Check out - Mark Trail - in today's Sunday comics.
It says - "We hear a lot lately about global warming and how it is affecting arctic creatures like polar bears, walruses and seals. Scientists think that these big animals may vanish as sea ice disappears."
Also it says "Arctic sea ice is at the lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979, and this has forced thousands of walruses to be stranded on land for up to 3 months in some areas."

Hansen is doing his part to raise awareness, by telling college students that they will all die if they don't do exactly what he says - and essentially revolt against the government. Check out this presentation he made last week at Wesleyan University.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/illwesleyan_20080219.pdf

Ummm, maybe people with a brain think the sun might have something to do with global warming and global cooling long before man has his say?

According to the survey, more informed respondents and those with high confidence in scientists both feel less personally responsible for global warming and also show less concern for global warming.

REPLY: GASP!!! Why, How could they??? Why I am appalled! These uneducated philistines! I'll dare you show less concern, and not take responsibility! Why, when the earth blows up, you will all be sorry you evil humans! Why, the earth has a fever! You, you...charlatans, you! Off to the prison camps with you all!

HEE HEE HEE....Ain't I a stinker?????

I had a closer look at Hansen's presentation. In slides 9-14 he is claiming that CO2 is the primary driver of glacial cycles.

Human-made forcings dwarf natural forcings that caused glacial-interglacial climate change.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/illwesleyan_20080219.pdf

Some other gems....

Antarctic ice forms if CO2 less than ~450 ppm

Another 70ppm and Antarctica will warm up about 70 degrees.

Special Interests’ Undue Sway

Anyone who disagrees with him is a special interest

Humans now control the mechanisms for global climate change

If only we could control the weather this afternoon.

A Planetary Emergency

No doubt about that. We are being taken over by extremists from every side.

You should be paid the same amount as the emission tax And you should be the only one who has the right to sell emission permits

Huh?

Young People: need to organize, enlist others (parents, e.g.), impact elections

Consult your Red Book. Turn in your parents to the IPCC if you have to.

"But why would people who trust scientists not be as concerned when they hear so many scientists warning of the perils of global warming?"

"According to the survey, more informed respondents"

Because they are informed, they have seen scientists be wrong before.

If they are considered informed,
then they have probably heard all the hysterical hype that has made most of it sound like some stupid hollywood movie.

Unfortunately, I couldn't open the full report, however this in the summary caught my eye: "the general assumption that scientific experts have a heightened perception of the risks of global warming that is correct and objective, whereas the general public has a minimized perception of the risk that is inaccurate and subjective." Nothing like deciding your conclusion in favour of the "scientists" before you even start! What I think surprised these surveyors was that the public was a lot smarter than they were. But they still don't seem willing to admit it - or haven't realized the fact. The diversion into faith in technology is a red herring and isn't part of the survey; the public realizes that it is not a crisis, not like the AGW faithful who did the survey.

Here is an example of what some attitudes are:

Unbiased AGW industry supporters no doubt.

http://www.co2science.org/

Excerpt:
Down, but not Out!
A week ago we experienced a terrorist-like Denial of Service Attack on our website that rendered it inaccessible to patrons. Unfortunately, the company that managed our website was unable to stop the attack, and we had to make the decision to host our website elsewhere. Moving our website to another server is not a simple task and must take place in stages. For now, only the current weekly issue of CO2 Science will be accessible, followed by a gradual return to full website access and functionality in the coming days and weeks.

For those of you awaiting the release of our DVD Carbon Dioxide and the Climate Crisis, which was advertised on our website shortly before the attack began, that wait will continue for an undetermined amount of time. We apologize for the inconveniences caused by the website attack and our subsequent server move. We hope you will continue to support our efforts and visit us often.

Those who looked more into global warming are less worried about it. Pretty telling as far as I can see. The more you look at it the more you can see it's just a scam. I was taken in too before I started looking around as were several other people here on this blog. Knowledge is information. The conclusions are self-evident, it's not rocket science.

"is consistent with the notion that people trust that scientists will be able, somehow, to devise technical solutions
Dr. Kellstedt elaborated"

Me thinks the good Dr is delusional.

Most people have a hard time believing weathermen can predict the future.

