Good video to check out of Christopher Horner on Fox a few days ago where he took apart some of the Environazi’s and their beliefs. Who is Christopher Horner? He wrote the book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism” and is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Anyways, check out the video:
Replay video | Share video | Watch more videos
Via Newsbusters we have some of the transcript of the show:
Obviously, they’re the ones overreacting because it’s very simple. We admit climate change, and that’s what they deny. Climate changes – it always has, it always will. The Vikings used to farm Greenland, and if we get two degrees Celsius warmer they may again
Brian: The glaciers are melting. You saw Al Gore just talk about that.
Horner: Yes, glaciers are melting all over the world. Glaciers are growing all over the world. The problem is…and also glaciers are receding by growing which is in Al Gore’s movie. When they grow too far – grow is the key word — they break off. That’s not melting he shows, that’s called calving. But what happens is they say melting glaciers is proof of global warming. By that logic, for lack of a better word, receding glaciers is proof of global cooling. They can’t both be true and in fact neither are.
Check out my earlier post on the glacier idiocy.
Then we have this new report done by Dr. David Bromwich in which he reveals the temp’s have not really increased like Gore and company have screeched about:
A new report on climate over the world’s southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.
This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth’s climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.
It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.
David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.
"It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It’s very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."
Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.
"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .
"We’re looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.
Which means what? It means there the debate is NOT over, and those of us who continue to believe that the global warming hysteria is a myth are NOT holocaust deniers also.
Roger Pielke highlights some of the factual errors in the earlier IPCC summary:
1. The IPCC SPM writes on page 7
“… snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres.”
The Rutgers University Global Snow Lab Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Anomalies plot through January 2007, however, shows that the areal coverage in the Northern Hemisphere has actually slightly increased since the later 1980s!
Since the inference from the IPCC SPM is that global warming is the reason for these changes, this is at best a clear example of selecting a time period that conforms to their conclusion rather than presenting an up-to-date description of snow cover trends.
2. The IPCC SPM writes on page 7
“Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system.”
It is correct that the ocean is where most of the heat changes occur, but the finding conveniently neglected to report on the significant loss of heat in the period from 2003 to at least 2005;
Lyman, J. M., J. K. Willis, and G. C. Johnson (2006), Recent cooling of the upper ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L18604, doi:10.1029/2006GL027033.
As stated in that paper,
“The decrease represents a substantial loss of heat over a 2-year period, amounting to about one fifth of the long-term upper-ocean heat gain between 1955 and 2003 reported by Levitus et al. .”
In addition, even with the earlier ocean warming, this is what was found in the paper
Willis, J. K., D. Roemmich, and B. Cornuelle (2004), Interannual variability in upper ocean heat content, temperature, and thermosteric expansion on global scales, J. Geophys. Res., 109, C12036, doi:10.1029/2003JC002260.
” Maps of yearly heat content anomaly show patterns of warming commensurate with ENSO variability in the tropics, but also show that a large part of the trend in global, oceanic heat content is caused by regional warming at midlatitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. ”
They report that,
“……a strong, fairly linear warming trend is visible in the Southern Hemisphere, centered on 40°S. This region accounts for a large portion of the warming in the global average.”
“……..the warming around 40°S appears to be much steadier over the course of the time series, as seen in Figure 7. In addition, this warming extends deeper and is more uniform over the water column than the signal in the tropics. ”
Thus the actual global ocean warming reported in the IPCC SPM over the last several decades occured in just a relatively limited portion of the oceans and through depth such that the heat was not as readily avaiable to the atmosphere as it would be if the warming was more spatially uniform.
He gives two more examples of misinterpreting or downright cherry picking of data in that IPCC report and ends with this:
These four examples illustrate the apparent selection of papers and data to promote a particular conclusion on climate change. The science community, and even more importantly, the policy community is ill-served by such cherry picking.
The science community is ill-served but the political jugernaut I call "the global warming nuts" is most definitely well served. They continue to scare people who then give them cash which keeps them in business.