DEMING: Global warming freeze?

Amazing! A scientist that examines evidence. What is this world coming to?

Hardly indisputable evidence against global warming theory, but I hope you are right. Unfortunately, we will still be on the downside curve of the Peak Oil theory, which ultimately still necesitates other energy sources in our near future, particularly as oil demand and consumption rises globablly. What are your thoughts on Peak Oil theory?

In thought only I am still seeing opinions/half truths on most all of the Science programing. Even on the "History Channel" connecting/comparing AGW and those ancient past events. Comments like "some scientists say" without any qualification or quantification nor any comment about other scientist views.

There is something more ominous on the horizon. "Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012-2015... Global cooling will come relatively soon as the planet having received increased solar energy over almost all of the 20th century now gradually gives it back." - Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, the Deniers. Obama has made the wrong decision based on politics (cap and trade taxes) and consensus science and he is taking the U.S. in the wrong direction with regard to energy. It will be years before we can start producing accessible "carbon energy" in the middle of cooling cycle, but this will still be quicker than developing green technologies, infrastructure, maintenance and support. It took over 100 years to mature carbon energy as a way to sustain our population growth. Full deployment of alternative sources will take at least that long. If Dr. Abdussamatov is correct, Obama and the Democrat Congress have chosen to go from a stable energy source to an unstable energy source in the middle of a mini-iceage all for the power of a cap and trade tax scam. Global warming evolved to climate change because they could not prove it was warming. Therefore Obama is only looking at Cap and Trade and putting this nation at risk without a valid energy independence plan. His and Democrat politics of power, will as the author suggests drive this nation into a depression.

DEMING: Global Warming Freeze? 12/10/08 Environmentalism--as it is practiced--is the surest path for the hardcore liberals to attain the (totalitarian-socialist) global control they have sought for so long, because they can use the media to panic the public into accepting the draconian measures they are now proposing as their solution to the oncoming horrors of global warming. Only in that manner can the liberals impose government-enforcement of their religion of secular humanism upon all the peoples of the earth. The liberals have two powerful advantages going for them. First, they can rely upon the public's firm belief that all scientists are pure as the driven snow and completely objective. Second, the world's news-and-entertainment media are the world's ear-flappers, and most of the media consist of hardcore liberals. So the growing numbers of dissenters among the environmental scientists face an uphill struggle. The media can run footage showing the antics of a few cute-looking polar bears while explaining that the polar bears are all about to die because of manmade carbon dioxide. Also, the Weather Channel, the History Channel, other cable channels, and motion-pictures use computer-generated imagery to sear into our brains unforgettable images of doomsday scenarios resulting from global warming. This appears to be Truth. Against that, the dissenters can only present printed articles containing numbers supporting hard scientific facts. Therefore, it is imperative that the debunkers challenge the global-warming crowd with articles that are comprehensive, concise, and easy to grasp. In each single article, the debunkers need to print the actual numbers from believable sources to demonstrate that overall, the earth and the oceans have been cooling gradually for a number of years, to make the point unequivocally that global warming is not happening now. Next, they should print just enough numbers to prove that we are not in a very short cooling-period during a long-term warming trend (as the global warmers are now theorizing). Third, they should print just enough numbers to show that in the past the earth went through numerous heating and cooling cycles that had nothing to do with manmade carbon dioxide, and there is no proof that the most-recent warming cycle was tied to manmade carbon dioxide. And fourth, they should briefly remind the reader just how far the environmental scientists and the media went a few decades ago to try to convince the public that doom lay just ahead due to global cooling due to the "nuclear winter." Therefore, this frenzied global-warming campaign is not likely the result of an innocent mistake. But nevertheless, governments around the world are aching to cripple their economies and devastate their middle classes by taking this short step to totalitarian socialism.

Yak2008 said " we will still be on the downside curve of the Peak Oil theory" Yet another myth. Oil sands, off shore reserves, oil shale, coal are produce oil. Hundreds of years of the stuff. Nuclear (uranium, thorium, uranium from seawater, etc.) is enough to produce a few billion years of electricity. With electricity you can produce synfuels including gasoline, diesel, heating oil, propane, etc. using current proven technology. Wind, bio and bluster is just bodacious bounty for the bumbling greenies believing in their particular religion of a wind and a blade of grass. Get the facts, not speculative theories and rejoin rational thinkers.

Climate change deniers continue to focus on a narrow definition of "climate change" as increasing global temperatures. While undoubtedly the increase of global warming gasses in the atmosphere continue to trap outgoing solar radiation in the earth's atmosphere and contribute in the long term to a warming climate, there are other, perhaps more severe, impacts to watch for. The first and most obvious of this is a change in the global carbon cycle. The acidification of our oceans due to the widespread absorption of CO2 gas is currently jeopardizing the integrity of coral reefs around the globe and threaten the reproduction of marine organisms with calcium carbonate shells which are the foundation of the aquatic food chain. These impacts are real and are happening at this very moment and are made worse by anthropogenic discharge of CO2 into the atmosphere. Keeping a narrow minded view of what global climate change means obscures the short term impacts that are currently threatening global ecosystems and the economies that depend on them.

