Blasphemous Quotes

"In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible." -- Final chapter, Draft TAR 2000 (Third Assessment Report), IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

"Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)." -- Climate Change Science - An Analysis Of Some Key Questions, p1 (Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council)

"The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change." -- James Hansen, "Climate forcings in the Industrial era",

"Reducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions of global climate change will require major advances in understanding and modeling of both (1) the factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and (2) the so-called “feedbacks” that determine the sensitivity of the climate system to a prescribed increase in greenhouse gases." -- Climate Change Science - An Analysis Of Some Key Questions, p1 (Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council)

"Because climate is uncontrollable . . . the models are the only available experimental laboratory for climate. . . . However, climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty of interpreting their answers that exhibit almost as much complexity as in nature." -- Climate Change Science - An Analysis Of Some Key Questions, p15 (Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council)

"At this point in the debate, it is intellectually dishonest and borders on fraudulent to continue to maintain that there is any reasonable basis to fear a coming climate apocalypse. Yet the scientific establishment continues to grind out tortured "studies" to prove black is white. Those involved in this charade are doing lasting damage to science and the reputations of scientists. Hell, you are no different than the worst lawyers - you will say whatever people want you to say so long as you are paid." -- Fred Palmer, president of the Greening Earth Society.

And why is all this bad science and deceptive writing and publishing going on? What is driving all this utter nonsense? Read on.

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" -- Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” -- Paul Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, “Population, Resources, Environment” (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1970, 323)

The enhanced greenhouse hypothesis, while perhaps frightening, is poorly supported (we can't even agree on the planet's current temperature) and the issue, if issue it be, has been hijacked by natur über alles misanthropists seeking to ration energy as a means of suppressing humanity and by a curiously accommodating, apparently sensation-seeking media. So much noise has been made, so strident are the calls of impending doom that scientifically gullible politicians have thrown vast quantities of public money at study and abatement of a problem which is likely illusory and most certainly not as claimed by the eco-Jeremiads. The inevitable result of this misdirection of public funds has been the spawning of an entire industry dependent on continued hysteria to keep the grant torrent flowing and donation coffers full. Consequently we have a well-financed and supremely motivated industry, a three-M coalition composed of the Misanthropists, the Mistaken and the outright Miscreants (some would say Media), shrieking their tale of looming disaster from human development. Welcome to Big Warming. [From Junk Science]

Not everything is at it seams. The eco-fanatics are leading us around by the nose. Their agenda is a very perverse one, driven by eastern religion, with the commitment to undo hundreds of years of progress, technology, and advancement from the dark, dirty, and painful years of the past. An agenda determined to rid the world of several billion people, eliminate most of the world’s food supply, remove all electrical generating plants, stop all building, and drive the world back to the dark ages. And we are actually supporting this agenda with our hearts, our money, and our votes?

Calculating The Earth’s Temperature

To calculate the earth’s temperature at any given moment in time is virtually impossible. Just consider the challenge. The earth’s temperature is constantly changing, it is never static; half the earth is in the sun, half in the dark, and the rotation of the earth causes that split to be forever moving.

Then there is the atmosphere itself. The atmosphere is the most fluid part of the planet, by far. The air is always moving, the jet stream is moving north and south while blowing west to east, constantly changing, from hour to hour. Clouds form and disappear, humidity rises and falls, winds pick up or go calm, hurricanes form, cold fronts move, warm fronts move, and barometric pressure also changes from moment to moment.

And then there are elements like volcanoes which spew millions of tons of dirt and ash into the atmosphere, almost overnight. This infusion of material into the atmosphere causes global temperatures to drop, almost immediately, for summers to disappear, crops to fail, and other consequences. Plus the influence of known temperature influences factors like the sun, and sunspots, and the ever changing closeness of the earth to the sun.

All of these factors, and more, affect the global temperature, and all of them are in constant flux. Then we consider the problem of measuring the temperature of the surface of the earth’s oceans. There are no permanent monitoring stations on the surface of the oceans; most oceanic weather and temperature reports come from ships, which are not stationary. Satellites are able to provide accurate, though some dispute this, temperature readings, but not over the entire globe at every given moment.

So what is the real temperature? For environmentalists to claim global temperatures are rising is more than a stretch. They are making this claim based, not on real, recorded temperatures, but on computer models, all of which have been shown to be entirely faulty and without merit. And if real data does show a temperature rise, so what? We know temperatures rise and fall, weather cycles, it is ever changing, so how can anyone possibly claim to know the global temperature?

