More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
I told Pete before he'd had a few too many at apres-ski when looking at those photos.

Was he talking about the Athabusca Glacier in the Lake Louis area? One of the most popular on the continent? Shrunk 1.5 km in the last 70 years:

STUDLEY OF EGREMONT - LAKE LOUISE, CANADA?ADDITIONAL PHOTOS?

Or did he mean other glaciers in western Canada, which are at a 700 year low?


Western Canada's Glaciers Hit 7000-Year Low

You did indeed say that Jeff and I was talking about the Athabusca Glacier if that is what it is called. The one most photographed which overlooks the lake.
I don't know who took the measurement you refer to, but the evidence is on the wall at the hotel for all to see. And by the photo it has not shrunk. I was surprised which is why I mentioned it in my previous post.
Also what Colin says is true, the recession or progression of glaciers is generally caused by precipitation or the lack of it.
Take a trip to the Lake and have a look yourself Jeff, it's a lovely place and a break might improve your outlook on life.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
See the rockfield in that picture? That's 1.5 km of "retreat." All the links/data I found when searching for the Athabusca Glacier stated it's shrinking.

Telluride this year for skiing, not Lake Louise (I've been, beautiful place).
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
TEN MYTHS of Global Warming



MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.


MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.



MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.



MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.


MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.


MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.


MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.


MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.


MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

Source: Friends of Science website.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Friends of Science? Like you always say, follow the money! lol....

In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry, including a major grant from the Science Education Fund, a donor-directed, flow-through charitable fund at the Calgary Foundation. The donations were funnelled through a University of Calgary trust account research set up and controlled by U of C Professor Barry Cooper. [2] [3] The revelations were based largely on the prior investigations of Desmogblog.com, which had reported on the background of FoS scientific advisors and Cooper's role in FoS funding. [4] [5]


In the course of an internal review and audit begun in March of 2007, the University determined that some of the research funds accepted on behalf of the Friends of Science "had been used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change" and had returned unspent grant money on September 10, 2007, according to a Calgary Foundation statement.[6] As a consequence, the University advised FoS "that it would no longer accept funds on the organization's behalf", according to an email from University legal counsel Elizabeth Osler sent on December 24, 2007. [7] On February 17, 2008, CanWest News Service reported that U of C officials had shut down Cooper's "'Research on Climate Change' trust account", and were about to advise Elections Canada of the University's ongoing review of the matter. [8]

A few days later, CanWest reported that the targeting of the FoS radio ad campaign to key Ontario ridings was directed by then FoS media contact Morten Paulsen (later a vice-president at Fleishman-Hillard), who also served as volunteer spokesperson for the Stephen Harper led Conservative Party of Canada during the election. [9]

A report on various allegations concerning Barry Cooper's research accounts was issued by the University auditor on April 14, 2008, with some censored passages released in July. [10] [11] The report examined allegations that research funds had been used as a conduit to fund Friends of Science projects, that funds had been used to support third-party election advertising, and that the funded projects did not constitute legitimate research or education. Although the report did not arrive at any definitive conclusions on the allegations, it did note that Barry Cooper (referred to as the "researcher" in the report) overstepped his signing authority in approving payments of $170,000 of payments to APCO Worldwide, $54,000 to Morten Paulsen Consulting, and $43,000 to Paulsen's current employer, PR and lobbying firm Fleishman-Hillard. In an accompanying press release, the University noted that it had "advised Elections Canada and Canada Revenue Agency of its concerns regarding the accounts Friends of Science and the ongoing auditor’s review


From here:

Friends of Science - SourceWatch
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Um, pardon. I agree Sourcewatch's conclusons may be suspect. But the above is a collection of newspaper articles abut the funding for "Friends of Science." You should read it. It's like, facts and stuff and dovetails nicely with your follow the money.

I was unaware that "left wing" or "right wing" applied to science. That seems to be primarily a construct of gasbags like Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, others.

Also, homework for you Pete! Take 10 minutes and find ANY evidence -- ANY -- that the glaciers at Lake Louise are not shrinking.

I'll telling you man, that apres-ski can go to your head at altitude!
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
The current so called science of climate change has been politicized, by governments in the the U.K., U.S.A, Australia and others seeing the opportunity to raise taxes on the back of climate change. So called scientists have manipulated computer programs to get the result the government wants so they can continue to get their research grants.
As far as the glacier at Lake Louise is concerned I have already said the evidence is there. Look at the photo and then look out the fucking window.
Next you will be telling me the photo has been changed (photo-shopped) by some right wing white old guy whose brain has been addled by too much Apre Ski.
I hope you pay your carbon tax with joy.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Nope, looking out the window doesn't count. Data. Data is important. All data I've seen says that glacier you are referring to retreated 1.5 km over the last 70 y ears.

Since this is the centerpiece of your "worldwide conspiracy of scientists" theory, you probably out to do a more detailed analysis than "look out the fucking window."

A drink might help you calm down as well.
 

Malcolm

Supporter
Went to Lake Louise in 1986 and then again in 2004. My holiday snaps showed the glacier had moved back a bit. Same with skiing in France on Vallee Blanche a 20 odd km glacier ski run. Well worth doing if you like skiing. However our guide said that he used to be able to ski close enough for a short walk into town but when we did it, the glacial retreat meant we had to come off the glacier higher up and catch a lift into town. Now both glaciers were shorter, provably over time. As to cause or if cyclical, I have no idea.

