A-23AD-4949-
EE9098538277 ]
#
Theon’s Complete Response to Hansen: (Retired NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. John S. Theon’s Response to James Hansen’s Reported Comments – February 5, 2009 ) Via Email:
#
-----Original Message-----
From: Jtheon [mailto:jtheon@XXXXXX]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 2:01 PM
To: Morano, Marc (EPW)
Subject: Response to Jim Hansen's e-mail
Marc,
It is absurd that Hansen denies ever meeting me. We have met on numerous occasions. This just demonstrates that Hansen has a poor memory. I worked with Hansen from about 1983 to 1994 during which time he was at GISS in NYC and I was at NASA HQ in Washington DC. I retired from NASA in 1995. I had completed 37 and 1/2 years of federal service (civilian Navy, USAF, and including 33 years with NASA.)
The money came through me. We were in the Earth Observations Program which later became the Mission to Planet Earth Program. I visited GISS at least once a year to review and evaluate the GISS work. When I visited NYC, to review the research that GISS was funded to do out of the program for which I was responsible, Hansen was most cordial. When I asked him to give a lecture in Japan, he complied.
It was what it was, and no amount of denial will change that.
I repeat what I wrote to you in January: “I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation.”
Regarding some of the other attacks that have been aimed at me: I am truly appalled at the backbiting, vitriol that is sent by people who have nothing better to do than try to smear other people's reputations because they do not agree with their own thinking. To them, I recommend that they get a life.
John
#
End Correspondence from Dr. Theon.
#
(See: James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic: Says Hansen
‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’ – January 27, 2009 -
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40edecd53cd3d320&
Issue_id= )
# #
Marc Morano
Communications Director
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) Inhofe Staff
from Co2 Skeptics
Retired NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. John S. Theon’s Response to James Hansen’s Reported Comments – February 5, 2009
NASA’s James Hansen reportedly responded to comments made by retired NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. John S. Theon’s . Theon, one of Hansen’s former supervisors, declared himself a skeptic and said Hansen had “embarrassed NASA.” See: “James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic: Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’ – January 27, 2009 - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40edecd53cd3d320& Issue_id=
Hansen’s reportedly responded to Theon via email to M.J. Murphy of BigCityLib blog and wrote the following on February 5, 2009:
Hansen wrote: John Theon never had any supervisory authority over me. I remember that he was in the bureaucracy at NASA Headquarters, but I cannot recall having any interactions with him. His claim of association is misleading, to say the least. What he can legitimately say is that he had a reasonably high position in the Headquarters bureaucracy. A job in that bureaucracy is not considered to be a plum, so we should probably be grateful that somebody is willing to do it, and I don't particularly want to kick the fellow around. You should investigate his scientific contributions to evaluate the degree to which his opinions might be listened to. Of course you are free to quote me. - Jim Hansen - End Hansen Email
Theon fired back at Hansen. “It is absurd that Hansen denies ever meeting me. We have met on numerous occasions. This just demonstrates that Hansen has a poor memory,” Theon wrote on February 5, 2009. [Note: Theon’s complete email response is reprinted below] “I worked with Hansen from about 1983 to 1994 during which time he was at GISS in NYC and I was at NASA HQ in Washington DC. I retired from NASA in 1995. I had completed 37 and 1/2 years of federal service (civilian Navy, USAF, and including 33 years with NASA.)
The money came through me. We were in the Earth Observations Program which later became the Mission to Planet Earth Program. I visited GISS at least once a year to review and evaluate the GISS work. When I visited NYC, to review the research that GISS was funded to do out of the program for which I was responsible, Hansen was most cordial. When I asked him to give a lecture in Japan, he complied,” Theon wrote.
“It was what it was, and no amount of denial will change that,” Theon explained. “I repeat what I wrote to you in January: “I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation,” he added.
Theon also noted the attacks on him by many of the websites devoted to smearing anyone who questions claims of a man-made climate catastrophe.
“Regarding some of the other attacks that have been aimed at me: I am truly appalled at the backbiting, vitriol that is sent by people who have nothing better to do than try to smear other people's reputations because they do not agree with their own thinking. To them, I recommend that they get a life,” Theon concluded.
Retired NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer weighed in on Hansen and Theon controversy on January 29, 2009:
“And now my old boss when I was at NASA (as well as James Hansen’s old boss), John Theon, has stated very clearly that he doesn’t believe global warming is man-made…and adding ‘climate models are useless’ for good measure.” See: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/another-nasa-defection-to-the-skeptics-camp/
Even websites devoted to smearing and attacking scientists skeptical of anthropogenic climate fears are finding the attacks on Theon way over the line. At the Deltoid blog -- no friend of climate skeptics -- several readers are lamenting the disparaging remarks against Theon. Some of its readers are now essentially screaming “Enough” in response to the attacks on Theon.