And, of course, the presumption is that rising global temperatures are bad, which is also highly debatable. Rising temperatures mean more food production, more forest production, less starvation, more rain; and less severe, cold weather.

NASA’s website reports: “For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14 Celsius, i.e. 57.2 F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58 F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.” Interpretation? We really have no idea what the global mean is–but we will continue to pretend that we do. NASA goes on, “Don't get too excited about calculating Earth's precise mean temperature since radiative balance has yet to measured .” Interpretation? There are parts of the earth’s temperature variants that we haven’t begun to understand, let a lone calculate.

NASA continues, “The bottom line is that we do not know what the planet's current temperature is, although satellite-mounted instruments and Argo autonomous floats are giving us a better picture than we had before. We do not know what the planet's temperature was 100 years ago with any meaningful precision. We have no way of telling whether Earth will be warmer or cooler at the beginning of Solar Cycle 25 (SC24 is just sputtering to a start now and it is reasonable to guess Earth will be slightly warmer in the midst of the roughly 11 year cycle, although there is no guarantee).”

Pretending to know the earth’s temperature does not change the fact it is unknowable. But so-called scientists cannot be deterred by this embarrassment; they will still claim to know the temperature of the earth, even if they have to make it up–which is what they do. Computer models to the rescue...and continue to claim to know the earth’s temperature; and it will be what they say it is because they are the experts, and they know. We mere mortals are just expected to follow along, stay in line, and believe the all-knowing environmentalists who put forth this tripe..

Debunking CO2 Myths

The eccentricity of the earth, or the distance between the earth and sun, varies over thousands of years in it’s travel through the Milky Way. But there is a one to one correlation between that distance, and temperature on the earth. The closer the earth is to the sun, the warmer the temperatures on the earth, the further away earth is, the colder the temperatures. This cycle, called the Milankovitch Cycle, is a 100,000 year cycle. At the bottom of each 100,000 year cycle, the earth experiences an ice age, at the other extreme of that cycle, the glaciers are gone, and the earth is at its warmest. Guess what end of that cycle the earth is currently in? Yup, the closest, and the warmest, and the earth will soon be cooling (probably already begun).

It is true that when temperatures rise, CO2 also rises. This is a result of several factors, more growth, more forestation, longer growing seasons, more kelp in the oceans, etc. But a well published chart shows this correlation has existed for at least the last 500 thousand years, and every cycle but the last occurred before man even knew what carbon fuels were.

This is the same graph that Al Gore showed all those elementary kids in making his case that when CO2 increases, global temperatures increase. He was lying, it works the other way around, and Al Gore knew it. Using Gore’s logic, the rising CO2 levels caused the earth to move closer to the sun. Not likely.

Here’s another view of CO2. CO2 makes up about 300 ppm of the earth’s atmosphere, that means that for every 1,000,000 parts of everything else in the atmosphere, 300 of those parts are CO2. So do your own tests. Let’s say you have a 1,000,000 gallon pool of water, maintained at 90 degrees; and of that 1 million gallons, 300 gallons of it is 95 degree Gatorade. Do you think the temperature of the pool of water will drop by removing the Gatorade? Not hardly, the quantity of warmer Gatorade is insignificant.

The climate change crowd are wont to blame global warming, as minuscule as it may be (and completely disputed by others), on man and his use of carbon fuels, etc. Man is the guilty party here, else why political action to stop whatever it is man is guilty of, so action must be taken to reverse the trend.

Water is also a greenhouse gas, in fact, H2O and CO2 have almost identical greenhouse properties, yet environmentalists want only to focus on CO2, why not H2O? There is roughly 100 times more H2O in the atmosphere than CO2. In my example of the pool of water, why would you try to affect the temperature of the pool by addressing the 300 gallons of Gatorade, and not the 1 million gallons of water? It makes no sense.

