What if this time the conspiracy is the conspiracy. Like, Mr. Hand hates plants so he plays the character of the super-villian so people believe in global warming so they cut back on emissions while the plants would want more emissions. That reminds me, someone must've taken my hempmilk out of the fridge last night because it was sitting out on the counter the next morning. You figure it out.....

In April 1991 Klaus co-founded Civic Democratic Party (Občanská demokratická strana, ODS), the strongest and most right-wing of the post-Civic Forum splinter parties. He remained its chairman until the autumn of 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Klaus

Got any non-fascist critics of human-created climate change?

It must be extremely hot where you live.

"It must be extremely hot where you live."

Planet Earth? Only in certain spots. Some places get more snow. Other places get less.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png/300px-Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png


http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/posterglacier.jpg


http://www.ecnt.org/photos/cur_climate_cartoon.jpg


http://www.keepwintercool.org/images/nrdc_earth_small.jpg


http://www.sciencenewsden.com/images/polar_icecap.jpg


http://healthandenergy.com/images/global2.gif

http://healthandenergy.com/global_warming_cartoons.htm

Global warming on Mars?

In the other study, led by Michael C. Malin, features at the south pole were observed to retreat by up to 10 feet (3 meters) from one Martian year to the next.

The odd shapes -- circular pits, ridges and mounds -- were first photographed in 1999. Since then, the features have eroded away by up to 50 percent.

The pits are growing, the ridges between them shrinking.

Caplinger and Malin caution that a year's worth of data does not reveal when this erosion began or how long it will continue. Yet they speculate that the features could have been created in a Mars' decade and may erode away completely within one to two decades.

"We know that the pits we see at the surface today are not very old, and that they will not last very long," Malin said.

Water or not?

The rate of erosion suggests the features are made of moderately dense but solid carbon dioxide, rather than water ice, the scientists conclude. But that does not preclude the possibility of water ice at the south pole.

"We don't know what's underneath," Caplinger said. "You could certainly have water ice under carbon dioxide."

He said the only way to find out is to go there and drill down.

The newly observed melting, if it is part of a trend, could pump enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mars to increase its mass by 1 percent per decade, the scientists said. Already, the atmosphere of Mars is roughly 95 percent carbon dioxide.

Caplinger said no one knows for sure what effect the extra carbon dioxide might have on the climate. "Not much," he figures.

But he said many scientists assume that Mars undergoes climate change. Photos of the surface suggest water may once have flowed on Mars, implying that it would have been warmer. And Earth's ice ages offer the lesson that change is inherent in a climate.

New era of study

Despite more than three decades of Red Planet exploration, scientists are still relatively clueless about the climate of Mars, said Paige, the UCLA researcher. Continuous or recurring observations have typically been confined to short time periods.

The two new studies herald a change, Paige said. And expect more.

Mars Global Surveyor is not done studying Mars, and the recently arrived Odyssey orbiter will begin science observations early next year. Other satellites and surface probes are planned every couple of years over the next decade.

"We're moving toward a situation where we'll have a permanent spacecraft presence on Mars," Paige said.


web page

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED BECAUSE OF SNOW/ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

web page

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

DC WEATHER REPORT:

Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning...then a chance of snow in the afternoon. Ice accumulation of less than one quarter of an inch. Highs in the mid 30s. Northwest winds around 20 mph. Chance of precipitation 80 percent.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.

web page

The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"[1] which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases are released by activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, and agriculture. Other phenomena such as solar variation have had smaller but non-negligible effects on global temperature trends since 1950.[2]

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




"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."[2]

"The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced."[3]

"On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues."[4]

[edit] Joint science academies’ statement

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [5], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.

[edit] US National Research Council, 2001

In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [6]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the science community:

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [7]

[edit] American Meteorological Society

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. [8]

[edit] Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006

On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone) [9]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic in nature.

[edit] Other organizations

Other scientific organizations have made position statements on climate change.

* American Geophysical Union position statement on greenhouse gases and climate change (also endorsed by the American Institute of Physics[10])
* Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001).
* Joint statement on the Science of Climate Change, issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).
* A position paper of the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London.
* Position Statement on Global Climate Change adopted by the Geological Society of America
* Policy Statement on Climate Variability and Change by the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
* Australian Medical Association statement on climate change
* American Chemical Society statement on Global Climate Change

The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.[11]

[edit] Recent Surveys of scientists

Various surveys have been conducted to determine a scientific consensus on global warming. Few have been conducted within the last ten years.

[edit] Oreskes, 2004

In December 2004, an article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[2] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

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





Solar variation
30 years of solar variability.
30 years of solar variability.