The Climate Change/Global Warming groups are ignoring the science that says the heating and cooling of the glove is due to the Sun changing its output. These groups who attack anyone who doesn't support evolution blindly are acting with religous frevor towards anyone who wants to scientists that are looking at the evidence to be heard. So much for the left being the people who support science.

It is all about money. First, for scientists and "environmentalist" organizations. Then for carbon taxes to create a whole new world bureaucracy of control. It only can gather momentum due to the fools in the population and the politicians. Algore come to mind?

I was initially surprised that a scientist is pointing out that a year or two of cold weather somehow cancels out a well-documented general trend towards glacial retreat and rising CO2 levels. There are always outliers - variety is, after all, the spice of life. But given the heavy ideological bent of the author, this helps explain the lenses through which he sees the world. CO2 is a wonderful absorber of infrared radiation, and so rising CO2 levels naturally lead to increased retention of solar flux. To deny this is folly. Perhaps next we will hear the argument that CO2 levels are not increasing after all? While it is hard to sift through the competing viewpoints arguing for and against the validity of anthropogenic global warming or, more properly, climate change, I hope that in the end that science may help solve this controversy. People on both sides of the debate have financial reasons to adopt their veiwpoints, and this sadly taints their objectivity. No amount of political will can triumph over a sufficiently powerful and disinterested facet of reality.

I keep hearing of rise in CO2 levels. I ask simply what are they now and what were they during the last 30 years? Is it possible that they can naturally rise and fall? Are we to believe that rising temperatures would be all bad? Or only the extreme? What were they during the ages of dinosaurs and giant tropical plants and grasslands in Greenland? Where did the CO2 come from then?

Ohioans are really glad that climate change, espeically global warming, has managed to chase the glaciers completely out of the state. The various ice ages that caused the glaciers to cover the state wrecked havoc on the local farmers.

For a nice chart on atmospheric CO2 levels, see http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/chr73e_thrudc04.pdf This data was collected on the Christmas Islands (in the Pacific Ocean near the equator, to the west of South America). I found the link to this on noaa.gov -- I trust that this is an acceptable source. You can search on the NOAA website for atmospheric co2 and find the same charts for yourself. The first five or six links were 404, but the last five were fine. The La Jolla Pier data shows more dramatic annual notches from the cyclic consumption of fossil fuels. Presumably fuel consumption is at a minimum in the fall and then ramps up with the heating season, continuing to increase with the summer driving season in the northern hemisphere. But perhaps that attribution is unwarranted?

Dear cedarhill, I never endorsed Peak Oil theory, as you intimate. I simply asked a question about it, underscoring the idea that future energy needs are still insecure/unknown/unsettled, anthropogenic global warming or not. You are correct in your semi-offpoint quibbling about other ways to produce oil like oil shale, oil sands, coal, etc, suggesting that Peak Oil theory is wrong, but that's only useful if you want to contest its name, which is really just a nickname, possibly dispersed and politicized by "bumbling greenies" - I don't know. Nevertheless, if you understood the theory (And I'm definitely not an expert on it), you would know that the theory refers to oil fields that are popularly and conventionally exploited, using big straws to get the juice, which we might call - the easy oil, for your sake. The theory has been used to guestimate world oil supply, by looking at rates of oil field discoveries coupled with the theory's bell curve projection for individual oil fields. In short, using the theory suggests that the easy oil is running out. Perhaps we don't need the theory to know that and never did. I don't know. You mentioned some alternative ways of producing oil, but you didn't refute the theory. If running out of the easy oil were not a problem as you make it sound, the subject wouldn't be as politicized as it is, and I personally don't think we'd be so quick to jump into Iraq or Kuwait, to install democracy or be ranting at political rallies, "Drill Baby Drill." Not to mention, just the other day I saw a comercial by Exon Mobile saying that it is becoming increasingly difficult to extract oil from the ground. I'm still interested to know which of the many ways you enumerated would be most efficient, in terms of energy invested vs energy out? The green house gas theory supporters may be compounding the issue, and they may be wrong about correlating anthropogenic co2 emissions with rising temperatures. I do not know. But, I do think it is rational to want to protect the environment and/or the world we live in, since we only have one biosphere, unless you want to argue that pollution is a myth, in which case I'd be delighted to entertain the notion, which segues into my last point or nonpoint, more of a question really. What is a rational thinker? And if they follow your example, would I want to join them, or rejoin them as you say, implying that at some time I was a rational thinker, but in mentioning the "speculative" peak oil theory, I've somehow strayed, only to be enlightened by your illuminating retort? In response to your position on speculative theories, I have two more for you: Godel's Theorem and Mob Psychology. What are your thoughts on those? Sincerely, Yak2008

tanzkuchen: “It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms the Earth’s oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov