The global warming panic - led by people like Bill Easterling - has caused a rush to biofuels, which is resulting in immediate shortages in the world food supply. Thus proving Franklin Roosevelt's astute observation, once again.

"We have nothing to fear, but fear itself"

During the dust bowl, people had to deal with incredibly hot temperatures, drought and fire - much worse than anything we have experienced in our lifetime. Good thing that people were less superstitious 70 years ago.

1938 had spectacularly hot temperatures (before Hansen started manipulating them downwards.) Most of the country was averaging 5-10 degrees above normal.

January 1938
February 1938
March 1938
April 1938
May 1938
June, 1938
July 1938
August 1938
September 1938
October 1938
Dust storms
Forest fires

Also interesting from NOAA records is that solar activity and sunspots used to be a standard part of the forecasting methodology.

The first factor is related to the 11-year sun-spot cycle, occurring most frequently two years after the sun-spot minimum and three or four years after sun-spot maximum, so that it tends to recur ever five or six years. Great droughts occur only when both of these factors are favorable.
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-02-0093a.pdf
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-02-0096.pdf
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-01-0020c.pdf

I'm not sure how the IPCC got the 10-12 billion number. In Western Europe, the fertility rate averages around 1.87 children per couple, with Russia, Greece, Spain, Italy, and Great Britain averaging as low as 1.2 children per couple. In Japan the fertility rate has gone below 1.2 children per couple. China, which doesn't release fertility numbers, has had a one child policy since 1978. The rapidly growing Chinese urban middle class rarely has more than 1 child. India, which overall has a fertility rate of around 3.2, has seen its fast growing middle class reduce its fertility rate to below 2.

Subsahran Africa has seen its populations decimated by war, famine, and AIDS. Only in East Asia and South America, and North Africa does one see population growth, but these areas cannot produce the kind of numbers that can offset population reductions in Europe, Russia, North America, and Asia. Demographers note that a couple must produce 2.1 children in order to grow the population. When a nation goes below 1.2, it essientially will halve its population every generation. When a nation falls below this, it almost reaches a point of no return.

Earlier this decade, the UN did publish that the world will hit a population peak around 2050, and from there it will begin to slowly fall or stay steady. This appears very optimistic. A chain reaction to the consequences of both an aging West (Where 80% of the world's wealth resides), and rapidly growing world underclass does not bode well. The population of the globe could peak much earlier (2030), and begin to rapidly decline afterwards.

As populations worldwide begin to spend much of thier wealth caring for the elderly, either through the liquidation of assests or wealth transfers (taxes), there will be less money and other assets to spend on the growing populations in East Asia and South America. Free Trade is the best way to accomadate this, but in recent years mechanisms such as NAFTA have become very unpopular. The issue will not be one of food shortages, but lack of capital to ensure that poorer nations can afford it.

2008 is expected to end up among the top 10 warmest years since records began in the 1860s.

Never mind the cold and the persistent La Nina - the "experts" are telling us that they can still manipulate the data upwards anywhere they want to.

NASA satellite data this week showed the thickest and oldest ice around the North Pole has been disappearing.

Never mind that it is winter and the ice has been getting steadily thicker. The "experts" can get quoted saying anything they want, without the slightest question or hint of intelligence from the press.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=386562

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

NPR Morning Edition, March 19, 2008 Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. .... Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

Rather than headlining it as "Food For Warming World", why not "Food For A Growing Population"? Warming actually extends the amount of farmland and the amount of food brought up from the earth, the problem Again is that it is POLITICS creating the problem. One thing is for certain, with the exploding population, the earth simply cannot sustain this growth indefinitely and I consider population explosion far far worse than some natural planetary warming of a half a tenth of a degree.....

This was in Drudge today:Oceanic robotic readings dispute warming: Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

There seems to always be an out: "scientists aren't quite 'understanding' what their robots are telling them'...." sheesh....why am i already certain what the message will be once they 'understand' and put the usual spin on it?.....

Here's a little something for our "progressive" friends (attention Mark, BT, Boris, Kippy, et.al.) to chew on:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

Oh, the spin! Got to hand it to National Public Radio. They really know how to skirt the facts.

NPR. One more reason to DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

Bill Easterling's comments were quite twisted and bizarre. His train of logic seems to jump all over the place. One thing he said was nothing short of stunning.

"stick to your convictions and beliefs"

That is precisely the problem. Too few people are open minded enough to look at the science objectively.

Thanks for a great series of videos Katie!

OIznip et al,

Did you notice the quote "...it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on". Have these "scientists" never heard of the sun, the Earth's orbit, wobble, etc., that are clearly explained in the dissenting (I dislike the term 'Denier') real science? The whole article is in denial over the fact that Global Warming isn't happening - just like the one Marie quotes from the National Post. Does it take another ice age to make these people take their heads out of the sand, snow or another four-letter word starting with 's'?

Environment
The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat� Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

GET A NEW CAREER BRETT!!!!!!!!!!!

10-12 billion more people on earth at the end of this century? Who has this job to make this calculation? How do you know or even guess that? Let me guess Al Gore thought it up. Not saying it won't happen but if it does this global warming thing better speed it up a notch because at the rate its gone there will not be enough land to grow crops for that many people. Join me folks in scaring the living daylights out of everybody then I'll let them believe that only I can save them and become president in 2012. It would work, alot of people fall for that stuff. Anyone want to be vice president? Brenneman for president 2012! I can fix Global Warming, grow crops, make everyone on earth kiss and hug and become friends and we all become one earth of people, dang that sounds like an O'Bama line. Made people happy and I didn't say a thing.

Sorry, off topic, but really cool!

This may help with predicting tornados. For those of you interested in weather, this is really neat. It's a gravity wave. "They are similar to waves on the surface of the ocean, but they roll through the air instead of the water. Gravity is what keeps them going."

Click on the VIDEO once there.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/19mar_grits.htm?list1040802

I like NASA, when they aren't manipulating data ;)

I must have missed something because the video that I clicked on above doesn't have anything in it about food or the economy. Is there another video?

Josh B. - People are always making projections into the future. Have ya ever heard of economics or math? How about taking past population growth and calculating or estimating, if you will, what the future growth might be? Do you need to call Al Gore?

Here, a quick example: Do you know what the population of the world was in 1900? I'll give ya a hint: 1.6 billion. Do you know what the population of good 'ol Earth is now? Well, it's about 6.5 billion. You do the math. It is amazing that the population of earth has grown by 5 billion people in 100 years.

Here's a link:
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060224_world_population.html

It's just my opinion, but I don't think it matters if it's 8 billion or 10 billion or 12 billion. That's a lot of people to feed. Whether it's a warming world or a cooling one. That's why we need science, scientists, engineers, etc.

Oh, by the way, good luck on your quest to be president. LOL!

About the predictions for the global population: Some people who think the predicted 10-12 billion people is a huge overestimate may be forgetting that it is not just the birthrate, but also lifespan, that determines population trends. The oft-quoted 2.1 children per family maintaining a stable population only applies when the age of the population is stable (i.e., when the average lifespan is not changing).

Wow, I see that the initiative to make this forum less political in nature has really paid off. Just from reading, moreover, I'm astonished that most people who post comments classify themselves as "skeptics," when over 95% of the comments accept any report claiming to provide evidence against AGW without the slightest criticism, no matter what its source; and condemn, without the slightest hesitation, any report claiming to provide evidence for AGW (usually with a jab at Al Gore, as if he had anything to do with the survey data). Recall that a skeptic is critical of all the evidence. Or perhaps none of the truly skeptical readers make any comments?

Rob,

You're perception is spot on. This blog is highly political and very negative at times. I think that's why many skeptics avoid it.

Gary, What do you mean by negative? Are you talking about the comments? Brett

The limiting factor for food will not be the temperatures but the available water supply. The guy may be a climate scientist but sure isn't a farmer.

Oiznop and Steve Rowland:
Here is a dilemma in spin. What do you do when observational data doesn’t agree with the models?
I looked at three articles published earlier this century, all using models predicting that the oceans are warming. The one from Livermore Lab even went so far to say it must be true with 84% certainty.
No. 1 used 2 forced models to make their declarative statement.
No. 2 It has to be true because the esteemed, “Dr. James E. Hansen, a climate expert at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, said the finding was important because, "in my opinion, the rate of ocean heat storage is the most fundamental number for our understanding of long-term climate change."
No. 3 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 2006 used 22 of their best models to say man is inducing ocean temp increases and “Research published during the past year has uncovered evidence of a link between rising ocean temperatures and increases in hurricane intensity.”
SO all the models prove AGW will be causing the ocean temps to rise.
But then we get the actual observational data from 3000 different instruments and they say the Oceans are not heating up! Well the authors have some doubt because actual measurements disagree with the models! The instruments are telling them the oceans are not heating up but since that disagrees with the 24 models that declares with 84% certainty that the ocean temps have to be rising doubt the accuracy of the 3000 instruments.
This is a new science principle: If the actual data from your experiment does not agree with your theory or models…it must be that the actual observational temperatures are wrong……not the computer models.
Could it be Dr. Hansen that you really don’t have any understanding of the oceans or long term climate change?
And this “science” wonders why folks are laughing at them?

Reference material
1. 2 June 2005 Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5732/284
2.March24,2000 Researchers Find Ocean Temperature Rising, Even in the Depths
http://www.guerrillacampaign.com/Researchers%20Find%20Ocean%20Temperature%20Rising,%20Even%20in%20the%20Depths.htm

3. September 11, 2006 Human Activities Are Boosting Ocean Temperatures in Areas Where Hurricanes Form,
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/oceantemps.shtml

Gary,

I aware of what a projection is, but people read projections and take them as the gospel, wouldn't you say that alot of people have done that with the global warming tales. {Al Gore, a jab to the left jab to the right, this man is going down}. Another point, just wondering where you apply to get these jobs, its sounds like fun making predictions and getting paid no matter if it happens or not. And if the population in 1900 was alittle over 1 billion and now around year 2000 6 billion that is six times as many and if you multiply like that I come up with 36 BILLION people by the end of the next century. Sign me up, this projection job stuff is right up my alley. Looking in crystal ball now, ice caps are growing.....sea level rise does not happen....some people realize this has been a hoax and are not happy......drill for oil in Alaska and gas prices fall......people finally realize that food comes from farms and the farmers finally get the respect they have deserved for a long time and they will be as they have been the ones to keep the country and the world moving and will find and discover new ways to produce food in smaller areas and at a quicker rate. This was about the food supply anyways, "right".

without the slightest criticism, no matter what its source; and condemn, without the slightest hesitation, any report claiming to provide evidence...

Hi Rob,

Thanks - a brilliant description of the way the press mindlessly parrots AGW press releases.

Rob,
the average lifespan in North America is still about 70 years - has been for around 35 years. Ditto for Europe. In Russia it is about 60 years; 74 for Japan. A bit lower for India. You also seem blissfully aware what occurs to a society that produces on average 1 child per couple. You seem unaware what would occur if say 45% of a society has a population over 68, while its youngest adult population makes up only 20%.

Gary B,

If you are referring to my post, the YES you missed something.

You missed "sorry, off topic" and also "may help in predicting tornados." The first 2 sentences of my comment, is what you "missed."

Whats up Gary? You seem irritable. Is it due to the brutal winter? Ya, me too.

SOYLENT GREEN Anyone? Yum

On December 29, 1954 hurricane Alice formed south of Haiti, and caused considerable damage to the Leeward Islands on January 2, 1955.

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/084/mwr-084-01-0001.pdf

Imagine the uproar if this happened today. It would be declared a sure sign of impending doom. Global warming hysteria relies entirely on a lack of historical knowledge of the audience.

Hurricane Alice of 1955 gave rise to considerable speculation at the time of its formation due to its unseasonable occurrence. This storm had its genesis in a low pressure center which formed during December 29, 1954, around
latitude 21' N., longitude 49' W. (fig. 1). It then drifted west-southwestward, gradually developing warm-core properties, and intensified to hurricane proportions by the afternoon of January 1, 1955. During January 2 the storm passed over the Leeward Islands causing considerable damage.

Said Bastardi, "The maturation of the La Nina to its classic major cold look, both in the equatorial Pacific waters and the amazing amount of the Northern Hemisphere troposphere that is covered by colder-than-normal temperatures, is not only a major driving force in the everyday weather picture of Earth, but is a sign that in the end, it is nature, not man, that will have its way with the weather.

"It is straight out of the book of climate," Bastardi adds. "The pattern is so much like the 1949-1950 La Nina, which was signaling the start of the reversal of the warming of the Earth's climate in the 1930s, '40s, and early '50s. Only someone choosing to ignore it, or not wanting to see it, would not be cognizant of it."

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22942

More historical evidence of how extreme the climate has always been.

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/088/mwr-088-07-0257.pdf

July 1960 was especially noteworthy for prolonged, excessive heat in the Pacific Northwest. The greatest departures of average temperature from normal, more than 6" F., were centered on,the Oregon-Idaho boundary (fig. 1). New temperature records at Boise, Idaho included an all-time high of 111F. on the 19th, 27 days with 90" or higher, 11 days with 100F or higher, and the highest monthly average in 62 years. New records at other stations appear in table 1. Sustained high temperatures, low humidity, and little precipitation brought, in the words of LaMois of the U.S. Forest Service [I] ". . . extremely critical burning conditions throughout the Western States during July. More than 4,000 fires occurred, most of which started from heavy concentrations of lightning storms which struck California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Idaho

Josh B - Don't know what you're smokin' but you better give us all some of it.

Rich - I meant Katie's video. They didn't talk about food or the economy in the video that I saw.
By the way, I posted a comment on your link, but it didn't show up - I said it was cool. Thanks for sharing. No not irritable. I like winter. I snowmobile and ski. Been to the Snowies in Wyoming. Best powder on earth!

Brett - I meant the comments.

Did you notice the quote "...it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on". Have these "scientists" never heard of the sun, the Earth's orbit, wobble, etc., that are clearly explained in the dissenting (I dislike the term 'Denier') real science? The whole article is in denial over the fact that Global Warming isn't happening - just like the one Marie quotes from the National Post. Does it take another ice age to make these people take their heads out of the sand, snow or another four-letter word starting with 's'?

REPLY: Aviator, I sure did! Something mysterious? The only mystery here is where these politically motivated "scientists" were educated? By ligitmate science schools, or Al Gore and Jim Hansen's schools of junk science.

And you will notice that we have not received one response from our lefty alarmist pals. Not even on a story from one of their favorite media outlets. How typical.

Oh, and just so everyone knows, the nightmare continues here in the northeast:

http://www.accuweather.com/news-top-headline.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0

Brett: It's spring!!! Right??? I am gonna slit my wrists if this horrid misery doesn't end soon!!!!!!!!...AAAAAAAUUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!

The first glo-BULL Whiner I hear griping this summer that it's too hot IS GONNA GET MY BOOTPRINT!!!!!!

