Speaking of "Bullshit....." You post is way too long to refute one by one. But this is an example. Bob Carter has been paid by Exxon to do climate study. How many people can trust his scientific integrity when he says, "The first thing to be clear about is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant." Likewise, Tim Patterson also receives funding from Exxon. These are more like paid lobbiests wearing scientist clothes. Don't quote public speeches. They are meant to mislead the public. Find a peer-reviewed scientific journal and read the research articles in it. Although peer-reviewed research articles are not error-free, at least they are not purposely deceptive.
Here is a real scientific article co-authored by Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUFMPP23B1426N Basically, what it says is that they took several coral cores, compared their O18 isotope content (which can be used to deduce ocean temperature change), and found that the data obtained this way was no different than data obtained with a single coral core. Thus confirming that the published data based on single coral core are correct. (Guess what the published data say about the temperature? You guessed it!) This is a perfect example when it comes to scientific publications there is no real difference between scientists. What they say in public, however, is a totally different matter. The abstract of Bob Carter's article: "Climate variability in the western equatorial Indian Ocean reflects the combined influence of seasonally changing sea surface temperature (SST), ocean currents, and monsoon circulation, as well as inter-annual to -decadal variability associated with ENSO in the Pacific. However, the Indian Ocean also exhibits variability that appears unrelated to ENSO in the Pacific. The nature of interactions between air-sea variability in the Indian and Pacific oceans is not yet fully resolved, in part because of the lack of long-term, high-resolution SST records from key localities in the Indian Ocean. Such records are now being obtained using oxygen isotope profiles measured on corals from East Africa, Indonesia, Australia, and Indian Oceania (Maldives, Seychelles), with the longest coral-based time series from Malindi, Kenya, covering the last 300 years at near-monthly resolution. The value of these developing coral records depends on the fidelity with which they record regional climate variability. In order to assess the fidelity of oxygen isotope ratios (\delta18O) in Indian Ocean corals as a proxy for sea surface temperature, we have generated stable isotopic time series from multiple Porites lutea coral heads collected along the coast of Kenya. Coral-based isotopic paleoclimatology is labor and time-intensive so detailed analyses using multiple coral heads from different sites within a region are extremely rare. Most published records are produced from a single coral head, yet questions have been raised about the accuracy of such records. To address such concerns, near-monthly resolution isotopic profiles, spanning 10 to 50 years prior to 1997, were measured on a total of 8 cores from five sites along a north-south transect between 2° and 4° S (Kiwayu: 2° 2'S, 41° 2'E, Malindi: 3° 14'S, 40° 8'E, Watamu: 3° 23'S, 39° 52'E, Mombasa: 3° 59'S, 39° 5'E, and Kisite: 4° 43'S, 39° 23'E. Correlations among individual \delta18O time series (r values range from 0.65 to 0.80) reveal that sample- and site-specific effects do not sufficiently bias \delta18O such that regional climate signals cannot be discerned from any of the 5 sites. Furthermore, correlation of all individual oxygen isotope time series with instrumental monthly SST yields r values between -0.70 and -0.75, demonstrating that fluctuations in \delta18O primarily reflect variations in SST. Although correlation coefficients between \delta18O and instrumental monthly SST are higher using either single-site composite \delta18O time series, such as for Malindi (r = -0.76), or a multisite, multi-core composite (r = -0.81), these correlation coefficients are only slightly higher than those for individual coral \delta18O time series. We conclude that in this case, the cost of developing replicate coral delta18O time series from individual sites may not be warranted in terms of a marginal gain in signal-to-noise ratio. Our work suggests that a 300 year long, near-monthly \delta18O record from a single coral head from Malindi, can be used with confidence for environmental reconstructions in the western equatorial Indian Ocean."
Many moons ago when I was in grade school we experienced seven days in a row in Chicago in the summer where the temperature exceeded 100 degrees. That year we were told the globe was warming. Just a few years prior to that, Chicago experienced the blizzard of '67 in which we had over six feet of snow in a day and a half. I guess that was global cooling. It was probably brought about by the preceeding years global warming to balance things out (giggle). When I was in high school we experienced a Christmas where the temperature was 78 degrees and just a few weeks later we had the worst ice storms ever in Chicago. In my lifetime I have seen too much warming, too much cooling experts who all bring about a body of limited knowledge to support their specific concepts. Now I hear that the human race is the real issue. Then I read these things: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977 Could it be Martian SUV's? Then I read these articles: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html Are Jupiter SUV's/humans causing these too? I have no doubt that we have a miniscule impact on the overall conditions here, but not on the other planets. And if they are warming one would logically say that maybe, just maybe, the sun might be affecting us all in this warming thing. Maybe the ice age occured because not enough polution of the air was going on. That being the case, why did the condition reverse itself? Dino SUV's!! Dino farts!!
