An Independent Analysis of Global Warming by a Nuclear Physicist

[웃 910]

I was doing some Facebook exploring and came across a "ClimateGate Fraud" group. Went into one of the random discussions and came across this post:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My independent analysis of the GW issue has shown that what the UN IPCC has concluded about man-made GW is false. Their conclusions are based on bad science. The science behind GW is far from settled. We should not be

committing trillions of $ to controlling CO2 emissions without having the science behind GW agreed to by more climate scientists. That is not true today. See my report at www.osta.com/gw for the details.

Dr. Heinz Lycklama

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I visited his site and extracted his research below. Seems not every scientist believes in GW but I'm sure Dr. Heinz Lycklama is an unqualified RWN that doesn't know what he is talking about.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Independent Analysis of Global Warming

by Heinz Lycklama, PhD in Nuclear Physics

To: UN IPCC Committee

From: Dr. Heinz Lycklama (PhD in Nuclear Physics, McMaster University)

Date: May 4, 2009 [Updated June 5, Sep. 14 & Dec. 1, 2009]

Subject: Analysis of the Global Warming Issue

Earlier this year I started to look into the issue of Global Warming (GW) and attempt to understand why the issue had become such a controversial one. The general public has become attuned to the issue of GW and I (as an independent scientist) wanted to do my part in educating the public on the underlying science so that good public policy would be established. I assumed that science should be able to show the extent of GW and determine whether GW is due to man-made causes or to natural causes. Once we get the science right we would then know how to deal with GW. It turns out that things are a lot more complicated and unsettled than I thought they were. So I dug into the science behind GW much more thoroughly.

Although I have addressed this memo to the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), my findings, conclusions and suggestions are meant for all scientists actively involved in the study of climate change. It is my sincere hope that all interested parties will take my comments seriously in order to resolve the confusion that exists in the science behind GW so that policy makers and politicians have the most recent and accurate information available about the extent and causes of GW. That way the policy makers might in turn recommend reasonable solutions to the perceived problem of GW. IPCC's continued involvement in fostering international public policy is important. Input from climate scientists not involved in the IPCC is also important.

I have read the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) and related documents. The IPCC AR4 report makes these statements:

• · 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.
• Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.

The report makes the assumption that the recent GW trend observed over the last 25-30 years is likely based on increased greenhouse (GH) gases and that this GW trend is likely to continue during this century. However, the assumption and prediction do not agree with the Global Cooling (GC) cycle that some climate scientists have observed/predicted that we now appear to be entering.

My research led me to a report put together by a group of climate scientists who identify themselves as the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), as well as the U.S. Senate Minority Report in which more than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made GW claims. I have also discovered a large number of other technical papers in the field of climatology that show the extent and the causes of GW to be different from what the IPCC report concludes. Many of my key reference documents are listed at the end of this report.

I have reviewed the NIPCC report "Summary for Policymakers" document, as well as some of the technical papers presented at the recent International Climate Change Conference held in NYC in March 2009. This in turn led me to many other dissenting opinions on the extent and possible causes of GW. Most of the non-IPCC technical papers conclude that GW is largely due to natural cyclical causes, and not due to anthropogenic causes. If we include the more than 31,000 scientists who have signed the Global Warming Petition Project, we have thousands of scientists who believe that the recent GW trend is due primarily to natural causes, with little impact by man-made causes, as the tens of scientists involved in IPCC believe. This is not consensus.

To me the key issues/questions to be resolved (as an independent scientist) are:

1. Has there been a GW trend in the recent past?

2. Is GW due to anthropogenic causes, e.g. carbon dioxide (CO2)?

3. Is GW due to natural causes?

4. Do we need to do something about GW immediately?

5. Is the recommended solution for GW based on good science?

6. Who is hurt by the recommended GW solution?

7. What conclusions can we draw from the analysis?

8. What should the GW community do next?

My findings and the basis of my conclusions are summarized in the sections below, with points in each section listed in no particular order. Section 8 of this report offers some suggestions on how the climate change community might reach a consensus on the remaining open issues. We need to diagnose the cause(s) of the perceived GW problem correctly before recommending a solution. Otherwise the "cure" may be worse than the "disease."

