0
   

British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax

 
 
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2012 09:19 am
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/m-global_warming_skeptic_prof_lindzen_testifies_before_house_of_commons.html

Quote:

February 24, 2012
British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax
Jerry Schmitt
James Delingpole of The Telegraph reports that the British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax from MIT's Richard Lindzen who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. Prof. Lindzen sounded the alarm early over the systematic subversion of Climate Sciences in North America and Europe by a cabal centered around Al Gore and the UN's Maurice Strong.

The Telegraph has published Prof. Lindzen's presentation here as the House of Commons undertakes to "Reconsider the Climate Change Act" -- the provisions of which have decimated the British economy. America's hapless Republicans somehow are unable to organize an effective political debate over global warming hysteria that is affecting everything from Solyndra to the Keystone Pipeline-- even though I'm sure Prof. Lindzen is available to testify before Congress. This renewed debate in Parliament represents a significant shift in the balance of power against the eco-fanatics.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 8,772 • Replies: 182

 
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2012 09:26 am
Lindzen has been pushing the same line for something close to fifteen years now. It hasn't changed, and the facts haven't changed. The earth doesn't listen to Lindzen, it just keeps getting warmer in spite of him and his beliefs. Which is why the results of the science that is done keep showing that global warming is real.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2012 10:09 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
The earth doesn't listen to Lindzen, it just keeps getting warmer in spite of him and his beliefs.


There's no excuse for making that claim given the findings of the past several years. You need to clean up your act.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2012 10:27 am
What findings are those, gunga? The findings that the warmest years on record have occurred in the last ten years? The finding that the net balance of ice shows around a half a trillion tons LOSS of ice every year? The melting of arctic permafrost that has been frozen for tens of thousands of years? The USDA change in climate zones, moving warmer zones northward? The uniform findings that "Climategate" was bullshit? The findings that the fossil fuel industry and others of their ilk are spending huge amounts of money to plant anti-climate-change propaganda out there? Which ones are you talking about?
Maybe you should try looking at the facts yourself, instead of the fantasy? Still think men were riding dinosaurs a thousand years ago, gunga?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2012 05:34 pm
@gungasnake,
For any who might have missed it:

http://able2know.org/topic/138574-1
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2012 07:16 pm
http://www.climatecooling.org/
parados
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2012 07:32 pm
@gungasnake,
It's funny that you would use a site that has no cooling news since 2009.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2012 07:37 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax

Devastating testimony?

Lindzen states this
Quote:
Stated briefly, I will simply try
to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most
certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not
about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether
the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should.

The devastating testimony is that climate warming is occurring.

Lindzen's argument is that we can't be certain of future warming. Hardly a "devastating" argument. Rather it is is an argument of degrees, both in temperature and how accurate science can be.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2012 02:17 pm
Hilayas have lost no ice in past decade:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122

Quote:
The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

The study is the first to survey all the world's icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less than previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.

Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: "The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero."....
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2012 02:19 pm
Solar Cycle 25

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Quote:

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1nWNLtWOQ
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2012 02:25 pm
Green energy company given federal stimulus funds lays off 125 workers, gives pay raise to executives

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/26/green-energy-company-given-federal-stimulus-funds-lays-off-125-workers-gives/

Quote:

An electric car battery company reportedly has laid off 125 employees since receiving $390 million in government subsidies, but is still handing out big pay raises to company executives.
A123 systems, which was touted as a stimulus "success story" by former Gov. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich., had a net loss of $172 million through the first three quarters of 2011, according to the Washington Examiner's "Beltway Confidential" blog, citing a report from the Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
A123's primary customer, Fisker Automotive, is also struggling financially. "Yet, this month A123’s Compensation Committee approved a $30,000 raise for [Chief Financial Officer David] Prystash just days after Fisker Automotive announced the U.S. Energy Department had cut off what was left of its $528.7 million loan it had previously received.”
This month has seen significant pay boosts for other A123 executives, as well, including vice presidents Robert Johnson and Jason Forcier.
The raises were reported by the company in its filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to the Mackinac report.
“It looks highly suspicious,” Paul Chesser, associate fellow for the National Legal & Policy Center, told Mackinac. “It looks like they are trying to pad their top people's wallets in case something really bad happens.”


