Data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime.
Newsletters
No Newsletters to View
Awards
Welcome to Global Warming Skeptics
Earth’s environment has become a hot button issue; so much so, that it has stumbled into the political arena. Yet, when the layers are peeled away on this issue, critical thinkers ask if the sky is really falling or if the media is hyping the matter. Something is going on with Mother Earth’s climate; there is no doubt about that. Precisely what is going on is anyone’s guess and due to the planet’s dynamics, the reason can’t be pinned down to one primary cause. After all, it's been changing for 4.5 billion years and blaming it on the modern human industrial population has become the movement of the 21st Century.
It doesn’t take much for a rational minded person to soon realize that global warming, now called climate change and now being referred to as acid acidification (what'll they think of next?), is a religious movement of the far left; there always has to be some disaster looming and if we don’t change our ways or throw money at it we are doomed. The ice age scare of the 70’s comes to mind and we’ve seen where that went.
A Word About Consensus
A vast majority of these anthropogenic climate change doomsayers (some say all of them) claim that the debate is over, that scientists are in a consensus. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that the word consensus in the world of science is a foreign concept; indeed it’s a concept of politicians. People that make the assertion that scientists have come to a consensus do so out of laziness and ignorance. These people do not want to understand the science behind the issue and therefore takes the word of scientists at face value, never questioning it as long as it supports their movement.
Michael Crichton said it best:
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."
The AGW Movement, Carbon Credits and papal indulgences
Let’s face it. Environmentalists have found a new movement and some say that it’s even a religious movement. This farce has gotten so out of control that a blatant scam has emerged called “carbon credits” and it’s a way for the limousine and Learjet liberals to live their lavish lifestyle, while spewing their venomous bile and wagging their finger at the middle and lower class to conserve energy. In Roman Catholic theology, papal indulgences was the full or partial remission of temporal punishment due for sins (Carbon footprint) which have already been forgiven. The indulgence is granted by the church (Limousine and Learjet liberals) after the sinner has confessed and received absolution. The belief is that indulgences draw on the storehouse of merit acquired by Jesus' (Al Gore in this case, though some see him as the liberal party savior) sacrifice and the virtues and penances of the saints and are granted for specific good works and prayers. Carbon credits sounds strikingly similar, doesn't it?
If this isn’t enough, law firms are setting up shop to sue corporations for altering the micro climate around them. This will ultimately trickle down to the single family home owner and when the next hurricane strikes, who will these lawyers blame for it? Certainly not Mother Gaia. No, it's your fault because you weren't using highly toxic, mercury laced compact flourescent light bulbs or driving an SUV instead of a Prius or taking the bus. Sounds gloomy, does it? Well, it's far from over and it will only get worse if we keep bending over to these environmentalist's knee jerk demands. It would appear that John McCain, our next president, has been hooked and reeled into this nonsense. Let's hope that he will see the light and get in touch with his rational side.
Our Mission
The mission of Global Warming Skeptics is to keep visitors informed of the other point of view, that there isn’t a “consensus”. By searching the web for news articles and reaching out to other sources that questions the human induced aspect to this natural phenomenon, the casual visitor won’t get information that is skewed.
Recall the words of H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is often a false front for the urge to rule."
Membership is free and once registered, you can even submit any newsworthy information.
A Word About Consensus
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."
Michael Crichton
Kyoto Cost
ePetition
Don't forget, if you haven't already signed the ePetition you can do so by clicking on the
Well, well. Congress learned something shattering today, which will have the Church of Al Gore/IPCC running in fear of their lost credibility. It has been scientifically demonstrated that 70% of the Global Warming in the last century (and cooling in the last decade) is due to the Pacific Ocean Oscillations, not CO2:
One necessary result of low climate sensitivity is that the radiative forcing from greenhouse gas emissions in the last century is not nearly enough to explain the upward trend of 0.7 deg. C in the last 100 years. This raises the question of whether there are natural processes at work which have caused most of that warming.
On this issue, it can be shown with a simple climate model that small cloud fluctuations assumed to occur with two modes of natural climate variability — the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon (Southern Oscillation), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation — can explain 70% of the warming trend since 1900, as well as the nature of that trend: warming until the 1940s, no warming until the 1970s, and resumed warming since then.
The gentlemen making this claim is the lead investigator one of NASA’s flagship Earth Observing Observatories (H/T Ice Cap). I have the honor of working on this mission on the periphery (Aqua), it is operated out of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD.
