22 December 2009

Bad news for Al Gore and all...

...the other carbon disciples?

-- WATERLOO -- In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.

As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2.

Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. And from 1850 to 1950, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the industrial revolution, while the global temperature kept nearly constant or only rose by about 0.1 C.
**********

RELATED: First they came... for the mimes
Unfortunately, some members of the public have been duped by so-called "skepticlowns" like Shotgun and Spanky.

They have cynically sought to shut down clown science by demanding that I reveal to them my raw climate data, when they damn well know doing so would violate the Sacred Science Law of the Clowns.
**********

FROM THE COMMENTS:
"I strongly recommend the book "The Sun" by David Whitehouse. Who would have thought that the great ball of fire in the sky has a greater impact on temperature than whether or not I take the bus to work?"


17 comments:

MrEd said...

those damn hippies and the movie hair spray are to blame!!!

Ron said...

Obviously, this person needs to be sent to a re-education facility - the left has spoken and you will bow down and worship at the alter of their views. How dare you pretend facts trump the left wing's current belief system. Write a cheque to buy carbon off-sets and plant more trees as punishment for your heritical ways.

Neo Conservative said...

*
might explain why phil mann & his crew at cru had to so thoroughly massage all their data.

what's ol' phil doing these days anyway? does it have anything to do with burgers & fries?

*

liberal supporter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

But, but there is no money to be made or taxes to be had by the UN or excuse to make a one world Government from CFCs :'(

:)

liberal supporter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Neo Conservative said...

*
so... another exciting day for my biggest fan "liberal supporter".

i suppose it's a step up from...

"Oh fuck off you silly child abusing liar."
Posted by liberal supporter to halls of macadamia at 5:52 PM, December 01, 2009


you have to wonder what libby would do with himself if he didn't have the blogging tories.

sorry, puss... deleted & deleted yet again.

*

The_Iceman said...

I strongly recommend the book "The Sun" by David Whitehouse. Who would have thought that the great ball of fire in the sky has a greater impact on temperature than whether or not I take the bus to work?

Anonymous said...

1. Neo, I have a question: I was under the impression that you didn't believe in AGW. Do you? If not, does this mean that your opinion has changed? Because arguing that CFCs are the cause of global warming seems to suggest that humans are even more responsible. (CFCs and related gases don't exactly spew out of volcanos.... as far as I know).

People are concerned about CO2 because of the dramatic increase in its use over the last hundred years or so, especially in very recent years. Does anyone (credible) deny the importance of other greenhouse gases? The Kyoto Protocol talks about other greenhouse gases. Including some gases closely related to CFCs (CFCs themselves aren't included because there is already a commitment to reduce them from the Montreal Protocol).

Kyoto Protocol:http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html
(See esp Annex A and Article 3.1)

2. Ron said: "Obviously, this person needs to be sent to a re-education facility - the left has spoken and you will bow down and worship at the alter of their views."

And your evidence of this is... that he got something published in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

Has anyone read the scientific paper in question? I found it, in its entirety. Much of it, I don't understand. But it doesn't sound all that conclusive. And the section on climate change is under 4 pages long (out of 49.... out of 86 if you include bibliography, graphs, and explanations of graphs... which might add a couple of pages to the number of climate change pages).

Anyway... I doubt these 4-6 pages of possibly contrary/hard to fit into current understanding pages constitute "bad news" for Al Gore et al. Especially if they argue that there is another more important source of anthropogenic climate change (but one that has been recognized as such a source for some time).

-Anon 1152.

Anonymous said...

1. Iceman: no one denies that the sun has an important impact on temperature. Without the sun... we wouldn't be here. Without the sun, we wouldn't have oil (if you believe that oil is derived from dead/decaying organic matter, under certain conditions, from millions-billions of years ago. I have heard that there are some theories out there that try to deny this. If anyone can point me to sources... please do).

Yes. The sun is important. But without the atmosphere, including its greenhouse gases, the earth would be... frozen.

And no, that does not mean "the more greenhouse gases the better". I've heard that Venus is sheathed in sulfuric acid clouds that reflect sunlight [the same gas we may end up spraying into the upper atmosphere to try to mitigate global warming, if it becomes necessary]. Despite this reflection, it is hotter on the surface of venus than it is on the surface of mercury, because the Venusian atmosphere is mostly CO2. (http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/venus_worldbook.html).

As for taking the bus to work... it's better than driving alone in an a hummer. But really, the problem has never been one person driving, or taking a bus. the problem is an inefficient and growing planetary economy powered by CO2 releasing fuels.


2. Anonymous said "But, but there is no money to be made or taxes to be had by the UN or excuse to make a one world Government from CFCs :'( "

The whole Kyoto process was modeled on the process that led to the Montreal Protocol in which countries committed to the elimination of Ozone depleting gases (e.g., CFCs); with industrialized/wealthy countries taking the lead; and with a cap and trade system. Dealing with Ozone layer depletion didn't lead to a world government. (As far as I know). Were you worried it would back when the Ozone layer was the issue-de-jour?

