Real Climate Science

http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/53370-is-ces-causing-global-warming

Something weird is going on this morning on this blog.

The 4,000,000,000,000.00 vs. 0.0004 post has disappeared five times this morning and I have had to repeatedly repost it.

Obama has added over $4,000,000,000,000 to the debt – so rather than dealing with reality, he focuses on 0.0004 concentration CO2 as a threat.

Consequences of Severe Climate Change Outweigh Partisan Agendas
By Derek Palmer

Published on January 4, 2011

Public health and safety is not a partisan issue. Ensuring the welfare of American citizens is arguably the most important job of the federal government. Therefore, we should question why, when the Environmental Protection Agency sets out to regulate harmful greenhouse gasses, we let rhetorical attacks about economic devastation or job destruction influence the rational restriction of a proven health threat to not only U.S. citizens, but the entire world.

The Clean Air Act and 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA make the Obama administration legally responsible for protecting citizens from the harmful effects of greenhouse gasses and other pollutants. The upcoming EPA regulations are not a case of the president trying to force his agenda through a regulative agency when legislation has failed. Instead, this is a case of performing his obligation to protect health and safety through whichever agency is best equipped to do so.

http://www.dailynexus.com

The average temperature of the Earth is rising at a rate that far exceeds that which would be expected based on natural causes alone. This is known and accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists and most of the thoughtful leadership in this country and around the world.

The key phrase here is “average temperature.” Looking out your window and seeing snow does not mean that global warming does not exist. It simply means that it is winter. What matters is that annual average temperatures are showing an alarming upward trend.

There are uncertainties about how much warming is related to human activity, but logical cause and effect relationships tell us that some percentage of it probably is. Could it be 100 percent? With so much at stake, do we want to quibble over that answer for very long?

We who viewed the “Church of Global Warming” cartoon that recently ran in this paper (Dec. 28) must remember that opinion is not the same as science. The science, though inconvenient, is pretty clear in this area.

Dr. Reid Pettit, Pontiac

http://www.pantagraph.com/

http://www.woodfortrees.org/

The author is starting to get a clue, but hasn’t quite figured it out yet.

GLOBAL warming is a problem for science, not spirituality.

If serious scientists want to create a consensus that human action is causing global warming they should ask the eccentrics and extremists to shut up. Claims that freezing winters show the planet is getting hotter, admissions that expected sea-level rises, creating 100 million refugees, are wrong and warnings that glaciers will melt, which turn out to based on hyperbole not scientific hypothesis, all understandably encourage sceptics who think global warming is a con. This in turn delays, even derails, debates about the extent of climate change and what can be done about it.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/

He has borrowed $20,000 per taxpayer per year! Your kids get to pay it back.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027090-503544.html

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ]

We have a bunch of complete idiots running the show in Washington.

We have seen an astonishing 40 years of scaremongering triggered by a few irresponsible scientists whose computer models became so vividly real for them that they abandoned basic adult responsibilities in their consequent public agitations.  After a brief dalliance with the possibility of the onset of the next glaciation, their efforts turned to warming, encouraged no doubt by the remarkable annual increases of CO2 recorded at Mona Loa.  They devised models to give CO2 a more important role in climate than observations and properly conducted historical reconstructions support.  The models do this by means of an hypothesised positive feedback involving water vapour, a feedback which is implausible from our knowledge of atmospheric history, and unconfirmed by recent observations, not least of air temperatures which fail to show the tropospheric ‘hotspot’ predicted by the models.  The ‘settled science’ of CO2 applies merely to its radiative properties, since the impact of these on the climate system is far from settled, with expert estimates ranging from an overall slight cooling, to a slight warming from projected increases in ambient CO2 over the next hundred years or so.  The apocalyptic stuff requires those computer models and their novel feedbacks.  Models which are mere toys in the face of the immense complexity of the system they refer to.  Models fit only to illustrate some aspects of speculations about the climate amongst relevant professionals, and not nearly good enough to warrant the widespread alarm they have been used to support.

It seems to me that adults, and in particular professionals, have a moral responsibility to avoid such scaremongering, and in particular to protect school-age children from it.  The temptations to pursue it for financial and political gain, or even for the pursuit of publicity and public attention as ends in themselves, are obvious and in part explain the enthusiastic adoption of climate scares by powerful individuals and organisations keen to grow in power and influence.  That they have dramatically succeeded in this is one of the most interesting features of the current scare, and one which is surely worthy of deep study in many disciplines if we are to have any hope of reducing our vulnerability to such exploitation.

http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/

h/t to Marc Morano

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_etal_1.pdf

When did they lose their skill at understanding the climate?

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,”

http://afp.google.com