When do you get the the message that:
1. These images were not ‘taken’. They were generated by using satellite data and Photoshop. (and as far as I know, they accurately depict actual minimum sea ice extent for those years). If you don’t believe me, compare for yourself on The Cryosphere Today.
2. There were no satellites monitoring Arctic sea ice before 1979.

Jupiter’s original red spot is no more.

Quite the contrary, it has temporarily developed a few new ones. As of this day, the Big Red Spot is still there.

Care to elaborate on what links Jupiter’s Red Spot and the Earth’s climate?

Anne, you have believed the lies that finance less scrupulous people than yourself

How do you know how scrupulous I am? What more do you know of me?

I am sure it is possible that there are many well thought out articles and comments referred to here -however they are lost in the manipulation language used . Try counting the number of times you seen extra influencer words/phrases inserted into answers like sham , con , hysteria .

I think the best description of this web site is a ‘high pressure’ sales environment or a ‘cult’ mentality (…and I do know a bit about sales techniques)

My main concern – we are knowingly introducing ( or rather reintroducing) CO2 into the atmosphere at a measurable rate without having a clue about the long term consequences.

I’m not adding anything further – but for those happy with the status quo … keep gambling.

Reply: Please re-read your first two sentences. Note that you are free to post your opinion. ~Smokey, moderator

“Scientists are concerned that the will to tackle climate change has waned in the midst of the financial crisis, with the latest data showing climate change is moving more rapidly than they ever expected.”

This is from a news commentary program entitled “Lateline” – the transcript, featuring Dr Pachauri and some Australian IPCC contributors, is at:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2399646.htm

Chris

I disagree – Mr Booker has good point regarding politics of EU and other oddities of man made political systems and also egg scares.
On Global Warming he’s applied the wrong standards to a complex question best analysed by science and then acted upon.

I personally think there is also a bigger question involved in deliberately changing the composition of the atmosphere .
What exactly are all of the consequences over an extended timescale?

Would you be happy to find that we deliberately changed the level of background radiation by thinly distributing radioactive waste across every part of the planet . It would only be a small change and it would solve the issue of storing radioactive waste.

“This article summarised a report published by WWF, a well known charity describing itself as a leading independent environmental organisation. It takes the findings of the IPCC report of 2007 as its starting point but claims that important aspects of climate change have been underestimated.

We are perfectly entitled to publish a fair and accurate summary of the contents of the report whether or not you agree with it. I attach a copy, so that you can take up the issue of the grain loss with Messrs Lobell and Field whose research you challenge.

So far as the photographs are concerned, we obtained them from Philips Universal Atlas of the World (copy attached). We suggest you refer any accusations of doctoring to them.”

End of quote.

The atlas doesn’t appear to be online and it will cost you more than £100. This also probably explains why the image is a year out of date – though a cynic might observe that the 2008 image would have shown more ice.
I have the print version of the Telegraph article and the images are higher resolution. I’ve looked at them carefully. I have no doubt that they’re one and the same, with one crudely painted over to show the extra ice. Many parts of both images are identical. The extra white area’s edges are blurred, so it was very obviously paint-brushed in. The outlines also look unnatural. Whoever is responsible did a very crude job. He must have been in a hurry.

But the question remains, given that it was crudely air-brushed, how accurate is the portrayed image? The caption states that the images are for September. I therefore changed the Cryosphere dates to 14th September – and the air-brushed image is not so very different. I believe the data shown is reasonably accurate. It still seems questionable to present an air-brushed version from a different time and I’m surprised that Philips would publish something so crude, but on the question of accuracy it’s probably acceptable.

That just leaves one possible complaint: as always they are careful to effectively surround everything with quotes so they can’t be held accountable for any untruths. But the claim about 40 million tons of grain a year is presented as a fact and, as another poster stated, it almost certainly isn’t true. The editor quoted Lobell and Field, which I assume appeared in the WWF report.

I’ll look into this, but it looks as if a complaint to the PCC would fail. Foiled again….