Patrick Henry,

Thanks for the links to Dust Bowl data. I once hung out with an old Kansas farmer who could, if prompted, ramble away for hours about the battle to keep the family farm through the Dust Bowl, which he called the "Dirt Storms." It was incredible how tough the farmers had to be to avoid losing their farms. One item stuck in my mind: The static electricity was so bad that the spark plugs in cars and tractors wouldn't function correctly unless you dragged a chain, to keep your vehicle grounded.

We have been lucky this time around, and I hope we get through the warm cycle of the AMO without a repeat of those rough times. However with the PDO apparently switching to the cold phase, I'm nervous.

I am definately an Alarmist, but my fear is a colder planet. The last thing we need is the darn sun to quit making sunspots, which may make the cold all that much worse. Cold will bring famine, and famine may not be only something Americans see on TV, in some far away place.

Check out Elliot Abrams' site. He quotes two scientific studies, one which states the sun only has 3% effect on our temps, and the other which states it has up to 60%. This demonstrates that, if you only look for studies that support what you want to believe, you can find whatever you want out there. The real test for your mind is to look at both sides.

"......This blog is highly political and very negative at times. I think that's why many skeptics avoid it....."

Am I reading this right? THIS blog 'highly political and negative'? Really? Maybe that's relative statement. As AGW is the ultimate politicization one has to expect political retorts, especially from Hysterics.

One thing I can say for certain is that I have lurked on blog after blog after blog of AGW Hysterics and your statement appears to be clueless or as I said, relative. Most skeptics avoid the AGW blogs because of the spite, condescending retorts, belittling and personal assassination one encounters on these blogs. I have only been on this blog a short time and find the Skeptics who post here extremely well read/educated, know their positions and the science behind those positions, and know the current events and also appear to have a discerning feel for what is relevant and what is idiocy.

If you really want to get an idea of general pathetic and clueless shilling, lurk around in some of these Hysteric blogs. What these people and their 'scientist' cons advocate would be amusing if it were not so alarming.

Those who mentioned it are right, this vid had nothing to do with feeding the world.

To comment on the feeding the world issue...

You know, as I recall, there have been consistent calls from those "in the know" that the Earth cannot support increases in population over the years. Granted, I don't know where the breakpoint is, but it seems to me that there is still an awful lot of open space out there. Therefore potential for food acquistion. A warming world would promote better use of the land.

The same doomsday scenario was predicted for oil when I was a kid. I think that it was emphatically stated as fact that oil as a resource would positively run out in 1995. That was the late 70's or early 80's. Yep, they nailed that one.

The point is that ALL of these projections are based upon guessing that is only marginally enhanced by fact and understanding. The real unfortunate thing is that they are portrayed as reality and the uninformed public is horribly misled. I believe that the people and groups who make the projections are doing so mainly because they are concerned but more so because they want to be seen as relevent and smart. Yep, it's politics.

Steven Varrell hit it right out of the park with his comment about Easterling's statements.

Since when does sticking to a conviction or a belief allow the science to best emerge?

And, listen to the manner in which he makes the statement. It really is more of a plea than a statement.

That seems a bit, or actually completely backword, of the standard of scientific process.

Quite frankly, as being a lead author on the IPCC fourth assessment, he has just convicted the entire process as being corrupted by the scientists' beliefs. The fact that the scientists are in a "sealed room" simply allows them to interject their beliefs into the reports without scrutiny. Remember beliefs don't make something a reality. The AGWers often point that fact out about religion issues. And they are correct.

Based upon this lead author's interview, I am now fully convinced that AGW is a complete farce. I was pretty certain before but now, convinced. I'm really not certain how you could think otherwise. Unless of course, your beliefs are similar.

So, once again, AGW is shown to be a belief driven, politically motivated process.

I would like to publically thank Dr. Easterling for expressly pointing this fact out. Thank you for being honest about the topic.

Steve Rowland,

Obviously you can have your opinion and so can I.

You consider yourself a skeptic? I'm sure many posting here do as well. Yet we see comments about how our kids are being brainwashed and comments about how every scrap of information supporting AGW came from Al Gore. There are comments calling Barack Obama, Osama. Comments about how data is manipulated just to keep the funding rolling. Every piece of information that comes out supporting AGW is either false, manipulated or "not science".

I've been attacked by AGW supporters and AGW opponents alike. I ask questions or question data and get labelled a "denier" or "alarmist" or right wing or left wing. It comes from both sides of the debate, not just the "hysterics." Look at the posts above. There are posts about Earth's population. I posted a link to a site that explains it in detail. But a couple of people still choose to pick apart the statements about Earth's population growing. Why? Earth's population isn't growing? There's not going to be 10 billion people by 2100? I should believe that because Josh Brenneman says so? Your use of the word "hysteric" is quite telling.

Just who is being hysterical? Jim Hansen? The IPCC? USGS? NOAA? NASA? Anyone who even thinks that AGW is a possibility? Or, are you saying that Al Gore is hysterical and if anyone believes that AGW is possible, then that person must be like Al Gore? Not every scientist supporting AGW is a hysteric or an Al Gore supporter. Al Gore isn't a scientist. In my opinion, it could be said that there are "hysterics" or "radicals" on both sides of this debate. That is the problem. That is what has politicized this debate. It has become left vs. right.

