Warming's impacts sped up, worsened since Kyoto

And they are still cutting down the rain forests... That's like being on a wooden ship and using hull lumber to fuel the boiler!

mgerlach---here are the facts.

The only thing we do with coal is boil water. We can boil water with natural gas and cut carbon emissions to less than 1/2 what they are using coal. And with natural gas there are no strip mines, no acid leaching, and no watershed destruction. And natural gas does not produce smoke and air pollution. People use it to cook with in their homes.

We have no need for petroleum at all. Using biofuels and natural gas in bi-fuel engine vehicles, it is possible to drive under conditions with no petroleum at all. These cars are being made and sold right now. There are compressors available so that consumers can refuel compressed natural gas vehicles from a home natural gas hook up. Natural gas vehicles are already in use and have been for many years in places where ultra clean emissions are critical. It costs about 1/2 or less to drive a vehicle on CNG comparered to petroleum.

I don't acknowledge morons and I won't argue with anyone who does not believe in climate change and how it can and will destroy mankind at one point in the not to distant future. If you don't care about your kids and grandkids you are indeed not just stupid you are selfish. Oh yea Al Gore didn't invent global warming, I had a college Prof in the late 1970's who was talking about it before most people ever heard of it.
so many morons so little time

Trenton Jacobs---as you have pointed out, CO2 is a gas which causes greenhouse effect, it traps heat. As you have also pointed out---CO2 is not the ONLY gas that traps heat. Methane does too. And methane traps heat 17X more than CO2.

So, if we want to reduce the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere, we have to get rid of CO2? That would be one way. However, we can't just turn back the clock 300 years and suddenly go back to a pre-industrial revolution society. Billions of people would die. And we have no alternative energy sources that can do everything we need done. So there is nothing we can do, right?

Wrong. Methane is produced naturally by the decomposition of organic matter by bacteria. Landfills produce methane that escapes into the atmosphere. Treating sewage produces methane that escapes into the atmosphere. Dead plant material in forests produces methane.

If we capture methane that would have ordinarily escaped into the atmosphere anyway---for example, from landfills, or treating sewage------and then put it into our cleverly devised internal combustion engines and burn it, we are converting methane into CO2. But the CO2 we get out of our internal combustion engines traps 17X less heat into the atmosphere than if we had done nothing. If we mix just 6% captured biomethane with fossil methane, this means that the resulting emissions are greenhouse effect nuetral. We would still produce CO2---but the net gain in atmospheric warming would be 0. We would be exchanging high greenhouse effect causing methane, for low greenhouse effect CO2.

We can't produce enough biomethane to meet our energy needs now, or in the forseeable future. We could relativey easily produce enough in a relatively short time span and modest cost to supply 6% of our energy needs. We can mix that 6% with fossil methane and replace coal. That way, we are greenhouse effect nuetral. And when we use methane which is 80% hydrogen by volume---we produce the same amount of energy as coal, but put less than 1/2 of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Plus a lot less smoke and other toxic pollutants. And methane does not come from strip mines, it does not destroy the earth or water sheds to get it. And methane is a gas, it is much easier to handle and move around than coal.

What do you think we should do? Use coal, or natural gas with biomethane mixed in?

-------------"Which is the more terrifying and devastating: if people are bent and deliberately try to deceive others, or if they are so much in thrall to an ideology that they genuinely have lost the power to think objectively and rationally?"-----------

I can think of no reason why anyone would be deliberately trying to decieve others into believing in global warming if it is not real.

I can think of a number of reasons why people would deny global warming---both economic and political.

The only thing that I can conclude is that you, robidog, " genuinely have lost the power to think objectively and rationally"{in your own words}.

Since this is so, there must be a reason you are investing so much time and effort into your denials. One possiblity that comes to mind is economic. Perhaps you are heavily invested maintaining the profits and entrenched privilige of the status quo. The other possibility is political motivation. Or perhaps a combination of the two.

Either way---looking at your screen name, robidog, which makes no sense at all, I have to conclude that you meant rabid dog. This would explain a lot to me about you and your posts.

So, tell me, why should I, or anyone else pay the slightest bit of attention to the long, disjointed, psuedo-scientific ramblings of someone who purports to know more than 98% of the world's top scientists? Especially when that person can not even
spell "rabid dog"?

What appears to be the case is that these scientists did not set out to mislead the world so much as try to force data which did not correspond to their ideology of anthropogenic global warming to support that ideology. For me, one of the most telling emails was this one from Phil Jones on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

''Bottom line - their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.''

In other words, despite the fact that science (or history) tells us that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, thus destroying the basis of the AGW myth that we are living through an unprecedented warming of the climate caused by carbon dioxide arising from industrialisation, it cannot be true – because the Hadley CRU Director’s ‘gut’ tells him so.

All the manipulation, distortion and suppression revealed by these emails took place because it would seem these scientists knew their belief was not only correct but unchallengeable; and so when faced with evidence that showed it was false, they tried every which way to make the data fit the prior agenda. And those who questioned that agenda themselves had to be airbrushed out of the record, because to question it was simply impossible. Only AGW zealots get to decide, apparently, what science is. Truth is what fits their ideological agenda. Anything else is to be expunged.

Which is the more terrifying and devastating: if people are bent and deliberately try to deceive others, or if they are so much in thrall to an ideology that they genuinely have lost the power to think objectively and rationally?