Having a high confidence in scientists
does not mean having a high confidence in all scientists and all science.

I have a high confidence in doctors.
I do not believe they can cure the common cold.

.

Wellll..this is just my personal opinion, but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that those whom are more informed on the subject of Global Warming, or as the pundits prefer 'Man-made' Global Warming, have enough common sense to see the scam waiting to pounce. The Democrats have all these hundreds of thousands of 'green jobs' waiting in the wings, just waiting for either Hillary of Obama to give them life.

The Hysterics modus operandi has been to back away from any challenges as unworthy of their time since their "science is settled" and the 'deniers' are simply grasping at straws. When we start hearing an argument that the 'science is settled' we need to pop up the antennae as we are hearing from someone who cannot bear scrutiny.

I cannot wait to see the reactions of the Hysterics upon the conclusion of the upcoming ICCC.

Individuals who are informed and view scientists well understand that sensibility will ultimately prevail, and the doomsayers will be left looking foolish.

I think this is a major concern. The general population seems to underappreciate the significant longer term dangers of global warming. Faith that scientists will find a way to stop it seems to counter the fact that it is society en mass which must work together to reduce global warming, and not a select group of intellectuals. Social awareness must occur for sustainable change to take place.

"Check out this presentation he made last week at Wesleyan University.

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/03/measuring_public_attitudes_tow.html "

Wrong link, Patrick (?)

I am not a scientist but I feel that Global Warming is not something mankind can control. In the millions of years before mankind, the earth was continuously warming and cooling. Every documentary I have seen about global warming fails to bring up this truth; �Climatologists and historians find it difficult to agree� basically on anything. No one ever mentions the fact that we have gone through about three �Little Ice Ages� in the past 300 years.

Even though the earth is going through a warming period, it is not our place to do something about it. We cannot control the weather so why de we have the audacity to think we can control global warming. And why are so many people discussing it. Global Warming has become a political outcry from Liberals that think they can control everything. In Al Gore�s �An Inconvenient Truth,� he wants us to believe that we are on a spiraling road to destruction and that mankind is responsible for it. This man is an idiot.

Man has only studied climate change for the last 5 or 6 decades. In that time period, the earth�s temperature has changed as little as 1 or 2 degrees. Anyone that thinks they have the power to control this change please step up and tell us how. After you fix the global warming issue, then you can tell us how to stop rain, hurricanes and tornados.

Sorry, Patrick. Now the link you suggested is working... I don't know why another linke appeared. Once again, I apologise.

Hi Emiliano,

The wrong link was there because I posted the wrong link originally, Brett kindly corrected it for me.

From my experience, alot of the people I know would be happy if the hihgs never got below the 70's during winter. Thus, they aren't exactly bothered by the thought of warmer winters.

The more educated I get the more skeptical I become. However, when my son mentioned Global Warming was not a proven fact, in a class at his high school, he stated "everyone said I was wrong." This demonstrates the sort of education our children are getting.

My skepticism began because I have always been facinated by what became of the Greenland Vikings, due to the fact some very old family lore mentions fear of "Red Vikings" in the 1600's, and also the fact I visited Norbega Park in Massachusetts as a child, (where Rt 128 and the Mass Pike now cross,) and was told lore about a Viking trading post at that spot. I read very widely, and as years past I couldn't help but notice that a lot of hard work done by honest scientists started being trashed in the mid 1990's. I had the feeling there was an attempt to prove the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age never happened. For a long time I couldn't understand what was going on. Only recently have articles shown me I wasn't the only one who noticed: http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Then last year NASA data which I deemed a Holy Grail was questioned by Climateaudit, and I woke up to the possibility data was being adjusted in an improper manner by Dr. Hansen.

Then quite recently I was horrified to have yet another Holy Grail questioned. This time it regards the Keeling graph of CO2 levels used in the IPCC report. Apparently Keeling also trashed a lot of hard work done by honest scientists, because it didn't fit his ideas back in 1959, and in the process he eraced the fact CO2 levels were recorded as being up near 400 ppm back in the 1940's.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE_18-2_Beck.pdf

I cannot express what a sick feeling I get when the work of people I naively trusted starts to look corrupted. I'm not so sure about Keeling, but both Mann and Hansen seem driven by agendas, which seems against the rules of science, as I understood them.

