Global Warming vs. Terrorism

While King James was often accused of a secret (or, perhaps, not-so-secret) Catholicism by his contemporaty Puritan detractors, the Biblical translation he (actually) oversaw was used primarily by Protestant churches. Catholics used various translations over time, one being the then contemporaneous Douay translation. Today in America the so-called New Jerusalem translation is the rule. In general the Catholic Church has not put much stock in literalism with respect to the Bible, preferring to take its messages from the whole and in recognition of its allegorical character.

Mr. Parados obviously is unable to read:

Ihope he can have someone find the reference for him-- But I will, since he obviously needs someone to lead him by the hand, quote directly from Dr. Lomborg's book. I hope he will not show his usual dishonesty by ignoring the statements and obfuscating by going on to a unrelated finding.

Since Mr. Parados obviously cannot read scientific notations, I will not fully reference the material below except to put a footnote and a name in the appropriate places. Unlike Mr. Parados, who gets his ideas from only God knows where, I can and will refer to Scientific sources.

Note:

Lomborg- P. 263

The Climate

The Development in the instrumental global temperature record from 1856-2100 is shown by Figure 153( Jones et. Al) On the whole, the temperature since then has increased by 0.4 -.08 C(IPCC). Closer inspection reveals that all of the twentieth century's temperature increase has occured abruptly WITHIN TWO TIME PERIODS--FROM 1910 TO 194O AND THEN AGAIN FROM 1975 TO TODAY,

While the second period fits wll with the greenhouse concern, the temperature increase from1910 to 1940 is HARDER TO ALIGN WITH THE HUMAN EMISSION OF GREEHOUSE GASES SINCE THE CONCENTRATION AND INCREASE IN THE EARLY PART OF THE LAST CENTURY WAS SLIGHT( Indeed, Aksel Win-Neilsen, professor emeritus in meteorology and former director-general of the UN world meterological Organization argues that SINCE THE EARLY PART OF THE TEMPERATURE INCREASE WAS NATURAL, IT IS I M P L A U S I B L E THAT THE LAST TEMPERATURE INCREASE COULD NOT HAVE NATURAL CAUSES>



do you know how to read, Mr. Parados?



To continue Dr.Lomborg's explanation ( for the uncomprehending Mr. Parados

The IPCC finds that S O M E of the increase can be explained by a subsantial and natural increase in SOLAR RADIATION from 1700 onwards, whnich however, is poorly quantified>(IPCC)

Mr. Parados wrote:

Samuelson wrote:
One danger is that some of these measures will harm the economy without producing significant environmental benefits. Policies motivated by political gain will inflict public pain. Why should anyone applaud?
Mr. Parados wrote:


I agree. Policies motivated by short term political gain will inflict public pain in the future. New technologies have never caused the collapse of the economy. Why do you think they will now? Did the computer cause the collapse of the economy? It was predicted to do just that because it would take away all the jobs done by people. Instead we got more efficient and created new jobs. New energy technologies will do the same thing.

end of quote
I am happy to see that Mr. Parados does not want policies motivated by short term political gain. I will remind him again what Dr. Lomborg wrote--


"We should not spend vast amounts of money to cut a tiny slice of the global temperature increase when this constitutes a poor use of resources...we need to invest more in research and development of solar power, fusion and other likely power sources of the future...we ought to have a look at the cost of global warming in relation to the total world economy, If we implement Kyoto poorly OR ENGAGE IN MORE INCLUSIVE MITIGATION LIKE STABILIZATION, THE PRICE WILL EASILY BE 2 PERCENT OR MORE OF WORLD GDP PER YEAR TOWARDS THE MIDDLE OF THE CENTURY."

END OF QUOTE


Points you obviously do not understand or have never considered, Mr. Parados!!!

Mr. Parados, who obviously has problems working with more than one idea at a time wrote:
quote


Your numbers multiplied by the number of decades.
.016 x 3 = .048 degrees C
.0085 x 6 = .051 degrees C
end of quote
.016C refers to 1910 to 1940

and

.0085C refers to 1940 to 2000

Like most bumblers, Mr. Parados, and most people who try to deceive, you do not mention that the increaese of .048 degrees was done in only thirty years W H E N V E R Y L I T T L E CO 2 E N T E R E D T H E A T M O S P H E R E.