The Grand Exaggerator Thursday, July 24, 2008 @ 20:25:42 CDT by sunsettommy (9 reads)
National Review Online
Thursday, July 24, 2008
The Grand Exaggerator [Patrick J. Michaels]
EXCERPT:
What is it with Al Gore? Why is he compelled to exaggerate climate change (excuse me, “the climate crisis”), and then to propose impossible policy responses? It’s like he’s inventing the Internet all over again!
OK, it’s pretty much standard rhetoric in Washington to say that if you don’t do as I say, there will be massive consequences. But to say, as Gore recently did: “The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk;” and: “The future of human civilization is at stake” — that’s a bit much, even for the most faded and jaded political junkie.
Here’s how Gore works. He’ll cite one scientific finding that shows what he wants, and then ignore other work that provides important context. Here’s a list of his climate exaggerations from his well-publicized July 17 rant, along with a few sobering facts.
Gore: “Scientists . . . have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire [North Polar] ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months.”
Fact: The Arctic Ocean was much warmer than it is now for several millennia after the end of the last ice age. We know this because there are trees buried in the tundra along what is now the arctic shore. Those trees can be dated using standard analytical techniques that have been around for decades. According to Glen MacDonald of UCLA, the trees show that July temperatures could have been 5-13°F warmer from 9,000 to about 3,000 years ago than they were in the mid-20th century. The arctic ice cap had to have disappeared in most summers, and yet the polar bear survived!
in Climate Dynamics (2008). They treat the known profiles of the ocean temperature as a possible driver and argue that this function of time is enough to reproduce the observed continental temperatures almost accurately.
This remark means that the greenhouse effect above the land is not among the most important effects while the temperature change of the oceans is primary. However, they can't say why the temperature of the oceans was changing. And of course, the greenhouse effect (mostly above the oceans) can still play a significant role for this question. But it doesn't have to.
Climate Re-Education Program Thursday, July 24, 2008 @ 19:53:24 CDT by sunsettommy (9 reads)
Climate Skeptic
July 21, 2008
Climate Re-Education Program
EXCERPT:
A reader sent me a heads-up to an article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society ($, abstract here) titled "Climate Change Education and the Ecological Footprint". The authors express concern that non-science students don't sufficiently understand global warming and its causes, and want to initiate a re-education program in schools to get people thinking the "right" way.
So, do climate scientists want to focus on better educating kids in details of the carbon cycle? In the complexities in sorting out causes of warming between natural and man-made effects? In difficulties with climate modeling? In the huge role that feedback plays in climate forecasts?
Actually, no. Interestingly, the curriculum advocated in the Journal of American Meteorology has very little to do with meteorology or climate science. What they are advocating is a social engineering course structured around the concept of "ecological footprint." The course, as far as I can tell, has more in common with this online kids game where kids find out what age they should be allowed to live to based on their ecological footprint.
Like the Planet Slayer game above, the approach seems to be built around a quiz (kind of slow and tedious to get through).
The global warming debate heats up Thursday, July 24, 2008 @ 19:46:19 CDT by sunsettommy (11 reads)
The Oregonian
The global warming debate heats up
by David Reinhard, The Oregonian
Wednesday July 23, 2008, 5:13 PM
EXCERPT:
The climate-change
debate heats up
Maybe you've noticed this, too. The less sure people are of their views, the more inclined they are to name-call, yell and bully. I've noticed this when it comes to religion and politics and life in general, but I've had trouble getting used to it when it comes to science.
Science is supposed to be about irreducible facts, the discipline of the scientific method, repeatable experiments, rigorous analysis and solid conclusions rather than sound bites, insults, threats and public relations campaigns. But look at global warming and climate change.
The Weather Channel's top climatologist says broadcast meteorologists who voice skepticism about man-made climate change should be stripped of their certification. A renewable energy lobbyist writes an e-mail to a climate change skeptic saying he intends "to destroy your career." The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's James Hansen, a global warming guru, calls skeptics "court jesters," and Al Gore likens them to "flat-Earth" advocates. The bid to enforce a global warming consensus has added "climate-change deniers" to our lexicon. You know, like "Holocaust deniers."
Curious. Why all the loaded verbiage? Why the insistence on consensus in an arena that relies on challenging conventional wisdom? Why all the anger?