The more educated I get the more I feel I am turning over stones and discovering all sorts of worms.

Brett,

This is slightly off subject, but what's up with the sun? Didn't we have a thread about a new sunspot cycle starting? Not a spot to be seen:

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/

Should we revisit this topic?

Reply: We will.

Patrick Henry,

I heard on the news that Denver reached a record high 74 yesterday. I know that you have been mentioning the UHI effect in Denver. Was yesterday a good example? By that I mean, do you suspect that yesterday's record wouldn't have occured without the added heat from the UHI?

Patrick,

I had a closer look at Hansen's presentation. In slides 9-14 he is claiming that CO2 is the primary driver of glacial cycles.

He claimed no such thing. Should we talk reading comprehension after all? Unless you meant to tell an outright lie, perhaps you should take a closer look at slide 14:

**************************

Implications of Pleistocene Climate Change

1. Chief instigator of climate change was earth orbital change, a very weak forcing.

2. Chief mechanisms of Pleistocene climate change are GHGs & ice sheet area, as feedbacks.

3. Climate on long time scales is very sensitive to even small forcings.

4. Human-made forcings dwarf natural forcings that caused glacial-interglacial climate change.

5. Humans now control the mechanisms for global climate change, for better or worse.

*******************************

Number 1 states quite clearly that the primary cause of climate change during the ice ages was orbital cycles.

Number 2 states that GHGs (along with albedo) played a leading role in changing the ice age climate, but AS FEEDBACK MECHANISMS ONLY.

Number 4 (the one you quoted) states that anthropogenic forcings are much larger in magnitude than orbital forcings. Mind you that does not mean that the world is ending this year, which brings us back to ....

Number 3 states that Earth's climate is very sensitive to small forcings over long time periods. Earth's orbit does not change overnight; it's a process that takes thousands of years. Similarly, CO2 forcing does not mean that sea levels will rise 20 feet this year or even that this year won't be the coolest since 1980.

Hansen is saying that long-term climate change due to anthropogenic forcing is much more significant (and immediate) than changes due to orbital variation. He is NOT saying that solar variation and other short-term climate factors won't dominate the weather (as they do daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly).

Nowhere does Hansen say that CO2 was the primary driver of glacial cycles. He only says it was a feedback device--a secondary forcing mechanism caused by the first and foremost: orbital cycles. There would have been no increase in GHGs without them.

One last thing Patrick,

I can understand that you don't agree with Hansen's research (I'm not sure I agree with some of his methods either), but stick to the facts. There's enough to ridicule Hansen for without having to make things up. Other than that, feel free to spew your hatred for the man and what you feel he represents. I could care less.

There is no historical data that supports the premise that human activity has any significant effect on climate. The observation of glaciers melting may look dramatic on TV but does not show that human activity is the cause. There is, however, substantial evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide level does not significantly influence climate. You can check it out yourself. Credible websites are included in my post at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/perspectives.html

What to do?!

'Enjoy life while you can'

Climate science maverick James Lovelock believes catastrophe is inevitable, carbon offsetting is a joke and ethical living a scam. So what would he do? By Decca Aitkenhead

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Brett, this is right up there with your survey on January 14, 2008. You asked us...which group do you fall into?

1. The Apathetic group

2. The Deniers

3. AGW Proponents (Anthropogenic or Man-made Global warming)

4. The Skeptic

Then you said, maybe I will take a vote if we get enough responses. 232 responses is surely more than enough. Would you care to tell us which group you fall into sir? 1, 2, 3, or 4?

Reply: No, I would not. I want to keep my personal feelings out of this debate since I am moderating it. By the way, the skeptics won in a landslide, AGW/deniers were close together in second/third. Apathetic barely registered.

"Patrick Henry:
I had a closer look at Hansen's presentation. In slides 9-14 he is claiming that CO2 is the primary driver of glacial cycles."

Patrick, I have a question

In Hansen's graph of the artic ice.

The date on this presentation is Feb 2008, last month.

Why did he not include the latest figures on artic ice? Now when there is more ice?
He has the end point dated 2007 on the graph. Did that go all the way to the end of 2007? Or did he stop 2007 before the end of 2007?