Weather is a function of temperature and pressure. The atmosphere responds to temperature and pressure, and it doesn’t care what’s in that atmosphere, H2O, CO2, or any other gas. When temperature increases, water vapor in the atmosphere increases, when pressure decreases, the water falls out in the form of rain, snow, hail, or dew. The atmosphere is a self-regulating marvel, it will not be over-heated, or under-cooled. Nearly all of the worthless computer models predict rising global temperatures as a result of an anticipated rise in CO2 levels, but none of these take into consideration real weather factors such as this. More total energy leaves the earth's surface in evaporated water than through thermal radiation. If the earth does start to warm, more moisture is sucked into the atmosphere, and when it rains or snows, more heat is radiated upward. When this water turns to rain up in the sky, that energy is released as radiation in the frequency of water vapor. So there is a huge source of radiation far above the surface of the earth that will skew the H2O readings at the top of the atmosphere and mislead many to assume that CO2 is far more effective in absorbing radiation than is water.

And since CO2 only adds the weight of the carbon in it’s molecule (the oxygen molecule is already there), the real addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is even less than environmentalists would have us believe. Global warming disciples like to talk about “feedback” from the CO2 in the atmosphere, but numerous experiments have shown that CO2 provides no more feedback than does H2O. And though there is variability across the earth, (deserts, mountains, etc), 70% of the earth is water and is the overpowering force on weather.

If someone with more education than you gives you a 500 page study, full of calculus and scientific terms you don't understand, that concludes a battleship can be lifted out of the water with a single strand of sewing thread, what would you do? Would you accept it as fact because the other person is "smarter" or apply your own education and your own common sense and state there must be an error somewhere in those 500 pages of calculations.

Thanks to http://www.globalwarmingtested.com/ for the foregoing data.

The Weather And The Environment

Truth is hard to come by in any discipline, and when it comes to weather, it is particularly difficult to come by. But pearls of truth do exist, real, recorded observations are true; meticulously researched and appropriately peer-reviewed research can establish clear patterns, and dependable data. Weather is fickle and challenges even the very best, the most highly educated, and those with the longest experience.

Weather forecasting is a hazardous business, and largely futile and frustrating because the weather often will not cooperate with the forecasts. With all our technology, satellites, weather balloons, multiple reporting stations, computers, and the internet, weather forecasters still get blind sided by the weather: a cold front inexplicably stalls, local temperatures spike up or down while locales surrounding this area do not, micro bursts strike an area without warning and almost always without a prediction from the local weather forecasters. So when someone claims to predict what the weather will be 20, 40, or 100 years in the future, pardon me if I don’t believe it.

Truth becomes even more difficult when major contributors to what we know, engage in a well orchestrated effort to deceive, to skew the data, to publish only one side of the issue, or publish without peer review, and often without research. And worse, these same contributors go to great lengths to silence their detractors. Al Gore’s infamous “the debate is over,” declaration should be published in every textbook and printed on every editorial page of every newspaper in the world, showing the idiocy of such a closed minded statement. Gore only wished the debate was over, in truth, it was only beginning. If he can stifle the debate, then he wins the argument, if not, then the truth will come out and he will look rather foolish in the end.

The environmental cartel engages in every controlling, deceptive, and manipulative effort imaginable, in an attempt to limit what people know about the environment, and in this case, global warming. For example environmentalists really, really want global warming to be a really, really bad thing. They are more than “religious” about stopping growth, development, logging, mining, ATV trails, hunting, farming, driving, dam building, power plant building, and just about any other modern activity. It is their belief that the earth, all of it, should be left in its pristine state, undisturbed, and unused by man in any way. Just how they propose to do this with 6 billion people living on it they don’t say, but the inference is that most of those people need to go away, and only a few of the environmentally pure should remain to enjoy and protect the undisturbed planet.

In 1996 the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of the United Nations, published it’s now famous report. The report was “approved” on November 30, 1995. But the only significant line in the 586 page report, a last minute change, made after midnight, with most of the delegates gone from the room, and without the knowledge of most of those who contributed to the report, stated “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.” But no evidence of this wild claim was contained in the report, no studies cited, and no names attached to the statement. It was an editorial opinion slipped into a supposedly scientific document by the environmental authors.

The former head of the National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, said of the IPCC report, “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to the IPCC report.” That is because there was no peer review of this outrageous conclusion.

Ironically, 1996 was the coldest year in a decade, but environmentalists are never deterred by contradicting data, their zeal is religious, and we are expected to simply accept their conclusions on faith. Sadly, the environmental movement has succeeded in controlling what goes into virtually every textbook in America, and have legions of true believers in the media who are more than willing to publish their deceptive conclusions.

