sorry...  forgot this one.
merry Xmas...  ho ho ho....

MORE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/climatesos/2009/12/2009124191343603151.html

Concern over global warming has spawned such a highly charged and
polarised political movement, that real science has become sidelined
in favour of sound-bites and simple messages. The real science is not
as 'settled' as some politicians would have us believe.

There is a significant minority of climate scientists who look at the
data and conclude that we are dealing with natural cycles that are
peaking just as they have done on a regular basis over centuries.

These scientists are heavily outnumbered by the proliferation of
computer specialists who have created their own virtual planet –
people trained in maths and physics who may never have handled an
ice-core, tree-ring apparatus, sediments or stalagmites and all of the
proxy indicators of past temperature cycles.

In my view, the UN secretariat has marginalised their careful
assessment and warnings about natural cycles in favour of alarming
future projections generated by the computer model.

These real climate scientists know that the last major warm period was
a 1,000 years ago when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland – their
graves are still solid in the permafrost.

In between then and now, Europe and China experienced a Little Ice Age
– with widespread famine.

Reading the fine print

Taylor says satellite data debunks theories that climate change is unnatural
There is so much spin that you have to read the small print of the UN
reports where they admit to not understanding natural cycles and what
drives them.

Behind the scenes they acknowledge cycles are at work and contribute
to the warming and that it is only from the model that they derive the
dominance of carbon dioxide.

But the model does not easily simulate the poorly understood cycles.
Satellites do a better job and having spent three years studying the
data I conclude global warming is real but at least 80 per cent
natural cycle and 20 per cent human emissions.

My conclusions are supported by recent climate shifts that run counter
to model predictions. From the data on cycles I could predict that
after 2007, when Arctic summer ice reached a record low, it would
start to recover.

In 2008, it came back by 10 per cent. The majority expected it to
continue its decline to ice-free status by 2015. In 2009, it grew by
another 10 per cent.

Little Ice Age

The models beloved of the majority also predicted that the high-level
winds, known as the jet-stream, would shift north as the globe warmed.

The jet-stream directs wet weather from the Atlantic and in 2007 they
shifted south, bringing widespread flooding to Western Europe.

I have seen a minority report in Nasa's archives which shows that the
jet-stream shifts south as the magnetic field of the sun falls and
this was characteristic of the Little Ice Age.

In 2007, the sun's magnetic field fell to an all time low and this
repeated through 2008 and 2009, as did the floods.

Many solar scientists point to a link between this magnetic field and
climate on Earth and when the field is low, the Earth cools.

During the low in the 17th century the Thames in London froze every
winter for 50 years and summers were a washout.

Chinese and Russian scientists have better knowledge of these cycles,
because the cold periods induce widespread famine – and some of them
see all the signs of a new Little Ice Age.

Perhaps that's why their governments' sovereign funds are buying huge
tracts of productive land in the tropics – for food.

You may ask – if this is real science, how can the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ignore it and claim the
warming is caused by carbon dioxide.

Global spin?

Taylor says scientists may have manipulated data on emissions [AFP]
In fact, the scientists only agreed the warming is "very likely not
due to known natural causes acting alone" – and that is spun by the
policy-makers and the world's media.

The not-known natural causes are subject to high-level research
programmes because real scientists know they exist and are powerful.
And no real climate scientist ever said natural causes are acting
alone.

Up until the recent 'climate-gate' scandal, I accepted that the
objective data could be trusted.

But it now appears scientists upon whom the UN relies were busy
manipulating the data to produce a warmer globe and to eradicate what
they call 'lips' (i.e. cycles) that they cannot explain.

To compound matters, they then sought to undermine the Freedom of
Information Act and delete their records in advance of requests for
the data.

The issue of causation is crucial. The poorest people are already at
risk whether the globe warms or cools.

We need action on the real and immediate threats facing human support
systems from unavoidable natural climate change – but less than one
per cent of resources devoted to climate are spent on adaptation, the
rest goes on what will be ineffective attempts to 'stop climate
chaos'.

Peter Taylor is an ecologist and author of 'Chill: a reassessment of
global warming theory'.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Hmmm, you really struggle with what evidence is it seems Grendel.
That is one man's opinion, and he raises some issues which can be totally rejected, and some which are of interest to real climate scientists, but not of "significant" interest, because the probability of the theories being posited is so poorly backed up with reliable studies, and bear far greater resemblance to "Opinion", rather than "Evidence".

He does say he agrees that there is man made global warming, but he contends that man only causes 20%, and 80% of it is due to natural cycles, that he alone seems to understand.
If he understands them so well peerhaps(intentional spelling joke) he should have thought about writing a scientific study about them so other scientists could review his work, and help him to prove his claims.
No, instead he wrote a book, aimed at extracting some dollars from denialists who will be the only ones buying it, in the hope of maybe learning something that makes them sound less foolish.
Bad Luck, you won't find that magic bullet in this tome, lol.

But I give you some points Grendel, his work may have many glaring problems with it, but even so, he is far less foolish than previous professional opinions you have latched onto as your denialist scientician pinup boy of the day.

The most salient point you need to get through to your grey matter, which I know you have, but choose to leave in sleep mode sometimes, is that the facts of CO2 capturing infrared radiation, and thereby creating a measurable warming effect to the atmosphere are indisputable.