AND THE INCREASE OF .051C occured over 60 years W H E N FIVE TIMES( five times) 5 TIMES more CO2 entered the system.

Even a 3rd Grader would be able to tell you that if CO2 is the agent causing the rise in surface temperatures the rise should have gone up a great deal more from 1940 to 2000.

Are you sure you have read the literature, Mr. Parados.

May I refer you to the EASILY AVAILABLE TABLES - (that do not depend on the possibly bogus computer PROJECTIONS about the future but instead are recorded and OBSERVED DATA) on CO2 emissions from 1850 to 2000 and Surface temperature date from 1856-2000,

Surely, an environmentalist like you can find the data.

If you need help, Ill replicate the data for you.

And like most people who attempt to "Cherry-pick" and decieve by doing so, you missed the MOST IMPORTANT OF MY POSTS. There are others you obviously did not respond to( because you could not?) but this one shoots down the vaunted claim that satellite measurements of temperatures have GONE UP TO AN ASTONISHING DEGREE.

IF YOU KNOW HOW TO READ, MR. PARADOS, YOU WILL FIND THAT THE REVISIONS THAT YOU AND MR. KUAVSZ PARADED AS PROOF, ARE NOT HOLDING UP.

And, please, if you have scientific integrity, address the statements mad by Dr. Spencer and Dr. Singer....... >Please do not obfuscate--


You know how to read,.Mr. Parados, and if you think you are well infomed on Global Warming( you are not) you will be able to rebut the findings in this article-Especially those from Dr. Spencer who effectively shoots down the satellite temperature REVISIONS TO 19C per decade.


Revised data heats up Global Warming controversy


Corrections on satellite, balloon measurements don't dispell scientific doubts


Thursday, August 25, 2005
by Steven Milloy

Is the debate now over for skeptics of global warming hysteria? Readers of USA Today may certainly have that impression.

"Satellite and weather-balloon research released today removes a last bastion of scientific doubt about global warming, researchers say," reported USA Today on Aug.12.

Certainly the USA Today report was partially correct - the researchers did, in fact, "say" [read "claim"] that "the last bastion of scientific doubt" had been removed. But claims and reality often don't match up.

Three papers published in the journal Science last week purport to debunk an important argument advanced by skeptics of the notion of catastrophic, manmade global warming. The skeptics' argument is that while temperatures measured on the Earth's surface seem to indicate that global temperatures have increased at a rate of about 0.20 degrees Centigrade per decade (deg. C/decade) since the 1970s, temperatures measured in the atmosphere by satellite and weather balloons have shown only a relatively insignificant amount of warming for the same time period (about 0.09 deg. C/decade).

The implication of the skeptics' argument is that whatever warming seems to be happening on the Earth's surface, similar warming isn't happening in the atmosphere. This might mean that any observed surface warming is more likely due to the urban heat island effect -- where the heat-retaining properties of concrete and asphalt in urban areas artificially increase local temperatures -- rather than increasing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

One of the new Science studies reported that the satellites had drifted in orbit, causing errors in temperature measurement. Corrections to the satellite data, according to the researchers, would increase the atmospheric warming estimate to 0.19 deg. C/decade -- more in line with the 0.20 deg. C/decade warming of the Earth's surface. Another study reported that heating from tropical sunlight had skewed the balloon temperature measurements.

Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, one of the studies' authors, told USA Today that, "Once corrected, the satellite and balloon temperatures align with other surface and upper atmosphere measures, as well as climate change models."

So is it really game-set-match in favor of the global warming alarmists? Not so fast, say the skeptics.

When University of Alabama-Huntsville researcher Roy Spencer, a prominent climatologist, factored the newly reported corrections into his calculations, his estimate of atmospheric warming was only 0.12 deg. C/decade -- higher than the prior estimate of 0.09 deg. C/decade, but well below the Science study estimate of 0.19 deg C/decade and the surface temperature estimate of 0.20 deg. C/decade.

As to the claimed errors in the weather balloon measurements, Spencer says that no other effort to adjust the balloon data has produced warming estimates as high as those reported in the new study and that it will take time for the research community to form opinions about whether the new adjustments advocated are justified.

Climate expert Dr. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project says the temperature adjustments are "not a big deal."

"Greenhouse theory says (and the models calculate) that the atmospheric trend should be 30 percent greater than the surface trend -- and it isn't," says Singer. "Furthermore, the models predict that polar [temperature] trends should greatly exceed the tropical values -- and they clearly don't ... In fact, the Antarctic has been cooling," adds Singer.

