DescentBB

The Amazing Story Behind Tho Global Warming Scam

By John Coleman
January 28, 2009

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, \"It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!\" The student described him as \"a wonderful, visionary professor\" who was \"one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming,\" That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us \"the sky is falling, the sky is falling\". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, \"My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.\" He added, \"…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer.\"

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, \"I think so, but I do not know it for certain\". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.

And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

John Coleman
1-29-09

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscor ... 74742.html

Climate change leading to global warming begins with harsh winters and receeds into mass-heat. The earth isn't an exact science, ya know.

SilverFJ wrote:Climate change leading to global warming begins with harsh winters and receeds into mass-heat. The earth isn't an exact science, ya know.

That's what they want you to think!

Comments by:

James Lovelock is a British chemist, inventor and environmentalist. He is best known for formulating the controversial Gaia hypothesis in the 1970s, which states that organisms interact with and regulate Earth's surface and atmosphere. Later this year he will travel to space as Richard Branson's guest aboard Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo. His latest book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia, is published by Basic Books in February.


\"Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it.\"

\"Most of the \"green\" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning.\"

I wonder how much Algores carbon trading business is making off this scam?

Want to dismiss Al Gore's claims? Sure! I can certainly agree that he's motivated by $ and playing on public fears.

Want to debate the validity of claims about whether or not human action is affecting the weather? Okay, that's a good topic.

Want to deny that the warming trend is happening at all? Now you're on shaky ground.

---------

Whatever the reason, whether or not human activity factors in, temperatures ARE rising.

You can call carbon footprints a hoax, or denounce the whole 'carbon-credit' debacle... but don't claim the phenomenon isn't happening at all, because the data (from multiple international sources, who can't agree on anything else) says otherwise.

Yes and no Foil:

\"A number of scientists and scientific organizations have expressed concern about the possible deterioration of the land surface observing network.[18][19][20][21] Climate scientist Roger A. Pielke has stated that he has identified a number of sites where poorly sited stations in sparse regions \"will introduce spatially unrepresentative data into the analyses.\"[22] The metadata needed to quantify the uncertainty from poorly sited stations does not currently exist. Pielke has called for a similar documentation effort for the rest of the world.[23]

The uncertainty in annual measurements of the global average temperature (95% range) is estimated to be ~0.05°C since 1950 and as much as ~0.15°C in the earliest portions of the instrumental record. The error in recent years is dominated by the incomplete coverage of existing temperature records. Early records also have a substantial uncertainty driven by systematic concerns over the accuracy of sea surface temperature measurements.[24][25] Station densities are highest in the northern hemisphere, providing more confidence in climate trends in this region. Station densities are far lower in other regions such as the tropics, northern Asia and the former Soviet Union. This results in less confidence in the robustness of climate trends in these areas. If a region with few stations includes a poor quality station, the impact on global temperature would be greater than in a grid with many weather stations.[26]\"

You have warming in the:
(1) satellite data
(2) overall temperature measurements (from three different agencies)
(3) over the land and over the sea (in both)
(4) in the artic and in antarctica
(5) you have retreating glaciers
(6) you have increased rainfall
(7) you have increases in sea level
(8) you have decreasing ice cover
all of these are indicative of warming. You cannot just say \"there is a problem with number 4\", you have to show how all of them are wrong, and wrong in the same direction!

Besides:

Numerous safeguards are in place against stations contaminating the record:
(1) stations that deviate too far from the nearby surrounding area are removed (or corrected)
(2) smaller random fluctuations are covered by the law of large numbers
(3) adjustment for urban heat island effect are made
case in point: a huge sceptics' movement has been underway to rate stations that don't appear to be ideal (e.g, thermometer over asphalt, etc.). However, when you remove these stations, the warming does not change.