Thanks for the links. Nice going. And yes, I recall those Chicago days as well. In fact I can remember there was a record high of 80 on March 1st, 1973 and there were still SNOW drifts on Foster Ave. beach. I tend to think climate change is cyclical. However the leftist elite will exploit the problem as a way to gain leverage over the world's developing working class. The left in California don't stop consuming but they want the poor in Africa, Brazil and India to stop producing. Hypocrites. How much energy is being used by concert goers this summer as they enrich Barbra Streisand on a meaningless tour?
Britain set to sizzle in hottest temperatures ever Jul 17 2:37 PM US/Eastern Email this story Britain could soon swelter in the highest temperatures ever recorded, weather forecasters said, with a 30 percent chance that Wednesday will become the country's hottest day ever. Temperatures of 37 degrees Celsius are expected in southeast England and forecasters at Britain's Meteorological Office say one or two areas could experience 39 C (102.2 degrees Fahrenheit). That would beat the previous high of 38.5 C, recorded at Faversham in Kent, southeast England, on August 10, 2003, and make parts of the Britain hotter than Spain or Greece. A Met Office spokesman said the present heatwave was due to a period of very settled weather. "Over coming days, even hotter air will move across from continental Europe causing the temperature to rise even further," he added. "Our research shows that there is a significant human contribution to these heatwaves because of carbon dioxide emissions over recent decades. "This is a sign of things to come, with the current temperatures becoming a normal event by the middle of this century." Forecasters expect Britain to cool down by the weekend but predict that temperatures will remain above average for the rest of the month. Bookmaker William Hill said it would have to pay out 100,000 pounds (145,000 euros, 182,000 dollars) to punters who have bet on the temperature if the thermometer hits 38 C. The average maximum temperature for July is 23 C.
For there to be a hottest temperature ever, there had to already be a hottest temperature ever. And does this new high condition negate the coldest temperature on a day in the winter months? What does it mean if after the hottest day, there are twenty days of standard (??), average temperatures? Do record lows cancel record highs in the same year? Is this all based on regionally dependent records? One would think if it is a global condition, the temp should be too high everywhere at the same time at least once. There should be at least one day in the past thirty or forty years where ALMOST EVERYWHERE AT THE SAME TIME the temperature was too high/low. For two or three hours at least. Or at least ten to fifteen percent of the globe for two consecutive minutes. Does all this expert opinion mean that the average is to be ignored or do we look to the oddity as the new odd regular? Somewhere I'll bet there is an "EXPERT" who says that the average over the norm/under the norm days per year are the true bellwether. And I'm sure since that theory doesn't fit into either camp no one believes him/her. Does that make the theory any less right than what we are hearing so far? Dominant theory at one time held that the world was definetly flat. They too were learned, respected experts. Expert theory still holds that bumble bees can't fly. The bees still don't respect that expert position either. Did you ever notice that they always seem to start their statements with the phrase, "In my expert OPINION...!" I'm sure there are a large number of experts with opinions on both sides of the odd temps argument too. Otherwise they wouldn't be experts, would they?
Anyone out there other than me tackle the game SimEarth? There was a chapter that attempted to explain a theory of how a planet is temperature controlled. Prior to man being a temperature force (giggle), the game enacted effects that created ice ages and planet warming. I thought it a rather plausable model. Yet I hear no scientific embrace of the thinking. It was as credible as any other so-called valid theories. Actually, it seemed more valid than most of the things we hear today, IMHO. I should find a copy of the game and send it to some of these self-proclaimed climate experts and see what their OPINION is. Off to eBay for the hunt....
You should, they'd laugh their asses off, at your expense. Their models are many times more sophisticated than that game (which is fun btw).
I should send a link or two: http://cgi.ebay.com/SimEarth-The-Li...ryZ62053QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem Sometimes it's the simplcity that turns on the lights.