31,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming To be Named

shermangeneral wrote:Well hyperstation do you mind if I call you hyperstation?

You seem to be fair and objective.

Are you all starstruck with this Obama guy and think he is pure as the driven snow?

stinkyj wrote:

shermangeneral wrote:Well hyperstation do you mind if I call you hyperstation?

You seem to be fair and objective.

Are you all starstruck with this Obama guy and think he is pure as the driven snow?

"pure as the driven snow" makes me think of Dubya in his cocaine days .

i wouldn't say i'm starstruck, but i think he's the best choice with a chance of being elected. there are others who have no chance of bein elected that i'd rather see in office. i like him. i've contributed to him. i've got a sign in my yard.

he's not perfect, but who is? i'm worried about the war. i don't care about escalating gas prices all that much - it's filthy and in all honesty, it should be expensive. i do care about diversifying our energy sources (no, not by drilling more oil wells), and for both of these obama is my man.

You may have heard earlier this month that global warming is now likely to take a break for a decade or more. There will be no more warming until 2015, perhaps later.

Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean circulation cycles into one of the U. N.'s climate supercomputers, and the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.

Of course, Mr. Keenlyside-- long a defender of the man-made global warming theory -- was quick to add that after 2015 (or perhaps 2020), warming would resume with a vengeance.

Climate alarmists the world over were quick to add that they had known all along there would be periods when the Earth's climate would cool even as the overall trend was toward dangerous climate change.

Sorry, but that is just so much backfill.

There may have been the odd global-warming scientist in the past decade who allowed that warming would pause periodically in its otherwise relentless upward march, but he or she was a rarity.

If anything, the opposite is true: Almost no climate scientist who backed the alarmism ever expected warming would take anything like a 10 or 15-year hiatus.

Last year, in its oft-quoted report on global warming, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a 0.3-degree C rise in temperature in the coming decade -- not a cooling or even just temperature stability.

In its previous report in 2001, the IPCC prominently displaced the so-called temperature "hockey stick" that purported to show temperature pretty much plateauing for the thousand years before 1900, then taking off in the 20th Century in a smooth upward line. No 10-year dips backwards were foreseen.

It is drummed into us, ad nauseum, that the IPCC represents 2,500 scientists who together embrace a "consensus" that man-made global warming is a "scientific fact;" and as recently as last year, they didn't see this cooling coming. So the alarmists can't weasel out of this by claiming they knew all along such anomalies would occur.

This is not something any alarmist predicted, and it showed up in none of the UN's computer projections until Mr. Keenlyside et al. were finally able to enter detailed data into their climate model on past ocean current behaviour.

Less well-known is that global temperatures have already been falling for a decade. All of which means, that by 2015 or 2020, when warming is expected to resume, we will have had nearly 20 years of fairly steady cooling.

Saints of the new climate religion, such as Al Gore, have stated that eight of the 10 years since 1998 are the warmest on record. Even if that were true, none has been as warm as 1998, which means the trend of the past decade has been downward, not upward.

Last year, for instance, saw a drop in the global average temperature of nearly 0.7 degrees C (the largest single-year movement up or down since global temperature averages have been calculated). Despite advanced predictions that 2007 would be the warmest year on record, made by such UN associates as Britain's Hadley Centre, a government climate research agency, 2007 was the coolest year since at least 1993.

According to the U. S. National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th-Century mean for the first time since 1982.

Also in January, Southern Hemisphere sea ice coverage was at its greatest summer level (January is summer in the Southern Hemisphere) in the past 30 years.

Neither the 3,000 temperature buoys that float throughout the world's oceans nor the eight NASA satellites that float above our atmosphere have recorded appreciable warming in the past six to eight years.

Even Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, reluctantly admitted to Reuters in January that there has been no warming so far in the 21st Century.

Does this prove that global warming isn't happening, that we can all go back to idling our SUVs 24/7? No. But it should introduce doubt into the claim that the science of global warming is "settled."

Stephanie wrote:Escalating gas prices have lots of consequences. I have a 91 y/o grandmother back in RI. She heats her home with oil. I feel very fortunate that her children help her out financially. Not all 91 y/o widows are so lucky.