The terrible history of mankind provides the answer to that question. Nixon was a crook. But what we are dealing with here is the totalitarian personality. One thing is now absolutely clear for all to see about the anthropogenic global warming scam: science this is not.

I was taught along time ago, assume all people are stupid until they prove otherwise. You people who think climate change is a hoax, you are definitly stupid, there is no arguing with you because you think the 4 scientist out of one hundred who deny the symptoms of climate change are right, they are a distinct minority just like those who think Sarah Palin is qualified to be anything other than a stripper

Man made global warming is a hoax to tax us all to hell and back. The End.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article69...

Through a set of hacked emails a group of some of the most influential scientific proponents of anthropogenic global warming have been revealed to have been manipulating, suppressing and distorting scientific evidence in order to bolster their claim.

This is the kind of thing these emails have revealed:

Phil Jones, Director of the Hadley Centre’s Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University and Michael Mann, creator of the infamous (and false) ‘hockey stick curve’ that underpinned AGW theory, discussing how to suppress the work of AGW sceptics, including changing the peer-review rules to do so:

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes. "I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

Here is Phil Jones proposing to delete data to avoid having to reveal it under a Freedom of Information request:

'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.''

And here is lead IPCC scientist Kevin Trenberth effectively acknowledging the sceptics’ case. On a thread fretting about the likely influence of the BBC’s ‘climate change reporter’ Richard Black in reporting that there had been no warming since 1998 and that Pacific oscillations would ‘force cooling for the next 20-30 years’, Trenberth wails:

'' Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather)... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!''

This material has revealed what has been described as ‘Nixonian-style paranoid plotting’ by these scientists to defraud the public. Actually, it reveals something even worse.

There are two vital aspects of global warming theory that rule it out as genuine science.

First, genuine science proceeds by making up hypotheses and then testing them, in that order. But global warming theory tries to do it in reverse by starting off with "data" and then extrapolating. It avoids testing altogether, as the models it uses are specially constructed so that they cannot but fit the "data".

Secondly, in genuine science data consist of observations. But most of global warming theory's "data" are cunningly called "proxy data" -- in other words, not the results of independent observations, but carefully constructed products of the theory itself, specially engineered to support the theory.

On both counts, global warming theory is pseudoscience.

The bottom line in the CO2 saga must surely be the following:
It can be established that there was an extensive medieval warm period, and that it was as hot, if not hotter then than in
the 1930s or 1990s. It is also certain that there were no cars or heavy industry anywhere on earth in those days. Therefore, something else must have caused it rather than mankind. Is it any wonder that scientists have been corrupting data from day one? Of course not, because they
and big government have been abusing the general public for their own national and private gains. A spurious warming trend fabricated for the convenience of the few into 'an inconvenient truth' for the many.

The science was lousy to begin with:-

Stage 1. We know its getting warmer, so we'll ignore any evidence that says that it's due to the natural variables of nature.

stage 2. when models don't show the evidence of warming that they expected, they don't try to analyse why not, they simply dictate that the problem is CO2.

Stage 3. They then change the data to represent what they pretend to 'know' to be the truth.

This isn't only a 'smoking iceberg', it's a snowball that's
going to roll. It's true that up until now the MSM have been global partners in the scam, because doom and catastrophe sells. But what sells more is scandal. And isn't this going to be the scandal of the century?

There have been many dishonest attempts at pseudo-science, just as there have been many dishonest attempts at banking, such as the mortgages scandal.
It's always done to pass off the motives of a single group as some kind of post-modern science, but it is in reality nothing more than the rule of the self-appointed over everyone else.

so many morons and so little time left.

Climate Change exists it is a NATURAL phenomenon driven mainly by Sun spot activities. There is not ONE scientific paper which PROVES that the MINISCULE amounts of CO2 in the air emitted by MAN have any noticeable effect on climate whatsoever. The earth has been COOLING for the past 12 years while man's CO2 emissions have continued to RISE. The NATURAL state of the planet over thousands of years is FAR warmer than it is now. CO2 rises ALWAYS follow Global Warming they NEVER precede it ask a GEOLOGIST not a CLIMATOLOGIST who cant even tell you if it will rain tomorrow. CO2 is not a pollutant... it is a VITAL part of the cycle of life... it feeds plants plants feeds humans and animals..... MORE CO2 more plants more food better for life, LESS CO2 less plants man and animals starve. So apart from being TOTALLY wrong about AGW, Green NAZI's are also anti LIFE.

Unfortunately, the denial has also reached mach speed.

The acceleration of climate change is only going to intensify as we do basically nothing. The point of no return will come long before anyone ever thought and disaster awaits mankind for his selfish use of fossel fuels. The evidence is overwhelming but naysayers continue to thwart any real action because they fear the cost in monetary terms. The net result will cost mankind well into the quadrillions of dollars for our inaction. The lack of foresight is truely remarkable for a species that thinks it is so smart. To not err on the side of caution with what ls at stake is actually really stupid. As the old saying goes, if my foresight was as good as my hindsight I be a damn sight better off. Quadrillions of dollars and millions of lives lay in the balance. My children and grandchildren are inheriting an earth that will have been if not destroyed changed forever with very grim chances of long term survival for the human species thought to have known what it was doing.

tommic
tom mcmahon
millis ma

Global Climate Warming is a fraud!

I thought I read somewhere that polar bear populations are actually on the increase...why the picture of a polar bear to highlight this article? More propoganda and fear mongering from the left, perhaps?

The article is no longer there.