There is a lot of useful information posted here, I can agree with that. Where we differ, is that I believe that there is useful information presented from both sides. The same could be said for useless information, it comes from both sides. It's a challenge, sometimes, to figure out what is true and what isn't. If my opinions and observations mean that I am clueless, oh well, so be it. I can live with that. LOL!

Gary B,

I consider you a "skeptic" in the truest sense of the world, which is a very good thing. I've often said that we need more skeptics on this blog. Skeptics are supposed to question both sides. Unfortunately, those who consider themselves "skeptics" on this blog are, in fact, deniers. Their skepticism is completely based on their political ideology. Many of them have very little understand of the underlying science. Debating with those people is a waste of time and, frankly, a waste of bandwidth.

Attention class, settle down there in the back. Todays lesson population and figuring, a little science mixed with a little math. Yes, Oiznop go ahead.""Global Warming is made up right Mrs. Sunspot?' Yes, Oiznop extra credit for you. Gary, settle down back there now and pay attention, look up here at the chalk board. If in year 1900 1 billion people walked the earth and multiplied and became 6 billion people in 2000 how many more people are there now and how many would that equal in 100 years? Yes Josh go ahead" Mrs. Sunspot that is 6 times as many people" That is correct go ahead Gary if you have something to add "that means 10 -12 billion in another 100 years" No Gary, would you remain after class, maybe some of the other boys like Oiznop, Patrick, and Steve can catch you up on your class work. Anyone have the next answer" Yes Patrick" that would be 36 billion people" that is correct Patrick" Gary wake up, Next question, The earth has seen no rise in ocean temps in the past several years, why is this so" Yes Steve" Because it is no warmer than several years ago" That is correct. One more, Gary I told you no smoking that in class, but that brings up the agriculture question, do you think that with the current population rise would the earth be able to substain enough food for many BILLIONS more people? Yes Anonymous, only maybe if we have some global warming to open up new agriculture land and we have to clear off some forested land, if there were to be global cooling then we would have something to fear and make a documentary to scare people about. That is correct anonymous, global cooling would have a much more devastating effect than warming would and perhaps we should be thankful if it did warm a tad, that way people wouldn't have to go to Florida in the winter time, spring training would be in Alaska and the first day of spring wouldn't be in the 20's with snow. Brrr..its a cold world out there. Don't worry maybe someday it will warm up! Depending on the sun, Mrs.Sunspot!

Their skepticism is completely based on their political ideology.

REPLY: As is your alarmism and praise for big government and controls on capitalism. You need to look in the mirror, buddy boy. That is if it doesn't shatter!

3-6 inches by Saturday, and it's supposedly spring. Further reason to DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!!!

Oh, sorry Gary. My bad.

Just for the record, I DENY that man made CO2 has/will have a "significant" effect in global warming.

I am SKEPTICAL that we can do anything about climate change. Human contribution, parking lots, roof tops, man-made heat, etc, I feel, has a small effect in warming. But to say that we are driving our climate is nonsense.

We are not heading towards a global meltdown, not with record ice in Antarctica. We have records showing the Arctic has been warm before, from the 1920s through the mid 1940s. From the mid 1940s through 1970s, it was cooler. Now its warmer again. Its only a matter of time before it cools. We may be starting to see this now. Also, has anyone seen solar cycle 24 start yet? How intense will it be? Recent studies show that the oceans have not warmed over the past few years.

People need to chill the F out. Pun intended.

Oh, and you can kiss your carbon credits goodbye. There is overwhelming opposition in America for this idea. Thank God!

Mark - I can agree with you, because it is very frustrating trying to debate anything. If I question an AGW opponent I am labelled an "alarmist" or "hysteric". If I question an AGW proponent I am labelled a "denier" or right wing. A perfect example would be earth's population trend. I tried to be helpful by posting this link:

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060224_world_population.html

With data from the US census bureau. I didn't make this stuff up! It's pretty much self explanatory. If you can read, a graph.

So yes, I agree that a lot of stuff posted here is based on political ideology. That is a shame, because there's a lot of good science out there that we can be talking about. And, a lot to be learned by those who think that they know everything.

Josh B - Your attempt at cheap sophistry is quite un-deniably humorous. Maybe even hysterically utopian. But, I'm so clueless, I have to wonder if we can ever intelligently discuss anything from this point forward?

Too many people looking for too few resources is a fact I would agree with. We can grow more food if it indeed gets warmer providing we have sufficient clean water!
We should be spending out money on; providing clean water, reduce soot and ash (with its corresponding chemical load), treating sewage, prevent and malaria! Spending trillions on reducing CO2 levels and lower our standard of living is just plain illogical and counter-productive.
Carbon dioxide is the main cause all out problems? Sorry the science is not just there to convince me of anything but doubtful conclusions from models that are too primitive to bet your life on!
This is way too important for slick salesmanship to sway you. There is too much money available for rational scientific discourse and debate. When way too much money flows to fast for a small immature science to absorb using scientific methodology, you just ask for sloppy science, incompetent scientists, people pushing other agendas or just plain con artists who happen to have a degree and want Power, Sex, Ego and Money.
Read, learn and ask questions! First do no harm!