Singer also had some related thoughts concerning the gloom-and-doom forecasts concerning future temperatures.

Last January, a study in the journal Nature estimated that a doubling of atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide would increase global temperatures anywhere from 1.9 degrees Centigrade to 11.5 degrees Centigrade by mid-century. But Singer says the researchers "varied only six out of many more parameters necessary to model clouds… Their result confirms… that clouds are still too difficult to model and that climate models underlying the Kyoto Protocol have never been validated."

So it's far from "case-closed" on global warming skepticism. Moreover, aside from the controversy over the satellite and weather balloon data, many key climate questions remain unanswered including: whether humans are causing significant warming; whether warming is undesirable; and whether anything be done to avert any undesirable warming.

Because of its prohibitive costs, alarm over global warming has been rejected numerous times by President Bush and the U.S. Senate. European nations are already discovering that their economies can't live with the Kyoto Protocol that was just implemented in February.

Despite alarmist media reports, global warming-mania is melting. It's no wonder the alarmists are in such a hurry to close the book on the science.
***********************************************************
NO OBFUSCATION PLEASE MR, pARADOS, REBUT THE ARTICLE'S POINTS SHOWING THAT THE SATELLITE WARMING WILL BE ONLY 0.12C per Decade instead of the ridiculously high 0.19C per decade.

I hope you will not miss the point elaborated by Dr.Singer that the Satellite Temperatures ACCORDING TO THE GREEN HOUSE THEORY AND THE CALCULATIONS OF THE MODELS SHOULD BE 30% GREATER THAN THE SURFACE TREND AND IT I S N'T.

Dont make a fool of yourself by ignoring this clear evidence. If you don't rebut it with evidence or you ignore it, it stands. Of course, it says "New Satellite warming numbers according to Science Magazine Studies are inflated"

Bernard,
Perhaps you failed math in grade school. That might explain why you are continuing to claim that the temperature increase was .016 when it was .14 per decade from 1910 to 1940. (you are off by almost a factor of 10)

Your numbers add up to an increase of less than .1 degree while the observed increase was .6 for the century. Your math is off by a factor of more than 6. Your argument is based on numbers that have no basis in reality. I asked for your source which you again fail to provide.

This from Gray whom I believe you have quoted.
http://www.john-daly.com/graytemp/surftemp.htm


Note. .016 x 3 is not .5 as Gray claims. Nor is the 1940-2000 figure close to your claim.


Lomborg accepts the IPCC increase of .5 degrees from 1910-1945

Page 263

Go ahead and call Lomborg a liar. Falsus in omnia, Bernard.


Surely someone as intellectually unchallenged as yourself can do math Bernard or provide sources if asked. Or am I wrong in assuming you are intellectually UNchallenged?

It seems even Milloy is lying according to you Bernard. Why are you quoting liars?


From your post of an editorial by Milloy.


Lets examine your claim..

Milloy states .2 since the 70s.. so that is .6 if we assume 1970 as the basis.
That would require cooling of almost .6 from 1940-1970. Do you have evidence of this cooling Bernard or is Milloy a liar?

Falsus in omnia Bernard.

n the Roof of Peru, Omens in the Ice
Retreat of Once-Mighty Glacier Signals Water Crisis, Mirroring Worldwide Trend

By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, July 29, 2006; A01

QUELCCAYA GLACIER, Peru -- In the thin, cold air here atop the Andes mountains, the blue ice that has claimed these peaks for thousands of years and loyally fed the streams below is now disappearing rapidly.

Mountain glaciers such as this are in retreat around the Earth, taking with them vast stores of water that grow crops, generate electricity and sustain cities and rural areas.

Farmers here say that over the past two decades they have noticed a dramatic decrease in the amount of ice and snow on their mountaintops. The steady supply of water they need to grow crops has become erratic.

"There is less water now. If there is no water, this land becomes a desert," said Benedicto Loayza, a 52-year-old farmer, standing under pear trees fed by channels dug on the mountain centuries ago to collect runoff.