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/26/green-energy-company-given-federal-stimulus-funds-lays-off-125-workers-gives/#ixzz1nWOyGrMP

0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 08:18 am
Gunga,
re Himalayas: that is one of the greatest red herring posts I've ever seen, and completely ignores the thrust of the GRACE study, which is that there is a net loss of half a trillion tons of ice every year. The ice is melting globally and sea level is rising. It's the ice melt, not the Himalayas.

re temperature rising since 1998. Again your stupid newspaper gets it wrong. Hottest years on record were 2005 and 2010. They eclipsed 1998. 11 of the 13 warmest years on record are this century. You show severe confusion between average annual temperature and global average temperature.
Look at the trend, not individual years--nobody questions there's a lot of variation interannually, but the trend is indisputably up. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/hazards/2011/12/enso-global-temp-anomalies.png

re: Solandra, kinda makes you question your conservative belief in the virtues of free enterprise, doesn't it.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 09:24 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
The ice is melting globally and sea level is rising.


Bullshit. You can lie to yourself, you can't lie to me. All real date indicates that whatever warming was going on in the 1900s stopped after the 1990s and the planet has been cooling since then.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 09:47 am
Your source is based on the GRACE study. Go back and read the source, not the Daily Mail's spin on it. Ice is melting. Sea level is rising.
And re temperature, NOAA disagrees with you, and they have the data (that's the source of the graph). You don't.
And to repeat, why are glaciers retreating, why is the Arctic icecap shrinking and thinning? Why are climate zones moving northward? Why are warmer climate zones moving upward on mountains worldwide? Why is spring coming earlier, snowpacks decreasing and melting earlier? Why is ocean heat content and acidification increasing? The list goes on. What on earth makes you think the earth is cooling, gunga. You've made it abundantly clear in the things you post here that you'd rather believe in fantasy than reality. You're doing it again.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 01:10 pm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2845998/posts

Quote:

Do Latest Solar Studies Confirm Upcoming Global Cooling?/b]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Hathaway_Cycle_24_Prediction_%28Feb_2011%29.png/300px-Hathaway_Cycle_24_Prediction_%28Feb_2011%29.png

I fully support the findings of Jan –Erik Solheim , Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum and their very recent paper called The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24 dated February 2012.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.1954v1.pdf

The abstract reads:

Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least 1.0 ◦C from solar cycle 23 to 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.

Before finding the above paper on WUWT, I had recently done a similar and slightly different analysis.

I took the Annual sunspot numbers for each year since 1900 and noted the solar maximums and solar minimums. I also noted all the years around the solar maximums that had sunspot numbers over say 60-70. These solar active periods around the solar maximums can last as many as 3-5 years . Then I lagged the data by 9 years. Then I looked at the global temperature anomalies Hadcrut3gl for the all the actual years and noted the associated and lagged sunspot numbers. I then added and noted the El Nino active years using the ONI index.

I discovered that global temperatures were rising during the years around the lagged solar active period around the solar maximum and they were down during the period around the lagged solar minimum. Also there were El Ninos at the beginning or during the lagged active sun or solar active or maximum period. In another words the sun really affects the atmosphere not in the same cycle but during the next cycle or about 9 years later . It would appear that the extra solar radiation around solar maximums, heats the surface waters of the major oceans especially the Pacific and Atlantic. The warm water is then transported by the ocean conveyor belt deeper into the ocean waters and down swelled and conveyed around the globe. It reappears as warm upwelling along the South American west coast [and other upwelling locations] and ultimately contributes to the warming of the EL Nino area Pacific waters and modifies the PDO spatial patterns or warming to put more warmer water along the west coast of North America .

Similar event happens in the Atlantic as indicated by the AMO. The longer solar cycles means fewer solar active periods or maximums and less heating 9 years later. A series of short solar cycles in a row will cause more frequent heating and the PDO and AMO will both turn positive or warm simultaneously causing what we now refer to as global warming. The extended global cooling happens when there are series of longer solar cycles with lower maximums. Co2 seems to have little or negligible effect on these large natural cycles. Natural cycles will always dwarf any minor warming from manmade greenhouse gases.