Main article: Solar variation

Modelling studies reported in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) found that volcanic and solar forcings may account for half of the temperature variations prior to 1950, but the net effect of such natural forcings has been roughly neutral since then.[24] The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) gives a best estimate for radiative forcing from changes in solar activity of +0.12 watts per square metre. This is less than half of the estimate given in the TAR. For comparison the combined effects of all human activity are estimated to be an order of magnitude greater at +1.6 watts per square metre[1]

Some researchers (e.g. Stott et al. 2003)[25] believe that the effect of solar forcing is being underestimated and propose that solar forcing accounts for 16% or 36% of recent greenhouse warming. Others (e.g. Marsh and Svensmark 2000)[26] have proposed that feedback from clouds or other processes enhance the direct effect of solar variation, which if true would also suggest that the effect of solar variability was being underestimated. In general, the IPCC describes the level of scientific understanding of the contribution of variations in solar irradiance to historical climate changes as "low."[1]

The present level of solar activity is historically high. Solanki et al. (2004) suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years; Muscheler et al. disagree, suggesting that other comparably high levels of activity have occurred several times in the last few thousand years.[27] Solanki concluded based on their analysis that there is a 92% probability that solar activity will decrease over the next 50 years. In addition, researchers at Duke University (2005) have found that 10–30% of the warming over the last two decades may be due to increased solar output.[28] In a review of existing literature, Foukal et al. (2006) determined both that the variations in solar output were too small to have contributed appreciably to global warming since the mid-1970s and that there was no evidence of a net increase in brightness during this period.[29]

Some scientists assert that a warming of the stratosphere, which has not been observed, would be expected if there were a significant increase in solar activity.[30] AR4 asserts with 90% confidence that observed tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is due to the combined influences of greenhouse gas increases and stratospheric ozone depletion.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Solar_variation




Explaination for extra snow:

An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including a rising sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation.

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


http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/images/PrecipVertical.jpg


http://www.unlv.edu/Climate_Change_Research/MGCF/rainchange.gif



http://thebluestate.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/picchart063006globalwarming2.gif
http://thebluestate.typepad.com/my_weblog/al_gore/index.html

Even Bush admits there are things we can do about climate change:

Administration Shifts on Global Warming

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 27, 2004; Page A19

A Bush administration report suggests that evidence of global warming has begun to affect animal and plant populations in visible ways, and that rising temperatures in North America are due in part to human activity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37232-2004Aug26.html

Your manipulated fake U.N. hockey stick climate chart has already been exposed as propaganda! Look who is re posting it.

Quote:

---

The Blue State, Reality Based political Analysis of News, Elections and Strategy---> Rolling Stone wants former Vice President Al Gore to make a run at the presidency in 2008.

---

David, are you trying to get the inventer of the internet, Al Gore elected?



Experts question theory on global warming

Anil Anand

New Delhi, February 11, 2007



Believe it or not. There are only about a dozen scientists working on 9,575 glaciers in India under the aegis of the Geological Society of India. Is the available data enough to believe that the glaciers are retreating due to global warming?

Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.

He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and not on the spot research.

Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.

It is simple. The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few individuals, the septuagenarian Raina claimed. Throwing a gauntlet to the alarmist, he said the issue should be debated threadbare before drawing a conclusion.

However, Dr RK Pachouri, Chairman, Inter-Governmental Panel of Climatic Change said it’s recently released fourth assessment report has recorded increased glacier retreat since the 1980s.

This he said was due to the fact that the carbon dioxide radioactive forcing has increased by 20 per cent particularly after 1995. And also that 11 of the last 12 years were among the warmest 12 years recorded so far.

Surprisingly, Raina, who has been associated with the research and data collection in over 25 glaciers in India and abroad, debunked the theory that Gangotri glacier is retreating alarmingly.

Maintaining that the glaciers are undergoing natural changes, witnessed periodically, he said recent studies in the Gangotri and Zanskar areas (Drung- Drung, Kagriz glaciers) have not shown any evidence of major retreat.

"Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," Raina, a trained mountaineer and skiing expert said. He rued that not much is being done by the Government to create a bank of trained geologists for an in-depth study of glaciers.

The agencies such as the GSI are not getting fresh talent simply because of the measly salaries offered by the Government.

Consider this. During one of his visits to Antarctic, to his utter dismay, Raina discovered that the cook of a Japanese team was getting a bigger pay packet than him.

If he is to be believed, currently only about a dozen scientists are working on Indian glaciers. More alarming is the fact that some of them are above 50. How can one talk about the state of glaciers when not much research is being done on the ground, he wondered.

In fact, it is difficult to ascertain the exact state of Himalayan glaciers as these are very dusty as compared to the ones in Alaska and the Alps. The present presumptions are based on the cosmatic study of the glacier surfaces.