Updates, June 5/Sep. 14, 2009 – The major reason for this update is the publication of the 868-page NIPCC document called "Climate Change Reconsidered" by the Heartland Institute (www.heartland.org) on June 2, 2009. The document was coauthored by Craig Idso, founder and chairman of the Center for the Study of CO2 and Global Change (www.co2science.org) and Fred Singer, founder and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (www.sepp.org.) Thirty-five scientists have made contributions and reviewed this very impressive document. The NIPCC report provides a very comprehensive critique of the errors and omissions in the IPCC report. Numerous references are provided to the scientific literature supporting the findings of the NIPCC report as summarized in the Executive Summary at the beginning of the report. New references are added below. I have reviewed the key findings of the new NIPCC report as summarized in the Executive Summary section and find that they are consistent with my findings as documented in the first 6 sections of my report. It is my hope that the IPCC will carefully consider the NIPCC findings and update the IPCC report accordingly. This will give policy makers and politicians the most recent information so that they can establish public policies based on good science.

Update, Dec. 1 '09 - ClimateGate scandal confirms my worst suspicions as a scientist.

[Please make special note of References 57, 63, 68, & 72-74 listed at the end of this report.]

1.0 Has there been a GW trend in the recent past? Yes, a warming trend appears to have occurred over the last 130 years or so, from about 1880 AD on. The increase in average global temperature over this period appears to have been about 0.7 degrees Centigrade. Not all scientists agree on the magnitude of the increase in average global temperature, nor do they agree on the magnitude or direction of the change in average temperature predicted for the 21^st century. Here are the highlights of my findings on why there are still differences of scientific opinion on this:

• The temperature measurements used by the IPCC have been largely based on temperature gauges located on land.
• Most temperature gauges were located in the northern hemisphere.
• The predominance of temperature gauges in urban areas has biased average worldwide temperatures higher than they actually were.
• Temperature measurements by satellite do not agree with those taken by temperature measurements taken by temperature gauges on land.
• Global data from satellites does not show a GW trend since 2001, even though atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing.
• Satellite temperature measurements were initially not considered by the IPCC.
• The U.S average temperature has trended upward at about 0.5 degrees C per century over the last 130 years or so. This has included both GW and GC periods, each lasting approximately 30 years.
• The earth has experienced GW and GC periods in the last few thousand years.
• GW did occur in a medieval warm period from about 800 to 1200 AD, a period during which temperatures were higher than they are today.
• A little ice age occurred from about 1300 to 1880 AD.
• The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 30% since 1880.
• The amount of methane in the atmosphere has also increased in this period.
• Using CO2 "equivalency units" all GH gases have increased by about 60% in the period since 1880.
• IPCC predicts a warming of 0.2 degrees centigrade per decade for the next two decades based on its climate models. However, this assumes that GW increases will continue near current rates and that global cooling (GC) will not occur.
• There is no scientific consensus on the magnitude of temperature rise dependence on an increase in GH gases.
• We are now (2008) apparently entering a GC cycle that is expected to last for 15 to 25 years, based on Dilley's gravitational models [see below.]
• The Monckton report indicates that even though CO2 concentration is increasing, the average global temperature is not increasing proportionally.
• IPCC's 4^th assessment report published in 2007 has lowered the projections for the GW temperature increase and sea level rise of the earlier IPCC reports.

IPCC's projection for GW in the future is based on its climate models and assumes that the GW trend of the last 25 to 30 years will continue. The IPCC projection is at variance with projections made by the NIPCC, Easterbrook, Dilley [see below], and others.