Gary B

In response, I'm not questioning your opinion, nor your freedom to have that opinion either.

Yes, I consider myself a Skeptic, as I once gave the so-called AGW 'settled science' all the attention it deserved. Yes, I have seen what I consider lukewarm political jabs on this site, but I am certain you have seen far worse. Is data manipulated to keep the funding rolling or is it now? When one gets so many contrary positions and alternatives to a specific set of data that points to an alternative conclusion, 'truth' becomes what you make of it. When one sees the same pundits like Hansen day in day out arguing the same premise about the same data with never an objective look at Mr. Magoo with some dissenting points, one looks forlornly for some semblance of 'debate.'

My use of the word 'hysteric' is along the same general lines you use the word 'denier'. Yes, I consider those who are pushing for the US to go Kyoto, those who claim that then sea levels are dangerously rising, that CO2 is the cause of all this, that in order to 'become green' we should get rid of cattle, stop eating meat and drinking mile, to cut down on the methane going into the atmosphere, those who use ridiculously flawed computer models to predict global temperatures a hundred years from now and the sea levels rise 4'.... One can go on and on, but yes, I consider this hysteria, including Mr. Al Gore, who is feasting at the trough.

Jim Hansen, the IPCC and the like don't have to be considered 'hysterics' simply because according to the AGW premise, the science IS settled. Maybe they do not publicly state such a position, but the arrogance of their positions 'is telling.' Yes, sir, Al Gore is the resident hysteric and if you believe for one moment that his actions are due to concern for the world, I got a bridge in Brooklyn up for sale if you want to take a look at it.

I disagree that that is what 'politicized' this 'debate' though, there has been literally no debate, but people seem to be coming to their senses and the debate is being engaged.

Why did all these so-called scientists who were invited to the recent conference in New York decline to attend? Al Gore turned down a lurcative offer. Do you have any defense for him there? He does not even step on the stage unless it is in a controlled environment, and I'm not talking about weather. What do you think of His data?

Actually I agree that there is useful information presented by both sides, and I completely agree that it is a challenge to figure out what is true and what isn't. Let's just say that your opinions observations, instead of being clueless, are relative, likely just as are mine. Skeptics however, do not seem to enter into the debate with the dogma of 'religion' as the environmentalists do. No I am not accusing you of such.

As it is, I think maybe we should both hope for a little global warming so we can continue to have our bacon, eggs, grits and toast for breakfast, at least me....but....hogs eat corn, chickens eat corn, grits Are corn, bread is made from corn.....when breakfast starts costing the same as a steak dinner in Japan, it's time to take a good look at things.

Mark:

so what you are meaning to say is "there is no need for debate, and the skeptics, all on 'thin ice', are actually 'deniers'...the science is settled"....

come on out and say it, don't be coy....

let me inject a bit of politics: "to a liberal there is no such thing as a liberal, there are only 'moderates'(them) and radical rightists...."

Here are the corporations who control the seeds that feed the world. They also control the new Doomsday Seed Bank in Norway. You'll be surprised at who's running the show, and why.

This is a must-read for everyone as it will certainly affect us all in the very near future, regardless of the weather.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529

Brett: Hope you and your family are well.

The 'Anonymous' post above is ME, I must have left off the e-mail address on the post. That was my reply to Gary B.

Tkx, Steve Rowland

Katie,
If it is known that man is causing unregulated climate fluctuations would it not be a good thing if man can regulate these climate fluctuations? That is what my "Tunnel" idea can do and computer modeling of them will prove it. We can't not afford to have uncontrolled climate variablity caused by man and his CO2 and other gasses being injected to our Earths atmosphere. Establishing upper limit controls will not work as world population increases. We as humans should have every right to increase our population and procreate. One only needs to look at what China has to do to control over population.Pretty soon every Nation will have to do the same as China. The Earth will reach its limit to how many Humans it can support. This will lead to more wars and genocide. The "Tunnels" can prevent that from happening for at least 100 years and can support a 20 billion world population. With the "Tunnels" we can feel free to procreate.

Cyclonebuster:

Hey, Pard: Throw up a couple of graphs and a world-view of yer tunnels.......so we can do a on-site peer- review...:-)

Thanks to those of you that commented and noticed the discrepancy on the video title! We had a minor technical mishap and the correct video is now linked up. I hope you'll check out the updated show.

Katie:

Thanks for the update and correction. As a group, the staff and you do a good job of keeping us informed. Whether I agree or disagree with your interviewees, it sure is nice to hear them talk about their views in person. Realizing that it is still somewhat edited for time, it is nice to see and hear the inflections with which they communicate.

Often, that can be as telling as the statement.

The level of supposition in the argument is striking.

John D, now that's some scary reading. And I originally thought that seed bank was a great idea.

Rich,

I agree. People need to chill out a bit. I don't know what CO2 is doing in the atmosphere as far as AGW goes. I'd like to find out what or if it is affecting anything and if it is doing something, how much? I also agree with many here that the sun and Earth's orbit plays an important role in the climate. How all of that correlates or works together is what I think we should find out, before we take ANY drastic measures.