A January 31 comment on Deltoid blog stated: “Theon did some serious work (about 30 papers, some edited books, plus lots of monographs), including a couple of Science papers in the 60’s, so he wasn’t puffing up his accomplishments like some, and an h-index of 6.” Again, these comments are coming from a website devoted to vilifying global warming skeptics.
A February 1 comment on Detloid stated: “This attempt to smear Theon is terribly, terribly thin.”
Here is a Google scholar search on Theon: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="author:JS+author:Theon"
[Morano Note: The question that needs to be answred by those who attack Theon is:
Would you be so quick to slam Theon if he came out and praised Hansen? All of the voices seeking to discredit Theon’s career and reputation would have remained completely silent if Theon had instead praised Hansen and asserted that mankind faced a “climate crisis.” For more information on how scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears are treated see: 1) A July 2007 Senate report details how skeptics have faced threats and intimidation - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=04373015-802A-23AD-4BF9-
C3F02278F4CF - 2) Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression –
March 6, 2008 - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865DBE39-802A-23AD-4949-
EE9098538277 ]
#
Theon’s Complete Response to Hansen: (Retired NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. John S. Theon’s Response to James Hansen’s Reported Comments – February 5, 2009 ) Via Email:
#
-----Original Message-----
From: Jtheon [mailto:jtheon@XXXXXX]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 2:01 PM
To: Morano, Marc (EPW)
Subject: Response to Jim Hansen's e-mail
Marc,
It is absurd that Hansen denies ever meeting me. We have met on numerous occasions. This just demonstrates that Hansen has a poor memory. I worked with Hansen from about 1983 to 1994 during which time he was at GISS in NYC and I was at NASA HQ in Washington DC. I retired from NASA in 1995. I had completed 37 and 1/2 years of federal service (civilian Navy, USAF, and including 33 years with NASA.)
The money came through me. We were in the Earth Observations Program which later became the Mission to Planet Earth Program. I visited GISS at least once a year to review and evaluate the GISS work. When I visited NYC, to review the research that GISS was funded to do out of the program for which I was responsible, Hansen was most cordial. When I asked him to give a lecture in Japan, he complied.
It was what it was, and no amount of denial will change that.
I repeat what I wrote to you in January: “I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation.”
Regarding some of the other attacks that have been aimed at me: I am truly appalled at the backbiting, vitriol that is sent by people who have nothing better to do than try to smear other people's reputations because they do not agree with their own thinking. To them, I recommend that they get a life.
John
#
End Correspondence from Dr. Theon.
#
(See: James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic: Says Hansen
‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’ – January 27, 2009 -
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40edecd53cd3d320&
Issue_id= )
# #
Marc Morano
Communications Director
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) Inhofe Staff
from Co2 Skeptics
How Stupid is Nancy Pelosi
TWICE as stupid
Imagine if a Republican had messed up like this.
Credit Newsbusters
Wind Power vs Nuclear
It would take an area the size of Wisconsin to generate enough wind energy to meet the needs of the USA. More facts here.
And if that happened - where would we get our cheese and who would the Packer fans cheer for?
And if that happened - where would we get our cheese and who would the Packer fans cheer for?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
This is just so funny I posted the whole thing
Scientists plan emergency summit on climate change
Scientists are to hold an emergency summit to warn the world's politicians they are being too timid in their response to global warming.
Climate experts from across the world will gather in Copenhagen next month to agree a stark message to policy makers, which they hope will break the political deadlock on efforts to curb rising temperatures. The meeting follows "disturbing" studies that suggest global warming could strike harder and faster than expected.
It comes ahead of a year of high-level political discussions on climate change, which climax with international negotiations in Copenhagen in December, where officials will try to hammer out a successor to the Kyoto protocol.
Katherine Richardson, a marine biologist at the University of Copenhagen, who is organising next month's event, said: "This is not a regular scientific conference. This is a deliberate attempt to influence policy."
The meeting will publish an update to the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Richardson said the IPCC report was "wishy-washy" on issues such as sea level rise. "The IPCC talks of a 40cm sea rise this century. Well, if the consensus now is a rise of a metre or more then they need to know that."
A number of studies published since the IPCC report was prepared show that carbon emissions are rising faster than expected and that existing greenhouse gas targets may not be enough to prevent catastrophic temperature rise. Climate experts, including Jim Hansen, of Nasa, have warned about so-called "tipping points" that could lead to runaway warming and rapid sea level rise.
Bob Watson, a former head of the IPCC and chief scientist in the environment department, Defra, said: "Certainly in Defra they're aware of the situation. Whether all governments are aware of it is another matter. Even without the new information there was enough to make most policy makers think that urgent action was absolutely essential. The new information only strengthens that and pushes it even harder."
