Heh. heh. Yeah, in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" global warming is explained as causing the next Ice Age.

I am sure the tree huggers with have some lame explanation, they always do.

Mark, I see you've been noticing the same general trend that I have. Exact opposite effects being blamed on the same cause. I remember how the unusually cold winters of 1994 and 1996 were blamed on global warming. More recently, so has the very mild winter of 2006.

I can't wait to see how the global warming believers spin this hurricane season, if it continues to be relatively mild. Speaking of which, there is now a fifth named storm in the Caribbean, named Ernesto. Can we give it the knickname "Che"?

TEST

One can only shake ones head in utter disbelief.

Yeesh. Somedays you all are just too much for me.

Mark...

This is pretty wild...

I don't seem to have any desire to see Gore's Movie...

Do you think 'Global Warming' could have caused that ??

Big deal, Noonan. So finally there is 1 article. You are grasping at straws. So in one part of the world, the glaciers appear to be growing. Woo woo. Everywhere else, they have noticably shrunk by alarming proportions.

Yeesh. Somedays you all are just too much for me.

Understatement of the century. Debating anything smarter than a rock is too much for you...

Deleted - vulgarity

Canuck,

Actually, glaciers here and there are growing, and here and there are shrinking...movements of glaciers are proving entirely inconclusive in determining global warming...which is why they are now digging elsewhere for evidence.

Mark,

Thank you for confirming that you always politicize every piece of news you come about.

If only the article you linked to had any supporting evidence to suggest that man-caused climate change isn't happening....

It was already well-known that some glaciers in local regions increase - for instance in Scandinavia - due to changing weather patterns, like in the Himalaya. Warmer winters cause more precipitation, what's so difficult to understand about that?

The case for anthropogenic warming is beginning to unravel in article after article as those whose dissent with the "consensus" position on GW are beginning to speak up and be heard. Last week The American Thinker had two great articles here and here with several links to other interesting articles. I found this part particularly interesting:

The so-called “hockey stick” graph appears in the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations organization that dominates climate change discussion. The graph purported to show that world temperatures had remained stable for almost a thousand years, but took a sudden turn upward in the last century (the blade of the hockey stick). It was the product of research into “proxy” temperature records, such as tree rings, ice cores, and coral reefs, by Michael Mann, the Joe Wilson of climate change.

Mann’s statistical methodology was soon exposed as flawed, if not downright fraudulent, by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, and he responded by refusing to make public the details of his analysis. This in turn angered Joe Barton and other members of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who objected to this arrogant refusal to allow oversight of federally financed research—either by the responsible congressional committees or by the scientific community. (emphasis - mine)

So you Libs want "oversight" on intelligence matters, but not on scientific matters. Interesting, since most of you seem to think gloval warming is a bigger threat than global terrorism. What a bunch of @$#^%*&! hypocrites!!!

I think the entire global warming controversy was best described recently by Colorado State University's Bill Gray, one of the world's foremost hurrican experts, when he said:

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Oh, and I especially like the title of the second AT article: "Fake But Accurate" Science? Kinda describes the Left's approach to a lot of things, heh.

So much for settled science...

I, too, have been waiting for this headline. It proves that global warming is the cause of everything. But then, how could the inventor of the internet be wrong?

My trackback for my post did not go through.

It said HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 15:03:31 GMT
Server:
X-Powered-By: PHP/4.4.1
Status: 404
Connection: close
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

ca

The requested page could not be found.

www.blogsforbush.com
/mt/crawford.cgi/7758

My trackback for my post did not go through.

Then my comment got this
Error 500 - Server Error

We apologize for the reoccuring server errors that are currently being experienced at Blogs For Bush. Something has been causing a problem with the server, which we are trying to isolate and resolve.

If you were posting comment, your comment was likely received and you probably do not need to resubmit. In the event of a double-post, we will do our best to delete them when we can.

Global warming refers to a warming of the average global temperature. It does not preclude cooling in some locations. In fact, if some locations are cooling while the globe is warming on average, it follows that there must be other areas that are warming even faster than the global average. This is precisely what is happening in the Arctic, where temperatures over the past few decades have risen twice as fast as the global average, with potentially disastrous consequences

Isn't it funny that the same people who keep hysterically screaming that global warming is a 'myth' tend to be the ones who think the Bible is scientific fact?

Read more on Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick here

And why refused Bill Gray to accept any bets as to whether temperatures would drop in the next decade? He doesn't appear to be very sure about his statement

So much for settled science...

