Leading climate change experts have thrown their weight behind two scientists who hit out at the "Hollywoodisation" of global warming.

Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, criticised fellow scientists they accuse of "overplaying" the message.

The pair spoke at a conference in Oxford today entitled Making Sense of Weather and Climate and organised by Sense about Science, a scientific trust set up to help dispel the myths surrounding polemic issues such as climate change.

In the mean time, another challenge has been made to Al Gore to debate Global Warming, with the question:

That our effect on climate is not dangerous

by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher

Anyone want to bet me that Gore refuses to debate this? I've heard he's already been challenged to debates on similar subjects and refuses to debate them.

I wonder why. (nuts)

....Anyone want to bet me that Gore refuses to debate this? I've heard he's already been challenged to debates on similar subjects and refuses to debate them.

I wonder why. (nuts)

Probably because he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Or maybe this was a rhetorical question :) .

Or maybe this was a rhetorical question :) .

:)

Steve Milloy invited Gore....and at the top of his website is a running clock.
------------------------------------------

"Does Al Gore really believe in catastrophic global warming?"

"Since Al Gore was offered the opportunity (in person) to facilitate serious debate on the underlying science of global climate change, 1 year, 2 months, 2 weeks, 22 hours, 36 minutes, and 40 seconds have elapsed."

----------------------------------------------
That was as of March 19, 2007, 11:38am.

Gore hisself stated that he talks about global warming in lay terms....because that's what he understands.

Well, there are always going to be two type of people. One that says global warming is happening and lets do something about it. And one that says no, its a load of bull and when it finally happens, oop! Lets do something about it. Which one would you prefer to be?

What's with this fixation on Al Gore? I bet people wouldn't have so much to argue about if the idea about global warming was highlighted further by say the POPE or someone at least everyone like.

I don't think the non supporters are really disagreeing about global warming. More with the fact that they don't like Al Gore. Am I right?

I have been hearing from both camps. And all to often the people screaming the loudest about global warming are the most rabid that only human activity is the sole cause and force. But I have been hearing that there maybe other forces at work here, that are possibly being considered properly. There is points of fact I have to keep remembering and pointing out. That the Sahara desert was not as big as it is now. That scientist have found evidence that the great plains were deserts several times in the past. Glaciers do grow and shrink over time. The poles haven't always been covered in ice.

There is much to concider and think about. Carefully, with out going over the edge with out proper reason.

I have been hearing from both camps. And all to often the people screaming the loudest about global warming are the most rabid that only human activity is the sole cause and force. But I have been hearing that there maybe other forces at work here, that are possibly being considered properly. There is points of fact I have to keep remembering and pointing out. That the Sahara desert was not as big as it is now. That scientist have found evidence that the great plains were deserts several times in the past. Glaciers do grow and shrink over time. The poles haven't always been covered in ice.

There is much to concider and think about. Carefully, with out going over the edge with out proper reason.

I think by the time we finish pondering over this possible calamity, majority of the human race would be wiped out.

What you are saying is that since earth itself has a fair share of environmentally detrimental activities, we should just keep going on the way we did.

It may well be the earth cycling tru climate changes. But going the way we do isn't going to help at all.

As the saying goes, if you keep going in a straight line without changing direction, you will end up where you are headed. And I am pretty sure where we are headed.

Well, there are always going to be two type of people. One that says global warming is happening and lets do something about it. And one that says no, its a load of bull and when it finally happens, oop! Lets do something about it. Which one would you prefer to be?

I'll be a third kind of person that needs real proof that it's happening and that there's anything that can be done about it.


I don't think the non supporters are really disagreeing about global warming. More with the fact that they don't like Al Gore. Am I right?

I disagree that global warming is happening and I don't like Al Bore.

I think by the time we finish pondering over this possible calamity, majority of the human race would be wiped out.

What you are saying is that since earth itself has a fair share of environmentally detrimental activities, we should just keep going on the way we did.

It may well be the earth cycling tru climate changes. But going the way we do isn't going to help at all.

As the saying goes, if you keep going in a straight line without changing direction, you will end up where you are headed. And I am pretty sure where we are headed.

Get a grip, alex. The human race will be fine. Don't let the scare mongers scare you silly.

I can't believe they have people believing that micro-managing the small amount of CO2 that humans contribute will steer the global climate. Just amazes me how gullible the herd is.

Get a grip, alex. The human race will be fine. Don't let the scare mongers scare you silly.

I can't believe they have people believing that micro-managing the small amount of CO2 that humans contribute will steer the global climate. Just amazes me how gullible the herd is.

Hi Madclicker,

I think you got me wrong from the way I posted. I may have sounded abit over dramatic. But you are right, I am concern about global warming and I do believe its happening. And I don't believe the use of fossil fuel the way we do is micro.

Try living in the equatorial region and you will feel the difference. The monsoon season has changed somewhat. And there are alot of other indications which I have to say people living in the northern hemisphere won't feel or know about simply because they are living in a cold country. I think by the time people in the north starts to feel the difference, the equatorial region may not be a comfortable place to live in. Imagine how many people will be affected?

Try living in the equatorial region and you will feel the difference. The monsoon season has changed somewhat.

Not trying to be a jerk, but is the weather the same every single year with no variation? How much does the weather change over the course of a few years? Or decades? Or centuries? How much variation is considered normal? Without knowing the data, it's very difficult to conclude that the current change is "bad".

Further, now that you have electricity, television, good hospitals, plenty of food, and clean water, you expect under-developed countries in Asia and Africa to be deprived of these basic necessities because they would contribute to global warming. Those countries will have to keep suffering the high mortality rates due to famine and disease because they will be barred from developing infrastructure and machinery to save lives.

Well, there are always going to be two type of people. One that says global warming is happening and lets do something about it. And one that says no, its a load of bull and when it finally happens, oop! Lets do something about it. Which one would you prefer to be?

What's with this fixation on Al Gore? I bet people wouldn't have so much to argue about if the idea about global warming was highlighted further by say the POPE or someone at least everyone like.

I don't think the non supporters are really disagreeing about global warming. More with the fact that they don't like Al Gore. Am I right?

There are three types. The two that you said, and those (the majority?) like me that believe it IS happening, but are questioning the cause. Many (most?) don't believe it's humans being the bulk of the cause.

And we don't like al gore because he's a hypocrite and/or a fear mongering liar.

Not trying to be a jerk, but is the weather the same every single year with no variation? How much does the weather change over the course of a few years? Or decades? Or centuries? How much variation is considered normal? Without knowing the data, it's very difficult to conclude that the current change is "bad".

I think I heard on TV last week while playing trucks and drinking my sippy-cup that in the last 10 or so years there hasn't been an increase in the mean temps globally.

How interesting.

I'll have to look it up and see for sure, but I'm fairly certain that's what they said.

Not trying to be a jerk, but is the weather the same every single year with no variation? How much does the weather change over the course of a few years? Or decades? Or centuries? How much variation is considered normal? Without knowing the data, it's very difficult to conclude that the current change is "bad".
Granted, there isn't much data to support the case. Prior to 10 or so years ago, the weather used to be regular and on the dot. July month was never as hot as it is now. We used to get rain every afternoon. Which is typical of countries in this region. But we hardly get them anymore. When it rains its heavy and when its dry its bone dry. Unless I am imagining it, something is definitely going on.

Further, now that you have electricity, television, good hospitals, plenty of food, and clean water, you expect under-developed countries in Asia and Africa to be deprived of these basic necessities because they would contribute to global warming. Those countries will have to keep suffering the high mortality rates due to famine and disease because they will be barred from developing infrastructure and machinery to save lives.
Sorry, how did you come to that conclusion from what I wrote?

Granted, there isn't much data to support the case. Prior to 10 or so years ago, the weather used to be regular and on the dot. July month was never as hot as it is now. We used to get rain every afternoon. Which is typical of countries in this region. But we hardly get them anymore. When it rains its heavy and when its dry its bone dry. Unless I am imagining it, something is definitely going on...

I had to go searching to find Brunei; all I had in my mind was that it was/is located somewhere in the general area of Indonesia. Good job I am not a navigator on an airplane :) .

Your personal observations over ten years may or may not be valid; I know mine are not. The big hills behind the house I grew up in have shrunk over the years and the snowfalls that used to come up to my waist now barely get past my knees. And I am not making fun; human memories form a very unsteady baseline for comparison.

If you could find weather records that did show the same changes; hotter summer months and more variable rainfall then I can accept that your memories are accurate. But it still may not mean anything; weather patterns change often in a cyclic fashion and ten years may be a miniscule time period for some changes.

Perhaps in your region weather has remained stable for centuries; I think that is not likely but it is possible and there is a way to find out.

Trees grow for a long time and they lay down a growth ring, or sometimes two, for every year. These rings are a record of what the weather was like during the year in which they grew. If you can find a tree stump in your area that shows growth rings which are completely identical from ten years ago all the way to the first ten years of the tree's growth and spanning a period of two or three hundred years in total, then I am inclined to accept that weather in your area has been unusually constant and the recent changes you feel you observe are real.

I am fairly confident you will not find a perfectly constant pattern; at a minimum you should find variations after 1815 and again after 1883 and these variations should smooth out in each case after a few years.

Hi Geof,

Brunei's a tiny country so I can't blame you for not being able to find it.

Anyway, did you ever figure out what the reason might be for your experience regarding the snow behind your house? Or has the snow depth returned to normal?

Hi Geof,

Brunei's a tiny country so I can't blame you for not being able to find it.

Anyway, did you ever figure out what the reason might be for your experience regarding the snow behind your house? Or has the snow depth returned to normal?

Notice the way I phrased it:"...snowfalls that used to come up to my waist now barely get past my knees...."

The reason personal remembrances are not a valid basis for comparison is that the baseline shifts; people grow, so what seemed like big hills and lots of snow to a younger and smaller me no longer seems the same from a different and taller perspective.

Which is why I made the comment about not making fun; memory is very fallible. This is why it is necessary to have a definitive record from weather observations or to look at natural records such as tree rings.

Weather can cycle dramatically over a few years or tens of years. El Nino events are something that can influence rainfall patterns even in your area. Approximately ten years ago there was a strong El Nino fluctuation so it is not particularly surprising if weather patterns in many parts of the earth are different now to what they were ten years ago.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/

some info on global temperature

I get you now. But I am not sure if they would be the same case as what I have experience. I had an opportunity one time to visit my old school just recently and I was commenting to my friends how small the place felt when compared to the last time we were there studying.

But the weather doesn't just change by virtue of us growing up. In any case, the fact of the matter is that global warming whether it is natural or man made (and I believe we play a major role in this) is happening. It is prudent to think about how we can improve the situation where it is possible. That is if everyone works together. But then its only me talking, just a small ant in a big world.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/

some info on global temperature

Interesting read.

With all the changes the Earth has experienced over its history, one might think one more change is no big deal. In the long run, yes. But the future of humanity depends crucially on what happens in the "short run": the next millennium or two. If we didn't mess around with the climate, our Earth's climate might remain stable for another thousand years or more. As it is, we're bringing on more sudden changes. This is an extract from the article written by John Baez, the link above. Enuf said.

well for me the simple fact that when i was young in the 70's it was starting to snow around the end of november and that at the end of the 80's beginning of the 90's it started around the 10th of december and that in 2005 it started on the 22nd of december and that last year it started to snow on the 26 is enough evidence that something is alot warmer then before

Sorry, how did you come to that conclusion from what I wrote?

If we as a global community start to place severe restrictions on carbon emissions using the argument "better safe than sorry", there are billions of people in the world who will be denied access to the basics that many others already have. Worse, the "haves" would keep what they have and the "have nots" would not be allowed to at least achieve an equal standard of living. Thus, the simple decision to not allow carbon emissions to increase damns billions to continue living in poverty by denying them the electricty and food production we would continue to enjoy. Although an easy choice for us, it's not so easy on others in the world.

What sort of compromise do you think would work for all people?

If we as a global community start to place severe restrictions on carbon emissions using the argument "better safe than sorry", there are billions of people in the world who will be denied access to the basics that many others already have. Worse, the "haves" would keep what they have and the "have nots" would not be allowed to at least achieve an equal standard of living. Thus, the simple decision to not allow carbon emissions to increase damns billions to continue living in poverty by denying them the electricty and food production we would continue to enjoy. Although an easy choice for us, it's not so easy on others in the world.

What sort of compromise do you think would work for all people?

ok and if global warming is true billions will die so nomather how you look at it billions will suffer but i aasure you that more and thats like alot more will die and suffer from global warming

ok and if global warming is true billions will die so nomather how you look at it billions will suffer but i aasure you that more and thats like alot more will die and suffer from global warming

Why?

That is why will billions die?

Global warming is true, there is little question about that. Whether it is caused by human activity is questionable. Human activity may be responsible for some or all of the observed warming. But even if humand activity is responsib;e for all the global warming that has occurred why will billions of people die?

The one problem we humans have is that we have been on the scene a very short time. With a even shorter record of history. Granted we can to archeological 'estimisations' of the past. But that is all it is, a estimisation. To really look at what is happening now and what may be happen in the future we need to look at the over all history of the planet. Don't forget the planet used to be a lot hotter, not warmer, but hotter. Hot enough that there were no polar ice caps, glaciers or such. There has not been one ice age, but several. I don't know how many there have been. So we must ask a lot of questions before 'jumping' off to the wrong conclussion. Though I am very much for stopping the use of fossil fuels for powering our various activites. But again, ask the questions, consider all the possible out comes before acting. And maybe making the situation worse. A quick solution to a problem may bring a whole new, even worse problem latter.

Something else to read: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html

Why?

That is why will billions die?

Global warming is true, there is little question about that. Whether it is caused by human activity is questionable. Human activity may be responsible for some or all of the observed warming. But even if humand activity is responsib;e for all the global warming that has occurred why will billions of people die?

where you quoting my post or asking question in regard to my post

also i dont get the end of your post but here is the my answer
why will billions of people die for a few simple reason, raise in temparature = more drought irrigation problem, heatwave, desertification, spreading of hotter zone disease(malaria for example).

desertification = less forest to absorbs and retain greenhouse gas so higher rate of warming
raise in temprature = destruction of most if not all of the sea ecosystem and also the release of methane held inside ice crust at the bottom of the ocean and inside the permafrost in the northern part of Russia and Canada, also melting of the ice cap of Greenland and Antartica why worry about those two and not Artica, well for one simple Artica for the most part is ice floating on water while the two other is ice and snow on land the ansuing raise in sea level would be catastrophic for place like Bengladesh, costal China, and India and closer to us places like Florida or Louisianna forcing the displacement of millions if not billions of people
heatwave = big time detrimental to human health after three days of daytime temperature over 36C and nighttime over 26c the amount of elderly people suffering from heatstroke rises by about 17% etc,etc...
as for this been fully our fault or not and as for this been natural or not the problem does not lie there but more in the what will happen then, whe have technology and all but currently none are evolved enough and neighter do whe have nor the capacity of making them happen in the timespent that whe have left and i insist on the meaning of "time left"
also another problem that was ignored for a long time was the effect of another problem that is not often talked about and this global dimming in the early 80's when talk of global warming and air pollution arose from the dark lots and lots of manufacturer started making anti particle system for cars and vehicule thus reducing the amount of airborn particule but not greenhouse gas this made some scientific realise that the greenhouse effect whas way higher then previously tought and why is that for one simple reason the millions of tons of particule that where previously clouding the earth traped inside the cloud where no longer helping in shading the earth surface by making cloud denser thus reducing the effect of greenhouse gaz so actualy this previous pollution was keeping the effect or more precisly the rapidity of the effect of greenhouse gases effect hidden.
anyway to learn abit more about global dimming the was a good documentary made by the BBC on it, get info on it @ http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml
or wikipedia as a good text on it @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

edit: just saw also that the personne who posted while i was writting this as a link in its post about global dimming

Ever heard of the Medieval Climate Optimum?

It was a boon to humans and most other life forms. Maybe it's not so bad.

What about shrinking ice caps on other planets? I don't think our carbon can get that far. Those who want political control over all economic activity keep ignoring the single biggest energy input to the entire system -- the sun. Look how much temperature change there is from night to day, and think about what a slight change in solar output would do.

Global warming takes place every morning, for half of the world.

Interestingly, all the evidence seems to show that the world is a better place to live when the temperature is warmer and carbon dioxide levels are higher. Unless you live in the desert, of course. And although there are a lot of attempts to show otherwise, it looks like the temperature tracks solar activity, and carbon dioxide gets released as temperatures rise.

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2002/jun_12_02.htm

Should we really hand them a whip and a gun and ask them to rule us?