Chris

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_science_paper_october_2008.pdf

http://www.goredearth.com/images/29arch.jpg

But I would say the rate is decreasing now, actually slower than 2007 at the same date.

very cold on the greenland summit lately.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,435202,00.html

Move over Al Gore. Swankier carbon charlatanism has come to town in the form of the World Wildlife Fund’s luxury getaway called “Around the World: A Private Jet Expedition.”

“Join us on a remarkable 25-day journey by luxury private jet,” invites the WWF in a brochure for its voyage to “some of the most astonishing places on the planet to see top wildlife, including gorillas, orangutans, rhinos, lemurs and toucans.”

You are correct that 1972 does not precede 1978. I was fooled by the fact that the link appeared below the mentioning of Carter signing a bill in 1978. I’ll honestly admit I didn’t read all your links from start to end, time is too short. You can quickly lose the attention of another poster. It’s usually no use coming back 2 weeks from now with a complete analysis. That’s why I also missed the full letter. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Let’s go over your other comments.

“Consensus” means most, not all. One dissenting voice does NOT mean, NO consensus.

Correct, I’ll have to do better than that. But it will take time to find more examples, don’t expect anything soon though.

Also note, that Kellogg never stated that there was NO cooling. Just that man had little effect on the current climate.

I quote Kellog again:

The direction that this influence will take in the decades to come, [...] must be that of a warming (emphasis added)

Worse, he explicitly states that he expects a warming.

that its getting colder? Which the scientists seemed to agree on. And which you agree on as well, going by your statement.

See below, my final remark.

Are you under the misapprehension that we are saying the consensus was that the recorded cooling, was anthropogenic?

No.

By 1970, the consensus was indeed, cooling. Witness Lamb’s papers (1965 and 1969), that you conveniently ignore.

I did not “conveniently” ignore these papers. Why assume malice? I couldn’t access the second one, you warned me for that. The first one didn’t struck me as particularly heavy on ‘cooling’. Having read it more thouroughlyin the mean time (English is not my native language) , there is mention of “a return to the regime that prevailed over long periods before 1895″, in this context that means cooling. And yes, there it is, one of the rare forward looking statement about cooling I encountered: “On this evidence, something like the climatic regime over the years since 1960 should probably be expected to persist till the end of the century or beyond”.

Hardly. The UNESCO meeting was 1961. The world had been cooling for only a few years at this point. No more than 10-15 years.

Only a few years? 10-15 years? Which is it? May I pick an option? Then I’ll pick 20 years, quoting from the unesco report: “..a warming in many parts of the world since about 1850 until a decade or two ago when in some places, but not all, there appears to have been a levelling-off or a fall of temperature…”.

This was my reaction. Have fun.

Final remark: I have come to the conclusion that I have to make a distinction. Yes, I agree that in the early 70’s many scientists (concensus or not, that still to figure out for myself) were of the opinion that the temperatures were falling. When you look at the temperature record, that comes hardly as a surprise. Temperatures WERE falling from 1940-1970.

What I object against is that there was a ’scare’. The majority of references I have seen so far merely comment on the temperature developments at the moment. To qualify as a scare, there must also be a forward looking statement, projecting adverse consequences. There are very few of such statements. The only one I could perhaps label as such is the Kukla-Mathews article and letter.

And what was it that the scientist lobbied for? Taxes? Regulations? Public education? No, more research.

Now then there is the press coverage. I will need to dig into this deeper. Apart from the 1975 Newsweek article, I am not is sure what more there is.

Do you want the other references I have, or should we continue to thrash this out first?

Bring it on.

Maybe their research will simply be ignored, rather than attacked. It would be inconvenient for many people if the Arctic conditions thousands of years ago were like they describe, and inconvenient if those conditions so long ago sowed more seeds of doubt.

Too bad — it would be better to have a scientific examination of such things, rather than the stuff we usually get these days.

You couldn’t be more wrong. What the statement is saying, is that Dr. Mitchell’s results are remarkable because of the many different variables that agree.

I stand corrected.