Also:

The uncertainties - your article cites a confidence interval of .05C - are very low, compared to the observed warming (around .75C). These uncertainties can therefore never negate the warming that is observed, they would have to be muuuuuch larger.

all that data, if lined up is inconsistent with one another over long periods of time. That's what woody is mentioning. Regional samples are not conclusively accurate.

the way that data is collected is dodgy at best. \"data\" is gathered from all those places and sources and crammed through an algorithm and you get said quoficant. This is all find and dandy assuming that you have set your parameters correctly. And as we really have nothing else to compare this to, what the end result should be gets a bit fuzzy.

not true. the algorithm isn't that fancy. You can more or less the same results by simple averaging. People are doing exactly that, using open source algorithms, and confirm the results. I am really busy right now, but when I find the time i'll try to dig up the reference.

also, take into account, that the ground data are calculated separately by (i think) three independent agencies. For the satellites there are two - and they don't rely on weather stations. And also look at the ice and glacier data, they are independent of the weather station data as well. How can they all be wrong, and wrong in the same direction?

edit: you know that the climate scientists ARE aware of all these uncertainties and take them into account when doing the calculations? It's not something the skeptics have dug up all by themselves, while the climate scientists who dedicated their life to this topic are completely oblivous of (even though skeptics like to create the impression). So, when, say, NASA, announces that the world has warmed than it means that the warming is so strong that they can detect it DESPITE the noise in the data, and DESPITE the well-documented uncertainties. --- that is exactly what it means if you have a significant result: your signal is stronger than the noise.

Algorithms…why do I suddenly find that word humorous?

hahaha
nicely spotted

I could be wrong, but it appears to me that taking the earths temperature isn't exactly...easy. There's so many variables and changing factors that coming to a conclusion will, in my mind, always stem towards the \"..but, how can we really be sure?\" question. Not a great question to be asking when lives are potentially at stake, right?

Ok, so indulge in this theoretical example for a moment:

When you take a person's temperature, you use a thermometer. It spits back a number and you just accept that it's right. But really, how do you know it's right? Just because it says 98.6 degrees doesn't necessarily mean that that is what your temperature is, right? And just because the box it came in says \"Certified\" doesn't lend too much to anything either. All that's doing for you is allowing you to put more faith in that the thing is right.

So, how do you conclusively test to see what your temperature is? Simple: You just keep using different thermometers until you see that all of them are consistent. But it's not that simple...

If all the other thermometers are consistent and the original one doesn't agree then that must mean that the original one is wrong, right? Well, we could assume again, but how do we know that the others aren't all wrong and that the original one is the only right one?

And so it goes, down these paths, not really knowing which to take; what is actual, factual and true? When we apply this scenario to larger things (like taking the earth's temperature), we end up with a lot of people putting their faith in what science says is \"factual,\" while still many others stand by and say, \"Wait a minute, how can we really be sure?\"

Many times, it all comes down to standardization. We have many standards of measures (weights/temperatures). We know that a bunch of thermometers, in said example, are correct because we can test them against a standard.

With the earth being as old as science says, do we really have an accurate standard by which to measure our findings of how hot or cold the earth is (or should be)? And if we do...\"how can we really be sure?\"

Sniper, nobody in climate science wants to know how hot or cold the earth really is --- the critical issue is always whether there is a change in temperature, that is, whether it gets warmer or colder compared to a reference time interval.
Of course, you want to measure especially those parts of the earth that are relevant for our biosphere. Up from the earth to the troposphere. And that is exactly what people are doing.

Now, you simply have to compare measurements from the reference time and now. As long as the measurements capture the same effects (i.e. are made at the same altitudes, roughly the same geographical locations, and so on) you have something to compare and make valid conclusions whether it is getting warmer or colder --- in the areas you are interested in, of course.

And so far, the evidence from these measurements is unequivocal: the earth is warming rapidly.

Duper wrote:all that data, if lined up is inconsistent with one another over long periods of time. That's what woody is mentioning. Regional samples are not conclusively accurate.

Do you have a link/reference for that?

The surface of the earth is warming up ... and there is no doubt about it, however what man is putting into the equation is a pittance compared to the big picture. Try not to be a lemming.

The Earth goes through these cycles and will continue these cycles long after man has gone from it. Our core is a spinning mass of molten/crystalline metal essentially and that is continuously heating the Earth from the inside, ever put hot soup in a cold bowl? Radioactive material also heats up the ground and is decaying in large quantities in the Earth... cant stop it.

The \"wobbles\" of the Earth and our orbit and daily Solar radiation also contribute to the heating up the surface of the Earth. Again what do we have to do about 50,000, 110,000, and 150,000 cycles of planetary wobbling? Its pretty well a proven cycle.

We will also get even more solar radiation as sunspot activity ramps up its 11 year cycle this decade. Sea levels have gone up and down quite regularly as well in the past from 350-800+ feet on average so we are going to see that starting to happen as well.