--97T--

i have heard of it and alot of study reference there self on some of the data known of that periode but there is a few thing that should be taken into account when comparing both, true there was a big raise in average of temprature but that raise was far from been as big as the current one whe are seeing, secondly human demography influence as around 1000ad the population of the Eastern Empire and Western Empire wich is a bit more then the current european territory had a population of around 60 000 000 people while current Europe as a population of around 800 000 000 or about 15x more people, thirdly the urban and industrial occupation of greenspace from our periode compared to that periode, the amout of air polution from that periode compared to our periode also it is worth noting that the end of the Medieval Climate Optimum coincide with the arrival of the bubonic plague wich wipped between 1/4 to a 1/3 of the population in Europe it took almost 200 years for the population to reach that level again.

here is a graph where you can clearly see that the hight in temprature of that periode is far from comparable to the current one and far from happening as fast
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

When I was a boy we all expected to die in a nuclear holocaust, then it was DDT and Strontium 90 in coffee, then another ice age, collision with an asteroid, super volcanoes, bird flu pandemic and now global warming.

Nought out of ten so far, don't think I'll worry :D

When I was a boy we all expected to die in a nuclear holocaust, then it was DDT and Strontium 90 in coffee, then another ice age, collision with an asteroid, super volcanoes, bird flu pandemic and now global warming.

Nought out of ten so far, don't think I'll worry :D

nuclear holocaust did not happen because no jerked pushed the button and that they both knew that none would win at this game

DDT is known to cause long term damage and as been ban in most part of the world aside from third world nation

Strontium 90 in coffee dont remember and will not comment on it

the ice age thing only got talked about for a short periode of time but never had any basis to hold on to since there is no drop in temprature

collision with asteroid is still one plausible scenario as there are thousand upon thousand of orbiting celestial corpse floating around and the only question with this is when...

super volcano again another plausible thing but its still limited by when it will happen and nobody knows when...

bird flu pandemic still plausible as far as i know

as for global warming there are more evidence showing that its happening then that its not

so in my book there is currently 4 thing that are manacing to humanity but two of them are not controlled in anyway by human activity

....so in my book there is currently 4 thing that are manacing to humanity but two of them are not controlled in anyway by human activity

Whether or not human activity has contributed to Global Warming the chance of controlling it is essentially zero. It might be possible to stop CO2 emissions, that is the easy part, just stop using fossil fuels. However, all the CO2 that is supposedly doing its thing is not going to disappear for a long time so Global Warming will continue and if sea levels are going to rise they will rise, etc, etc. And humanity in its collective wisdom has brought its entire technology based society to a halt because it does not want to release more CO2. How are you going to relocate millions of people away from threatened coastal communities without transport? How are you going to feed them if fossil fuels are no longer available for use in agriculture. Whoops, I am forgetting, a few posts up you predicted billions would die...I think I have just found your mechanism.

Whether or not human activity has contributed to Global Warming the chance of controlling it is essentially zero. It might be possible to stop CO2 emissions, that is the easy part, just stop using fossil fuels. However, all the CO2 that is supposedly doing its thing is not going to disappear for a long time so Global Warming will continue and if sea levels are going to rise they will rise, etc, etc. And humanity in its collective wisdom has brought its entire technology based society to a halt because it does not want to release more CO2. How are you going to relocate millions of people away from threatened coastal communities without transport? How are you going to feed them if fossil fuels are no longer available for use in agriculture. Whoops, I am forgetting, a few posts up you predicted billions would die...I think I have just found your mechanism.

i dont see the point of your reply in regard to the 4 thing that i think are possible
as for relocating the millions of people i never said i had a solution and if you want my unfortunatly pessimistic point of view whe are facing a way bigger problem then simply moving some few millions of people away from the coast and yes i still think that billions may die over the course of the current century as for feeding starving nation aint that ironic, lets polute to feed millions displaced by the effect of polution

as for getting rid of the co2 there currently study been made into various system but one of the most looked upon would be the use of iron sulfate in sea water

I didn't die of AID's and the IRA bomb missed me by 5 minutes.

After over half a century living under the shadow of one disaster or another I have come to the conclusion that it's all nonsense.

A nice warm climate for my declining years sounds good, but I think it will start to cool down after 2010.

Don't forget, trees do a good job of getting rid of CO2 as well. Human just need to manage our resources. At the moment, most business men that cut down trees don't even bother with replanting. Only some do and that is not enough. There are tree species that can grow very fast, we could use this type of trees to regenerate the forest.

Find new ways to produce energy. Human are brilliant and I am sure if governments get involved, scientists and climatologist can do a lot more.

I didn't die of AID's and the IRA bomb missed me by 5 minutes.

After over half a century living under the shadow of one disaster or another I have come to the conclusion that it's all nonsense.

A nice warm climate for my declining years sounds good, but I think it will start to cool down after 2010.
but those are all irrelevant, a bomb is a localized event and as effect over a really short period of time, as for aids it only effect human itself not the river next door or the migration of some fish or the next year crop of corn.

but those are all irrelevant

Seem relevant to me. More relevant than global warming, the sky falling, being invaded by blood sucking Martian vampires and all the other things that might sell a newspaper.

Seem relevant to me. More relevant than global warming, the sky falling, being invaded by blood sucking Martian vampires and all the other things that might sell a newspaper.

no of course they are to you and they might even be to most if not all your familly but thats it... it wont effect crop in Indonesia or the polar bear in the north of Canada

Ataxy,

How about a chart with actual temperatures, and a location of where it is published, and a description of how the data were arrived at?

Here's one for you:

From http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea (with time resolution of about 50 years) ending in 1975 as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (7). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000 year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean.

I was out walking dogs this lunch time with my buddy the scientist. Found out that if he was invited for dinner and the food was good he would probably agree with his hosts opinion on global warming in the hope he might be invited back for more.

If scientiists are so easily bought, who can we believe? :D

I was out walking dogs this lunch time with my buddy the scientist. Found out that if he was invited for dinner and the food was good he would probably agree with his hosts opinion on global warming in the hope he might be invited back for more.

If scientiists are so easily bought, who can we believe? :D
You based your decision on a friend scientist like that? Just like there are thieves, sleazeballs, terrorists and etc, there are the good guys too. Its like saying one of my friend likes to steal people's things, so everyone is a thief?

Ataxy,

How about a chart with actual temperatures, and a location of where it is published, and a description of how the data were arrived at?

Here's one for you:

From http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea (with time resolution of about 50 years) ending in 1975 as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (7). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000 year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean.

Pity they did not (were not able to) go back to 5000 years before present. I would like to compare the temperatures from then with what is predicted.

Ataxy,

How about a chart with actual temperatures, and a location of where it is published, and a description of how the data were arrived at?

Here's one for you:

From http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea (with time resolution of about 50 years) ending in 1975 as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (7). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000 year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean.

ok here are some:

http://www.seed.slb.com/fr/scictr/watch/climate_change/images/global_temp2.jpg
this graph is from http://www.seed.slb.com/fr/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm
here is the french description of the site:
Variation de la température de la planète au cours des 425 000 dernières années. La partie droite correspond à la période actuelle. La ligne 0 horizontale représente la température moyenne de la planète entre 1961 et 1990. Les chiffres sur la gauche représentent la variation en °C à partir de cette ligne.

Ces données ont été dérivées d'une analyse de noyaux de glace prélevés à la station de Vostock en Antarctique. Lire plus d'informations sur l'estimation des températures à partir des données indirectes.

Image basée sur les données du National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

and the english transcript:
Variation of the earth temperature over the last 425 000 years. The right part represent the current period. The 0 horizontal line represent the average temperature between 1961 and 1990. The numbers on the left represent the variation in °C from that line.

These data were diverted from an analysis of ice core taken from the Vostok station in Antartica. Read more information about the estimation of temperature based on indirect data

Image based on data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration


here is another one from the same site:
http://www.seed.slb.com/fr/scictr/watch/climate_change/images/northern_temp.jpg

and the description of it:
Le graphique suivant présente la température moyenne de l'hémisphère Nord au cours des deux derniers millénaires.

La partie à droite de la ligne violette verticale correspond à la période couverte par le premier graphique, soit environ 150 ans. Dans le contexte des 2000 dernières années, l'augmentation de la température devient importante au cours du vingtième siècle. Qu'en est-il du reste de la période ? La période couvrant plusieurs centaines d'années jusqu'au 19ème siècle a été appelée le Petit Âge de glace en Europe. Personne ne s'accorde pour le dater de manière exacte. Beaucoup d'éléments viennent prouver l'existence d'un climat plus doux que le nôtre de 900 à 1100 environ. Les glaciers ont avancé. La mer Baltique et la Tamise à Londres gelaient fréquemment en hiver. Les saisons de croissance étaient plus courtes. Au cours des hivers particulièrement rigoureux, les troupeaux de bétail étaient décimés. Le climat était également plus doux au Nord Est de l'Amérique du Nord. Cependant, on ne sait pas exactement si le refroidissement était général ou se limitait à la région Atlantique Nord.
La partie violette de la ligne a été établie à partir des mesures indirectes. La partie verte représente les mesures relevées sur nos thermomètres actuels.