CO2 levels increase in the fall and winter months, then decrease in the Spring and Summer months. Global warming alarmists want to use only the Fall and Winter numbers (increasing figures), and ignore the Spring and Summer declining figures, thus skewing the truth.

“There is no evidence that climate variability or hazardous events (floods, tornadoes, heat waves, frost, and even volcanoes) would be more frequent as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases.” (Wittwer)

We are witnessing the greatest, orchestrated effort to deceive in modern history. The science is not there, the data is not there, and the debate is all one sided–the way environmentalist must have it in order to win their political battles. On a level playing field, with open debate, and a search for truth, environmentalism would look ridiculously stupid, and they can’t have that.

“The jet stream, which powers winter storms and which is forecast to become weaker with global warming, is getting stronger.” (Patrick Michaels, Professor of Envrionmental Sciences, University of Virginia.)

“Hurricanes are becoming weaker and the severe ones are less frequent.” (Michaels)

“The vast share of the planet’s small warming is in the coldest places in the dead of winter. The fact is there is no change at all in the area of the United States experiencing above normal temperatures, even as all climate models predict a dramatic rise.” (Michaels)

In virtually every case, environmental climate claims prove to be false. In nearly all supposed associations of global warming with dire and adverse world weather conditions, the truth proves otherwise. All climate models are worthless and should be dismissed out of hand. Polar bears can, and do, swim in Arctic waters for miles, they are never stranded on a floating piece of ice. The quantity of Arctic ice is actually increasing, the quantity of Antarctic ice is decreasing, so what? Weather cycles, it changes, then changes back, so what?

Is The Earth Really Warming?

Despite Al Gore’s insulting declaration that “The debate is over,” the debate continues, and hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists continue to debate this issue and challenge the very heart of environmental issues. Here are some succinct observations from others on the issue.

1. There is no trend in the global satellite temperature record since 1979. (Robert Davis, Professor Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia)
2. Although models suggest a global warming (since 1880) of 2-5C, observable data cannot even show a .5C increase in temperature; and anything less than .5C simply show negative feedback. (Richard Siegmund Lindzen Ph.D. (b. February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT.)
3. The determination of the globally averaged temperature is virtually impossible (Lindzen)
4. None of the three standard observable calculations indicate any significant temperature change since the mid 1800s. (Lindzen)
5. The earth’s current average temperature (15 degrees C), is close to the “black body” temperature (the temperature without any greenhouse warming). (Lindzen)
6. For most of the planet, temperature records are very sparse, particularly before 1900. Large ocean basins, desert regions, and mountainous areas are limited in their long term historical temperature records. (Robert Balling, Director of the Laboratory of Climatology at Arizona State University)
7. Since 1751, Europe has warmed by only .5 degrees, and most of the warming occurred between 1890 and 1950, no warming has occurred in the most recent half century. (Balling)
8. Recorded data show some warming has occurred during the colder months of the year, and cooling has occurred during the warmer months of the year. Some scientists choose to ignore the cooling months and report only on the warming months. (Balling)
9. The period of rapid warming in Europe between 1890 and 1950 corresponds precisely to a time when solar sunspots rose most quickly. (Balling)
10. Europe has not experienced warming over the past 55 years. (Balling)
11. Europe represents less than two percent of the earth’s surface, nonetheless, climate models predict substantial warming in Europe. (Balling)
12. There is no evidence to support the prediction for substantial warming in the future. (Balling)
13. Predictive climate changes derived from computer simulations are far from accurate and may be deceptive. (Sylvan Wittwer, Director Emeritus of the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Professor of Horticulture)
14. Global satellite readings of temperatures over the earth show there has been no warming. (Wittwer)

Lindzen, Balling, Davis and others observe that in the United States, weather stations in remote areas have been systematically removed and placed near urban areas. Urban areas are known to give higher temperatures than non-urban areas, so the data is now skewed. Further, these scientists report that satellite readings show no temperature increase over the past 30 years. This has caused environmentalists to challenge the use of satellite readings because they tend to dispute the claims of the global warming alarmists. Environmentalists claim that if the surface temperatures are rising, then the satellite readings should reflect that, but they don’t; calling into question the accuracy of surface readings.

Is Global Warming & Elevated CO2 A Good Thing?

The blind assumption of environmentalists, many politicians, the media, and educators is, global warming is bad, it’s terrifying, and we must act to stop it or we will all die...ala Al Gore; and if they're right, they have the leverage to enact the draconian governmental actions they seek. But when science looks at the data and the reality of a warmer world, what do they find?