-Anon1152

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon1152 says... Neo, I have a question"

and i have many questions myself... but no one ever seems to be willing to answer them. it's very disturbing.

the fact that al gore and company seem to be profiting from this sketchy global warming carbon market... based on what is now apparently being revealed as bogus data... also bothers me to no end.

you really have no problems with phil mann and his homogenised numbers?

and going from using the term "global warming" to "climate instability" does nothing to calm my fears.

i'm willing to wait for actual peer reviewed science... instead of relying solely on the apparently bogus cru data.

*

Anonymous said...

1. To whom are you addressing your questions?

2. I am not in favour of a cap and trade system myself. (Though I once read an article by Peter Singer that almost had me convinced it was the way to go... I should find it again... It's here somewhere...)

I'm for a carbon tax instead. I think it's simpler, easier, and might better account for the fact that a highly integrated transnational economy needs to be modified, and national boundaries can be used to play one nation off the other...

Why, for example, should the Tar Sands be only Alberta's problem if the Canada, the USA, China, etc use the oil produced?

Why should China's emissions be only China's problem if those emissions are the result of production for western countries, who produce far less stuff than they once did, because they've discovered other countries with less stringent labour and environmental laws?

As for people profiting... People profit all the time. Why is it worse if they profit from more efficient, non-GHG emitting stuff than from, say, oil?

I view the issue not so much as one of spending/wasting money on "green" technologies at the expense of wealth in general, but on what sort of things we spend money on.

As for the Al Gore profit thing... perhaps we need (or need to enforce?) laws against such climate profiteering, just as we had laws against war profiteering. We can be against war profiteering without being against a particular war (or even war in general for that matter).

3. As for the "homogenized numbers"... as I said in my original comment, I'm not sure what a lot of this scientific stuff means exactly. And (no offense) but I don't think you do either. The risk of basing one's opinion on complex scientific issues on information filtered through the popular/non-scientific media is well known by those on the "deniers's" side. But they don't seem to think that the same risk applies to themselves. (Though I think some of them are being disingenuous about the whole thing from the get-go).

4. I don't think there has been a sudden shift from "global warming" to "climate change". Take a look at google news results over the last 10+ years and MORE results come up for "climate change".

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&cf=all&ned=ca&hl=en&q=%22climate+change%22&cf=all

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&cf=all&ned=ca&hl=en&q=%22global+warming%22&cf=all

I don't hear the term "climate instability" that much. But I don't think that scientists are suddenly trying to say that's the problem. In Al Gore's movie, he mentioned the possibility of an ice age, triggered by glaciers melting fresh water into the north atlantic, slowing down or stopping the gulf stream.

Even if "global cooling" is the problem, human activity may still be to blame.

5. "I'm willing to wait for actual peer reviewed science."

Willing to wait for the peer reviewed science that suits you? Plenty of evidence of global warming is out there, even after discounting questionable data as given in the CRU emails. We've know that there are Greenhouse Gases, and that CO2 is one of them, for over 100 years.

- Anon1152.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon1152 says... I don't hear the term "climate instability" that much."

maybe because the warmies & the msm just recently pulled that one outta their collective ass... when it became apparent that the planet is actually now cooling down.

and nonny... if al gore said "good morning" to me... i'd start looking for a hurricane shelter...

"(Voiceover) Wait a minute, that shot looks just like the one in the opening credits of "The Day After Tomorrow."

*

Rob Budde said...

Holy! I think Anonymous has things covered here. Have a good holidays Neo.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"rob budde says... Have a good holidays Neo."

you too, rob... but go easy on the kool-ade. we worry about you.

*

Beet Chiller said...

Boy, you should read the academic papers you cite, instead of taking the media spin on them. I actually read the paper in Physics Reports, and it does not read at all like you characterize it. The analysis of stratospheric photochemistry is pretty cool, and well defended. The little bit at the end about the implications to Global Warming are much more speculative. Even in speculation, it doesn’t support your thesis. I provide you quotes directly from the paper:

“no long-term time correlation between CR intensity and polar stratospheric temperature during any 11-year cycle has been reported.”

“essentially no changes in the stratospheric O3 layer over the Equator, where sunlight is the strongest, have been observed over the past decades”

“These observed data clearly rule out both the solar cycle effect and the direct CR effect responsible for the observed 11-year cyclic total ozone variation.” (their emphasis)

“Note that the temperature in the polar stratosphere prior to the ozone-hole season shows no significant time correlation with the CR/solar intensity variation”

In other words, it ain’t the sun, stupid. Oh, Oh, looks like the author might be looking to cash in on the “global warming Cash Train: Note this quote:

“It certainly deserves for further examinations and studies.”

Anonymous said...

Neo:

I assumed the term "climate instability" and "climate change" were interchangeable for the purposes of this conversation. I have recently seen people suggest that climate change was a new phrase, invented to deal with "the planet is actually now cooling down" argument.

Were the historical references found by google news unconvincing?Or are you ok with the term "climate change" instead of "global warming"?

-Anon1152.

P.S.
Is your problem with Al Gore as a source, or with Al Gore's sources? He isn't a source of original peer reviewed research...