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

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
319
Applied Physicist and Engineer Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman wrote an October 24, 2006 paper entitled "The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide." In the abstract of the paper appearing in Rocket Scientist's Journal, Glassman wrote, "Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well?known but under?appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters." Glassman further explained, "Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2?rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere." "Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere," he wrote. (LINK)

Obama joins the "sky is falling crowd." Actually we already knew he was part of that crowd, but this is the latest rhetoric coming out of him, which is nothing more than a political power move by leftists.

Historically there is always changes in weather. I believe that the world's weather is changing, can we change it? I doubt it cause we may not be the cause of it.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
320
Dr. A.T.J. de Laat, who specialized in atmospheric composition and climate research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, commented in the February 2007 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. "The line of reasoning here is that natural factors alone cannot explain the observed twentieth-century temperature variations, while including greenhouse gases does. The logical fallacy is the ‘fallacy of false dilemma/either-or fallacy,' that is, the number of alternatives are (un)intentionally restricted, thereby omitting relevant alternatives from consideration (Haskins 2006)," de Laat wrote. "That global twentieth-century temperature variations can be explained by using a simple model merely points to a certain consistency between this model or climate model simulations and observations. Furthermore, the fact that the late-twentieth-century warming is unexplained by two factors (solar variations and aerosols) and can be explained by including a third factor (greenhouse gases) does not prove that greenhouse gases are the cause; it just points to a missing process in this model," he explained. "In fact, this whole line of reasoning does not prove the existence of global warming; it is merely consistent with it. As an example, it is still debated whether or not land surface temperature changes during the twentieth century are affected by anthropogenic non-greenhouse gas processes and whether or not these processes affect surface temperatures on a global scale (Christy et al. 2006; Kalnay et al. 2006; de Laat and Maurellis 2006). There is a risk associated with this line of reasoning in that it suggests that understanding temperature variations of the climate system as a whole is very simple and completely understood, all one has to consider is the amount of incoming and outgoing radiation by changes in atmospheric absorbers and reflectors," he added. "Notwithstanding the fact that temperature is not a conserved quantity in any physical system, and thus is not the best metric to study energy within the climate system, it also suggests that other processes and nonlinear behavior of the climate system are either nonexistent or do not affect (decadal and global) temperature variations. Presenting climate science this way oversimplifies the complexity of the climate system and possibly overstates our current understanding," he concluded. (LINK)

I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
321
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, a UN IPCC reviewer, Virginia State Climatologist from 1980-2007, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, author of numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies on climate change, and University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences, called Gore's film "science fiction" in a February 23, 2007 article. "The main point of [Gore's] movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland's 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100," Michaels wrote. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of "Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media." Michaels continued, "Nowhere in the traditionally refereed scientific literature do we find any support for Gore's hypothesis. Instead, there's an un-refereed editorial by NASA climate firebrand James E. Hansen, in the journal Climate Change - edited by Steven Schneider, of Stanford University, who said in 1989 that scientists had to choose ‘the right balance between being effective and honest' about global warming - and a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was only reviewed by one person, chosen by the author, again Dr. Hansen. These are the sources for the notion that we have only ten years to ‘do' something immediately to prevent an institutionalized tsunami. And given that Gore only conceived of his movie about two years ago, the real clock must be down to eight years! It would be nice if my colleagues would actually level with politicians about various ‘solutions' for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, if fulfilled by every signatory, would reduce global warming by 0.07 degrees Celsius per half-century." (LINK) Michaels lost his position as the VA State Climatologist after a clash with the state's Governor: "I was told that I could not speak in public," Michaels said in a September 29, 2007 Washington Post interview. Excerpt from article: "Michaels has argued that the climate is becoming warmer but that the consequences will not be as dire as others have predicted. Gov. Kaine had warned. Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views. 'I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist,' Michaels said in a statement this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. 'It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction.' (LINK)