So while you think oil is filthy and should be expensive, who is going to take care of all those people who can't afford heat in New England in February? Who is going to pay to feed all those folks on fixed incomes when the rising cost of fuel makes staples unaffordable?

Stephanie wrote:You know, Sam, in may ways all extremists are alike. They get so wrapped up in whatever it is they're all worked up over and fail to consider the consequences!

In my family, in addition to my grandmother, I have 2 sons, a granddaughter, my parents, 3 aunts, and 4 cousins all living in different homes that are heated with oil. Now in those households there are other people. Not one of those folks I listed lives alone..they all have a spouse and/or child(ren) or in my granddaughter's case, her mother, living with them. Combined they represent approximately 60 Americans. None of them are wealthy. They all fall somewhere in the middle class. Some of them have wood stoves, but most do not.

These people are going to be facing serious hardships this winter. I shudder at the thought of what folks in states like Maine, Minnesota, Vermont, Washington, etc will endure.

stinkyj wrote:

i just wanted to address something stephanie mentioned, the people in new england who are probably freaking out about next winter and the rising price of heating. i don't know what to do. but i doubt that many (if any) will truly freeze to death - charity in this country is unmatched. many people, young and old, will have to make changes. it's easy to say "let's just produce more oil", but it just doesn't work that way. there are just too many bad things about fossil fuels to just keep on keepin' on. i read somewhere about one NE state subsidizing home inspections and (in part) improvements to increase energy efficiency. most homes leak heat like crazy, and better insulation alone would save hundreds of dollars in heating costs per winter. the investment pays for itself quickly. i'm sure there are other solutions.

but the long and short of it is that people are just going to have to change if we are to ever get away from our addiction to foreign oil, and our reliance on fossil fuels.

Who uses heating oil?

Of the 107 million households in the United States, approximately 8.1 million use heating oil as their main heating fuel. Residential space heating is the primary use for heating oil, making the demand highly seasonal. Most of the heating oil use occurs during October through March. The area of the country most reliant on heating oil is the Northeast (see box).

Some customers try to beat rising winter prices by filling their storage tanks in the summer or early fall when the prices are likely to be lower. However, most homeowners do not have large enough storage tanks to store the full amount needed to meet winter demands. Because homeowners may have to refill their tanks as often as 4 or 5 times during the heating season, possible rising or spiking prices are a concern.

(And ps, those are 500 gallon tanks.)

Heating Oil Is Important to Consumers in the Northeast

Of the 8.1 million households in the United States that use heating oil to heat their homes, 6.3 million households or roughly 78 percent exist in the Northeast region of the country. The Northeast region (which includes the New England and Central Atlantic States) remains the area with an appreciable share of oil-heated single family homes. In other regions, older homes have been converted from oil heat to gas heat, and oil no longer has a noticeable share of the new home construction market. Thus, the seasonal increase in inventories and demand (sales of heating oil) is largely confined to the Northeast. In 2001, 5.4 billion gallons of heating oil were sold to residential consumers in the Northeast; this is 82 percent of total residential fuel oil sales. (See Figure 3.)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/heating_brochure/heatbro.htm

stinkyj wrote: Most homes leak heat like crazy, and better insulation alone would save hundreds of dollars in heating costs per winter. the investment pays for itself quickly. i'm sure there are other solutions.

but the long and short of it is that people are just going to have to change if we are to ever get away from our addiction to foreign oil, and our reliance on fossil fuels.

So who's paying for the new bucket?

When the bucket leaks, the solution is not to keep pouring more and more expensive whatever into the bucket. The solution is to fix the leaky bucket- or to get a new bucket.

Aaron wrote:So who's paying for the new bucket?

Aaron wrote:
Jeremy rightfully pointed out that many older homes in those areas are woefully inefficient and lose energy through leakage and simply adding insulation would help tremendously with the problem and save hundreds of dollars per year.

You agreed by saying...

When the bucket leaks, the solution is not to keep pouring more and more expensive whatever into the bucket. The solution is to fix the leaky bucket- or to get a new bucket.

ziggy wrote:

So who's paying for the new bucket?

I don't know about you, but I pay for my own bucket.

Home heating costs have been increasing significantly for the past 35 years- since about 1973.

It's not as though no one had any advance warning that costs would be increasing more and more.