Thus our long term climate is all in the cycles of sun lagged about 9 [ 9-11]years later in its effect and interacting with the oceans which then in turn affect our atmosphere 9-11 year later.

Since we are now in the equivalent lagged year[2012-9=2003] and will next experience the solar effects of the decline of solar cycle #23 [the solar period of 2000 to 2008 ], we can expect cooler weather for at least 6 years plus another nine years after the next warming effect of the solar active period of cycle #24 [ maximum around 2013 to 2014.] So I see no significant warming for 20 years at least [2030 earliest]. This is what ocean cycles like PDO predict and what the 60 year climate cycle predicts but now we may possibly have one of many hypothesis of how the sun does all this.

The El Nino around 2009-2010 was the effect of the last solar maximum of cycle #23 [around 200-2001].

This brief article was meant to continue the debate about the exact mechanism of how our sun affects our global climate It does not answer all the questions and may pose others.

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 01:20 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
And re temperature, NOAA disagrees with you,

Even the "devastating testimony" to British Parliament disagrees with him.

Warming is happening according to Lindzen's testimony to Parliament.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 04:12 am
The guy, Matti Vooro, who wrote Gunghasnake's latest screed--which Gunga posted all in BOLD for some reason, has absolutely no credentials to back himself up, apart apparently, from reviewing New Age "spiritual" books approvingly on Amazon. Nor do the facts back up the silly analysis of solar effects he sees.
Basically his theory is that solar effects on global temperature follow the solar cycle but are lagged nine years behind. So waht we should see in the elNino-laNina cycle is a elNinos around nine years after a solar maximum, followed a couple years later by 6 or 7 years of la Ninas 9 years after the solar minimum (a tailing off of solar irraadiance which lasts much longer in the nominally 11 year solar cycle than the max does), followed by a repeat of that nominally 11 year cycle, lagging by nine years the solar cycle.

However Vooro thinks he derived this calculation, and why the snake thinks it's relevant, it bears no resemblance to the facts. I refer you to the NOAA graph of average global temperature above, for the last seventy years or so, which is somewhat more than six solar cycles. It also shows Nino-Ninas on it, since they have a significant, if transitory, effect on global temp. We've got six solar cycles, so there ought to be six repetitions of an el Nino-la Nina cycle, but there is no discernable periodicty in their appearances, neither concentrations of either one 9years after the solar cycle, nor regular alternations of one type followed by a period of the other type. Look at the data, and Vooro falls apart.

Nice try, Gunga, no cigar. Or more correctly, Nice try, Gunga, exploding cigar. Another half-assed contrarian hypothesis bites the dust.

Not to mention the fact that, as another one of Gunga's graphics shows, solar output has been decreasing over the last three solar cycles, while global temperature has been rising most strongly. Which REPUTABLE scientists say is strong evidence that solar output is not the main driver in warming.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 04:44 am
@MontereyJack,
Here is the thing that many people neglect. No where does the data say that humans are the cause behind the global temperature change. It is ASSUMED to be humans.

I won't deny the data that shows we are in a warming trend, however; I object to the conclusion that humans are the cause to this warming trend.

We have data, ice core samples that show that in the past the earth has had even higher average temperatures than the average temperatures now. This happened millions of years ago when humans weren't even around. It was actually warmer then! The earth is constantly changing climate because the system is not static as people like to assume that it is.

I think it is wrong to make the correlation that humans are the cause behind the global climate change. Here is the thing, if it is not solar activity it could be galactic. I know some will laugh because they have bought into the human cause behind global warming but recent data gathered about extinction events a reoccurring number kept appearing in the data.

Something happens roughly every 65 million years that causes massive die off of plant and animal species and it is occurring too often to be asteroid impacts. The theory behind it deals directly to our galactic activity. Some cosmologists theorize that the super massive black hole at the center of the milky way gives off bursts of radiation that spirals out along the galactic plane.

This energy wave wouldn't just hit us all at one time but instead it would build up and fade because the wave would stretch over a long distance, perhaps a light year or so in width. This radiation could impact the earth over many tens of thousands of years causing temperature and climate change.