Graphique établi à partir des données transmises par Moberg, et. al., dans Nature, V. 433, 10 février 2005

Translation:
The following graph present the average temperature in the northern hemishere in the last 2 thousand years

The part to the right of the vertical purple line corresponds to the period covered by the first graph, that is approximately 150 years. In the context of the last 2000 years, the increase of the temperature becomes important during the twentieth century. What is of the rest of this period? The period covering several hundreds of years until 19th century was called the Small Age of ice in Europe. Nobody agrees to date it in a exact way. Many elements come to prove the existence of a climate hotter than ours from 900 up to the 1100. The glaciers advanced. The Baltic Sea and the Thames in London froze frequently in winter. The seasons of growth were shorter. During the particularly rigorous winters, the herds of cattle were decimated. The climate was also hotter in the North East part of North America. However, we do not know exactly if the cooling was general or limited itself to the Northern region of the Atlantic.

The purple part of the line was established from the indirect measures. The green part represents the measures found on our current thermometers.

Graph established from the data passed on by Moberg, et. al., in Nature, V. 433, 10 février 2005

here is another one of temperature variation between 1880 and 2000 it was taken at http://www.meteorologic.net/graphiques-anomalie-mondial.php and is based on sea and land average

http://www.meteorologic.net/data/data-climatologic/ano-graph/gen-ano-year-ocean+terres.png

So the ice has been laying down consistantly for the last 450,000 years and it's temperature has been bouncing up and down consistantly all that time.

Plus the temperature has slowly risen by 1 degree centigrade since 1910.

Doesn't look like much cause fo alarm to me???

>>>>so the ice has been laying down consistantly for the last 450,000 years and it's temperature has been bouncing up and down consistantly all that time.

Plus the temperature has slowly risen by 1 degree centigrade since 1910.

Doesn't look like much cause fo alarm to me???<<<<


NOOOOO!!!!!

This is the point exactly.

Read the links and charts posted.

The Ice has NOT been consistently laid down. It has snowed and not, warmed and cooled.

The ice moves from the center to the coast[downhill]

Melting at the sea does not define a change IE that ice was NOT there for millenia. It migrated from uphill. Greenland was MUCH MORE ICE FREE 1000 years ago.



I really shake my head at the alarmists who read the cnn.com re[ports adn do no personal research


Its in the paper, it;s got to be true!!!

the current problem is that all extreme change in the earth climate as caused problem to specie wether cold or hot and currently more then half the human race and in majority due to ignorance think it wont have the faintest effect on us this is where it becomes absurd to think that a hight in temperature will only effect temperature is in itself ignorance it even has an effect on gas composition of the air, capacity of ecosystem to manage humidity level and regulation of season certain plant need winter periode, certain sickness are not reaching certain part of the earth due to climat this whole package is not dependant of us its us who are dependant of it

ataxy,

Take a very hard look at your first graph.

Note the periodicity of the waveform. This suggests influences on a huge scale that are outside our ability to affect, and also convincingly suggests what is likely to happen next.
Note the relatively short warm periods. This suggests that life on earth better make hay before it gets cold again.

Take a look at your second chart.
Note that the hockey stick representation of temperature ignores the medieval optimum, thereby invalidating it. Note also that it has been revealed that in order to make the chart look like this, it was necessary to exclude data contrary to the hypothesis in the 'indirect measure' portion, including specifically the Sargasso sea data. And it has been revealed that calculation factors have been used to generate the favorable data from the measured values which have not been validated as providing a link to temperature. When factors are used that have been independently verified to correspond to temperature, the hockey stick disappears.

Now take a look at your third chart.
Note that the data specifically excludes atmospheric temperature measurements, which contradict the politically acceptable data, and which agree with each other regardless of the method (radiosonde, microwave sounding, satellite).
Note also that land measurements are subject to the urban heat island effect, meaning that more measurements get taken near cities now than in the past, where the warmer local temperature skews the data. From what I've seen, when you look at data only from locations not subject to this effect, the measurements tend to agree more with the atmospheric temperature readings.
Lastly, note also that scaling and correction factors have to be applied to make a graph that shows such clear trends. When you look at the actual data, it exhibits a very low signal - to - noise ratio, and you have to do some extensive calculations to derive any trend out of the noise at all.

From looking at all the graphs, you may conclude that over extremely long time periods it looks like there are significant periodic fluctuations in temperature. And if you ever look at the actual data behind any of these charts, you might conclude that determining the actual temperature of the earth at any particular moment is a very difficult thing to do, because of the wide variations in local conditions, the impossibility of taking the temperature everywhere at once, the conflicting impressions you get from including or ignoring data sets, and the high amount of noise in the measured data we are able to obtain. From all of this, you might also conclude that variations up or down are to be expected, as the record shows that the weather has never been static. You might also conclude that a demonstrated long-term correlation between solar activity and temperature indicators is highly suggestive of a cause and effect relationship, considering that the sun is the main energy input into the system, and you could be excused for predicting a temperature rise coinciding with the solar cycle maximum.

Add to the above the fact that those who are proposing a political solution to the predicted apocalypse are behaving more like a Ministry Of Truth than objective scientists, and you have plenty of reason to be very careful about what it is they have in mind for your future. The closer you look at their methodology, the less certain the conclusions become.

--97T--

On further investigation, it appears that the second chart is the infamous IPCC-Mann Hockey Stick chart. It still gets used in the popular press a lot, even though it has been discredited. It doesn't matter if it's true, it only matters whether or not the man on the street believes it.

Contrary to what I said above about the 'indirect data', the situation is worse than that -- the data was fudged, and the weighting algorithm was fudged too. When corrections are made, the hockey stick shape goes away. Further, the atmospheric data shows a cooling trend, something that they left out of their Summary.

It's a fascinating read --

Why the chart is a lie

How the lie was discovered

What happened when the lie was revealed

How Nature asked Mann for a correction when problems with the data were found, but refused to publish the results when it was proven that the weighting algorithm was intentionally doctored to produce false results "too technical and unlikely to be of interest to our readers" (!)

How Mann gave out two sets of data and refused to reveal his algorithm (and we are supposed to implement carbon credits based on it !?)

How Mann inadvertently left a file with the real data in his ftp site in a folder labeled 'censored'

It's not hard to read, get it here -- http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf

Draw your own conclusions.

Edit: Guess what? The third chart, published by Moberg, has similar problems with the dataset, namely the same Bristlecone Pine data used to skew the later temperatures in the second chart. Plus inclusion of cold water G Bulloides as a supposed temperature proxy, given very high weighting, when it is not recognized as a valid temperature proxy in the first place. And again, Moberg won't release the code used to generate his graph. There's your 'peer review', and your 'consensus'. The results can't be duplicated and are based on weighted data. To support a political conclusion that your every aspect of life needs to be taxed, regulated, and ruled.

--97T--

I am an old fart...meaning that I was a teenager in the 50s. In the high mountain area where I lived, there would and could be ten feet of snow on the flat. Drifts could cover a one story house. Most winters lasted for nearly half a year and 'normal' summers, ie, shirt sleeve weather was around two months long. A year was more cold than warm in mountain country.

But this didn't occur all the time. Average snowfall was around four feet. The word 'average' is important. It means that most likely the snow will come in at around four feet for the season, yet, in mid-December, 1957, I went higher into the mountains to look for a Christmas tree. The temperature was a balmy 76 degrees when it should have been somewhere near zero degrees and the vehicle that we used should have been fitted with snow chains..We drove up in a convertible, top down, and wearing T-shirts.

Four years before the warm winter, snow was up to the eaves of our house and we had to get up early just to dig ourselves out. Two years later there was four feet of snow again....

In 1980, my wife wanted to see where I grew up. We took a vacation in July and drove to the area. I had to buy snow chains when we reached the area because in what would normally be considered summer was now covered with two feet of snow. I was informed that winter just kept going and going that year.

The point being that weather changes, many times to the extremes.

