There is a reason that Japanese environmental physical chemist Kiminori Itoh has dubbed anthropogenic global warming "the worst scientific scandal in history, and it is the same reason that Norway's Nobel Prize winner for physics has decried AGW as the "new religion." That reason is that the AGW hypothesis is built upon scientific nonsense rather climate science facts and truths.

I would suggest you take the time, and go to the trouble, of watching paleoclimatologist Robert Carter's recent scientific presentation to the Australian Environmental Foundation (widely available for viewing, in four parts, online, and linked for your convenience below). Dr. Carter eviscerates the AGW hypothesis in that presentation, and it might help you understand why the U.S. news media isn't so quick to jump on the very fashionable and PC, but scientific inane, theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Also linked below, again for your convenience, are an ABN Newswire interview with climate scientist Ian Plimer and a Fortune Magazine interview with climate scientist John Christy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&NR=1

http://abnnewswire.net/multimedia/en/60780/VIDEO:_Professor_Ian_Plimer_A...

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/...

Douglas Chang

Maybe if the poster boy Al Gore didn't have so many holes in his "Inconvenient Truth" more people would buy into the urgency. As it stands, there seems to be plenty of articles written by those that say the climate change models are far from perfect. I personally find it unbelievably arrogant that humans think they can stop or change something our planet has been doing for billions of years without our help.

Follow the money:
In 1988 James Hansen testified before congress to scare us about global warming. See his predictions on page 7 of this PDF from NASA’s website:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

All satellite data, including this from the University of Alabama at Huntsville proves that he was wrong. The predicted warming never occurred:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg

2008 was even colder than 1988. Had he predicted what actually happened, no one would have seen the need to waste hundreds of billions of dollars. Now the politicians are threatening to burden the economy with their Cap-and-Trade scheme, which amounts to a massive tax increase on all conventional energy usage, to be paid for by you every time you buy something manufactured or transported using energy, which includes everything you spend your money on. It’s ironic how they claim to be protecting the children from doomsday, when they are really impoverishing your children’s future with this additional burden. Here is more background on this deliberate hoax from 1988:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/hansens_anniversary_testimony/

31,478 scientists signed a petition opposing the man-made global warming theory. Their reasoning is outlined in a peer reviewed journal article detailing the evidence that disproved the theory. Please follow this link:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

We are being forced to pay for less economical sources of energy while being told they are viable alternatives. This is a lie. All of the so-called ‘alternative’ sources of energy, including wind and solar, equal less than one percent of mankind’s needs. Meanwhile our far more economical access to hydrocarbon energy and nuclear energy is being throttled for no good reason. Obviously Gore wouldn't mind impoverishing the rest of us to enrich himself with his ‘carbon trading’ scheme. With the size of his utility bills and the cost of jet fuel for his private jet flying him all over the world, he needs all the money he can get. If he was really worried about CO2, wouldn’t he act like he was worried about his own emissions, and energy consumption? Of course he is received like a hero in Hollywood; he makes hypocrisy fashionable.

1. We are currently in an interglacial period. Have been since the end of the Pleistocene Epoch (most current Ice age ending approx. 11000 year ago). I note that, with wide variations of cooling and heating, global temps have generally risen during that period.

2. Global temps began rising, causing the ice sheets to recede, 11000 years before Suv's and the Industrial age.

3. There have been several mini- Ice Ages in the last 10,000 years - all followed by eras of - yup.... global warming.

4. Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age - with century long pauses during periods of "global cooling. Sea levels have risen over 300 feet in the past 15000 years...

5. For the past two years global temps have fallen... Last winter had record breaking snow levels.

6. All the melting "pole" ice shelves that everyone is panicking about have melted before - and come back - and are doing so now.

7. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that man made co2 has anything to do with possible global warming. Human induced co2 accounts for less than 1% of co2 in the atmosphere. If we followed the green banners and marched back to the caves - leaving 99% of our fellows to die - The Co2 meter would barely move.