Now I am not saying this is definitely the cause, but I am saying people are ignoring other possible explanations because they are sold on the idea that humans are behind it. The reason why I don't believe humans are the cause is directly do the the fact that we have data that shows the earth's climate changing drastically over short periods of time when NO humans were around to cause it. I believe we are undergoing a warming trend due to some "energy" or radiation that we have not detected or checked for.

Why are we not looking for other possible causes, because making people feel guilty for being the cause behind global climate change is profitable market. Make people pay for their guilt is a new form of taxation. If humans aren't the cause then no harm done but the wealthy ones who own these companies profiting off peoples guilt get wealthier over a lie. Just look at who the main leaders are pushing for these global climate change taxes. Politicians. They are investing in bad science to convince the masses that humans are the cause so they fill their company coffers with the guilt of the people. Genius.

MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 06:08 am
Frankly, Krumple, you're ignorant if you think other possible explanations haven't been proposed and researched in detail, and no evidence found for them. "Some force we haven't discovered yet" and there is no evidence for, does not cut it as an explanation. No cosmic radiation, no solar radiation, no supernova aftereffects, etc., have been found.

It has been known for more than a century now, though. that greenhouse gases exist in the atmospher and that they trap infraredradiation and cause temperature to rise, and it is known furthermore that human activity has caused the rise in greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere. There is a prettyt straightforward connection there.

Of course the climate of earth has changed dramatically a number of times for a number or reasons. And biological activity has been the cause of several of them. For example the earth's atmosphere flipped from an essentially oxygen -free atmosphere to our present reducing atmospher because oxygen is the waste product of the trillions and quadrillions of blue-green algae and kin. When the earth had a much higher concentration of CO2, it was also much warmer than today (greehouse gas, remember?). It has been theorized that the drop in CO2 was due to the evolution of flowering plants, which now make up more than 90% of the world's plant mass and are much more effective fixers of CO2 thanthe previously dominant plant life.

We're now in a pattern of recurrent ice ages about every 100,000 years, and those seem to be due to cyclic cnages in the earth's orbit and a consequent reduction in received solar irradiance, still another fairly stable condition. We know the composition of the atmosphere over the last six ice age cycles or so. When CO2 was low, there was an ice age (CO2 wasn't the cause, but it was an amplifying effect), in between ice ages, like now,the temp went up and the CO2 went up, but over those cycles the CO2 never went over about 300 ppm, and the temp never got above about the 20th cent. average. Those were natural causes in effect. CO2 is now somewhat above 380 ppm, and the temp is rising, and we're the ones overriding natural causes this time around. We weren't there and able to effect the natural state in previous cycles.

I'd suggest you take a look at the IPCC reports and read their executive summary, which is a fairly non-technical summation of the research before you say that anybody has ignored other possible causes of change. They haven't. Those possible causes just don't hold up as explanations. (Everything you brought up has, in fact, been considered and ruled out).
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 06:30 am
@MontereyJack,
The problem is you are ignoring the motivation behind IPCC. Who is the leading pusher of the human induced global climate change? Al Gore. It is absurd that he suggest other people to be conservationists when he consumes more than five average families do. If he was really concerned about global climate change he would set the example yet he doesn't and why? Because he knows it is bs. It is a money making scheme.

I know all that sounds conspiracy like, but the fact is, if there was not money to be made then I would be more inclined to accept the findings of the IPCC however; since there is motivation then I suspect we are not getting the actual truth.

Here is the thing, who owns the largest "carbon credit" companies in the US? You know who the CEO is who makes money on companies buying their guilt? Al gore. Now if he wasn't an actual ceo of this kind of company I would be more inclined to accept his arguments. But he is profiting off pushing legislation towards people being required to pay dues to "carbon credit" companies for causing pollution.

He is the medicine man poisoning the well and selling the snake oil telling you it's the cure. And you are buying it.
 

Related Topics

Myth of man-made global warming - Discussion by gungasnake
West Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Collapsing - Discussion by oralloy
How to deal with greentards... - Discussion by gungasnake
Consider the source of your news... - Discussion by H2O MAN
Hey Farmerman - Question by blueveinedthrobber
Global Warming, Pollution, and Politics - Discussion by Theaetetus
 
  1. Forums
  2. » British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/25/2019 at 06:52:46