One issue to be addressed next month is whether it is still possible to limit average global temperature rise to 2C, which the EU defines as dangerous. Richardson said a key question for politicians is the balance between efforts to limit warming and steps to adapt to the likely consequences. Watson has warned that nations should prepare for an average rise of 4C. The IPCC said temperatures could soar by up to 6C by 2100 if current rates of carbon pollution continue.
Martin Parry, a British scientist who jointly chaired the IPCC working group on impacts for the 2007 report, and will attend next month's meeting, said: "I think it's a good idea. I would have thought most of this stuff is out there already but it deserves to be brought together and hammered home in a credible way."
A number of "disturbing" trends seem to have accelerated since the IPCC report was published, he said, such as a decrease in the amount of carbon pollution absorbed in the oceans, and an increase in Greenland ice melt. But he denied that the new findings made the IPCC report obsolete. "They are not so radical as to undermine the report. They reinforce it."
Scientists are to hold an emergency summit to warn the world's politicians they are being too timid in their response to global warming.
Climate experts from across the world will gather in Copenhagen next month to agree a stark message to policy makers, which they hope will break the political deadlock on efforts to curb rising temperatures. The meeting follows "disturbing" studies that suggest global warming could strike harder and faster than expected.
It comes ahead of a year of high-level political discussions on climate change, which climax with international negotiations in Copenhagen in December, where officials will try to hammer out a successor to the Kyoto protocol.
Katherine Richardson, a marine biologist at the University of Copenhagen, who is organising next month's event, said: "This is not a regular scientific conference. This is a deliberate attempt to influence policy."
The meeting will publish an update to the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Richardson said the IPCC report was "wishy-washy" on issues such as sea level rise. "The IPCC talks of a 40cm sea rise this century. Well, if the consensus now is a rise of a metre or more then they need to know that."
A number of studies published since the IPCC report was prepared show that carbon emissions are rising faster than expected and that existing greenhouse gas targets may not be enough to prevent catastrophic temperature rise. Climate experts, including Jim Hansen, of Nasa, have warned about so-called "tipping points" that could lead to runaway warming and rapid sea level rise.
Bob Watson, a former head of the IPCC and chief scientist in the environment department, Defra, said: "Certainly in Defra they're aware of the situation. Whether all governments are aware of it is another matter. Even without the new information there was enough to make most policy makers think that urgent action was absolutely essential. The new information only strengthens that and pushes it even harder."
One issue to be addressed next month is whether it is still possible to limit average global temperature rise to 2C, which the EU defines as dangerous. Richardson said a key question for politicians is the balance between efforts to limit warming and steps to adapt to the likely consequences. Watson has warned that nations should prepare for an average rise of 4C. The IPCC said temperatures could soar by up to 6C by 2100 if current rates of carbon pollution continue.
Martin Parry, a British scientist who jointly chaired the IPCC working group on impacts for the 2007 report, and will attend next month's meeting, said: "I think it's a good idea. I would have thought most of this stuff is out there already but it deserves to be brought together and hammered home in a credible way."
A number of "disturbing" trends seem to have accelerated since the IPCC report was published, he said, such as a decrease in the amount of carbon pollution absorbed in the oceans, and an increase in Greenland ice melt. But he denied that the new findings made the IPCC report obsolete. "They are not so radical as to undermine the report. They reinforce it."
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Yup. Arctic Ice Sure is Melting...
Time for the Gov to buy everyone an SUV - save GM and the Planet in one fell multi-trillion dollar swoop.
Picture:
Monday, February 02, 2009
Groundhogs as Dumb as Gore-Hogs
Frickin Rodents don't get it...
Six more weeks of winter IS an early spring...
Why would we listen to these runty and stubby and runty rats anyway??
(But then again, some are listening to Gore).
Six more weeks of winter IS an early spring...
Why would we listen to these runty and stubby and runty rats anyway??
(But then again, some are listening to Gore).
James Hansen Took Big Ketchup Money in Global Warming Missions
CO2 Skeptic
Al Gore regards Hansen as an 'objective scientist', but in 2004 Hansen received a grant of $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation shortly before publicly endorsing Teresa Heinz's husband, John Kerry, for the presidency. While those who argue the skeptics case are consistently accused of being in the pay of Big Oil, Hansen got a free pass from the liberal media on the Heinz grant. As Senator James Inhofe, of the US Committee on Environment and Public Works put it, "It appears the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money."
Al Gore regards Hansen as an 'objective scientist', but in 2004 Hansen received a grant of $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation shortly before publicly endorsing Teresa Heinz's husband, John Kerry, for the presidency. While those who argue the skeptics case are consistently accused of being in the pay of Big Oil, Hansen got a free pass from the liberal media on the Heinz grant. As Senator James Inhofe, of the US Committee on Environment and Public Works put it, "It appears the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)