1. Over the past 80 years, levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have risen from less than 300 ppm to over 360 ppm. During this span, food production has risen by five-fold. (Sylvan Wittwer, Director Emeritus of the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Professor of Horticulture)
2. The rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are very favorable for the production of food. (Wittwer)
3. History reveals that for food production, warming is better than cooling. (Wittwer)
4. Elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have a decidedly beneficial effect on crop production, and an increase in water-use efficiency. An increase in CO2 actually causes a water conservancy benefit. (Wittwer)
5. Rising CO2 levels increase food production, forestry output, and biological productivity, with an improvement in water-use efficiency. (Wittwer)
6. A warming trend would increase the lengths of the growing seasons, encourage farmer adaptations, and favor the introduction of new technologies and cultural practices. (Wittwer)
7. There is a near one to one relationship between increased atmospheric CO2, and increased food production. (Wittwer)

“Cooler conditions are not beneficial to the residents in Europe. Cooler European temperatures have resulted in the worst of conditions, famines, plagues, starvation, suffering, and social unrest. It is painfully clear that the costs of cooling in Europe far outstrip the cost of regional warming. Global warming would have been more than welcomed by the inhabitants of post 1300 Europe.

From approximately A.D. 900 to 1300, temperatures in Europe were about 1 degree or more above the levels observed there today. This was known as the Little Climatic Optimum. The agricultural productivity and the agro-economy of Europe flourished.” (Robert Balling, Director of the Laboratory of Climatology at Arizona State University)

Wittwer declares the following: “There is currently a blind spot in the political and informational systems of the world. This is accompanied by a corruption of the underlying biological and physical sciences. It should be considered good fortune that we are living in a world of gradually increasing levels of atmospheric CO2.”

Real Data Dispute Global Warming Hype

If global warming is really occurring, that is, a consistent upward trend world wide to warming temperatures, one would expect some of the prophetic declarations, by weather scientists, that are supposed to accompany warmer temperatures, to begin to show up. But they aren’t.

Let’s review the global warming predictions, those events we should be seeing when temperatures rise world wide:
1. Increased hurricane activity. It hasn’t happened. There is actually a decline in the number of hurricanes, and few of high velocity and destructive power. The 1950s was the peak decade of hurricane activity, mostly level since then, with no trend.
2. Higher, high temperatures world wide. No high temperature records have been set on any continent in the past thirty years. In the U.S. there have been no record high temps in any state in the past fifteen years, and the majority of the high temps all occurred before the 1950s.
3. Increased droughts, and of longer duration. This is a strange prediction since as temperatures rise, the air holds more water, and historically, produces more rainfall. Predictably, there is no increase in droughts worldwide.
4. Increased tornado activity. There were more tornadoes during the 1960s, than any other decade since records have been kept. Again, the trend simply is not there.

Here’s an overview of U.S. locations, their highest record temperatures, and the date. All locations represent the record high for that state:
1. Lake Havasu City, Arizona, 128 degrees, 1994
2. Greenland Ranch, CA (Death Valley), 134 degrees, 1913
3. Orofino, Idaho, 118 degrees, 1934
4. Keokuk, Iowa, 118 degrees, 1934
5. Plain Dealing, Louisiana, 114 degrees, 1936
6. New Bedford, Mass, 107 degrees, 1975
7. Moorhead, Minnesota, 114 degrees, 1936
8. Laughlin, Nevada, 125 degrees, 1994
9. Steele, North Dakota, 121 degrees, 1936
10. Pendleton, Oregon, 119 degrees, 1898
11. Camden, South Carolina, 111 degrees, 1954
12. Seymour, Texas, 120 degrees, 1936
13. Saint George, UT 117 degrees, 1985
14. Ice Harbor Dam, Washington, 118 degrees, 1961
15. Basin, Wyoming, 115 degrees, 1983

There are no record temperatures in the United States since 1994. This contradicts the accepted trend by so-called experts in the field. It is noteworthy that only computer models show an increased trend in high temperatures, the actual recorded data do not show any such trend. Indeed, the majority of extreme temperatures, wind, drought, rainfall, and other extreme weather phenomenon occurred during the 1930s, long before Al Gore and the anthropomorphic climate change brainwashing campaign began.