2.0 Is GW due to anthropogenic causes, e.g. CO2? One of the key questions in the GW discussion is that of the cause of GW. It is agreed that the existence of GH gases in the atmosphere has some impact on the average global temperature. But the overriding question is – is GW anthropogenic (caused by man) or is GW controlled by natural causes? Is and will GW be harmful? Here are the highlights of my findings on this question:

• The "general consensus" is that the production of CO2 by humans burning fossil fuel is the main cause for the earth's current (the last ~150 years) GW.
• IPCC considers the following GH gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFC, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
• IPCC does not consider water vapor to be a GH gas, but the NIPCC report does.
• There is a disagreement among climate scientists over whether water vapor should be a dependent variable or an independent variable in climate models.
• NIPCC has shown that the distribution of water vapor in the atmosphere can produce strong negative feedback effects on global temperature.
• Water vapor in the atmosphere holds 93 times more atmospheric heat than the CO2 does.
• IPCC does admit that water vapor and cloud cover are sources of uncertainty in the impact on climate change.
• There are so many sources and sinks of CO2 that it is difficult to determine with any accuracy how much of the atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to anthropogenic GH emissions.
• Many climatologists consider that GH gases are comprised of a) 95% water vapor, B) 4.7% ocean biologic, volcanos, plant/animal activity, and c) 0.3% human additions such as CO2.
• The IPCC climate model considers CO2 to be the major driver of climate change, but it does not consider solar irradiation as a significant cause of climate change.
• Studies by Arthur Robinson, et. al. have shown that computer model uncertainties in ocean surface flux, north-south heat flux by motions, humidity and clouds are far greater than any CO2 effects [see below.]
• Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by natural, not manmade, causes.
• CO2 in the atmosphere has increased during most of the 20^th century at a fairly constant rate. However, we had a period of GC from 1940 to 1975 (even while CO2 concentrations increased) as well as a GW period from 1975 to the early part of this century.
• High concentrations of CO2 have been detected in the distant past without any apparent ill effects. This did not have an anthropogenic cause.
• In the past CO2 cycles have always happened in response to natural temperature cycles, even when man was not a factor in producing CO2.
• Global temperatures rose for a hundred years (~ 0.5 degrees C) before significant CO2 use by humans. There has been a steady increase in the use of CO2 by humans over the last 150 years, time that included warming periods (e.g. 1910-1940, 1972-2000) as well as a significant cooling period (e.g. 1940-1972).
• World glaciers have been retreating at a fairly steady rate for the past 200 years, well before the significant increased use of hydrocarbons by man.
• There has been a 7 inches per century sea level rise over the last 150 years, starting well before the significant increase in use of hydrocarbons by man.
• Past IPCC climate models based on anthropogenic causes for GW have not done a good job of predicting global temperatures.

The case made by the IPCC that GW is largely due to anthropogenic causes does not have wide support outside of the IPCC committee. It does not appear that human hydrocarbon use is causing significant increasing global termperatures.

3.0 Is GW due to natural causes? A number of independent studies by climate scientists have shown that GW is due to natural causes. Climatologists have identified at least the following natural causes – variations in solar output, variations in the earth's orbital characteristics and tilt, volcanic eruptions, atmosphere/ocean heat exchange, and the moon's gravitational cycles. Here are the highlights of some of these studies. The details of these studies can be found in the references listed at the end of this report.

1. The NIPCC report has concluded that climate change (GW and GC) may best be explained by natural causes due to the complex interactions between the atmosphere and oceans, and perhaps stimulated by variations of solar irradiation.

2. NIPCC has determined that internal oscillations such as North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) play a major role in climate change. These oscillations are identified as internal oscillations of the atmosphere-ocean system by the IPCC.

3. The orbital influences on climate are well documented and widely accepted, but apparently not considered by the IPCC.

4. The sun has been shown to be a much more important climate driver than the concentration of atmospheric CO2.

5. Studies by Baliunas and Jastrow, and Friis-Christensen and Lassen, have shown that solar activity indicates a strong correlation with global temperatures. The solar activity includes sunspot cycle length, changes of solar ultraviolet or of the solar wind and its magnetic effect on cosmic rays and thus on cloud coverage.

