Narrated by Al Gore.I think I might give it a skip.

WOW!!!!

Easily the most discusting load of lies and idioic proopaganda I have seen yet.

I am surprised it is even legal to lie so openly in the media.

And Having to listen to that droaning arrogant Zealot's voice was just sickening.

Seriously!!!!!

Does ANYONE believe that crap?

ANYONE?

off topic...just incase you hadn't seen this:

Treemometers: A new scientific scandal
If a peer review fails in the woods...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

While Ponzi scheamers lie openly in videos about the Devastation about to happen, the basis of the Scam is revealed.

How Ironic the timeing.

Yet more clear evidence that the Hokey Schtick was, is, and ever shall be a deliberate fraud.

Think of those poor trees Gasping for just a little CO2.

And this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/print.html

Excerpt:
A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.

At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC's assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

In this typical global warming propaganda clip the color diagram for "water stress" has two colors which stands for (1) Decreasing availability" and (2) Increasing withdravels.

Bad or equally bad... :-/

In the holocene optimum, when it was up to 2 degrees C warmer, it was very good water conditions with a lot smaller deserts in northern Africa as well as in the arab peninsula. Scientific sources e.g. here:

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/new_africa.html

In the real world less water in the propaganda is ...inconvenient. Also the average of IPCC's models is increasing precipitation.

But global warming itself is pure propaganda, completely depending on strong total positive feedback, which isn't seen anywhere in empirical data. But there are peer reviewed data that says total negative feedback should reduce the +1 C that double CO2 concentration results in (if we, mankind, can double it).

I think the rest of the world should implement a Carbon Tax on all Americans flying in and out of the US to help with tackling their emissions .

Something in the region of a $100 each way should do the trick.

This would definitely be a wake up call to the Americans on how serious the situation is and at the same time provide revenue to fight AGW.

Even if only say the Euro zone, China and Australia/New Zealand did this it would have an impact.

CO2/greenhouse gases cannot by nature have more than a very small effect on temperature, therefore most Earth changes we've seen in the past 30 years are natural. Those who say human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming are wrong in two ways. One, the Earth hasn't warmed for about a decade and all signs point to continued cooling for two to three decades since the cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has just begun. Two, greenhouse gases do not "trap" heat. They do absorb and radiate heat, but much of that radiation is lost to space. Furthermore, any (slight) warming effects from CO2 are not linear, they are logarithmic. CO2 by nature can only absorb radiation in certain limited bandwidths. Once CO2 reaches certain levels of concentration in the atmosphere all available radiation at those limited bandwidths are already being absorbed and adding more CO2 has virtually no effect. Politicians, radical environmentalists, and corrupt scientific organizations are lying to pass terribly taxing "cap and trade" legislation to "fix" the climate. There is nothing to fix with regards to CO2. CO2 is an essential trace gas necessary for life on Earth. CO2 is not a pollutant. Wake up people.

The climobots should love the presentation by the minister of disinformation, comrades.

I'd like to see this google earth tour zoom into each of the handful of pine trees that were cherry picked to provide the fake hockey stick graph which provides the basis for the Gore fairy tale story.

Brent,

I made a post the other day about posting an article about the newest hockey stick scandal and it was either blocked or somehow got misplaced. I think everyone with an open mind on either side would be interested in this development. Of course, if they are closed minded, well then they won't even bother to go to the link and all hope for them is lost. As I stated earlier, icecap has a great post on it but so do many other sites including Climateaudit. How bout it?

Matt

Reply: I will look for it. I did not purposely block it though.

Nice science fiction.
It is up there with Day after Tomorrow and Inconvenient Truth.

I always thought that the people that run Google were great at looking at the big picture with an open scientific mind. I am extremely disappointed in them.

paulm: "I think the rest of the world should implement a Carbon Tax on all Americans flying in and out of the US to help with tackling their emissions"

oh yeah, that will sure convince us that AGW is real. you just perfectly illustrated the main reason we are skeptical...you admit that it is really about trying to redistribute america's wealth to the rest of the underachieving world.