In the near and distant past, it has been both hot and cold. Greenland didn't get that name because it was covered in ice. Evidence has shown that it was once covered with trees and grasses. Nordic peoples ranched and farmed the there. The popular stories about the history of Greenland is how difficult life was there but this history is written about the time when the climate was getting colder, not during a warmer period.. Al Gore states that the Arctic Ice Pack has never been so low and yet, ships have navigated what was called 'The North Passage' which is between the north American continent and the Arctic Ice pack many times in the past.

During the 60s, it was global drought that had all the scientific community up in arms. [ Which makes me question Al Gore's claim that he has known about the coming global warming situation since 1968 when everyone except he and his professor was studying global drought...] Scientists were devising hundreds of plans to fight the coming drought. One of the major plans was to build giant tug boats to sail to the Arctic, break off huge chunks of ice from the Arctic Ice Flow and tow them back to various countries. Politicians called for and got most communities to install water meters everywhere, the price of water shot up and strict conservation rules were enforced. A scientist named Carl Sagan was all over the media in much the same way Al Gore is today, announcing the coming doomsday.. everyone is going to die of thirst unless something is done.. Dare we take a chance.. While the drought scare was going on, we were also involved in a nuclear race with Russia. I mention this because Carl Sagan will tie the nuclear threat in with changing weather scare for the rest of his life.

At the start of the 70s, the global drought scare died down and global cooling rose to the forefront of political and scientific rhetoric. Carl Sagan coined the term 'Nuclear Winter' to describe the condition and effects of man made weather change only at this time, it was global cooling that was the threat. In a complete, 180 degree reversal of prior claims, almost all consumer and industrial materials that could be was to be changed to a water base. Just about any thing that was chloral carbon based was outlawed because the scientists tied these products into global cooling. Carl Sagan just as Al Gore is doing now, showed how all of these products were going to ruin life on the planet and start the new ice age. Nuclear Winter would cause this to happen just as if we set off every atomic bomb in the world and shroud out the sun with an umbrella of greenhouse gases.

Then, the 80s began and the new cry was global warming. Once again Carl Sagan did a complete flip-flop and he jumped on the global warming bandwagon. Al Gore was no where in sight at this time or at least, not very many people heard him. Carl Sagan issued prediction after prediction during this and up to his death which not one has happened and in most of them, the exact opposite occurred. Many of the scientists of today who spout the same 'facts' that Carl Sagan had in the past, will, when asked about Carl Sagan, will tell you that he was a mediocre scientist at best and then immediately expound on one of Carl Sagan's past theories as being written in stone...

We are now in the 2000s and nothing has really changed... Maybe the world IS really flat after all.....

Addendum.........................................

I should add that during the 60s, the company that I worked for was forced by the government to provide access to our R&D department for environmental scientists to use in proving their theories. I, being in charge of the metal department, was assigned to build and/or modify test platforms for this group. I nearly got fired and later on, they requested that someone else be put in my position. The reason was that I complained when they would do a series of tests and the data didn't fit their theories, they kept changing everything from the tests to the software until they could gather data that fit their agenda. Sort of like placing a heat sensor close to the heat exhaust of an air conditioner or over a section of pavement to prove that temperature is as warm as expected....

If the data doesn't fit, make something up! Just so long as our gang gets to control the world.

If the data doesn't fit, make something up! Just so long as our gang gets to control the world.

....then you might enjoy this tidbit!

red noise and transparent gasses....
The RE Benchmark of 0
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2995

I did some research on the potato and those people that ate same from 1801 to 1850 and discovered that any of those people that did eat a potato anytime in their life during that time period has died.

Conclusion: The potato is toxic to humans and should be banned from sale. My data confirms this.

The next study is to accumulate more data on the kumquat and it's effect on climate change... Preliminary empirical observations and data already support my theory, now all that is to be done is fit this data to the theory.

Now, where is my grant money

I did some research on the potato and those people that ate same from 1801 to 1850 and discovered that any of those people that did eat a potato anytime in their life during that time period has died.

Conclusion: The potato is toxic to humans and should be banned from sale. My data confirms this.

The next study is to accumulate more data on the kumquat and it's effect on climate change... Preliminary empirical observations and data already support my theory, now all that is to be done is fit this data to the theory.

Now, where is my grant money

Ding, ding, ding. It seems a lot (not all) scientists these days are about as honest as a Mexican policeman. "The cause/effects of global warming/climate change in blah, blah, blah" = Instant grant money, increased media/print/tv coverage, more votes for campaigning politicians, etc...

Like almost everything in existance, it comes down to money or votes.

Science and ethics..... They really don't work together.

I am thinking of the scientist that created the Africanized honey bee. His little creature has migrated all over the western world, killing people and animals where ever it swarms, plus taking up residence in peoples homes. I watched an interview where he was asked about the death and destruction his bees have caused. His reply was typically scientific in that he, was of course, saddened for the families that lost their loved ones and then essentially stated that science should carry on despite these little set backs. He couldn't care less about any damage that was caused, he seemed more interested in his next grant....

A bartender serving alcohol to drunks has more responsibility pushed on him than the average scientist does.....

The vast majority of scientists I know are fundamentally honest, dedicated, and hard working.

A major factor, I believe is that their vision becomes very truncated, and too often loose sight of the bigger picture simply because they are so focused.

After all...a PhD knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing.....with some obvious exceptions....Geoff? :)

I am thinking of the scientist that created the Africanized honey bee.

I remember watching a TV thing where some woman took her son to visit Auswitz. My wife said he seemed a bit uncaring. I pointed out that he'd obviously had Auswitz all his life, "Eat your toast, I'd have been glad of that when I was in Auswitz" etc.

Perhaps the Africanized bee man is just wishing people would ask about something else, not uncaring, merely bored and dealing with it as best he can.

Real scientists don't know anything, even their most precious laws are okay to question, they go by weight of evidence.

Someone said that MMGW was rubbish on daytime TV, the other guest on the show said, so what? If it's anti-pollution it has to be good. I switched off.

fizzissist......

So are many priests.....

The point I was trying to make is that many PHDs, scientists, and others in the scientific and research fields are not concerned or feel they should be held responsible for any havoc that their inquiries or experiments may cause. Their science is the only responsibility that they should adhere to.

Einstein, himself, tried to address this problem within the scientific community. He attempted to get the scientists and researchers to be more thoughtful of the possibility of hurting others, and was rebuffed by most of his colleagues. A small handful joined him and they decided to use atomic energy for their public platform of scientific responsibility and was shot down there also.

It is more a frame of mind than a focused mind.....

I remember watching a TV thing where some woman took her son to visit Auswitz. My wife said he seemed a bit uncaring. I pointed out that he'd obviously had Auswitz all his life, "Eat your toast, I'd have been glad of that when I was in Auswitz" etc.

Perhaps the Africanized bee man is just wishing people would ask about something else, not uncaring, merely bored and dealing with it as best he can.

Real scientists don't know anything, even their most precious laws are okay to question, they go by weight of evidence.

Someone said that MMGW was rubbish on daytime TV, the other guest on the show said, so what? If it's anti-pollution it has to be good. I switched off.

Auswitz.....peoples history starts when they are old enough to realize what is going on around them... I overheard a young German girl ask someone why the Hitler and WWII movies keep being played on TV. An old man answered with "So we don't forget.." to which she replied, "It means nothing to me..." I then watched as the old man rolled up his sleeve and tried to show the girl a number tattooed on his forearm. The girl wasn't interested.

Actually, scientists hate for their laws or theories to be questioned. cyclamates [?] were outlawed nearly 30 years ago and it is now found out that they do no harm, yet, the scientific body that originally made the pronouncement are still fighting to keep their findings in the forefront. human caused global warming scientists are right now refusing to listen or examine any data that is contrary to their theories. Global warming is more of a religion than a science..Words like heretic, anti-believer, and blasphemer are used to describe anyone who might question their data. Scientists have lost their research seats, their tenor, their grants, their jobs because of questioning some of the global warming scientist's findings. I watched an interview with the scientist that discovered that the computer model used in the 1980s was programed to give the results that the global weather investigators were looking for. He lost most everything and ended up teaching in a private school and his curriculum was closely monitored for the first few years so as not to corrupt young minds.......

The vast majority of scientists I know are fundamentally honest, dedicated, and hard working.

A major factor, I believe is that their vision becomes very truncated, and too often loose sight of the bigger picture simply because they are so focused.

After all...a PhD knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing.....with some obvious exceptions....Geoff? :)
I wasn't disputing the scientist's honesty, I was trying to point out the arrogance and above the fray mentality where they should not be held responsible for anything that may happen because of their work.

