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

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
262
Climate scientist Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfeld, a co-author of the 2005 book Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming and a research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryospheric and Polar Processes at the University of Colorado, questions the accuracy of climate models. "Without question, much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it. Before we can accurately understand the midlatitudes' response to tropical forcing, the tropical forcings themselves must be identified and understood," Frauenfeld wrote in "Shattered Consensus." Frauenfeld, a Contributing Author to the IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report, added, "Only after we identify these factors and determine how they affect one another, can we begin to produce accurate models. And only then should we rely on those models to shape policy. Until that time, climate variability will remain controversial and uncertain." (LINK)

I think it likely that some religious group sometime this year will sell all they own and go sit on a mountain waiting for the certain end of the world. Many are convinced that those who don't heed the warning are headed for hell or at least will suffer great tribulation. Such happens with incomprehensible regularity, and the fact that the world does not end as date after date is set does not seem to deter them.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
263
Geologist David Archibald of Summa Development Limited in Australia wrote a scientific paper titled "Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response" in Energy and Environment in 2006 (LINK) showing that solar cycles are more important than CO2 levels. In a May 2007 updated paper, "The Past and Future of Climate" Archibald predicts an "imminent cooling" by 2030 based on solar cycles states. "Most rural temperature records in the United States were set in the 1930s and 1940s. Greenland had its highest recorded temperatures in the 1930s and has been cooler since," Archibald wrote. "The 1.5° temperature decline from the late 1950s to the mid-70s was due to a weak solar cycle 20 after a strong solar cycle 19," Archibald explains. Archibald also noted that the Medieval Warm Period was originally recognized by the UN IPCC to have been warmer than current temperatures, but it "become inconvenient to the IPCC, so they haven't mentioned it since." Archibald asserted, "Anthropogenic warming is real, it is also miniscule." He explained, "Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased the temperature of the atmosphere by 0.1°." "There is no correlation in the geologic record between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. The Earth went into an ice age 450 million years ago despite a level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that is ten times what it is today," Archibald wrote. "There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial," he added. "Anthropogenic Global Warming is so miniscule that the effect cannot be measured from year to year, and even from generation to generation," he concluded. (LINK)

.
.
.
Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, an expert on environmental communications, said ecoAmerica’s campaign was a mirror image of what industry and political conservatives were doing. “The form is the same; the message is just flipped,” he said. “You want to sell toothpaste, we’ll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we’ll sell that. It’s the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion.”

He said the approach was cynical and, worse, ineffective. “The right uses it, the left uses it, but it doesn’t engage people in a face-to-face manner,” he said, “and that’s the only way to achieve real, lasting social change.”

Frank Luntz, a Republican communications consultant, prepared a strikingly similar memorandum in 2002, telling his clients that they were losing the environmental debate and advising them to adjust their language. He suggested referring to themselves as “conservationists” rather than “environmentalists,” and emphasizing “common sense” over scientific argument.

And, Mr. Luntz and Mr. Perkowitz agree, “climate change” is an easier sell than “global warming.”

The thing is they don't do it poorly. They do it quite cleverly and calculated for maximum effect. There are already millions of sheeple out there firmly convinced that the planet is doomed due to human caused global warming unless we radically change our lifestyle, limit our choices, accept restrictions on our activities, and condone higher taxes and higher costs to combat this. By manipulating the language or approach to be something less obvious, they will no doubt suck in many others who now are on the fence or who recognize the more obvious fraud that exists.

My position is that the manipulation is done poorly, though it is done well enough to work on the majority of people because the majority of people are incapable of thinking for themselves.