Porter, you and I know there is no such thing as "settled science" except in the minds of Liberals, and then, of course, only if it dovetails with their agenda. I was ridiculed by several of the Lefties here a while back when I posted an excerpt from a speech by Michael Crichton about scientific "consensus" -- this from the same people who insisted that we all go see Algore's movie in order to be really informed. Regardless of whose viewpoint on global warming you subsacribe to, Gore's or Crichton's, the point that Crichton makes about science and politics is valid and bears repeating:

MICHAEL CRICHTON ON "CONSENSUS SCIENCE" Michael Crichton, Caltech Michelin Lecture, 17 January 2003 http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html [...] I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. (emphasis - mine)

One more recent phenomenon that's adding controversy to the debate.

For some reason, the cyber gremlins deleted the part of the Crichton quote that I had highlighted, which was:

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. To which I might add, who is the politician, Gore or Crighton?

Mr. Spook,
Your quote from Crichton is fine with me. I think I ridiculed you before for relying on him for scientific expertise. If you approve of him saying that one person who is correct is as good as a universe of scientists in agreement, that's fine.

What alarms me, though, is the phenomenon you cited so. Did you actually read that? The article you cite, which is peer-reviewed in a respected journal, said that the recent ocean tempature can only be attributed to a massive ice melt.

Then, if you look at the other articles in the issue, you learn:
- Rain intensity in South Korea is at a 3,500 year high. (predicted by global warming).
- Rain levels in the Indian highlands are highest in 200 years and changing the peat there.
- Ice melt in East Antarctica has "changed significantly" in the last decade.
- Extreme precipitation and warmer winters have intensified in the Arctic.
- The heat flux in the Bering Strait is the highest recorded.
- the rise in near surface air tempature correlates to a rise in hurricanes and has "serious implications for life and property throughout the Caribbean, Mexico, and portions of the United States."

So tell me again - why do you think this is all a hoax?

Willem, your link to McIntyre and McKitrick resulted in "Page Not Found", and the most interesting thing I found about the post at "Backseat Driving", a self-admitted leftwing blog, was the following reader's comment:

The ethical issue can go exactly the opposite way. Is it ethical to take a bet on something you are fully confident will happen? If you are sure that somebody is predicting a future event improperly, then ethically you can't take their money.

Alternately, from Bill Gray's point of view, taking the bet will accomplish nothing, so why do it? It won't change your mind -- if it would, you wouldn't make the bet.

Russell Nelson | Homepage | 08.03.06 - 5:43 pm | #

Isn't it funny that the same people who keep hysterically screaming that global warming is a 'myth' tend to be the ones who think the Bible is scientific fact?

Linda, I find it equally funny that people who have nothing of value to add to the discussion often fall back on idiotic generalizations such as yours. I don't happen to fall into either of your catagories. I'm not screaming that GW is a myth (very few people are, and virtually none in the scientific community), and I don't look at the Bible as scientific fact (again, I don't know many who do). So-called "scientific facts" have been known to change, while the Bible has remained constant, so I can certainly understand why some might prefer biblical explanations over scientific ones. Why does the Left always have to denigrate and ridicule those who do?

This is precisely what is happening in the Arctic, where temperatures over the past few decades have risen twice as fast as the global average, with potentially disastrous consequences.

What are the "potentially disastrous consequences", and what specifically would you propose to do to avoid them?

Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8

Wow, nothing says genius like the excessive use of "liberal" and "the left". Go ahead and keep believing that this is all some sort of evil political plot, it gives the rest of us something funny to read.

Read the BBC story: "They found warmer winters and cooler summers, combined with more snow and rainfall, could be causing some mountain glaciers to increase in size."

If you don't have a basic understanding of climate science, the growth of certain glaciers in certain parts of the world in response an overall average increase in global temperature sounds contradictory. If you understand how glaciers form and grow, the phenomena makes perfect scientific sense. A slight increase in winter air temps. in high altitude areas increases the amount of moisture the air can hold, thus increasing snowfall amounts. A glacier is nothing more than compacted snowfall. If the amount of snowfall on a glacial mass increases (and does not melt during the summer), the glacier increases in size and mass. If summer temps. increase melting beyond the replenishment rate of winter snowfall, the glacier decreases in mass and size. This not playing with or changing the "theory" of climate change, but is a direct, predicatable and obvious consequence of an increase in the overall and average temperature of Earth's troposphere.

I'm the blogger who tried unsuccessfully to get Bill Gray to bet me over global warming. He's only one of many denialists who refuse to put their money where their mouths are. That includes Mark Noonan, the author of this blog post - I've tried both by email and by posting comments to get him to bet me, and all I hear is crickets.

I have offered a bet over glaciers for nearly a year now, and I continue to stand by it:

http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005/09/betting-on-glacier-retreat.html

A few glaciers advance, most melt. The news article does nothing to refute climate change. If you think it does, then bet me.

As for whether it's ethical for Mark to take my money by beating me in a bet, I forgive him in advance. Again, I'm willing to put my money where mouth is, but the denialists are willing to risk other people's lives, but hold to the precautionary principle when it comes to their own money.

(Reposting this with TypeKey - my apologies if the comment is duplicated.)