I'm glad to hear that carbon credits are not popular. I don't like them or carbon taxes.

Steve Rowland - we can agree on many points. I've said it before that I don't like Al Gore because he isn't a scientist. I'm not going to defend Al Gore. I've never seen his movie and I probably never will. He is an entertainer in my mind. What really peeves me is that so many people equate Al Gore with climate science.

Yes, I can consider those same radicals (the ones who talk about getting rid of cows and having less children to stop GW), to be hysterics, but I don't think that Hansen is a hysteric, mainly because he does have valuable information. Skeptical scientists should be able to keep him in check. A perfect example is ICCC in New York. The skeptics have spoken, now let's do some science and figure this thing out.

When I said that the debate is being politicized, I meant the debate here on this blog. I hear too many times how a "skeptical" person is labelled as left wing or right wing, if that person questions the data or dis-agrees with one side or the other. That, to me, gets tiring. I agree that the overall worldwide debate has become politicized because of AL Gore and possibly Hansen and others. The science isn't settled in my mind, so we shouldn't be talking political solutions anyway. Unless you want to talk about reducing pollution and better energy solutions.

Warmer is definitely better. I agree.

Hey Oiznop I drove through Pittsburgh last night and there is NO snow on the ground, none. I am in Virginia now, Friday, it is 62 degrees, sunny and beautiful. I know, it is going to snow in Pittsburgh tonight, but I have to ask, what are you complaining about? Where I live, we still have snow on the ground.

Thanks Katie. I enjoy your videos and your weather forecasts. Keep up the good work.

Mark,

"Skeptics are supposed to question both sides."

Too bad AGW Scientists and proponents are not in that mindset. If they were, AGW would be fading away much quicker than it has been.

Hi Gary B,

Some useful information from your "level-headed" buddy, Dr. Hansen

http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/news_repository/will-oceans-surge-59-centimetres-this-century-or-25-metres

Will oceans surge 59 centimetres this century - or 25 metres?

a study led by James Hansen, the head of the climate science program at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and a professor at Columbia University, suggests that current estimates for how high the seas could rise are way off the mark - and that in the next 100 years melting ice could sink cities in the United States to Bangladesh.

In stark contrast to estimates put forward by the IPCC, Prof. Hansen and his colleagues argue that rapidly melting ice caps in Antarctica and Greenland could cause oceans to swell several metres by 2100 - or maybe even as much as 25 metres, which is how much higher the oceans sat about three million years ago.

Hi Gary B,

The beef industry is responsible for about 50% of the water usage in the western United States. It requires about 500 gallons of water to grow the corn required to raise one pound of beef. Additionally, the hormones and antibiotics used to keep the animals alive in incredibly unsanitary conditions are getting into the water supply and having ill-effects on humans.

That water would be much better used to raise more efficient food crops, and feed a hungry world. I live near the birthplace of "industrial beef farming," and it is a disgusting and destructive industry beyond comprehension. I suggest driving from Denver to Cheyenne in the summertime on I-25. The stench is so awful in places it will make you gag. Same for I-5 south of Los Banos, California.

The best thing any of us can do for the environment is to cut back on our beef consumption, or only purchase free range, grass fed beef.

Hey Oiznop I drove through Pittsburgh last night and there is NO snow on the ground, none. I am in Virginia now, Friday, it is 62 degrees, sunny and beautiful. (gee I feel real bad for you) I know, it is going to snow in Pittsburgh tonight, but I have to ask, what are you complaining about? Where I live, we still have snow on the ground.

REPLY: Gary B: I am complaining because the temperatures around here have been below normal and will continue to be below normal for the forseeable future. It's supposed to be spring. It's supposed to be a warming world. Last summer a report came out in the papers around here that "Pittsburgh is warm and getting warmer." Put forth by a left wing envrio-wackjob organization that is tryin to influence our Philadelphia thug DEMOCRAT Governor to cut into our economy (which continues to flounder) as a means to curtail this excessive "warmth." BULL! I am annoyed because I am sick and tired of hearing this BULL from these lunatics. I am annoyed because usually in march we have at least 5 nice days in the 60s for daytime highs around here. We have only had two that I can recall. And at the time of this writing , it's 31 degrees and snowing. And yes, the one thing I detest on GOD'S earth more than anything else is cold air! Some normalcy (if there is such a word) to the season would be nice for a change. You say that you still have snow where your at? You don't think that is an issue this late into the season? I realize it's always possible, but c'mon, it's supposed to be SPRING! I am not seeing it. What irritates me more than the cold is people who continue to try an pursuade we charlatans that the world is warming (because of our behaviors) and that the huge hand of government has to do something about it, when all it is is a grab for politcal control! That's what I am complaining about.

Pittsburgh Weather. One More Reason To DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

Caleb,

I'm not a scientist but I assure you the sun has more than 3% or 60% affect on temperatures. Try probably alot closer to 100%.

Oiznop,

I would like warm spring weather also. I live in Northern PA, where our weather is affected by the Great Lakes, so we get a lot of lake effect snow. It's a good thing that I like snow. I also know that with the NAO being negative and there is a blocking weather pattern near Greenland, we will tend to be below "normal" for this time of year. It has nothing to do with global warming or cooling. We got snow at our house over the weekend too, but by Sunday it was gone, because of the strong March sun. To me it is just our "normal" weather.