Ocean currents are changing as well and the Gulf Stream doesn't even make it to the Grand Banks anymore and may even die; http://rads.tudelft.nl/gulfstream/#fig1
all this is what is changing our weather patterns not man. Britain and most of Europe are going to get real cold when that happens.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for green Tech and renewable, safe energy, and would love to see smog disappear however crippling Economies and paying Carbon Taxes isn't the way to go. Using what we have wisely is. Conservation will save more Energy at this point than any Carbon Tax.

My 2¢

Pandora wrote:

Duper wrote:all that data, if lined up is inconsistent with one another over long periods of time. That's what woody is mentioning. Regional samples are not conclusively accurate.

Do you have a link/reference for that?

I would, but my sis-in-law has the book... and she's on a cruise right now. It's all in the bib that the author lists out. I can post it later. The book called:"The Deniers". interesting read.

Duper wrote:all that data, if lined up is inconsistent with one another over long periods of time.

You spoke of 0.05C variance before, which is actually less variation than I would have expected.

This one has been referenced before, allow me to post it again as a quick reference for how well the data lines up from multiple sources over long periods of time (especially the more modern data):

Temperature anomaly/deviation data from GISS, NCDC, and HadCRU (source), relative to the average for the common reference period 1950-1980:


I don't pretend to have a good grasp of the reasons why, or whether human activity is the primary factor, but even given a 0.05C uncertainty, the trend here is clear.

I didn't speak of a 0.05 variant. someone else did.

This graph is wrong. The data was compiled incorrectly. This is graph that Gore used? If not, who complied it?

Duper wrote:I didn't speak of a 0.05 variant. someone else did.

*scrolls back up*
D'oh, you're right, it was Woodchip. My apologies.

[Edit: I agree that Gore's video is overly paranoia-driven, but I need some detail if you're going to claim that raw data from three separate international sources is somehow incorrect.]

havent you guys learned yet, you are only wrong in the country if your a Republican. the inventor of the Internet could never be wrong.

Foil wrote:

Duper wrote:I didn't speak of a 0.05 variant. someone else did.

*scrolls back up*
D'oh, you're right, it was Woodchip. My apologies.

[Edit: I agree that Gore's video is overly paranoia-driven, but I need some detail if you're going to claim that raw data from three separate international sources is somehow incorrect.]

Like I posted to Pan, The info I have is presently in the hands of my sis-in-law. I'll post it later. I thinkI might have some links listed in the other thread when we went through this last year.

Tebua Tarawa, Kiribati.
Abanuea, Kitibati.
Lohachara, India.
Suparibhanga, India.
Ghoramara, India.

...and still we argue.

Duper wrote:This graph is wrong. The data was compiled incorrectly. This is graph that Gore used? If not, who complied it?

Eh? What do you mean? Why is it wrong? What has it to do with whether Gore used it?

I am sorry, but I do not understand why you are so offended by it.

The graph is made from the official data supplied by the three agencies GISS, NCDC, and HadCRU (and downloadable from their website). The link Foil posted explains exactly what was done to them (basically nothing but re-averaging them to a common baseline so that they can be compared).

Al Gore and his Carbon Credit company is to improving our environment what Scientology and Tom Cruise are to our eternal salvation....

The difference is Tom would only ask that you volunteer to support his church....Al would impose legislation to mandate your tax dollars as well as consumer spending are put into his carbon credit company.

Pandora wrote:

Duper wrote:This graph is wrong. The data was compiled incorrectly. This is graph that Gore used? If not, who complied it?

Eh? What do you mean? Why is it wrong? What has it to do with whether Gore used it?

I am sorry, but I do not understand why you are so offended by it.

The graph is made from the official data supplied by the three agencies GISS, NCDC, and HadCRU (and downloadable from their website). The link Foil posted explains exactly what was done to them (basically nothing but re-averaging them to a common baseline so that they can be compared).

lol, no no. I'm not offended. read my posts through again.

I will say this about that graph though. It doesn't give a good "big picture" snapshot of temps as it only goes back not quite 200 years. We are emerging from a mini-ice age so it should be no surprise that temperatures are going up. It's probably more natural for the earth to warmer than it has been. We've just grown accustomed to the climate. Most of what we've built in this country has been in the last 200 years, within cold temps.
We need to careful what we call good and bad. Our perception of the situation may not be the same as what the planet might consider it.