It is a known, a given, an accepted fact by ALL scientists, even your idiotic potty peer types do not try to argue against that basic fact.

Now if we use a car as an analogy, say the measurable warming effect of CO2 is the fuel we are pumping into the engine, and we got caught speeding, then denialists would be offering arguments that would be like; "but I pumped my tyres up harder than usual, which made the wheels bigger, so that is what made me go faster", or, "I think the wind was blowing in my face, slowing me, but when I went round the corner, I had a side breeze so went faster", or "I polished the car yesterday and with less resistance I found myself going faster."
Get it?

All of those things could have an effect, but to concentrate on those, and ignore how far down you have the accelerator pedal, is exactly what denialist scientists want to people to do, and to not appreciate that they are silly distractions, and you just need to accept that CO2 captures infrared radiation, which warms the atmosphere.

Repeat that 10,000 times;
CO2 captures infrared radiation, which warms the atmosphere.

Come back after that has sunk in and we will talk again.

lol, make a list of the "Emminent" scientists that disagree with Global Warming, and I will personally write to every one of them who has written one paper which proves that Global Warming is, as you put it, a scam.

Refute his work?

I am not a scientist, but I have seen your responses to real science, where full and comprehensive refutation of your spurious clams is provided, but you invariably rin away, or change the subject.
YOU, never follow a scientific refutation through when they are presented to you, so I can understand why they would get frustrated even trying to engage denialists in meaningful argument, for they are not interested in science, if they were, they would not be denialists in the first place.

rotflmao

wasn't she reading something written for her by the Labour Government?  

BTW...  I didn't make any "appeal to authority"  just noted Mozzas ignorance.

Keep wafflin' you Amuso me.

Mozza...  stop telling lies about me. Your credibility is already shot.

Liar liar pants on fire...  oooh must be global warming that did that eh Muso.

How you keep lying about what I actually say and think is beyond me.
Maybe you are dumber than I think.

Well the CO2 theory is just that... unproven.  Guess it is just an opinion then eh.

Next they'll be trying to take the blue out of the sky because temperatures are higher when the sky is blue. 

If you knew anything about politics and government and how things work in the UK, you'd never have gone there.  wait...  maybe you are stupid enough to have still gone there.  In which case there's the explanation of why "debating" you on this site is sooooooooo incredibly tedious.

Since when is an unproven theory a fact.

In my days it was just a working hypothesis based on an idea.

My my my...  you had me fooled for a while...  you are dumb. 

Been there done that.

The theory or should I say assumption... that man-made CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming, now known as Climate Change is a crock.

Now if you can actually prove it...  you'll be a world wide front page Muso.  

So far no one not even the IPCC has had the gall to make such a claim.  oh wait...  maybe Gore did and we all know what a giant intellect he is.  oh wait...  it was his idea in the first place.  Gee...  talk about credible sources eh.

Climate or should I say GLOBAL climate is a lot more complicated than the physics involved in your little example.

Or am I wrong about that too eh?

I don't dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
I don't dispute that the globe warms and cools and greenhouse GASSES are part of that mechanism.

Neither do most of the people you call deniers and skeptics.
Nor do most of the emminent scientists you are arrogant enough to dismiss out of hand and rude enough to belittle.

I appreciate that like me, you reply to Grendel's idiotic propaganda cut and pastes, for the benefit of any who may not be familiar with the extent of deceit that emanates from Denialist campaigners, and never expect Grendel to ever admit to any error ever, or to ever acknowledge that lies he has posted have been exposed as lies many times over, for he continues to cut and paste the same old debunked garbage ad nauseum.

He chooses places like Heartland Institute, a extreme right wing bastion of idiocy that will run professional disinformation campaigns for your cause, for a price, as his sources for the cut and paste sprees he is most famous for.

Unfortunately with the demise of One Nation, he needed a new obsession, and lucky old us (sarc), he chose Denialism.

Just bear in mind, two rules Grendel assiduously follows, always ignore any, and all evidence that comes from actual scientists who specialise in the field, and who have submitted their work for peer review so that their conclusions can be checked and tested, and secondly;
Only ever believe what you read in Denialist blogs, because anonymous PR guys and ultra right wing extremists are the only people he trusts.

So in conclusion, we all know there is not a snowballs chance   of Grendel ever honestly appraising the actual evidence available, and when he does more than cut and paste the professional lies from the denial sites we see him show his true colours. So much of the professionally contrived PR man bull he just pastes, can seem credible if you are unfamiliar with the real truth about the things they deliberately misrepresent, but do not buy it, such lies should never be left unchallenged.

Muso's wiki provides great information for any who are honestly seeking some clarification, and want to better educate themselves to be able to understand this issue better, plus it provides many links to actual studies and data which corroborate the facts he provides.

If you just want an easy primer to explain the common denialist lies, you can go to,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses
which will show the scientific debunking of the lies Denialists put forward as alternative theories, plus you can also look up the opinions and credentials of the real scientists, as well as the Denialist scientists, and then make up your own mind who to believe.

So do not believe me, do not believe Grendel, go to the experts, and see if you believe them, I know I certainly do.

Whatever you do, never, ever accept any denialist argument without checking it out first at a reputable place where real scientists provide real answers, and then decide for yourself.