8. H2o is (water vapor) is the most common green house gas representing 95% of green house gas.

9. More "bio-mass" is present at the middle latitudes and far less as the poles. You may check this out by trying to grow something on a sheet of ice and compare that to your success in a "green house". If that's too much work, look at a National Geographic that has pics of tropical rain forests and compare to pics of frozen tundra. See what I mean?

10. Bonus factoids... More oil spilled into the sea every five weeks during the nearly 6 years of WWII than in the entire 65 years since its end. Guess what? The oceans survived those 3600+ ships, (hundreds were oil tankers - all were full of fuel oil and chemicals) sinking. When Cabrillo explored the west coast of what is now California, in 1542, he sailed through an oil slick more than a hundred miles wide caused by "natural seepage". Oil platforms actually reduce the amount of oil in the sea by reducing "natural seepage" Less than one barrel per day is lost from all the 3800+ oil platforms each day - more than 1500 barrels seeps into U.S. territorial waters from natural, undersea fissures each day - and would increase if we reduced off shore drilling. The worst man made oil spill in history took place in August 1944 when American dive bombers dropped many tons of bombs on 77 Japanese ships in Truk Lagoon. All were sunk. These ships still leak oil to this day. Truck Lagoon is not a "Superfund Site". Rather, it is the most popular dive resort on the planet and has a diverse underwater ecosystem.

11. 2800 gallons of oil seeps from undersea fissure off Southern Ca. This is more than 50 times the amount from anthropogenic sources.

"Going Green" has gone too far. Environmentalism has become an intolerant, hysterical religion. Consider this another in a long line of wake- up calls...

At night when the solar insolation is decreasing, and the Greenhouse effect is decreasing because the energy available to it is decreasing, and the amount of CO2 available in the air is increasing as it gets released from its duties of transporting energy to space and causing the GHE, then why doesn't the GHE increase due to the increased availability of CO2? After all the IPCC says that increasing CO2 causes increasing warming. So why does it cool when the IPCC says it warms?

Could it be that because there is excess CO2 in the air that it is now the amount of energy photons available that dictates how much of a GHE there is?
Could it be that the Arrhenius finding that more CO2 causes more warming ONLY applies when there is unlimited energy available to combine with the added CO2 to cause the warming, or that when you reach equilibrium conditions that the omount of energy out equals the amount of energy-in and any CO2 added after this point will become excess and just sitting in the air unused by the GHE process until more energy is made available?(eg next morning?) Could it be that the IPCC and Hansen analyses misapply the basic science and result in computer models that are as wrong as the 1980s Club of Rome models? Could it be that the IPCC analysis is just plain wrong, and designed to extort money from rich countries for the benefit of the poor ones who dominate the IPCC?

Could it be that the press is failing in its duty to inform the public of lies and falsehoods in science and politics. That Greenwire is so immersed in its own existence that they ignore reality? Nah, that would never happen!!!

John Dodds.
For a paper that explains What may really cause warming and cooling and climate change see "Excess CO2 Scenario" at www.scribd.com

When you get right down to it the job of a media business is to make profits, if possible, for its owners. It might be interesting to compare public media operations, such as Voice of America and National Public Radio, who do not respond as strongly to this profit pressure, with commercial media outlets. Have they treated climate change reporting any differently?

Media is failing because, contrary to the rants of the right wing, the press is corporate owned and has an interest in generating controversy and headlines in order to sell paper. Distortion and Distraction are their tools.

The Science is unassailable. CO2 levels above 350ppm (currently ~390) will not sustain the environment we know and are comfortable with. Acidification of the oceans reduce shell formation in marine life, warmer climates increase insect-borne disease, lack of high altitude snow and ice increases drought conditions in large parts of the world.

Politicians and Diplomats may argue but Physics and Chemistry don't negotiate.

Check out 350.org