I have nothing against you wishing for "normal" spring weather. I was just saying that in the grand scheme of things, it does still get cold and snow in the north in the spring. Like I said, I was in Virginia, near Fridericksburg over the weekend, and it was in the 50's and 60's and sunny. Typical spring weather for Virginia, and only 400 miles from my house. So, if we travelled all over the US of A, we might see a wide variety of weather at this time of year. All of that different weather, hot or cold, does not prove or dis-prove global warming.

I can agree with you, that I don't like it when Global Warming is used to promote a political adgenda.

The bottom line is that we still have a lot to learn about earth's climate. More study is needed.

Patrick H - That's great. You live in the middle of an oil field near where the beef industry started. Must be a real stinky place to live. I've driven from Denver to Laramie WY many times and have to wonder what you are talking about? What stench? I don't remember seeing any stockyards on that stretch of interstate.

I'm just curious about how you propose to irrigate the large areas of crops that would replace beef farming? Maybe if we used the corn for food instead of ethanol production, then we wouldn't have a problem feeding people.

Thanks for insulting me and my family. My family raises grass fed beef. It is by no means a disgusting and destructive business.

I never said that Hansen was my buddy. I've only said that he has valuable scientific information to add. Skeptical scientists should be able to keep him in check. What scientific journals have you ever published to Patrick H? I'd be glad to read them if you have any.

Hi Gary B,

I said -
The best thing any of us can do for the environment is to cut back on our beef consumption, or only purchase free range, grass fed beef.

You said -
Thanks for insulting me and my family. My family raises grass fed beef. It is by no means a disgusting and destructive business.

You might want to think your reactive response through a little more carefully. We are saying the same thing - grass fed beef is not the problem.

There are dozens of vile cattle feed lots within two miles of I-25 between Longmont and Loveland. If you venture a few miles further you can get to the world's worst feed lot at Greeley. On hot summer days, the smell can be overwhelming.

In Boulder County, the best way to predict snow is based on the smell. When the wind blows from Greeley (NE) upslope snow will invariably arrive within a few hours.

Gary,

Read carefully, you said:

"Thanks for insulting me and my family. My family raises grass fed beef. It is by no means a disgusting and destructive business."

PH said:

"The best thing any of us can do for the environment is to cut back on our beef consumption, or only purchase free range, grass fed beef" Emphasis mine.

Certainly the world population rising more than three hundred percent since the late eighteen hundreds has led to a number of side effects from both the people and their infrastructures. It seems we've handled most of the issues pretty well so far, even with the world population almost doubling since the nineteen seventies.

Various forecasts show nine billion by twenty fifty, mostly in the "developing world". There's no reason to think these countries won't handle their increases in population and infrastructure and pollution the same way the "developed world" did.

Regardless, projections of the birth rate per woman on average show it falling from about two and a half children to two (about twenty percent) in the same time period.

Veets - I read it. I understand it. I was focusing on the first part of what PH said:

The beef industry is responsible for about 50% of the water usage in the western United States. It requires about 500 gallons of water to grow the corn required to raise one pound of beef. Additionally, the hormones and antibiotics used to keep the animals alive in incredibly unsanitary conditions are getting into the water supply and having ill-effects on humans.

That water would be much better used to raise more efficient food crops, and feed a hungry world. I live near the birthplace of "industrial beef farming," and it is a disgusting and destructive industry beyond comprehension.

It's comments like these that vilify the entire beef industry. It's comments like these that empower politicians to make changes restricting the beef industry as a WHOLE. That was my point.

Gary B,

Again - I will point out to you (as you undoubtedly know) that raising grass fed beef does not require the use of irrigation water, and does not involve penning animals in cruel, unsanitary conditions.

I buy very little meat myself, but when I do I always get it from local, free range, organic farmers. It tastes much better and is much healthier for my family and the environment.

And, again I will repeat that the industrial beef industry is far and away the biggest environmental problem we face in the western US. We simply can not afford to throw half our water away, and contaminate the remaining water supply with hormones and antibiotics.

I would love to see the environmental movement get back on track focusing on something real, rather than the imaginary dangers of CO2.

Gary B,

He is talking about the industrial beef enterprise. You are paraphrasing him and using that as your justification.

Paraphrasing and taking things out of contect is best left for movie ads.

Gary B:

You say you raise grass fed beef eh?

My family is looking for a supplier of free range, grass fed beef. Do you know of any sources here in the Midwest? Do you sell products over the Net?

Sorry off track, but would like to know more info.

Darren,

Yes we raise Polled Herefords. Polled means that they are hornless.

We don't sell over the internet. We sell to local buyers in Pennsylvania.

Here are some internet links that I know of:

http://www.cattleseller.com/

http://www.grasslandbeef.com/

http://www.littlerivernaturalbeef.com/search/0/grass+fed+beef/

http://texasgrassfedbeef.com/

http://www.americangrassfed.org/producers.htm

You can google to find all of the information that you need.