Cuzco, a city of 400,000, has already resorted to periodic water rationing and started pumping from a river 15 miles away for its drinking supply. In Peru's capital, Lima, engineers have urged successive governments to drill a tunnel through the Andes and build big lagoons to ensure that the city's 8 million residents have water. Citing the expense, authorities have dawdled. Cities in China, India, Nepal and Bolivia also face drastic water shortages as the glaciers shrink.

"You can think of these glaciers as a bank account built over thousands of years," said Lonnie Thompson, one of the first scientists to sound the alarm, as he stood by the largest ice cap in the Andes. "If you subtract more than you gain, eventually you go bankrupt. That's what's in process here."

Thompson arrived at the blue-white face of the Quelccaya glacier this month after a two-day hike from the nearest road, climbing into the oxygen-thin air of 17,000 feet above sea level. Since he started his annual visits here in 1974, he said, the huge ice cap has shrunk by 30 percent. In the last year, the tongue of the ice has pulled back 100 yards, breakneck speed for a glacier.

He examined it as if it were a sick patient. The mountain of ice was pocked with holes where the surface had melted. A large chunk had broken off in March, crashing into the meltwater lake below and sending a flood wave into alpacas' lower grazing grounds. The face of the glacier, once frozen so perfectly that Thompson could identify the yearly snowfalls back 1,500 years, now sagged and dripped.

"It's not just a retreat," he said. "It's an accelerating retreat."

Since Thompson's first reports, he and others have confirmed a rapid recession of glaciers worldwide. Snows on Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro, extolled by Ernest Hemingway as "wide as all the world, great, high, and unbelievably white," will be gone within 14 years, Thompson estimates. Glaciers in the Alps, the Himalayas and throughout the Andes are also shrinking, he and other researchers have found.

The dramatic rise in carbon dioxide that has accompanied the industrial age has brought a spike in global temperatures. Scientists have found that the jump in temperatures is even greater in the upper atmosphere, where the glaciers reign on silent mountain peaks.

Glaciers store an estimated 70 percent of the world's fresh water. Water that falls as snow moves through the slowly churning ice and may emerge from the glacier's edge thousands of years later as meltwater. Humans have long depended on the gradual and faithful runoff.

The melting of glaciers in the Himalayas, which feed seven great Asian rivers, will bring "massive eco and environmental problems for people in western China, Nepal and northern India," a World Wildlife Fund report concluded last year.

"The repercussions of this are very scary," agreed Tim Barnett, a climate scientist with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego. "When the glaciers are gone, they are gone. What does a place like Lima do? Or, in northwest China, there are 300 million people relying on snowmelt for water supply. There's no way to replace it until the next ice age."

At least three times a day, Eva Rondon, 38, walks the 18 worn steps carved out of the hillside of a shantytown on the far outskirts of Lima. She carries a plastic bucket to an old Shell Oil barrel with a rusty top and lid fashioned out of a few boards nailed together. She has paid a private water trucker to fill the barrel with water -- the only source for her family and neighbors -- and even that water is often dirty.

An estimated 2 million of Lima's 8 million people have no water service. Some live decades without it, buying water at as much as 30 times the price per gallon paid by customers whose homes are connected to the government-owned water utility. They are organizing to demand service from a government they say is corrupt and uncaring. But they have no doubt who will be deprived if the melting glaciers make Lima's water even scarcer.

"The poor will suffer. Our children will suffer," said Adolfo Peña, the local representative of the grass-roots political movement Peruvians Without Water. "Lima is built on a desert, and in 20 years, there's not going to be water."

If every home were connected to the utility system, there would not be enough water to pump through the pipes, said Romolo Carhuaz. He is the engineer for Sedapal, the capital's public water company, and is in charge of monitoring the reservoirs that feed Lima its water.

Each week, Carhuaz puts on a baseball cap, grabs an oxygen bottle and drives out of Lima up a jolting dirt road into the Andes mountains. He negotiates past bulls, llamas and fierce sheepdogs on his 13-hour circuit, finally grinding to a halt at a mountain plateau where cactuses bake in the cold sun. There, at 15,000 feet, lies a series of brilliant blue lagoons filled by rainwater and glacial runoff from the peaks above. Both sources, the historic lifelines for arid Lima, are now fickle, he said.

"Look at those mountains," Carhuaz said, gesturing to the rocky heights that tower over his reservoirs. White patches of snow and ice cling to some of the higher crevices. "They used to be covered with glaciers to halfway down the mountains 20 years ago."