6. Some solar physicists have suggested that the sun could have caused more than two thirds of observed GW in the past.

7. Solar activity is expected to decline for the next 50 years, resulting in GC.

8. A study by Easterbrook in 2008 has shown a strong correlation between the Glacial Decadal Oscillation (GDO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean, and global temperature records. In a similar manner the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) shows that we are entering a cooling period. These correlations are unrelated to atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

9. Studies have shown a connection between PDO and cloud variations.

10. Easterbrook's climate model matches the alternate 27-year warming/cooling cycles since about 1470, and predicted the cooling cycle that we are now entering. The IPCC climate model predicted increasing temperatures looking forward in time.

11. Easterbrook's climate model indicates that global climate changes correlate well with a) changes in solar irradiance, B) number of sunspots and sunspot cycle length, and c) production of BE10 and C14 in the atmosphere from radiation.

12. According to Easterbrook's studies, there appears to be "no correlation between CO2 and GW in the past. Half of the warming in the past century occurred before CO2 began to rise sharply. For 30 years after CO2 began to soar, GC occurred, rather than GW. Of the 25 past periods of GW, only the last one (the past 30 years) corresponds to rising CO2. 96% of GW periods in the past 500 years have no correlation with CO2."

13. Meteorologist Dilley has determined that there is a very significant link between GW and the moon's recurring gravitational cycles. They also apparently explain the cooling cycle that we are now entering.

14. Dilley has identified the gravitational cycles as the Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM) for Climate.

15. Dilley has also determined that the moon's natural cycles explain the 50% increase in CO2 seen in the last 150 years, as well as over the past several thousands f years.

16. Dilley has determined that the magnitude of the current GW/CO2 cycle is due to the fact that the earth is presently at the peak of seven Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM) cycles (caused by the moon's gravitational cycles), and not due to man-made CO2 emissions since the mid 19^th century.

17. Dilley's model has about a 90% correlation with the average temperature data.

18. The "effect of sun irradiation on the ocean" model has about a 70% correlation with the average temperature data.

19. The assumption of GW caused by man-made CO2 has only about a 25% correlation with the average temperature data.

We must remember that warming does not tell us the cause of the warming, and that correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. However, we should pay attention to strong correlations that agree with postulated climate models. The natural causes of GW postulated by climate scientists need to be considered by the IPCC.

4.0 Do we need to do something about GW immediately? The science behind GW and GC cycles is still in a state of flux. The debate is not settled. Thus it is too early to recommend a "solution" to address the driving functions behind climate changes. Here are some reasons why the science is not yet considered settled and why a solution to the perceived GW problem should not be implemented hastily:

