Why The AGW Alarmists Are Stubborn And Scared

It's the sun and we are going to get cold.
-----

In Russia, one of the world's leading solar physicists, Habibullo Abdussamatov, says the planet is well on the way to another deep freeze. Abdussamatov is the head of space research at the Russian Academy of Sciences Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St Petersburg, and director of the Russian segment of the International Space Station.

In an interview with Principia Scientific International, Abdussamatov said results of research from the ISS had indicated a decline in total solar irradiance, which was having a dramatic effect on the global climate.

Data indicated the onset of a mini ice age.

The view from Russia is that solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions, has driven global temperatures. Abdussamatov said global warming during the last decades of the 20th century was due to de-gassing of large amounts of carbon dioxide, released into the atmosphere from oceans, triggered by the increased solar irradiance. He said the lack of any warming for the past 17 years was a result of the decline of the total solar irradiance.

Abdussamatov said there had been five deep cold periods in the past 1000 years - in 1030, 1315, 1500, 1680 and 1805.

He said another cool period was due and would come about regardless of whether industrialised countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions.

"Mars has global warming - but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," Abdussamatov said.

"These parallel global warmings - observed simultaneously on Mars and on the Earth - can only be a consequence of the effect of the same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."

Abdussamatov said a new "little ice age" would start this or next year and hit a low around 2040, with a deep freeze that would last for the rest of the century.

The Russian research corresponds with the announcement by US solar physicists last year that the sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity.

Scientists at the US National Solar Observatory and US Air Force Research Laboratory said three different analyses of the sun's recent behavior all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.

"This is highly unusual and unexpected," Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO's Solar Synoptic Network, said of the results in a statement last June. "But the fact that three completely different views of the sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."

Spot numbers and other solar activity rise and fall about every 11 years, half of the sun's 22-year magnetic interval, since the sun's magnetic poles reverse with each cycle. The immediate issue is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, the 70-year period with virtually no sunspots from 1645 to 1715.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...a-coming-ice-age/story-e6frg6xf-1226634874185

 

The first one.

Hard core liberals don't collect pay checks. They collect welfare and EBT cards.

 

So Lawrence O Donnell is on welfare? Who would have guessed?

 

This is the bottom line for the AGW Alarmist and their science. Is it any wonder that the minions like futurecurrents are out if full force trying to convince the public that man made global warming is threatening our existence? It's the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the world.

<a href=http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/04/30/global-warming-alarm-continued-cooling-may-jeopardize-climate-science-and-green-energy-funding/>Global Warming Alarm: Continued Cooling May Jeopardize Climate Science And Green Energy Funding!</a>

 

EARTH DAY'S CREDIBILITY DAMAGED BY DOMINANCE OF CLIMATE ACTIVISTS

Legitimate environmental concerns being shortchanged by focus on bogus global warming scare

Ottawa, Canada, April 22, 2013: "Earth Day participants must distance themselves from the climate scare or risk the event degenerating into irrelevance,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). Noting the intense climate focus in this year’s Earth Day Network advertising, Harris warned, “As the hypothesis that humanity’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are causing dangerous global warming falls into disrepute, all those associated with the climate alarm will also lose credibility.”

ICSC Science Advisory Board member, Dr. Tim Ball, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor, explained, “All sensible people are environmentalists. We all want clean air, land and water and to protect species at risk to the degree possible considering the many other important demands on society.”

“But controlling global climate through restricting emissions is unscientific nonsense,” Ball continued. “The greenhouse gas most under attack by climate campaigners, CO2, is a benefit to the environment, its rise resulting in more crop yield and a densification of forests.”

ICSC Chief Science Advisor Dr. Bob Carter, of James Cook University in Australia pointed out that, “The global temperature statistic has not risen since 1997 despite an increase in emissions of 8%. This nullifies the main argument presented by climate campaigners.”

“Climate changes all the time, and it is important that civil hazard organizations are prepared for its extremes,” said Carter. “But as demonstrated by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, of which I am a contributing author, there are thousands of scientists and peer-reviewed science papers that refute the hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 are causing dangerous warming.”

