gregorygarver.com

0082 · Joined: 27 Nov 2003 Posts: 3

Global warming has stopped!Recent scientific studies may make 2007 go down in history as the "tipping point" of man-made global warming fears. A progression of peer-reviewed studies have been published which serve to debunk the United Nations on climate change. Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (LINK), noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped. “The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %),” (LINK) In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the obvious: global warming has stopped. (LINK) The UK Met Office acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures, but in an apparent attempt to keep stoking man-made climate alarm, the Met Office is now promoting more unproven dire computer model projections of the future. They now claim climate computer models predict “global warming will begin in earnest in 2009” because greenhouse emissions will then overtake natural climate variability.Southern Hemisphere is COOLINGUN scientist Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007, explained on August 6, 2007 that the Southern Hemisphere is cooling. “In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature has slowly but surely declined in the last few years. The city of Buenos Aires in Argentina received several centimeters of snowfall in early July, and the last time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918! Most of Australia experienced one of its coldest months of June this year. Several other locations in the Southern Hemisphere have experienced lower temperatures in the last few years. Further, the sea surface temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998, according to a recent world-wide analysis of ocean surface temperatures," Dr. Khandekar explained. (LINK) Meteorologist Joseph Conklin, who launched the skeptical website www.ClimatePolice.com in 2007, recently declared the “global warming movement [is] falling apart.” “A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the real global warming won’t start until 2009,” Conklin wrote in an August 10, 2007 blog post on his website. (LINK)Climate models made by unlicensed 'software engineers'But the credibility of these computer model predictions took a significant hit in June 2007 when Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well," Renwick conceded. (LINK) Another high-profile UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, recently echoed Renwick’s sentiments about climate models by referring to them as “story lines.” “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios,” Trenberth wrote in journal Nature’s blog on June 4, 2007. He also admitted that the climate models have major shortcomings because “they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess." (LINK) IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," declared “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” in an April 10, 2007 article. (LINK) “All [UN IPCC does] is make ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates,'” Gray noted. In addtion, meteorologist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, recently compared scientists who promote computer models predicting future climate doom to unlicensed “software engineers.""I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society," Tennekes wrote on February 28, 2007. (LINK) Should we spend a trillion dollars on "Global warming" when, in fact, the earth is cooling?

Mentat4698 · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 3

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!......................we human cause the global warming ...

digger2590 · Joined: 20 Nov 2005 Posts: 3

It isn't cooling. This is the definitive data.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gifYear to year the weather jumps around, but the long term trend is undeniable. Carter's statements that warming has stopped, based on one unusual year, 1998, are laughable.None of the reputable "skeptical" scientists make this claim anymore. It's absurd and unscientific.

snowbunny360 · Joined: 01 Jul 2005 Posts: 7

Global warming is a huge problem. It can not cooled down overnight. A lot of years must be down to cure the sickening Mother Earth.Thanks for asking. Have a great day!

blahblahblahblahblah · Joined: 15 Oct 2003 Posts: 9

If the earth were indeed warming ( its happened before) it has very little to do with human activity in fact. A single St. Helens size volcanic eruption puts out as more Co2 than all human activity in one year. Humans shouldn't flatter themselves to much. Holes in the ozone also happen periodically throughout the ages. A good theory to look into is the idea that the United Nations needs to make us believe in global teamwork, so they make people believe that it's possible for humans to stop the warming so that we come to like the idea of a global village.

daddyjohndeer · Joined: 18 Jun 2007 Posts: 4

I think it is all just a bunch of ridiculous theories, and our beautiful planet will stay just as healthy as it is, unless we continue to poison our air and environment. I don't think it is cooling or heating, and I don't think we should spend any money on trying to stop any of these things.

arlanymor · Joined: 26 Nov 2005 Posts: 5

"Most of Australia experienced one of its coldest months of June this year."This statement is untrue. This June was the coldest since 1983. The average June temperature in Victoria is 11.4cJune 2007 average temp was 13.3And NSW's coldest June was last year. Coldest since 1982 but also 2 degrees warmer than average (and this is the average calculated from thee late 19th century to now.refer this link for Australia's average temperature variation from average for the last 96 years and tell me if the temperatures are trending up or down.

deejayd · Joined: 28 Nov 2006 Posts: 5

Global warming has not stopped--it is getting worse. That is proven scientific fact.The fact that some crackpots post BS like this on the web doesn't make it valid--nor does it mean there is any "debate." There isn't. And tripe like this stuff you've been gullible enough to swollow isn't going to make anyone take those kooks seriously.As for your question-no one is suggesting we "spend a trillion dollars to stop global warrming." That kind of bull is jst propaganda from the special interests--mostly the oil commpanies. the reality is that oil, coal, etc. are obsolete. Modern technology is cleaner, cheaper--and investment in wind, solar, etc. is already creating thousands of jobs and helping people save money on energy. But try to tell the "skeptics" that. They simply are so ignorant they don't get it: fossil fuels are on the way out. That may happen a little faster because of efforts to stop global warming. But its going to happen either way.

charlesdclimer · Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 5

I had my hopes up for warmer temps but, you are probably right. It is all about the money.

JackMeehoff · Joined: 08 Sep 2006 Posts: 9

i think we should spemd. may be it is cooling but we all know that global warming is still there. we should spend alot until global warming is nowhere. if we we will not spend, we also suffer iin the end.

iggy_688786 · Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 8

Should we waste time reading your nonsense and answer your question?

cashew · Joined: 20 Jul 2003 Posts: 4

i didnt read the whole thing because i dont want to but i do not think we need to spend billions of dollars on it because humans arent the only reson and it isnt for the worst and it isnt happening as fast as they say!!!!!

sweetbana · Joined: 13 Dec 2003 Posts: 5

I live in california. So sometimes it is warm.But,And I am sorry but thats was to much stuff to read so much.. but.I went to San Francisco in the summer when it was supposed to be warm. Guess what, your right because it was real coold and I think thats what you mean.I think it started when we used too much gas and we also should have better abortions for teenagersand kill old people and also stupid people unless they are cool or on TV I like Ali Gore, but he shouldn't have sex with Mrs. Clinton. Because of ethics and stuff.

Cynthia · Joined: 07 Mar 2004 Posts: 5

Yawn.Another skeptic who's too lazy to do research. Next time, cite something peer-reviewed and you might get an intelligent reply. (What's that? Can't find any peer-reviewed literature to support your viewpoint? What does that tell you?) Reposting junk from political websites cuts no ice with me, nor with any other scientist.

The-Office · Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 6

The truth about "peer review"While passing the peer-review process is often considered in the scientific community to be a certification of validity, it is not without its problems. Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986.[6] He remarks, "There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print."[7]Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability -- not the validity -- of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." [8]