• There is nothing unusual about the recent warming period when compared with historical periods of warming. GW and GC periods have occurred throughout the last few thousands of years with more extreme temperature changes than we have measured today.
• The last GC period ending in the 1970's resulted in a GC scare.
• The IPCC study involved 52 scientists, not all of them climate scientists. The final IPCC reports were written by consensus among UN policy makers from many different countries, sometimes publishing results that were not approved by the IPCC scientists involved in the climate studies.
• The NIPCC report expresses significant variances from the IPCC report.
• More than 700 international scientists have expressed dissent in the U.S. Senate Minority Report over the man-made GW claims made in the IPCC report.
• More than 31,000 scientists have signed a GW Petition that expresses strong disagreement with the conclusions drawn in the final IPCC report.
• Meteorologist Dilley has put out a report based on 19 years of investigation that identifies the natural driving functions responsible for climate changes.
• Dilley's models predict GC from 2008 to 2014, again from 2020 to 2025, with the coldest point being reached in 2050.
• Grant money to fund climate studies has overwhelmingly been made available to groups that are sympathetic to anthropogenic causes (e.g. burning of fossil fuels) for GW.
• A number of developed nations agreed to reduce CO2 emissions by a certain percentage according to the Kyoto Protocol adopted in 1997. None of these nations came anywhere close to meeting their goals. More aggressive goals are not likely to be met in the future.
• If the Kyoto Protocol were implemented and successful, GW would only be reduced by 0.07 degrees C by 2050.
• There is no scientific consensus that somewhat larger concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are harmful. Some researchers have shown that increased CO2 has been beneficial for agriculture and to have economic benefits.
• Major discrepancies still exist between temperature measurements and computer climate change models. Existing climate change models do not explain many climate observations.
• The IPCC's past predictions for future catastrophic consequences of GW have not come to pass since the IPCC climate models were inadequate.
• The IPCC's prediction of a large temperature increase by the year 2100 is not based on credible climate models.
• Al Gore has hijacked the good work of IPCC scientists and become an alarmist when it comes to GW. His movie "An Inconvenient Truth" has received wide publicity, but it has been shown to contain falsehoods. In October 2007 the High Court in London identified nine significant "errors" in his movie. Lord Christopher Monckton also wrote a paper pointing out "35 Inconvenient Truths" (errors and exaggerations) in Gore's movie. The movie has done a great disservice to getting the truth out about the extent and causes of GW and the likely impacts that we can expect in the future.
• Al Gore has declared the GW debate over. This is a red flag when it comes to good science. If the debate were indeed over, Gore would be willing to debate protagonists, be able to articulate the causes for GW, and achieve general agreement from a majority of climate scientists – this has not happened.
• We do not understand the costs of implementing the "consensus" GW solution. When asked to address this issue, Al Gore refuses. It is imperative that the economic costs of any solution be addressed and understood.
• A recent poll indicates that GW ranks only 20^th in a list of 20 major issues when prioritized by participants in the poll.

The IPCC report recommends a solution that assumes that GW is primarily due to anthropogenic causes, especially the emission of CO2. In contradiction, the NIPCC report concludes that there is no convincing evidence or observations of significant GW from other than natural causes. It appears the IPCC committee did not adequately consider the "second opinion" put forth by climate scientists outside of the IPCC "peer group" in drawing their conclusions and making their recommendations.

The recommended IPCC "consensus" GW solution involves:

• Reducing CO2 emissions by 80% by the year 2050.
• Establishing a cap-and-trade system to regulate conformance to the goals.

A number of analyses have been performed by different scientific groups to determine the probable causes of climate change, both anthropogenic and natural. We need to consider all of these analyses before drawing conclusions and determining what the best solution is for controlling the emission of GH gases, if indeed that is required. Implementing a solution for the perceived problem of GW before there is a strong consensus on the cause(s) of GW can do more harm than good.

5.0 Is the "consensus" GW solution based on good science? It is my understanding the IPCC reports were put together by 52 or more scientists plus additional policy makers selected from UN member countries. The final versions of the IPCC reports were edited by UN policy makers who apparently did not seek approval for technical changes from the scientists who provided the information for the reports. Some of these UN scientists have since disassociated themselves from the final reports and asked their names to be removed from these reports. The resulting IPCC reports have apparently not received wide support from the climate science community for the following reasons:

1. The climate model used by the IPCC assumes that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of GW.

2. The IPCC reports lack the approval of some of the IPCC scientists who provided input for them, nor did they include minority reports to outline the areas of disagreement.

3. NIPCC input was not adequately considered or rebutted. NIPCC concluded that GW is controlled by natural causes and that GH gases do not play a significant role in GW.

4. Satellite data was not adequately considered in measuring average global temperatures.

5. Solar irradiation was not considered as a cause of climate change.

6. Various well-known long-term and short-term gravitational cycles controlled by the orbits of the moon were not considered as a cause of climate change.