It is the sun, and ocean temperatures that drive climate change, whether cooler or warmer atmospheric temperatures are experienced. The sun is in its deepest solar minimum in over 100 years. This has had a cooling effect the last two years on the upper atmosphere, as fewer cosmic rays hit the earth, and the solar wind is deflected. The Northern Lights have been more pronounced as a result. Even the mainstream American media is acknowledging this fact of a slight 0.1 degree rise in temperature since 1998, and stable the last two years.

A study of sun spot activity and corresponding earth temperature clearly reveals this association the past 200 years. Also, El Nino is having an effect on the West Coast this year, creating warmer than usual temperatures, caused by the Pacific ocean warming, and causing lower rainfall than normal in California, Oregon and Washington states. But strangely absent are those devastating hurricanes that Mr. Gore predicted would take place against North America, if GW is happening. In the last two years, the low solar output from the sun has caused the tropics to cool slightly, preventing those hurricanes that feed on warmer water temperatures.

Folks, good science always involves observation, testing and hypothesis.

Our climate and any warming and cooling are not so driven by excessive CO2 output in the upper atmosphere, as alleged, but the sun's activity and its influence on ocean temperatures and natural hydrologic cycle that cause our world wide weather.

Just wondering: Are paulm and Kip one in the same? There can't be more than one that thinks like that.

Thomasfurbs, you are 180 degrees wrong on this count: The cooling (and inactive) sun has allowed MORE, not fewer, cosmic rays to bombard the earth and nearby space.

This would have zero effect on whether the earth is warming or cooling. The main, and overwhelming factor, in determining the earth's climate is the heat emitted by the sun.

No sun, no life.

thomasfurbs | October 1, 2009 1:50 PM --- Based on wrtining style, paulm and Kipp ALbert are not "one and the same".

Landin | September 30, 2009 7:26 PM --- I fear you are quite, quite wrong about that. Here is
Barton Paul Levenson:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859).
2. CO2 is rising (Keeling et al. 1958).
3. The new CO2 is mainly from burning fossil fuels (Suess 1955).
4. Temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley CRU, UAH, RSS, etc.).
5. The increase in temperature correlates with the increase in CO2 (60--76% for temp. anomaly and ln CO2 for 1880-2007). See
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html

Joseph Goebels would be proud. It is time to end this once and for all by insisting that evidence from both sides is presented in front of an objective investigative body and that videotape of all proceedings is made available for the public to review. Frankly, when Glenn Beck comes out as the most objective person in the media on this topic we need to reexamine where this issue is going.

David,
If the data sources were reliable, and they are not, and if the climate was simplistic, and it is not, then the analysis you link to might have some relevance. It does not.
AGW depends on offering simple, wrong explanations to complex phenomena. And then in destroying any reasonable critiques.
The Briffa issue is only the tip of the AGW problem. There is no way this sort of sloppy, dubious (at best) work, that conforms so exactly to so many other AGW 'studies', is isolated to Briffa.
Just like on Wall street, when a group of highly motivated, highly educated people agree on a bad idea, they will march in lockstep to it. After all, only the unenlightened fail to see the glory of the idea, and all of the bright people agree.

ANYONE?- YES.

City on a S. H.- Wrong. El Nino usually increases rain in California, less so in Washington and Oregon. But it is NOT the rainy season yet, that comes October- April. The lack of hurricanes in the Atlantic can be attributed to El Nino because it increases the prevailing Westerlies which shear off the tops of forming tropical storms. The ocean temperatures have been high enough to support formation of tropical storms, but stronger summertime jet stream winds have not supported formation of storms this year.

Doctor Dave- Great Google-y woogle-ys, you'd better Ask-Yahoo instead.

hunter | October 3, 2009 8:01 AM --- Actually, the explanations are impecable physics. But I suggest you start with climatologist W.F. Ruddiman's popular "Plows, Plagues and Petroleum".

As to all the prior understandings convergin on the current one, read "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Andy Revkin's review:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E7DF153DF936A35753C1A9659C8B6

And, yes, Briffa's work stands up to informed analysis. The McI stuff is a teapot tempest if not a barroom brawl. Best ignored.