"We call that Cat's Eye," he said, pointing out one small circle of ice left on a mountain. "It used to be huge."

Carhuaz blames the changing weather. He said average temperatures here have risen significantly in little over a decade. What used to fall as snow, adding to the glaciers, now comes as rain. And that rainfall is erratic, he said.

The changing rainfall and shrinking glaciers have also alarmed the companies that operate Peru's hydroelectric plants, which supply most of the country's electricity. "What we have seen in the past three years is a pattern that is quite different from the 40-year average," said Mark Hoffmann, the head of ElectroAndes, a private power company. "The historical data is not particularly useful in projecting anymore. We are hoping it's a blip."

Uncertain of the water supply, electric companies are building plants to generate power by using natural gas, relying on a new gas field discovered in southern Peru and government controls on prices.

"The 'wise men' believe natural gas is going to be the solution. They are clearly wrong," said Guillermo Romero, an official of Electroperu, which operates the two largest hydroelectric plants in the country. Natural gas eventually will run out, he said -- sooner rather than later if the government builds a liquefied natural gas port to export the gas. He expressed hope that the recently elected government would return its attention to building reservoirs and hydro plants.

"The problem isn't with us. It's with the government," he said.

The government has put off projects to relieve Lima's looming water deficit. Such large initiatives are expensive for a poor country, and some plans -- including the one to drill a tunnel through the Andes -- carry risks in this earthquake-prone region. In 1970, an earthquake shook loose a wall of ice and rock from the Huascaran mountain in the Andes north of Lima, burying the town of Yungay and killing tens of thousands of people.

Politicians find the scientists' broader warnings easy to ignore amid the more immediate water problems posed by burgeoning populations, increased agricultural development and contamination of water sources by mines. Some authorities acknowledge the looming crisis; others deny it.

At the local power company in Cuzco, "we are conscious that it will affect us a lot," said Mario Ortiz, a top director. But Ortiz acknowledged the company does not really know how much of its main source, the Vilcanota River, originates from glaciers. What would it mean in the dry season if the glacier is not there? Ortiz simply looks down at his desk and shakes his head.

"We're like firefighters. We only move when there is a fire," he said sadly.

The warming climate is causing other effects. In the Andes mountains north of Lima, Hugo Osoria, 32, used to work as an "ice fetcher," walking two hours from his village of Paria to cut off a chunk of glacier ice, haul it down and take a short minibus ride to the city of Huaraz to sell it. But the glaciers have retreated so much, the longer walk each way is no longer worth it. Osoria noticed changes in the local crops -- potatoes were not growing well, and worms not seen in the area before were attacking corn. So he experimented by growing flowers that were also new to village. His wife puts them in a wheelbarrow to sell them at hotels and markets in Huaraz.

"Only a few of us are trying to take advantage of the changes and make it positive," he said. For most, the climate change portends hardship.

"We are in a real critical situation," said Vincente Velasquez, 42, who grows potatoes in an area near Cuzco that the Incas called the "sacred valley" because it was so fertile. "We are talking about the melting glaciers, but we don't know what to believe. If the glaciers go away, people will think it's God's punishment."

Loayza, the 52-year-old farmer who grows fruit trees and rosemary on his land north of Cuzco, said he and his neighbors often discuss the bleak future.

"Everyone in the valley is worried about the melting ice," he said, standing in his fields, now thriving with winter sun and irrigation. "Without water, how can you work? How can you live?"

Correspondent Monte Reel in Buenos Aires, special correspondent Lucien O. Chauvin in Lima and researcher Natalia Alexandrova in Toronto contributed to this report.

Why are you dodging the evidence that refutes your claim about warming in the Tropssphere, Mr. Parados- can't handle it?

And like most people who attempt to "Cherry-pick" and decieve by doing so, you missed the MOST IMPORTANT OF MY POSTS. There are others you obviously did not respond to( because you could not?) but this one shoots down the vaunted claim that satellite measurements of temperatures have GONE UP TO AN ASTONISHING DEGREE.

IF YOU KNOW HOW TO READ, MR. PARADOS, YOU WILL FIND THAT THE REVISIONS THAT YOU AND MR. KUAVSZ PARADED AS PROOF, ARE NOT HOLDING UP.