Should pollution be reduced? absolutely. We have the technology, we should use it. The toxins alone are reason enough. Should we find other sources of energy? Absolutely. New industry, reduced pollution (hopefully)there probably won't be oil in space. Carbon, sure. But if we aspire to colonize other planets (the moon and Mars as recent and near future goals) we are going to need reliable, safe energy sources.

Is the climate getting warmer? I think it might be. by a lot? no. Do I think it's human cause. No. i think the earth is cycling naturally and recovering from some very large natural influences that have reoccurred over the last 600+ years or so.

Duper wrote:lol, no no. I'm not offended. read my posts through again.

sorry, Duper, picked the wrong word (english is not my native language). What i meant is that I did not understand your reaction to the graph, why you thought it was compiled incorrectly, etc. What is wrong with it?

But look at this graph here, it gives a bigger picture. See how well the three different indicators of temperature still line up? I have no clue what your book might be going on about.

Duper wrote:We are emerging from a mini-ice age so it should be no surprise that temperatures are going up.

That's just not true. We have emerged from the ice age already around 100.000 years ago or something. Look at the graph above. See how after an ice age there is a sudden spike as the earth enters an interglacial. See also how after the spike the temperature goes down slowly. This is where we should be now, right after the spike but already on the downward slope --- but that's just not what is happening, and this is *exactly* why climate scientists are concerned. --- The natural cycle is broken.

(we have seen such a slight decrease for the past 50.000 years or so, it just as stopped in the last century).

i think the earth is cycling naturally and recovering from some very large natural influences that have reoccurred over the last 600+ years or so.

But there are no magic "natural cycles* of the temperature. They always happen for a reason, for instance changes in the earth's orbit, or precession, etc. There is no known event in the earth's history where the temperature changed without an external event causing it. We know quite well why all the changes in the above graph happened, for instance.

So which event is causing it now? No known trigger of temperature changes coincides with the current warming. Similarly, no known trigger can explain the rate of warming, which is 10 times higher than the movements into an interglacial (but we are past this point anyways, as noted above). So which natural cycle is it?

whatever

I'm tired of repeating myself

Pandora, at least google \"Mini ice age\" before you say there was not one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

The little ice age? You must be joking, Woody.

\"The little ice age\" is only a name, its not a proper ice age (hint: that's why people usually but parentheses around it).
- Ice ages last 100.000s of years, the little ice age lasted maximally, what is it, 1000 years?
- Ice ages go along with temperature changes of more than 6 degrees. For the little ige age it was maximally 0.6 deg.
- we are not even sure it existed at all. Most evidence is anecdotal. Some temperature reconstructions show it, some don't. Rather, it has become more and more clear that, if anything, it was a locally restricted event, but not a global temperature drop.

But most importantly, we are already out of this one as well. We had surpassed the temperatures from before the little ice age (i.e., the medieval warming period) already 100 years ago. And as you should know, the temperature has continued to rise since then. It took the little ice age around 300 years to work itself out from the dip. We have covered the same temperature distance in only the last 25 years!

So, no, forget about the little ice age.

edit: fixed typos

You are missing the point.

The Point is that the earth is SUPPOSED TO BE THIS WARM, and warmer. In the middle ages, when things cooled off, it did so in a big hurry. Many people died and it threw their economy for a loop because a lot of crops and other weather dependent goods were lost.

For pete sakes. \"Little ice age\" is a coined phrase and not a technical term. We knew that.

And btw, what CAUSED those ice ages? Mastodon methane? My point is, what's going to happen is going to happen. We have no REAL and accurate way of measuring what's going on \"globally\". they are educated guesses at best. you have not dug into the dredges of the all mighty \"Science community\". There is nothing high and mighty about their data. Just a bunch of over educated 12 year olds looking for notoriety and prestige. They are not above skewing or even making up numbers to bolster their theories. There is no more honor among scientists as their is thieves. And if you think otherwise, you are deceived and deserve the arsenic that the wholesale media feeds you.

Forgive my venom, but I get tired of this argument being so onesided by the media and pop-culture. It's become fad and a religion. There are many prominent scientists that believe otherwise and if they SAY otherwise, they are threatened, chided and stripped of their jobs and/or grant money they use for research. .. yeah, very honorable.

interesting perspective by Mr. Coleman. I've actually witnessed some of what he writes about in my searching.

Duper wrote:They [scientists] are not above skewing or even making up numbers to bolster their theories.

I forgot to add this little gem of a point my original post. Just another factor to decipher