This is pretty damaging in my book! Proof that NASA has changed temperature charts that were taken back in the late 1800's to today! Original charts that were "official" in 1990 have been changed to show more warming!
Is this biased??? YES!!! The "other side " has plenty of "explanations" to try to rebuke these finding, and they are hilarious!
BUT...So many people believe them because so many people don't realize that the most powerful computer in the world, the most expensive programming system and the best computer models, and many leading scientists, lack one thing...
NO computer has it...never will!
Therefore, if it sounds good to you, you probably don't have it either!
Remember, ALL of these studies were funded on ONE principle..."Find the correlation between CO2 and Global Warming"...AND THAT IS WHERE THE FUNDING COMES FROM!!.
NOT to find the real scientific causes!
YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!!
Here are some questions I have....
If CO2 wasn't the cause of global warming for the past 400,000 years, and it is now, ....what has changed??
...According to one scientist...."Things have changed"....
They say "manmade CO2 is different"
CO2 is a molecule made of one atom of Carbon and two atoms of Oxygen...It's either CO2 or something else! Add anything to that molecule and it is no longer CO2. Am I missing something here?
CO2 increases and decreases, over the centuries, lag temperature increases and decreases by an average of 800 years, so how can we relate CO2 increases in the last 100 years to the current rise in temperatures??
....According to several GW pages, "it is no longer lagging in time. The rise is directly correlated to the temperatures due to manmade CO2"
...If the lag was 800 years on an average, and the Medieval Warm period(a time that was considerably warmer than today) was 800 years ago, wouldn't that mean that the current rise in CO2 could be related to the Medieval Warm period, and it could just be a coincidence that the levels are rising...even though manmade CO2 accounts for less than 10% of all CO2 in the aptmosphere?
How can controlling CO2 keep global warming under control if it doesn't cause it?
...According to edf.org, water vapor is the biggest cause of global warming, NOT CO2, and we cannot control water vapor, but we can control CO2 emissions which warms the atmosphere and causes more water vapor which warms the globe and causes more water vapor which will warm the globe and cause more water vapor which will warm the globe which will cause more water vapor and warm the globe and cause more water vapor and warm the globe..............because a satellite said there is more water vapor present where the globe is warm.....which causes more water vapor that warms the globe........WTF??? Since it has been determined that CO2 is not the cause, now they find that water vapor is an "amplifier" of something that doesn't cause warming??? These are scientists??? Bet they got a big grant for that piece of genius!
Seems every time a bit of the global warming nonsense is disproved, someone gets a HUGE grant to come up with something so obscure to counter it that no one understands it, so it must be true!
Now the answer is to keep renaming Global Warming...it recently changed to "Climate Change"... and when everyone began with "the climate has been changing for centuries"...they had to rename it again. It is officially now called "Disturbed Climate". OMFG! LMAO! ROTFLOL!
Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
...I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that there has NEVER been a CO2 test of the atmosphere before the 18th century, so how do we really know that? "Supposedly" it's in the arctic ice.....really? can we prove that over that last 650,000 years?
......Assuming the "ice" is correct....Apparently these people didn't read Al Gores ice data! It very clearly states that CO2 increases happened hundreds of years after the warm periods in the time frame listed above! Even many of the global warming promoting scientists have acknowledged this, but simply say "things are different now". Again, a big contradiction by "the leading scientists". Some say CO2 always caused warming, others say it never did until now because "things are different".
It is very clear these people have an agenda as they used the exact same phrases over and over like this one in several of their rebuttals..."People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests."...."Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down,"......"The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests.".....It's obvious these people have an agenda!
If you want to believe that CO2 is a major cause of Global Warming/Climate Change/Disturbed Climate, Then you may want to read this and pass it along to the politicians that refuse to give agricultural water to the southern San Joaquin Valley farmers and give it to LA to drink instead!
The amount of money spent on CO2 prevention is about 5-7 times higher, and much less effective, for industrial prevention as opposed to what would need to be spent per "ton" of CO2 prevented by high yield crops!
It has gotten so out of hand that even if Al Gore stood up and returned his Nobel prize and said he was wrong, no one would believe him and the farce would continue! Fact is, if the globe continues to warm, it will be our fault, if it begins to cool, it will be because of our efforts, if it stays the same, it will be because we stopped it!! They win no matter what! It is the greatest scam ever! They cannot lose! No matter what the outcome, they can claim credit! It's genius!