And, please, if you have scientific integrity, address the statements mad by Dr. Spencer and Dr. Singer....... >Please do not obfuscate--


You know how to read,.Mr. Parados, and if you think you are well infomed on Global Warming( you are not) you will be able to rebut the findings in this article-Especially those from Dr. Spencer who effectively shoots down the satellite temperature REVISIONS TO 19C per decade.


Revised data heats up Global Warming controversy


Corrections on satellite, balloon measurements don't dispell scientific doubts


Thursday, August 25, 2005
by Steven Milloy

Is the debate now over for skeptics of global warming hysteria? Readers of USA Today may certainly have that impression.

"Satellite and weather-balloon research released today removes a last bastion of scientific doubt about global warming, researchers say," reported USA Today on Aug.12.

Certainly the USA Today report was partially correct - the researchers did, in fact, "say" [read "claim"] that "the last bastion of scientific doubt" had been removed. But claims and reality often don't match up.

Three papers published in the journal Science last week purport to debunk an important argument advanced by skeptics of the notion of catastrophic, manmade global warming. The skeptics' argument is that while temperatures measured on the Earth's surface seem to indicate that global temperatures have increased at a rate of about 0.20 degrees Centigrade per decade (deg. C/decade) since the 1970s, temperatures measured in the atmosphere by satellite and weather balloons have shown only a relatively insignificant amount of warming for the same time period (about 0.09 deg. C/decade).

The implication of the skeptics' argument is that whatever warming seems to be happening on the Earth's surface, similar warming isn't happening in the atmosphere. This might mean that any observed surface warming is more likely due to the urban heat island effect -- where the heat-retaining properties of concrete and asphalt in urban areas artificially increase local temperatures -- rather than increasing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

One of the new Science studies reported that the satellites had drifted in orbit, causing errors in temperature measurement. Corrections to the satellite data, according to the researchers, would increase the atmospheric warming estimate to 0.19 deg. C/decade -- more in line with the 0.20 deg. C/decade warming of the Earth's surface. Another study reported that heating from tropical sunlight had skewed the balloon temperature measurements.

Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, one of the studies' authors, told USA Today that, "Once corrected, the satellite and balloon temperatures align with other surface and upper atmosphere measures, as well as climate change models."

So is it really game-set-match in favor of the global warming alarmists? Not so fast, say the skeptics.

When University of Alabama-Huntsville researcher Roy Spencer, a prominent climatologist, factored the newly reported corrections into his calculations, his estimate of atmospheric warming was only 0.12 deg. C/decade -- higher than the prior estimate of 0.09 deg. C/decade, but well below the Science study estimate of 0.19 deg C/decade and the surface temperature estimate of 0.20 deg. C/decade.

As to the claimed errors in the weather balloon measurements, Spencer says that no other effort to adjust the balloon data has produced warming estimates as high as those reported in the new study and that it will take time for the research community to form opinions about whether the new adjustments advocated are justified.

Climate expert Dr. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project says the temperature adjustments are "not a big deal."

"Greenhouse theory says (and the models calculate) that the atmospheric trend should be 30 percent greater than the surface trend -- and it isn't," says Singer. "Furthermore, the models predict that polar [temperature] trends should greatly exceed the tropical values -- and they clearly don't ... In fact, the Antarctic has been cooling," adds Singer.

Singer also had some related thoughts concerning the gloom-and-doom forecasts concerning future temperatures.

Last January, a study in the journal Nature estimated that a doubling of atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide would increase global temperatures anywhere from 1.9 degrees Centigrade to 11.5 degrees Centigrade by mid-century. But Singer says the researchers "varied only six out of many more parameters necessary to model clouds… Their result confirms… that clouds are still too difficult to model and that climate models underlying the Kyoto Protocol have never been validated."

So it's far from "case-closed" on global warming skepticism. Moreover, aside from the controversy over the satellite and weather balloon data, many key climate questions remain unanswered including: whether humans are causing significant warming; whether warming is undesirable; and whether anything be done to avert any undesirable warming.

Because of its prohibitive costs, alarm over global warming has been rejected numerous times by President Bush and the U.S. Senate. European nations are already discovering that their economies can't live with the Kyoto Protocol that was just implemented in February.

Despite alarmist media reports, global warming-mania is melting. It's no wonder the alarmists are in such a hurry to close the book on the science.
***********************************************************
NO OBFUSCATION PLEASE MR, pARADOS, REBUT THE ARTICLE'S POINTS SHOWING THAT THE SATELLITE WARMING WILL BE ONLY 0.12C per Decade instead of the ridiculously high 0.19C per decade.