This message was not brought to you by Friends of Science, the Mormons, JWs or indeed any political party! But it is fact!
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Here's the "data and stuff." From a college, and from NASA.

Athabasca Glacier shrinking 15 meters a year, 1.5 km over 125 years (I said 75, wrong about that). With pictures.

Maybe you were standing on your head when you looked out that window?

Athabasca Glacier Shrinking About 15 Meters Per Year 1992 - Interlinked Climate & Energy Challenges
,
I looked out the window this morning, the weather forecast was rain but the sun was shining. Using your reasoning I was standing on my head, smashed, or dreaming up a left wing conspiracy!
Fact is the scientist at the bureau of Meteorology got it wrong. Looking out the window is not scientific, doesn't involve computer models, but at least it tells me what the weather is really like.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Pete,

I was looking at your "fact/myth" post and I saw that in "Myth 12" you posted that Greenland is getting colder. This struck me as odd, so I checked.

This chart is from the "American Geophysical Union". I do not anything about the AGU, but this graph seems to counterdict your post.


If we are getting cooler, why is Greenland melting?

**********

Here is some info about the AGU, they have been around for quite some time and appear to be well respected.
About AGU

imgBuilding-index.jpg
The American Geophysical Union (AGU), which was established in 1919 by the National Research Council and for more than 50 years operated as an unincorporated affiliate of the National Academy of Sciences, is now a nonprofit corporation chartered under the laws of the District of Columbia.
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Pete,

The graph I posted came from a well respected, long established organisation, not a newly etablished organisation with an agenda to push.

Your 10 Myths of Global warming came from the "Friends of Science" via this group.



Pete, it appears that the 10 myths of global warming came from a partisan group with an obvious agenda!

Do you really think their information is a fair and balanced look at todays weather?

Pete, do you think that you might have been missled?
 
Last edited:

Malcolm

Supporter
It has long been accepted as a truism that any decent statistician can twist any set of stats into any result you want. This happens all the time when you listen to politicians interpret the same data two polar ways (excuse the pun). Scientists, you would hope, don't do this as much but it is probable that they twist some results to go with their funders perspective so they get the next cheque.

My conclusion is that above we have two sides of the same coin giving varying amounts of credance to a set of data. It won't change how much the world is screwed (or not) but just the amount of surprise that will show on peoples faces when they realise that the other guy was right. Like religion. When you die, you will either meet God or not, but you are still dead.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
So this scientist somehow "mismeasured" 1.5 km of glacial "shrinkage" (ewww)?

And you discovered this error by looking out the window?

We have entered the Twilight Zone.

,
I looked out the window this morning, the weather forecast was rain but the sun was shining. Using your reasoning I was standing on my head, smashed, or dreaming up a left wing conspiracy!
Fact is the scientist at the bureau of Meteorology got it wrong. Looking out the window is not scientific, doesn't involve computer models, but at least it tells me what the weather is really like.
 
History is written by the victor, and the left has been victorious in propaganda, education, and the dissemination of it for over seventy years now with the advent of the
modern Democratic Party in America and most notably the U.N., a governing body of worldwide reach, designed with the help of Alger Hiss, a Roosevelt lawyer, bureaucrat, and convicted Soviet spy.

That's why we get "the subject is closed" argument from "SCIENTISTS (!)" whose careers used to exist for the continual questioning of the known data of their time.

That is also how we get these same "SCIENTISTS (!)" altering data and colluding to falsify said data.

Malcolm brings up the truism that statisticians are known to alter data for their own purposes, one of Craik's favorite methods of distorting reality, and well fed by the Marxist agenda of world domination that didn't end with the fall of the Soviet Union.

The advent of the internet has leveled the playing field to the point where the other side is at least able to make their information available to the masses. Unfortunately, the masses are so submerged in this hoax that they can't wrap their minds around the fact that ANY data released by the Global Cooling/Warming/Change Conspirators cannot be accepted on face value.

All of your arguments are based on false data, gentlemen. The debate starts there.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Truth here.

But do undersand this.

The "debate" in this thread is between the following two positions:

1. There is signfiicant evidence of global warming, some of it caused by man, and a majority of the world's climate scientists believe it could be very harmful for our future. Some of the data underlying these conclusions are questionable, some of the interpretatoins have been manipulated, and some of these scientists have been less than "adult" in dealing with ohters. But this is the minority. On the other side, there is a minority of serious scientists who disagree with the majority, and a very loud and vocal politiicized propaganda machine attacking the other side as a "consipiracy."

Given the above, we ought to take a hard look at the scientific debate, and proceed with cuation.

v.

2. Global warming is a worldwide conspiracy to defraud the population and effect a wealth transfer to third world countries.


Asking again: between the two which is more likely?

It has long been accepted as a truism that any decent statistician can twist any set of stats into any result you want. This happens all the time when you listen to politicians interpret the same data two polar ways (excuse the pun). Scientists, you would hope, don't do this as much but it is probable that they twist some results to go with their funders perspective so they get the next cheque.

My conclusion is that above we have two sides of the same coin giving varying amounts of credance to a set of data. It won't change how much the world is screwed (or not) but just the amount of surprise that will show on peoples faces when they realise that the other guy was right. Like religion. When you die, you will either meet God or not, but you are still dead.
 
Back
Top