Fact is, the globe was MUCH warmer 1000 years ago than it is now! That CANNOT be debated! They were farming in Greenland, growing grapes in England, the glaciers were MUCH smaller (that's documented) and if the Little Ice Age had not occurred, we would have MUCH smaller glaciers than we do now...BUT for some unknown reason, global temperatures drastically dropped around 1200AD and caused entire villages to be swallowed up by expanding glaciers that were not there before...and now we're in panic because they are receding again???! Whatever had caused that has stopped and we are returning to normal! If these experts cannot explain the Little Ice Age, how can they possibly explain what is happening now to recover from it!
BY the way....did you know that the volcano in Iceland has dumped more "greenhouse gasses" and particulate matter into the atmosphere than man has total in the last 200 years!! Of course, that only depends on who's data you want to believe. Some say it spews out only a fraction of the globes greenhouse gasses, while others claim 300,000 tons (whatever a ton of something lighter than air is) per day which on the cap and trade market comes to a few million dollars of greenhouse gasses per day. Everyone has a different set of data and it is all different and all claimed to be correct....which in itself tells me it is ALL WRONG!! Where in the hell do people get all these ridiculous formulas??!! These are the "no common sense" people! These are the people that live off of numbers and formulas, even though they make NO common sense to anyone...except other people with no common sense. Since they cannot see a "vision" of a solution, they have to create one with some sort of a ridiculous formula that makes no "real world" sense! There is such a thing as a "Visual Mathematician". According to the Mensa Society, these people have the ability to "see patterns, solutions and similarities" in everyday things and problems that most cannot! It is also called common sense! I thank them for coming up with this title for me! I always tried to explain to other people what went on in my head and couldn't (no surprise there!) This may also explain why I can do logarithms in my head, pick out the stress points on a structure by looking at it for 10 seconds, plot an entire electrical circuit in my head in a couple seconds and this drives engineers I work with crazy! It's called "Scientific Common Sense" and not every scientist has it! The ones that don't, cannot see the flaws in a theory as long as it draws an acceptable conclusion based on fact....regardless if it has any reason or useable functionality. Facts can come from many unrelated sources and draw a conclusion that is just as unrelated and makes no sense! This is also why two PHd's from the same school in the same subject can strongly disagree on the same subject! Back to the simple fact that there is no computer in the world that has the two simplest human traits of common sense and reasoning. When you remove the human elements of any theory and rely on computers to do your work, you are essentially removing all common sense and reason! That is a FACT no one can argue!!
I had a professor in college that said in a class where one student kept asking the "names" of the people that invented certain theories and equations and he was getting annoyed and finally answered...." Unless you are on Jeopardy, no one will ever pay you to know who invented a theory, they will pay you a lot of money to use the theory to solve a problem". He had a lot of "Scientific Common Sense!" It was the first class i got straight "A's" in! If you don't understand this, you don't "have it"!
Climate models go cold
Carbon warming too minor to be worth worrying about
Special to the Financial Post Apr 7, 2011 – 8:46 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 7, 2011 8:57 PM ET
By David Evans
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.
Let’s set a few things straight.
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
The disagreement comes about what happens next.
The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.
This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.
At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.
There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.
But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.
They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade — yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected.” These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.
One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.
The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the United States, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source.
Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off. Why does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results?
The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.
We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!
Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold — in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!
Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.
David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23.
Thanks for reading! More to come!
Please don't bother trying to rebut anything here with an email, I will NOT respond! If you agree, great! If you do not, take it up with the web pages listed here! This will not change your minds, as they are already set in stone and cannot be changed because it is what you want to believe! You will only believe facts related to what you want to see, regardless if they are actually related, manufactured, exaggerated or just plain lies! Don't bug me! I am just as stubborn as you! You will not change my mind anymore than I will change yours! This page is for people like me that look at BOTH sides and make my own decisions based on how much money was spent, agendas, exaggeration, common sense, reason and bias!
"According to Bird and Nevle, before Columbus ruined paradise, native Americans had deforested a significant portion of the continent and converted the land to agricultural purposes. Less CO2 was then absorbed from the atmosphere, and the earth was toasty.
Then a bunch of nasty old white guys arrived and depopulated the native populations through war and the diseases they brought with them. This led to the large-scale abandonment of agricultural lands. The subsequent reforestation of the continent caused temperatures to drop enough to bring on the Little Ice Age.
Implicit in this research is that the world would be fine if man wasn't in the way. We either make the world too cold or too hot, a view held by many in high places."
Really???!! Are you serious? The Native Americans caused the original Global Warming (Medieval Warm Period) and the early settlers caused the little Ice age??....Really??