I hope you will not miss the point elaborated by Dr.Singer that the Satellite Temperatures ACCORDING TO THE GREEN HOUSE THEORY AND THE CALCULATIONS OF THE MODELS SHOULD BE 30% GREATER THAN THE SURFACE TREND AND IT I S N'T.

Dont make a fool of yourself by ignoring this clear evidence. If you don't rebut it with evidence or you ignore it, it stands. Of course, it says "New Satellite warming numbers according to Science Magazine Studies are inflated"

Falsus in omnia Bernard..

You have not answered my question as you said you would if I dealt with Samuelson.

Falsus in omnia Bernard.

It is rather funny how Milloy Shows your numbers to be absolutely false.

Milloy states..
this is from 1976 to the present. A total of .6 degrees.

This is what you said Bernard.



Please provide evidence that the earth's temperature dropped .55 degrees from 1940-1976. Deal with Milloy Bernard since you are the one using him. Is Milloy a liar?

Until you deal with Milloy, I see no reason to do so since your numbers say Milloy is lying.

Lets see.. Bernard claims the decadal warming from 1940-2000 is .0085 then he claims that the warming of the troposphere is .12 per decade. Then he claims the troposphere warming is NOT at least 30% more than the surface warming.


Some simple math...
.0085 x 1.30 = .01105

.12 is certainly more than .01105.. in fact it is 10 times more than the 30% you claim doesn't exist.

Using your numbers Bernard it appears that Milloy is way off. Your question makes no sense based on your own numbers.

Mr. Parados- It is obvious that you present a great many flaws in your posts.

You are an obfuscator.

You do not address the evidence directly but rather cherry pick.

You drift off into areas not in my posts.

Therefore, there is a great need, for a revision.

I am going to restrict each post I write to one question. It will be stated simply so that everyone can see what the question refers to. It will not have(SO THAT YOU CANNOT EASILY TWIST AND TURN) any evidence attached to it except a note that evidence is available upon request.


My posts will be numbered so that if you do not, as you have done so often, answer the particular point, I will note that you have not addressed Point # 1 or Point #4.


Let us begin.

************************************************************

Point # 1---


Question for Mr. Parados--

Recent data have shown that the alleged warming of the troposphere has not achieved the temperatures noted by the Global Warming enthusiasts. Indeed, the new evidence has shown that the troposphere's temperature gain is BELOW that listed by the Global Warming hysterics and that the temperature needed in the troposphere to achieve the kind of warming needed to raise surface temperatures is far below what it should be.


DOES MR. PARADOS REJECT THE NEW EVIDENCE? IF SO, WHY?

Point # 2

It is accepted by all, even the global warming hysterics, that the surface temperatures in the Twentieth Century shows two spikes. One in the early part of the Century and the second after 1975. Given the accepted fact that the CO2 emissions, which the Global Warming Hysterics blame for warming, were only one fifth as high in the early part of the century with a spike in the temperatures, and then five times higher in the latter part of the century, why has the surface temperature in the latter part of the century not been higher?

Can you answer this, Mr. Parados?

Point # 3.

Given the fact that the IPCC has acknowledged the solar effect on temperature, but has mentioned solar effects only briefly,what is the effect of solar radiation on the surface temperature of the earth? Is there no effect at all. If not, how has the IPCC proved there is none.

Can you answer this question--Mr. Parados?

Question # 4 Exactly what are the predictions for the alleged warming?

How many degrees will the earth warm by 2050? By 2075?By 2100?

A precise answer, please, Mr. Parados.

Point # 5

How does the IPCC make its predictions for the alleged future warming? Does it use Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation MODELS?

Are the assumptions loaded into these Models based on evidence?

How do we know?


Yes,Mr. Parados, How do we know, Indeed!

Point # 6


Are the computer models good enough to incorporate all of the millions of pieces of data that needs to be fed into the models? How do we know?

Yes, Mr.Parados, How do we know that the computers are up to the job? This is no ordinary prediction but one involving the climate of the world in the future!!

Point # 7-

Why did the IPCC's Report, after being analyzed by US National Academy of Sciences,have in its conclusions so many instances where they used the term Uncertain and Uncertainties?

Yes. Mr. Parados, can you explain that?