As hot as it's been the last couple summers,I'm betting the earth is due for another cooling period.
Man can not control the earth's natural climate change, whether warming up or cooling down, no matter who claims it so or no, while being paid 600K , in the name of science, with only 2% of data.
Our temperature today is close to the middle of our Holocene maximum of six thousand years ago.
Mankind  prospers when days are warm, only to  vanish when ice covers the Earth.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html


 








-- Modified on 4/4/2011 12:01:47 PM

matt, two parts of the article are...

"initial assesment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined".

"the planet's surface, on average, has warmed about 0.75 degrees centigrade, (1.4 degrees fahrenheit), since the beginning of the 20th century".

I'm not getting too concerned about the results just yet.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the earth is likely warming. It has done so naturally since the beginning of it's existence. Cooling periods have occured as well. I have serious doubts that any warming is caused by man-made conditions. The latest NASA report that I've read concludes that the atmospheric contamination by CO2 is .041%. Less than one half of one percent of the atmosphere is CO2. NASA also concluded that the majority of the .041% is naturally occuring. So man-made CO2 pollution is infinitessimal.

Lot of money to be made and taxes to be collected under the guise of man-made global warming. Bought any carbon credits lately?

The most interesting part of this report to me is, who is partly financing it. Koch?

Nothing serious here.

What is being denied is that there is anything catastrophic happening. Less than a degree of warming over a century is nothing when the poles are at -40C (or F, they are the same at that temperature) most of the year.

Even at 90F year round, it would take the ice caps thousands of years to melt completely.

There is good reason to believe that the worst storms would have LESS energy if there is anthropogenic warming, since such warming would take place mostly at the poles, reducing the temperature gradient that drives those storms.

CO2 is an atmospheric fertilizer. Plants grow better when there is more CO2, and are more resistant to drought. (They have to open the pores in their leaves less to take in enough CO2, so they dry out more slowly). And warmer weather means longer growing seasons.

Unless the most alarming predictions, like 5-10 degrees of warming, or more, are true, there is nothing to be alarmed about, and no reason to reduce our energy use. In fact, there are benefits to look forward to.

This work actually confirms that warming in the past has been minor, and will likely be small in the future.

As my high school science teacher used to say, the average temperature of the universe is 4 degrees above absolute zero. Be glad things are as warm for you as they are.

Which is that global warming unquestionably exists based on historical temperature  trends, but that it's still not proven what man's impact has been on this trend.  The temperature of the earth  fluctuates naturally.  Then, there are natural events like "little Ice Age" of the 19th century, which was almost certainly caused by Krakatoa's eruption.  While I think it's likely that some part of the increased global temperature is caused by man, it's uncertain as yet how much.  So I think we should take reasonable  steps (whatever that means!) to correct things because if we wait for absolute proof it could be too late.  Sea levels are definitely rising and some Pacific islanders as well as coastal dwellers of the Indian Ocean will soon have to relocate unless it  can be reversed.

even if temperatures are rising, it is a naturally cyclical event and no one know what causes it...

This has simply been a tool for the left to push their environmental agenda and is junk science.

And therefore his turn towards support is supposed to be a big deal. He’s always been a believer.

He’s always been a supporter of man made GW. What he has criticized is the dishonest science used to further the cause. Here is an article of his that points out the math behind the famous “Hockey Stick” graph still creates the same up tick curve even when random data is input thus exposing the stacked deck.

http://www.mullerandassociates.com/pages/articles/32-Global_Warming_Bombshell.htm

He’s also been critical from the standpoint that none of the international proposals to curb GW will do squat to prevent it due to the growth of China and India.

http://www.mullerandassociates.com/pages/articles/27-Alaska_is_Melting.htm

http://www.mullerandassociates.com/pages/articles/GreenBickering.php

http://www.mullerandassociates.com/pages/articles/05_Conservation_Bomb.htm

Muller has been one of the most honest GW brokers I’ve seen.