Even on a regional basis, the American Southwest, the area of the U.S. with the highest overall temperatures, reached it’s peak during 1994, but has returned to normal since then. Los Angeles’ worst heat wave occurred during August and September of 1955.

Weather can be sliced up in a variety of ways, and one must be aware of what is actually being reported. There is the overall record high for a given date, the highest average temperatures for the entire year, or for the summer period, or for a given “heat wave” period of the summer.

One must also be aware of what has happened in the United States over the past two or three decades, with regard to weather stations and weather reporting. It is well understood that temperatures in and around large metropolitan areas are higher than the surrounding agricultural or thinly populated areas. Nearly 70 percent of the earth is water, and there are no permanent weather stations on any of the oceans of the earth. During the past two to three decades monitoring stations in remote areas have been eliminated and new monitoring stations established inside large metropolitan areas. This “trick” skews the data. We are no longer comparing orange to oranges, and there is no valid comparison with data gathered prior to the removing of these remote stations. This practice has artificially warmed the earth; it has not really warmed, but the additional reporting from within the densely populated areas skews the data upward–thus the feigned panic by environmentalists that something must be done to reduce CO2 levels, and reverse the “trend” of world wide warming.

This is intellectual dishonesty at its worst, essentially faking the data so political decisions can be made in your (environmentalists) favor. So even though the world is not really warming, the “experts” have created the appearance that it has, and will make policy based on that falsehood.

Sunspots, Not CO2 is Cause of Climate Change

Charlie Perry is a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, received a Ph.D in physics and astronomy at The University of Kansas. He also has spent time as a meteorologist.

Perry does not subscribe to the CO2 theory of global warming, rather, he believes firmly in the effect of sunspots as the source of global warming, and global cooling. A sunspot, Perry explains, is a location on the sun's surface that is cooler than the surrounding area. When there are more sunspots, the sun's surface becomes more dynamic and an opposite effect takes place, releasing more heat and energy when other parts of the sun become hotter.

A solar minimum is when the amount of spots on the sun is at a low and the reverse is true for a solar maximum. The complete solar cycle is about an 11-year process. Perry says the current solar minimum could continue into 2010.

"There's a fair chance it will be a cooler winter than last year," Perry said. There is a feeling from some in the scientific community the Earth may be entering into a grand minimum, which is an extended period with low numbers of sunspots that creates cooler temperatures.

Perry said there’s evidence the Earth's temperature may be slightly decreasing, but local weather patterns are much more affected by the jet stream than solar activity. However, Perry said snow in Buenos Aires and southern Africa, the best ski season in Australia and a cooler Arctic region are some of the evidence for a cooling period. So, Perry said, sunspots may have a far greater impact on weather than previously thought.

Perry is a proponent of the cosmic ray and clouds theory as opposed to the CO2 global warming theory to explain recent global warming trends. The cosmic ray and clouds theory was first put forth twenty years ago by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, and his been accepted by the scientific community until the less defensible CO2 theory emerged recently.

In a July 2007 issue of Discover magazine, Svensmark said the theory is simply that solar activity can alter the amount of clouds in the atmosphere, which affects the temperature of the Earth. More clouds mean a cooler Earth because more of the sun's heat is being reflected. Fewer clouds equal a warmer Earth.

Perry says data indicates global temperature fluctuations correlate to a statistically significant degree with the length of the sunspot cycle. Longer cycles are associated with cooler temperatures.

Johan Feddema, acting chair and professor of geography at KU, studies global warming. He is skeptical of any one phenomenon being the direct cause of global warming because there are so many climate variables that factor into global temperatures.

The CO2 theory is so thin, and contradicts most other theories regarding weather fluctuations, it's difficult to imagine how the CO2 theory gained any traction at all. Credit must go to Al Gore, and his now discredited "An Inconvenient Truth" film which environmentalists pushed blindly around the globe, much like Silent Spring was blindly accepted a generation ago.

Climate Change Scientists Backpeddaling...FAST

The New Scientist, a staunch global warming advocate, is making a fast retreat from its previous "certainty" that global warming would continue unabated unless governments across the globe acted fast, and act radically. Numerous global warming models had shown with great certainty that the earth is in trouble, that all the ice is going to melt, oceans will rise, flooding all the world's seaports, and that we will all be driven to oblivion--mostly by Americans who use more fossil fuels than anyone else, and pump carbon into the atmosphere, creating this disastrous condition.

Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany, and one of the authors of the IPCC report that got everyone worked up about global warming, said, "Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter, we could be about to enter one or two decades during which temperatures cool." Hmmm. And one of his collegues said, "In many ways we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year," said Vicky Pope from the UK Met Office. Frankly, I'm not convinced anyone know anything about 2050 either.

Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be due to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades.

Well, this is absolute heresy, and this is all the "critics" and "naysayers" have been saying for the past few years, and been ridiculed for it by the eco/left. It's not like environmentalists are the only ones who know anything about the weather, or who have access to real data. But it gets better.

Eric Berger, the science editor for the Houston Chronicle writes, "For a long time now, science reporters have been confidently told the science is settled. That the planet is warming and humans are unquestionably the primary cause. We've been told to trust the computer models -- the models which show a markedly upward trend in temperatures as carbon dioxide concentrations increase. And I've trusted the scientists telling me this. When An Inconvenient Truth came out I believed the movie to be scientifically accurate.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the end of the world: hurricane activity on the global scale is near historical lows. And the Earth seems to have stopped warming.

This, despite the fact that some of the country's leading climate scientists say there is unequivocally a link between major hurricanes and climate change. And despite the fact that other leading climate scientists predicted 2009 or 2010 will go down as the warmest year in recorded history. Either prediction, if true, would be alarming. Yet both of these predictions seem to be off." Indeed, way off.

And Richard Black, the Environmental writer for the BBC writes, "The Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted."

It's difficult not to look upon the "climate change" crowd with complete disdain, not to mention distrust, because it is this "natural climate cycles" issue that critics of global warming have been spouting about for years. Warming and cooling cycles are part of the earth's weather, they have been occurring forever, so far as we can tell, and for Al Gore and the environmental extremist crowd to ridicule the critics for bringing up this little "inconvenient truth," and then turning around and admitting it is really happening (duh), discredits the entire notion of global warming as a man caused event.

Apparently, (since I have no way of counting the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere), CO2 is on the increase, and has been for decades, if not millennia; yet, the uncooperative global weather has the gall to stop warming. And for a highly educated and respected scientist like Richard S. Lindzen, MIT, Cambridge, MA, to state matter of factly that CO2 is a minor atmospheric constituent, (.003%) and as such it’s variations are not important, must really stick in the craw of Al Gore and his cronies.

Because increasing numbers of "skeptics" are coming out of the closet, and because even the environmentalists themselves are having to admit their folley and falseness regarding global warming; this brings into question the entire premise, not to mention "facts," of global warming.

Cooling is Still Warming

The logic of the GWBC (Global Warming Brainwashing Crowd) is astounding. According to data from the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Ala., the global high temperature in 1998 was 0.76 degrees Celsius (1.37 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average for the previous 20 years. So far this year, the high has been 0.42 degrees Celsius (0.76 degrees Fahrenheit), above the 20-year average, clearly cooler than before.

Indeed, real, recorded data show 1998 was the peak warm year, and every year since has been cooler than 1998. But that doesn't deter the folks at GWBC. David Easterling, chief of scientific services at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. states, "These short term fluctuations are statistically insignificant (and) entirely due to natural internal variability, It's easy to 'cherry pick' a period to reinforce a point of view."

So according to him, even when temperatures are cooling, they are still warming, and it doesn't matter if global temperatures cool for a couple of decades, we must remember, the earth is still warming. Ok, I guess I follow that. The point is, these guys are drinking their own cool aid, they're going to argue for global warming even when the earth is cooling.

John Cristy the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, declares, "Our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous, and our policy makers need to know that . . . We really don't know much about what causes multi-year changes like this."

Of their own admission, there are climate variations they don't understand; but they go to great lengths to reassure us that the earth really is warming--even when it's cooling, or that variations are irrelevant because the earth really is warming--even when it's cooling.

The GWBC must maintain their position, and argue, no matter how irrationally, that global warming continues even when it's cooling, because the underlying theory to global warming is that it is caused by man, by fossil fuels, by industrialization, by driving SUVs, and that it has reached critical mass, that if we don't act immediately, there will be no changing it later.

So when the earth actually shows a cooling trend, these so-called scientists get apoplexy and start to hyperventilate because the underlying theory of man caused global warming is drawn into severe question--and they can't have that. The theory must stand even if the facts do not.