ICSC Energy Issues Advisor power consultant Bryan Leyland of New Zealand added, “Yet hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent subsidizing wind, solar and wave power in an effort to reduce CO2 emissions. None of these new renewable energy technologies can provide electricity when needed during times of peak demand. All of them are at the mercy of the wind, sun, tides and waves. In addition, the capacity factor—the ratio of the average output to the maximum output—varies between 10% and seldom exceeds 40%. So, for instance, 1000 Megawatt (MW) coal or nuclear power stations each generate the same amount of energy as several thousand MW of renewable energy. Regardless, independent research shows that they do little to reduce emissions of CO2, a gas that promotes plant growth and, as we now know, has no measurable effect on the climate.”

“Coal, natural gas, hydro and nuclear power can provide a reliable supply of all the electricity we need for the foreseeable future, and at a low cost,” said Leyland. “Expensive and intermittent renewable energy technologies can never play more than a bit part in electricity generation.”

Ball provides a sample of how climate alarmism has resulted in the misappropriation of funds worldwide: “Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent said last month that ‘Canada has invested more than $10 billion since 2006 to reduce greenhouse gases, to improve energy efficiency, to develop green infrastructure.’ But, overall energy efficiency has actually declined as politicians like Kent have forced so-called “green” alternate energy sources on society to appease climate campaigners. Had the $10 billion been spent on reducing pollution and improving and expanding existing energy sources such as coal-fired electricity generation, both the economy and the environment would be in far better shape.”

Harris concludes, “It is crucially important that practical environmentalists dissociate the movement from ideologically-driven climate activists. Otherwise, society will throw Earth Day, and indeed the whole environmental movement, into the dustbin of history.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ICSC is a non-partisan group of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of climate science and related policy worldwide. We aim to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. Instead, ICSC encourages effective planning for, and adaptation to, inevitable natural climate variability, and continuing scientific research into the causes and impacts of climate change.

ICSC also focuses on publicizing the repercussions of misguided plans to “solve the climate crisis”. This includes, but is not limited to, “carbon” sequestration as well as the dangerous impacts of attempts to replace conventional energy supplies with wind turbines, solar power, most biofuels and other ineffective and expensive energy sources.

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=788

 

The fact is that CO2 levels have gone up 35% in the last 150 years due to man. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. How could that NOT make temps go up? It's a very simple common sense thing......... that the fossil fuel industry doesn't want you to think about. The basics of the science is settled. 97% of the world's climatologists and all the world's science organizations are in agreement about it. The deniers just look foolish now.

 

You keep repeating your fabled science failure. We all know that CO2 does NOT lead warming. We also know that there hasn't been any warming for the last 17 years in spite of an increase in natural CO2 levels.

And, your 97% of climatologists figure is inherently wrong. It was a cherry picked group of 79 scientists. Even then the actual number was 75%.

Repeating your misleading information and lies doesn't make it true. It only makes you a habitual liar, a fool, an idiot or all three.

 

I understand that the "we" in "we all know that CO2 does NOT lead warming." are the denier morons who don't have a clue, but the fact is that CO2 can and does lead temperatures higher. It's the most basic and proven principles of climatology and physical science. Only an ignorant or crazy person would deny that. You are both.

 

I understand that you are a fool, futurecunt. But you really should stop lying about your left brain political ideology. You are a fool, man.

The Costs of Ideology Masquerading as Science:

As Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore observed on Fox Business News in January 2011: “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and it’s not good for the environment…In a warmer world we can produce more food.”

When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: “A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.”

Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, “The Population Bomb”, reported in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues in big sweats: “Everyone is scared s***less, but they don’t know what to do.”

Yes, and it should, because consequences of subordinating climate science to ideology, however well intentioned, have proven to be incredibly costly.

The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) reports that federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010 (a total $106.7 billion over that period). This doesn’t include $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, tax breaks for “green energy”, foreign aid to help other countries address “climate problems”; another $16.1 billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to green energy subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities in the 2009 “Stimulus Bill”.

Virtually all of this is based upon unfounded representations that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, a claim based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. And what redemptive solutions are urgently implored? We must give lots of money to the U.N. to redistribute; abandon fossil fuel use in favor of heavily subsidized but assuredly abundant, “free”, and “renewable” alternatives; and expand federal government growth, regulatory powers, and crony capitalist-enriched political campaign coffers.

It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...rds-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/3/

<a href=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/>It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus</a>

 

Forbes?! LOL

Try NOAA


But the Koch bros love it.