On Mar 25, 8:52 pm, "0Z0BN" wrote:
OnTheWeb: Bob Carter

March 25, 2008

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2352

QUOTE: "To avoid acknowledging the recent flat-lining of global
temperature,

Considering 2005 is the hottest year ever, when did it flat-line?

IPCC alarmists have another favourite pea and thimble - or
is it elephant and circus tent - trick, which is to assert some
variation on the statement that "eleven of the last twelve years
(1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental
record". Given the cyclicity of the climate record, and that the planet
is probably now poised near the peak of an ascending temperature cycle,
this statement is no more useful than observing that over an annual
cycle the hottest days each year cluster around midsummer's day. "

UN climate body in panic mode as satellite temperatures turn down and a
hard winter lashes both hemispheres


Satellites show the same warming as other measurements.

A soprano thrillingly hits her top-A, sighs with relief at achieving the
desired effect, and moves on. But not the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) whose climate alarmism started to crescendo in
2001 in the Third Assessment Report (3AR) with the statement that "most
of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely (66% probable)
to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".

Recently, in their Fourth Assessment Report (4AR), and faced with their
failure to convince the public that the sky is falling,

Really? They've convinced every government leader.

the IPCC
delivers even more preposterous advice in ever shriller tones, saying
that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since
the mid-20th century is very likely (90% probable) due to the observed
increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".

The wobble around top-A is clearly discernible.

The press, most of whom have firmly identified with the alarmist cause,

You know, they identify with the "earth not flat" cause too.

continues to appease the Green gods by faithfully running IPCC's now
unrealistic scientific propaganda,

OK, lie time.

thereby stoking public alarm; the
science is a done deal, they say, and the time has come to stop talking.
According to UK journalist, Geoffrey Lean, all that is lacking to solve
the global warming "crisis" is political will from governments.

Well, thank the Lord for that lack. For the IPCC's 2007 final Summary
for Policymakers shows that the climate alarmists are at last on the
run.

Does that mean any day now, you'll provide one scientific group or
body which agrees with you, as I've challenged you to do for months?

Their evidence for dangerous, human-caused global warming, always
slim, now lies exposed in tatters for all to see.

In contrast, the alternative, persuasive and non-alarmist view of
climate change is well summarized in two recently issued and readily
available documents.

The first is a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations,
which was released at the UN's Bali conference last December, supported
by the signatures of 103 eminent professional persons.


Lie.

The second is the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, the release
of which coincided with the launch of the International Climate Science
Coalition at a major climate rationalist conference in New York in early
March.


Lie.

The evidence for dangerous global warming adduced by the IPCC has never
been strong on empirical science.

Lie.

Endless circumstantial scare campaigns
have been run about melting glaciers, more droughts and storms and
floods, sea-level rise and polar bears, but all founder on one
inescapable problem - as does Mr. Al Gore's over-hyped science fiction
film. And that is that we live on a naturally variable planet. Change is
what planet Earth does on all scales, and so far not one of the alleged
effects of human-caused global warming has been shown to lie outside
normal planetary variation. Sea-level rising? Sure, it happens. And the
appropriate response is adaptation, as the Dutch have known for
centuries.

Stuck with the absence of empirical evidence for dangerous warming or
abnormal change, in 2001 the IPCC turned to graphmanship, giving
prominence in its 3AR to the so-called "hockey-stick" record of
temperature over the last 1000 years. The hockey-stick graphic, which
appeared to show dramatic increases of temperature during the 20th
century compared with earlier times, has now been exposed as statistical
chicanery and, thankfully, is nowhere to be seen in the 4AR.


Total lie.

No hockey-stick and no empirical evidence, what is a man to do? Well,
obviously, turn to virtual reality rather than real reality: PlayStation
4 here we come.

The IPCC's expensive and complex computer models can be programmed to
produce any desired result, and it is therefore not surprising that they
uniformly predict warming since 1990. Meanwhile, the real-world global
average temperature has stubbornly refused to obey this stricture. It
exhibits no significant increase since 1998,

Lie.

and the preliminary 2007
year-end temperature confirms the continuation of a temperature plateau
since 1998 to which is now appended a cooling trend over the last 3
years.


2005 was the hottest.

GRAPH:

Is global cooling next?

"Best fit" of yearly average temperature

Lower atmosphere global temperature differences (0C) from 1979 - 1998
average

"Global warming theory indicates that temperature rise due to increasing
carbon dioxide emissions should be most prominent at heights of 5-10 km
in the lower atmosphere; instead, more warming is occurring at the
surface. For the lower atmosphere, the satellite data indicate that,
since the 1998 El Nino when temperatures spiked 1C due to a rise in
water vapour emissions (the principal "greenhouse gas"), global
temperatures dropped sharply, then stabilized and now show signs of
continuing down - is global cooling next? (data courtesy of Professors
John Christy and Roy Spencer, University of Alabama, Huntsville; a
best-fitted spline curve represents longer term temperature trends)."


Satellites agree with other measurements.

That there is a mismatch between model prediction and 2007 climate
reality is again unsurprising. For as IPCC senior scientist Kevin
Trenberth noted recently: ". . . there are no (climate) predictions by
IPCC at all. And there never have been"; instead there are only "what
if" projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions
scenarios. Trenberth continues, "None of the models used by IPCC is
initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the
models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate".

Knowing that their models are non-predictive and that despite their
exhortations world temperature isn't currently increasing,

2 lies.