Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

As I understand it Walt your Gov't announced that it would not shoot down a hi-jacked airliner even if it thought the hi-jackers intended crashing it into a major sporting event.

Is that correct?

German churches repent for green sins in bid to cut carbon footprint
And God said: “Let there be light,” and there was light (Genesis). And the vicar saw the light, and dimmed it (Instructions from the ecclesiastical environmental management committee).

As Germany's Christian churches go green, Sunday service is becoming chillier and darker. Shocked by the revelation that church buildings are responsible for an annual 18 million tonnes of carbon emissions " about 3 per cent of the energy-related total in Germany " religious leaders are cracking down on prodigal parishes.

Churches that achieve a big reduction in their carbon footprint receive a special label of approval, the so-called Green Cockerel.

Vicars have already begun proudly displaying the symbol in the hope that it will attract environmentally sensitive worshippers.

Collections used to focus on roof restoration. Now, as German Christians take up the burden of saving the planet, the money is for solar panels.

Boilers are being replaced. Stern notes pinned next to light switches remind users that they have a Christian obligation to save the planet.

Despite a slowing global economy, carbon dioxide emissions continued to rise in 2007, according to energy use figures from oil company BP"jumping to 8.47 billion metric tons of the most common greenhouse gas responsible for global warming or 2.9 percent higher than last year's total. Leading the charge: the U.S. (up nearly 2 percent to 1.58 billion metric tons) and China (up more than 7 percent to 1.8 billion metric tons).

These figures outpace even the worst-case projections of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which warned last year that unless pollution is reduced, global average temperatures could rise by between four and 11 degrees Fahrenheit (two to six degrees Celsius).

This picture with caption accompanied the following article. Perhaps our resident Brits can define "potty peer" and explain the significance of the photo?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

208, 209

Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia, rejected alarmist views of climate science in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on April 6, 2007. "The Earth's temperature rose by 0.7 per cent in the 20th century, but there was also an increase in piracy. Does that mean piracy causes global warming?" Plimer asked. "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation. What if global warming has nothing to do with human activity? What happens if the astronomers are right, and the world is actually entering a cooling period?" Plimer questioned. "We geologists have seen climate change for 4500 million years. Tell us something new," he added. (LINK)

Meteorologist Jim Clark of Florida’s WZVN-TV ABC 7 declared he did not agree with what has been labeled the "consensus" view on global warming in a March 30, 2007 radio interview. Clark, an on-air weather forecaster since 1983, said, "The amount of human impact on climate change seems to be pretty small and seems very unlikely to be a disaster." "Climate is something that has always been changing on the planet. It fluctuates, it goes up and down. I have always thought of climate that is not homeostasis. So much of the current debate, it just strikes me as very odd, especially in the popular media where the headlines screamed the debate is over. Well, there never was a debate about whether the globe was warming. The real debate has always been the amount of the human effect on the climate," Clark said. (LINK) In a December 10, 2007 commentary, Clark further expanded on his climate views. “The planet has not warmed over the last decade and climate factors seem to be lining up for a global cool down, despite the ever increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2,” Clark wrote. “Those defending an impending global warming crisis try to explain the mid-20th century cooling with the notion that man-made aerosols (air pollution) cut down on the amount of sunshine reaching the surface and caused the cooling. The problem with that argument is that the cooling took place in both hemispheres, while man-made aerosols were primarily in the northern hemisphere. To this day, we do not know very much about how human emitted aerosols impact climate. Some say they produce warming. Others argue for cooling. Still some suggest that the affect of aerosols depends on there location in the atmosphere and may produce warming or cooling at different times,” he explained. “Despite the overwhelming evidence that internal cycles like the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) have played a huge role in 20th century climate change, the IPCC and the global warming community ignore them almost entirely,” he added. “It is not possible to tell just how much of the 0.06 degrees warming per decade is the result of increasing CO2 and other ‘greenhouse’ gases. Even if we assume that it accounts for 2/3 of the observed trend (unlikely), it only leads to a net warming of 0.80 degrees over the next 200 years! Such a warming would be largely beneficial and any negative impacts could be dealt with cheaply and efficiently at regional levels,” Clark concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

Foxfyre wrote:

This picture with caption accompanied the following article. Perhaps our resident Brits can define "potty peer" and explain the significance of the photo?

The photo isn't in the print edition (report on page 22 today).

That's Lord Monckton? I imagined him to be much older.

There are so many prominent scientists these days that 400 seems a small sample from a statistical point of view to take any particular notice of.

Isn't everybody who majored in an ology a scientist?

The IPPC cites many '....ologists' on their list of scientists supporting the AGW mantra, but they can only come up with a relatively few scientists who have actually done similar homework as that professed by those 400.

Most of the IPPC scientists merely read or skimmed the statistical data without doing any verification of their own.