Nobody knows what is happening beneath the glaciers. What ever is being flaunted about the under surface activity of the glaciers, is merely presumptions, he claimed.

His views were echoed by Dr RK Ganjoo, Director, Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research on Himalayan Glaciology, who is supervising study of glaciers in Ladakh region including one in the Siachen area. He also maintained that nothing abnormal has been found in any of the Himalyan glaciers studied so far by him.

Still, he wondered on the Himalayan glaciers being compared with those in Alaska or Europe to lend credence to the melt theory. Indian glaciers are at 3,500-4,000 meter above the sea level whereas those in the Alps are at much lower levels. Certainly, the conditions under which the glaciers in Alaska are retreating, are not prevailing in the Indian sub-continent, he explained.

Another leading geologist MN Koul of Jammu University, who is actively engaged in studying glacier dynamics in J&K and Himachal holds similar views. Referring to his research on Kol glacier ( Paddar, J&K) and Naradu (HP), he said both the glaciers have not changed much in the past two decades.




web page

Why are those who expose the "hockey stick" data all far-rightwing journalists and not scientists?

And just because India's glaciers arn't melting yet, that doesn't explain all the other melting:


http://images.wri.org/climatescience_carroll_glacier_before.jpg


http://images.wri.org/climatescience_carroll_glacier_after.jpg


There's even some evidence to suggest that India's glaciers ARE melting:


http://images.wikia.com/sca21/images/5/5b/Glacial_lakes%2C_Bhutan2.jpg

This image shows the termini of the glaciers in the Bhutan-Himalaya. Glacial lakes have been rapidly forming on the surface of the debris-covered glaciers in this region during the last few decades. Researchers have found a strong correlation between increasing temperatures and glacial retreat in this region.
http://sca21.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Glacial_lakes%2C_Bhutan2.jpg



Everest climbers call for urgent action
on global warming

Watch movie >

The youngest and fastest men to climb Everest have called on UNESCO to place Sagarmatha National Park on the World Heritage Danger List because of the rapid impacts of climate change on the region.
Global warming: Temba Tsheri Sherpa - youngest man to climb Everest

Temba Tsheri Sherpa on Everest

Temba Tsheri Sherpa and Pemba Dorjee Sherpa warn that unless urgent action is taken, many Himalayan lakes could burst, threatening the lives of thousands and destroying an irreplaceable environment.

Pro Public (Friends of the Earth Nepal) and the record-breaking Nepalese climbers delivered their petition in Paris on 18th November. Petitioners include Sir David Attenborough and Sir Chris Bonington.
Open quotation on global warming

Mount Everest is a powerful symbol of the natural world, not just in Nepal. If this mountain is threatened by climate change, then we know the situation is deadly serious. If we fail to act, we are failing future generations.
Global warming close quotation

Prakash Sharma,
Director of Pro Public
How will climate change hit the Himalaya?

The melting of Himalayan glaciers as a result of climate change has swollen the Himalayan lakes, increasing the risk of catastrophic flooding.

/campaigns/climate/videos/safeguarding_sagarmatha.mpg

Watch movie:
4 mins (4.5MB - MPEG format)

There is wide agreement that many lakes are at risk, but a lack of monitoring limits realistic assessments of how close they are to bursting.

Putting Everest National Park on the Danger List would mean UNESCO would have to assess Nepal's glacial lakes and stabilise those most at risk.
Image of quote mark

Everest is the pride of the nation, but more than this, it is a gift to the world. Lake Tsho-Ipa has formed near the area where I come from. Local people live in fear that the lake will burst.
Image of quote mark

Temba Tsheri Sherpa
who in 2001, aged 16 was
the youngest to climb Everest
Watch Safeguarding Sagarmatha

Image of Mark New, Climatologist, Oxford University - follow link to watch movieSee the full story behind the global warming threat to the Himalaya, featuring interviews with climate scientists and opinion formers.

Watch movie>
4 mins (4.5MB - MPEG format)

For more on the battle to save Everest visit - Climate Law
Press for change

* Ask the Culture Minister to save Everest
The UK Culture Minister - Tessa Jowell - is on the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. Ask her to convince other members to protect Everest.

http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/news/everest_climbers.html

Mr hand if you are right and there is no warming then at worst acting as if there is will clean the air we breathe. Which most DR.S will say is a good thing. And much like the movement to put scrubbers on smoke stacks[ that everyone said would ruin our economy and was found to only cost a tenth of what people said it would] this will end up providing new jobs etc.
But if you are wrong[ I think you are] and we do nothing it will end up costing hundreds of thousands of lives and costing trillions of dollars to fix later.
Even if you're right you appear to be foolish with this stand because of the risk you are willing to take to save big oil.