If I shoot an arrow into the air while experimenting with a new bow configuration and the arrow comes back down, injuring someone ... should I be held responsible or if I develop a strain of killer wasps that I theorize will hunt down the killer bees but they instead hunt down and kill human beings some 4,000 miles away, should I be held responsible. An arrogant person would say no, it is science and therefore above normal levels of responsibility... I don't think there is any difference between the arrow and the killer wasp or the killer bees.

If I shoot an arrow into the air while experimenting with a new bow configuration and the arrow comes back down, injuring someone ... should I be held responsible


Blooming right you should. BUT if you then went on to develop a better bow that you wanted to sell, and found the media were only interested in digging up the old accident so they could screw you some more... you might try to gloss over it.

Can't argue that scientists don't try to defend their pet theories when the evidence turns against them, but they should end up as a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

It' should be the bulk of scientific opinion that counts, but MMGW seems to be an exception.

If you invent a better bow and arrow, and someone uses it to shoot someone else, the lawyers will come knocking.

The fake science death toll award surely has to go to the ban on DDT. Millions of people dead by malaria, based on a hoax. Turns out the eagle's eggs weren't thinned by it after all.

Edit: But we may soon have a challenger. The Food-For-Fuel idiocy, wherein huge tax subsidies are funneled to agribusiness to divert corn for ethanol production, coupled with relentless creation of money out of thin air by our Federal Reserve system (running along at 15% per year), have resulted in an unprecedented increase in the cost of energy and consequently an unprecedented increase in the cost of food. The results of these interventions in the market are beginning to bear fruit -- we are now seeing the beginnings of a worldwide famine. The violence that results from it will add to the total.

Remember, the elitists think the world is overpopulated (keyword: sustainable). Here is where the rubber meets the road, where the actual results of the actual policies are shown for all to see. This is not a fuel supply problem, not a farming problem. It is a monetary phenomenon, and the people responsible for it won't care about the people who starve or get killed in food riot uprisings.

And the whole thing will naturally be blamed on a failure of market capitalism, the cruelty of letting people keep what they make while others starve. The only solutions that will be proposed will consist of more government intervention in the market, more communistic controls. The calls are already starting for food rationing. And in countries leading the way for us policy-wise, like Zimbabwe, they tried price controls to counter their 2000% inflation, which resulted in food disappearing from market shelves instantly. The result will be less food production and less surplus to tax, and less surplus for people to donate to help. All of which will aid the bureaucrats in consolidation of their power over everyone.

The key to the megalomaniacal scheme is to get control over the valve that controls your access to energy. Because it takes energy, and free access to it, to make anything (especially food), and even to survive. Once they've got control over the spigot, they've got you where you cannot resist.

We can only hope that the scope of this coming monetary collapse/recession/depression doesn't bring famine and tyranny to the U.S. and Canada. The potential is certainly there, history shows that paper money collapse with blood in the streets is the usual outcome of fiat currency schemes, and the warning clouds are on the horizon. Precedent: Weimar Germany.

On the bright side, more and more people are waking up to this, the biggest lie of the last century. Even with McCain declared the winner, even after being pronounced dead and with absolutely zero press coverage, Ron Paul managed to capture 16% of the vote in PA. These people aren't wasting their vote on a lost cause. These are people who know that a vote for a friend of paper money is the wasted vote. These are people who know the truth and are actively working to educate others. The numbers are growing, and 5 to 10% of the people might be enough to prevent a slide into tyranny when the collapse happens. It might be the last hope for our experiment in freedom, which we seem so intent on squandering.

--97T--

NinerSevenTango.....

What you say is more true than you might believe. We came very close in the Carter years with 20 plus percent inflation and interest rates. The idiot is sticking his nose into things again... The elitists of the world inflated egos will not let them leave things alone, they will always manipulate things to suit their views and the hell with anyone else.

Blooming right you should. BUT if you then went on to develop a better bow that you wanted to sell, and found the media were only interested in digging up the old accident so they could screw you some more... you might try to gloss over it.

Can't argue that scientists don't try to defend their pet theories when the evidence turns against them, but they should end up as a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

It' should be the bulk of scientific opinion that counts, but MMGW seems to be an exception.

The bow analogy, 99 percent of the people in the would probably try to get out of a sticky situation, gloss over it, as you say. But, when everyone in the world knows who is responsible and the person is still given a pass, something is wrong.. If the bee scientist had been experimenting with some chemical, lost control of it, and his chemical spread out and did the same damage as his bees, he would be immediately been held accountable for his actions.

Scientists and their pet theories... Carl Sagan got away with promoting his theories for over 45 years. Much of the MMGW theory is based on his data. Meanwhile, every one of his theories and their results have proven wrong. Still, weather scientists, special interest groups, the gullible, and politicians are still clinging to his edicts.

Scientific opinion should account for nothing but an area for investigation, scientific fact should be the rule. As soon as opinion becomes paramount, we end up with scientists acting like politicians and politicians thinking they are scientists and making bad laws, rules, and regulations base on opinions, not fact......

Carter got a Nobel for building houses for humanity, Arafat got one for blowin' 'em up.

Maybe Jimmie could build one for Osama....and Hamas could blow it up?

I remember all too well the Carter years. My mortgage effective APR was 16.5%.

Carter got a Nobel for building houses for humanity, Arafat got one for blowin' 'em up.

Maybe Jimmie could build one for Osama....and Hamas could blow it up?

I remember all too well the Carter years. My mortgage effective APR was 16.5%.

I didn't own a home during the Carter years, but a guy I worked with did. The county purchased a cabbage farm which used to be directly behind his house and turned it into a large public park. His original principle house payment was $490.00. He purchased an adjustable interest rate mortgage which before Carter's time was a fairly good deal. After Carter, his interest went sky high and he had to pay another $410.00 in interest, this brought his house payments to $900.00 a month. The county, loosing the taxes that the cabbage farm brought in re-assessed his property to the tune of $180.00 a month. His insurance company, noting the re-assessment value, raised his insurance rates to $130.00 a month.

This brought his house payments to $1,210.00 a month. He and his wife both worked two jobs to keep their home after Carter and his cronies got through. Many people in his neighborhood lost their homes.

Today, the banks and mortgage companies are being bailed out for writing very bad loans. Many of todays foreclosures are being rescued by our taxes. Back then, it was the government that caused all the pain, so therefore, it was sink or swim for those people that got caught in the government's morass...

Something both funny and sad... Many of the homes that were built and given to the poor were taken from them by the government. People that could barely pay rent were given homes, many of them built especially for them were assessed by the tax man at new house rates and a lot of these working poor could not afford to pay the taxes on them. The same thing is happened to a few of the people that had the "Home Makeover' TV show rebuild their homes.

This was shown on a TV news spot. I haven't heard anything about it since...Probably the home providers were too embarrassed and rushed in to save the day, I don't know..

Be prepared for higher interest rates and a deep recession.

The recent actions by the Fed are historic; they are in panic mode trying to save their own privately owned member banks. The banks are all technically insolvent, upside down in a huge way with most of their reserves based on leveraged derivatives that are worthless. The public is suffering under a credit crunch as banks tighten lending standards, yet interest rates are below the rate of inflation. What does this mean? This means that the Fed is lending to its member banks, and taking as collateral the toxic paper as fast as they can, before the banks have to show the losses on their books. When the actual value of these derivatives is revealed, the Fed can absorb the loss, because they get to print the money! Actually what this means is that even while the economy suffers a recession, the Fed is busily devaluing the currency. The losses will be absorbed by you and I and anyone else who deals in the currency.

If the Fed is successful at stopping the collapse of the entire banking system (and the stock market, too), then they will be forced to immediately begin raising rates again. Why? Because the U.S. government needs to borrow $2 Billion per day to maintain its empire around the world and keep up welfare payments, and it has been having trouble attracting buyers of its debt bonds at interest rates lower than the rate of inflation. The current policy is the reason for the fall of the dollar relative to other currencies that get inflated at a slower rate. As soon as the banks are deemed solvent, a rapid raise in rates will be necessary to save the dollar itself. When that happens, watch out! The conditions that led to the first Great Depression look comical by comparison with what we have now.

Meantime, investors are fleeing unstable and unprofitable markets (stocks and bonds) and running away from banks that pay less than the rate of inflation, seeking a safe haven for their savings. In times when governments and banks are busy destroying a currency and robbing people of their sustenance, the only safe haven is tangible goods. That means commodities -- energy, food, metals. The run up in commodities is therefore fueled not just by a decrease in the value of the currency, but as people buy into the market and prices rise, that attracts other buyers and there is a self-feeding jump in prices.

The runup in energy prices takes a little while to filter through, but energy costs affect the cost of everything. Especially food. This would be bad enough, but the elites in our government who know more than scientists, farmers, and the market itself have decided to pump huge subsidies into diverting corn into the making of ethanol for fuel. Farmers are planting a lot more corn, and half of it is being wasted to use as fuel (taxohol). This displaces other crops which get used for food and feed for animals, etc. The end result is that the food-for-fuel policy adds insult to injury, multiplying the inflationary effect of dollar-printing on the price of food.

So, food prices on the commodities markets have doubled or tripled. As you can see, this is not a farming problem, not a supply problem. It is a monetary and policy issue. And now, the results are beginning to show up.

There is always a time lag between the instant a dollar gets created out of nothing and spent on real goods, and the time when the rest of us who have to produce a real product in order to get a dollar actually lose the value of that counterfeit dollar. This time lag is useful to separate the cause from the effect, and has kept the people from realizing their state of servitude for 100 years. It gets stolen once, but we pay for it in higher prices forever, unless we can adjust our income upwards to make back the difference. But I digress.

The results are beginning to show up as a worldwide famine. The poorest people are beginning to starve. Socialist and communist governments, having brute force and the ability to inflate their own currency as their only tools, are already trying price controls, food rationing, and export bans, all of which make food disappear from the market and make the situation worse. People are eating 'mud cookies' if the stories are to be believed. Already, food riots are starting, and I predict bloody uprisings, put down with brutal effect. Now, calls are being made in the American press to ration food for Americans. The calls for increased aid to send food around the world are increasing, and will probably result in food being forcibly removed from the American market and sent overseas. Which will cause another price spike in the stolen commodity. Which will bring calls for price controls. Which will result in a severe shortage of the commodity. Nobody purposely loses money except at the point of a gun.

As always, the situation will be blamed on yet another failure of the free market -- speculators, greedy producers, the cruelty of capitalism. And solutions will be brought to bear at the point of a gun -- always the same solution, more government intervention in the market, and always to save the children.

But here you have it. People have been trying to warn for years (at least since Thomas Jefferson wrote so clearly on the subject) that central banks, having the power to create money out of nothing are EVIL. And now our central banking system, in concert with idiotic energy policy, is actually causing people to STARVE. Remember, the current situation is not caused by market forces. The market is reacting to the injection of fake money into the system at a rate of 15% for years on end. The time lag is over. The fudging of 'consumer price index' and 'official inflation measures' is over. The result of inflation is always theft of the value of human labor, and we are really in for it this time.

To readers of this forum, it might only be higher prices at the pump and at the grocery store -- for now. But the famine is spreading. And if investors begin to panic over the stability of their financial institutions, their retirement savings in the stock market, the very currency they get paid in, the game could be up in an instant. The Friends Of Paper Money are in control, and they control virtually everything. But the market is a slippery machine, and they cannot survive without it. If they have miscalculated and overdone it, the machine could spin out of control. That's why the recent actions of the Fed reveal panic under the surface.

Our Western governments in troubled times also have brute force and the ability to inflate or not deflate currency as their only tools. If the currency starts unwinding, they will resort to brute force in order to maintain 'order'.

As for the people starving in the poorer countries, remember the enviro-lefties think the world is overpopulated anyway. To them, depopulation is a good thing. If the world gets depopulated by starvation, the situation is perfect to use as a justification for them to assume control over everything. Watch how quickly the global warming issue is dropped, when a better mechanism for totalitarian control becomes available.

The best possible scenario we can hope for now is a prolonged, deep recession (a depression, to us). What can you do to protect yourself? Google 'Money As Debt', and watch the cartoon. It has books worth of knowledge condensed in it. Learn the difference between money as a debt instrument versus money as a store of wealth. And start now to disentangle yourself from the debt machine as best you can. The game of perpetual debt servitude is like a game of musical chairs: when the music stops, if you have more debt than value, you lose. The trick of the game is to own your stuff when the music stops, if you can. Then, you might be able to own your life as well. Otherwise you are going to be at the mercy of others.

--97T--

Great post 97T, completely agree!

The Fed has to go. The Euro will replace the US dollar as the world currency in 5-10 years if this continues.

The amount of money being wasted, on the Iraq war (this is now 10 figures), bases overseas (Does America need bases in Korea and Japan? Why does it have bases in half of the middle eastern counties? Why does it still have a base in Guam for Chrissake?), welfare, and special intersts/buying votes is unreal.

What makes this even more dire is the fact that this is largely being paid for with borrowed money. One of the prime lenders is China, with over $850 billion so far. Considering that the Chinese government long term wants to see itself as the power in the world, the situation could become serious. They will call in the debt eventually. Maybe not in the next few years, but it will happen.

Here in Canada the situation isn't as bad. We have more farmland and oil per capita, as well as the biggest supply of fresh water in the world. The housing debt crisis isn't quite as bad. We didn't get involved in Iraq. But, something like 85% of our exports go to the States. If your economy tanks ours will tank right there with it.

Quite frankly, if things get really desperate in the US (food rationing, drought, gas prices tripled, super high metals cost, unemployment) I could see the US government making a strongarm ploy for all of the water in the great lakes, control of oilsands and ownership of strategic mines in Canada. They could do this with economic pressure (sanctions/tarrifs) or turning NAFTA into some "America First" policy where the US gets first dibs on everything. Sounds outrageous, but if things get bad enough it is possible.
The Xenophobic and protectionist instincts seem to be kicking in pretty strongly among some blue collar Americans right now.

Serge

Thought this a pretty interesting article you guys might enjoy,,,,


".....One reason for rising food prices is rising energy prices, another commodity group that in recent years has come under aggressive government control around the world.
The World Investment Report last year highlighted the transformation of world oil and gas supply from a private investor-controlled — and market driven — business to a state-controlled business. The top 10 oil firms in the world are all state owned, accounting for 77% of the total, with Russian firms controlling another 6%. Only about 10% of world oil reserves are in the hands of investor-owned firms such as Exxon Mobil.
State control delivers the usual benefits: erratic and politically driven policy and, in places such as Russia and Venezuela, a national petroleum industry whose production rates are declining. State-generated supply problems are a major factor behind rising oil prices.
These twin pillars of the world’s state-dominated industries — food and energy — converge in many ways. Food production needs fuel. But never before has fuel production needed food. Thanks to biofuels, the two most controlled and regulated industries in the world are converging. And we wonder why prices are going up."

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/26/the-real-drivers-of-food-and-oil-prices-corcoran.aspx

So are you saying that if I have a vegy patch out back and grow potatoes to eat, and my neighbour has a vegy patch and grows carrots to eat etc, and his neighbour does the same and so forth, then if we get together and form a private co-operative to exchange food amongst each other, someone is going to come along and impound the lot because it's Unamerican or unBritish or un anywhere else you live because they can't tax it to force us to get in the bread queue, petrol queue, water queue, hospital queue air queue, voting line etc etc......?

What kind of society are we living in where the power to be independent is seen as a heinous crime? Possibly Un-American?

Having previously mocked and criticised your country for it's weird way of life, I think the last few posts of your "expose" have more than surpassed my judgement of the scene.

I value your observations, coming straight from the heart of the scabby encrusted boil, which appears to throw some light on the background to political intervention.
Ian.

Leading Climate Change Experts Blame Hollywood for Spreading False Fears

Hollywood has been doing this for years. They climb on whatever bandwagon that comes down the road and without thinking things through, will announce some idiotic pronouncement or solution to the day's perceived problem without thinking of the possible results.

My question would be, what if they made a movie and no one paid to watch it ??

Hollywood elitists have announced that they want a $5.00 tax on a gallon of fuel. Hollywood elitists have wanted boycotts of businesses and industries that they don't 'feel' should exist. When Hollywood gets their wish and no one can afford to watch their movies, who do you think they will blame?

Except for the blockbuster flicks, most of the movies have poor boxoffice receipts. They will try to blame the pirates but in reality, most of the movie going public is being more frugal with their money and not going to every movie that comes out of the Hollywood grist mill. Like most liberals, they will end up cutting their nose off despite their face.

My question would be, what if they made a movie and no one paid to watch it ??

Hollywood elitists have announced that they want a $5.00 tax on a gallon of fuel. Hollywood elitists have wanted boycotts of businesses and industries that they don't 'feel' should exist. When Hollywood gets their wish and no one can afford to watch their movies, who do you think they will blame?

Except for the blockbuster flicks, most of the movies have poor boxoffice receipts. They will try to blame the pirates but in reality, most of the movie going public is being more frugal with their money and not going to every movie that comes out of the Hollywood grist mill. Like most liberals, they will end up cutting their nose off despite their face.

Hollywood is probably one of the single most hypocritical industries in existence. John Woo is anti-gun, yet his fortune is built on shoot-'em-up movies.

How many movies have you seen where some AGW blustering actor is in a movie that blows up countless thousands of cu ft of natural gas, or gasoline for the special effects, spewing the very CO2 they scream about.

$5/gal tax? For them, no problem. They use their credit card at the pump, and their managers pay the bill.

Like Brad Pitt is gonna give a (insert fecal reference here) if the fuel bill is an extra $10,000 for his charter jet? Not likely.

I know Hollywood all too intimately to have any respect for them.

Hollywood's CO2 output has been written about at length before, and maybe should be again.

Global warming...it's ok...it's in the name of entertainment.

Global warming...it's ok...it's in the name of entertainment.

Dear fizzissist,

Well, Hollywood had me, and the rest of the audience, howling with laughter at a few points in "The Day after Tomorrow".

Did the Director get lobbed a few million and a Nobel Peace Prize?... or did he win a comedy award? Is there no justice?

Best wishes,

Martin

One of my favorites was a "documentary" investigative news piece that was all about how critical it was for us to curb CO2 to stop Gorebull Warming...

What was funny and obscene at the same time was how they cut from one location to another to talk about the issue.

What people don't generally realize is that a crew,,not just the face,, had to travel to the location, after it was scouted, permits aquired, etc., etc.,....and then each individual shot is set up, lit, the WhisperGEN quietly spewing the CO2 and diesel particulates, then poof....all gone.

Back to post, and everyone drives around finishing the project.

One shot was in, get this, Hawaii. They flew a crew to Hawaii, probably flew a 20ft silk with HMI's on the beach and told us we need to curtail our emissions. Gimme a f'in break.

Here's another cute side effect of Hollywood....the car stunts....

They'll block off a street for a shot, and while they're shooting you'll have a hundred cars sitting idling while the cops stop you from going to work. Gotta get that shot!!

The A-Team producers were especially famous for doing that.

Anyone wanna guess what a 5-ton costs in CO2 to get on location? Just ONE truck??

Clooney is Cluuless.

Before the government put me out of business, my shop was located in the LA area. I had done a few jobs for a couple of studios.

The hypocrisy that really got to me is the Hollywood drug scene. These well known personalities that do TV and radio spots denouncing drugs when one could, if they could get by the keeper of the door, go to just about any high end restaurant, night club, or watering hole's back room and there would be that same personality doing drugs, and having sex with about any one that could make it past the door.

I have seen many well known people carried out a back door of some of those joints while being protected by their body guards.

If some reporter saw the entertainer being hustled out on the sly and asked about it the next day, there would be 20 people saying that it was impossible, he/she was at a party in the Hollywood hills or somewhere.

The whole industry is a waste land....

The whole industry is a waste land....

Dear dufas,

The thing that has always puzzled me is the whole concept of Hollywood actors being elevated to a God-like status, and the "stars" feeling the need to ram their nutty "single issue" causes down the throats of us ordinary mortals. I do not wish to know that a tiny bad actor's wife converted from being a Catholic to a "Religion" that will sell you an expensive gizmo that measures pain in tomatoes . Tom feels the need to reach out and tell me. My hand is not mutually extended.

Erh.. actually, fundamentally, actors are fakes. They pretend to be what they are not. Why on Earth do we take their causes seriously?

Best wishes,

Martin

Which is right, global warming, global cooling, global more of the same? Play it safe.... the buzz word in now climate change... not global warming anymore. Global warming eneded back in the 90's, all 1.5° of it.

As said by many, it is first about the money, it is always about the money!
No theory, no money!
A conclusive proven theory, no more money! This is why the so called issues never end unless the money runs out.

Second, it is about theory which is (contrary to what some have said) is unproven science.

Computer modeling is theory, and is at the whims of the data analyist, subject to the ideas and theory as seen by the analyist(s). To say the least, there is no proof of global warming, global cooling, other than to say inspite of man, the weather will change anyway.

The big lie exposed, think about it, doomsday sayers said the ice was melting and the ocean leavels would rise 13 feet, didn't happen, why? Simple, as the ice melted one place on earth it was deposited somewhere else. So while one area experienced global warming another experienced global cooling, maintaining the balance.

Before the government put me out of business, my shop was located in the LA area. I had done a few jobs for a couple of studios.


The whole industry is a waste land....

I can do more than second that. Look at any location shoot, and count the 5tons, the Whispergens, the honeywagons and mobile dressing rooms. The amount of energy spent just setting up for a shot is mind boggling.

...I'm ignoring the drugs, because they're a renewable resource...they're "green"....

Look at the credits for a movie lately? Not unusual to see 200 names +, all for a product that lasts 105 minutes... I've been on both sides of the camera, built stuff for the studios and spent a fair amount of time on the lots. One thing I can say is that "green" is a word best used to describe profits, not environment.

....Proud former member of IATSE Local #1 (New York? Yeah...long story)

You are right about green being the color of money. When it comes to environmental issues it is only about money. Pick any subject, ask a question or two and alas there is nothing green about the topic...

Electric cars, using fuel to electricity loses as much as 40% of the potential energy. This electricity is then used to charge the batteries for the car at a net loss over using fuel directly in the car. Then what about all those batteries (evey 20,000 miles a new set is required) generating more hazardous waste. How much energy does it take to make the batteries compared to how much fuel a regular car would use?

Same goes for wind and solar power. When the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, no electricity is generated, so how do you use the power when it is needed? The answer and reason for the extremely high cost of this 'green' power is the massive banks of batteries and more hazardous waste.

Ethanol produced from corn. Corn and ethanol production uses more water and fertilizer for the yield that just about any other crop. The nitrogen fertilizer and the production of the fertilizer gives off more nitrous oxide than the cars would if they were not using ethanol. This is not to say ethanol is a bad thing, only that corn is the wrong crop to use, but then again all those government corn subsidies...... MORE MONEY

They gotta whole lotta Ethanol in brazil ya know, the petrol contains 40%, so what's the problem?
Ian.

The problem is the crop. Brazil uses sugarcane which take a fraction of the fertilzer and water corn takes, and produces way more sugar than corn. Sugar is the ingredient necessary for ethanol production. Many plants produce lots of sugar, some without hardly any fertilizer.

Corn just happens to be the absolute worst crop to grow for ethanol production. In the United States Studies show that the nitros oxide released into the air from fertilizer production and usage for corn growth exceeds the emissions from all the cars running on gasoline.

The only crop subsidized by the government for ethanol production and the one of the few that will never pay for itself and increases hydrocarbon production is corn... go figure!!

Can Sugarcane be grown in USA successfully? I mean what region is best?
Ian.

Yes, sugar cane can be grown in the lower half of the United States and at one time there were lots of sugar cane plantations.
Sugar beets can be grown anywhere and also supply lots of sugar, much more per acre than corn, with less water, and less fertilizer.
Here in the USA sugar beets are the current plant of choice for sugar because they produce cheap sugar.
Government subsidy is the driving force behind raising corn...

ADM announced 2 years ago that it was shifting 10% of its cropland to corn for ethanol. One reason is that they get ridiculous gov't subsidies for doing it.

What kills me about ethanol is that it takes no less than 2/3 of an acre of corn ethanol to produce a full acre's worth of corn ethanol (correct me if I'm wrong..but that's about 320gal?) That, and you're growing car food instead of growing people/animal food and that just doesn't add up. Unless we can start eating petroleum......

I posted this long ago...
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0305-05.htm

Something I recently stumbled upon is the climate effect of slash and burn conversion of rain forest in the Amazon upon California's weather. Ain't good.
Has to do with the PDO, ENSO, the Nino Twins, and something else I'm not recalling at the moment..Again, it's not CO2, but land use having a powerful effect on climate.

Your post supports what I've been saying about corn ethanol, bad news any way you look at it.
The beginning posts were about Hollywood role in the phony environmental issues. No other case was more evident of how far actors and the media will go to further their cause, even when they don't have a clue as to what they are talking about.... remember alar and Meryl Streep.. SHE DELIBRITALY LIED, 60 minutes perpetuated the lie costing farmers millions of dollars, and put many small farmers out of business. AND SHE GOT AWAY WITH IT!