7. The "hockey-stick" graph included in early IPCC reports was based on an inaccurate climate model. The publication and subsequent withdrawal of this graph did not help the credibility of the IPCC.

8. The IPCC reports appear to be designed to show support for anthropogenic GW, and finding evidence of a human role in climate change, without scientific rebuttal to data that show otherwise.

• The NIPCC report expresses significant variances from the IPCC report.

10. More than 700 international scientists have refuted the last IPCC report in the U.S. Senate Minority Report.

11. Dissent about the IPCC reports and the resulting Kyoto Protocol are expressed by more than 31,000 scientists who signed a GW Petition put out by the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine.

12. The IPCC reports are apparently driven by a political agenda to find evidence for human causes for climate change.

13. Peer review has apparently been done by a select group of like-minded peers.

14. IPCC appears to be organized as "a government entity beholden to political agendas."

15. Research grants have apparently predominantly gone to scientists and policy makers who are willing to support IPCC's agenda.

16. Many IPCC reports have been controversial and their conclusions contradicted by subsequent research.

17. Most studies by climate scientists show that atmospheric man-made CO2 is not a significant cause of GW.

18. Reducing emissions of some GH gases to control pollution is important, but many climate scientists do not believe that this will not have a significant impact on the global climate.

19. Environmentalists have warned of a potential for a global catastrophe in the late 1970's based on the GC that was occurring in the previous 25-30 years. This did not occur.

Climate scientists need to reach a much higher degree of consensus on the cause(s) of GW before the science underlying GW can be considered settled. For example, further analysis is required to determine the impact of GH gases such as water vapor on the global climate.

6.0 Who is hurt by the "consensus" GW solution? There is no such thing as a "free lunch." The current recommended solution is so expensive for so little gain that it will significantly increase the cost of all energy products. This will impact the following:

• The poor – Poor people can barely afford the cost of fuel today. An added cap-and-trade tax will increase the cost of fuel beyond their ability to pay.
• Energy consumers – All energy consumers would pay extra for the additional costs of uneconomical energy solutions whose use would be mandated by government regulation.
• Third world countries – Many countries in Africa are currently not allowed to build electrical plants, especially those using coal as a fuel source, because of the impact on the environment. Extra taxes will make it impossible for them to better their economic situation.
• Developed nations (and their citizens) who sign up for limiting CO2 emissions would likely experience slower economic growth and lose their competitive edge in the short term. This would likely result in certain industries and/or jobs moving off shore. The prosperity of these nations would suffer.
• Oil exporting countries would pay higher taxes under any cap-and-trade program.
• The world economic growth rate would likely be slower under any ill-conceived GW programs.
• The political backlash from an ill-conceived GW program would be immense and result in undermining any public support that a sound GW program might have.

7.0 What conclusions can we draw from the analysis? As the result of my reading and analysis, the major conclusions that I draw from my analysis of the issue are as follows:

1. The extent of the GW phenomena does not appear to be as great as has been presented to the public by the IPCC and the popular media.

2. The number of dissenting climate scientists is greater, by at least an order of magnitude, than the number of climate scientists who have contributed to the IPCC report. The number of dissenters is far too large to ignore.

3. The IPCC seems to have focused on the last 25 to 30 years during which a GW cycle has been observed. IPCC appears to have based its predictions of increased GW for the next century on the continuation of the recent GW trend, and ignoring prior trends in global temperatures, both warming and cooling.

4. Many climate scientists have determined that we are now entering a 25 to 30 year GC period, and not a period of GW.

5. The science behind GW is not well understood and is far from settled.

6. The economic and people costs of any proposed GW solution are not well researched or understood.

7. GW appears to be largely due to natural causes, with possibly minor contributions from man-made causes.

8. Technical contributions from hundreds of climate scientists outside of the IPCC have not been adequately considered by the IPCC in determining the extent or causes of GW.

9. Any extensive and costly action to control GW is premature because of significantly different opinions offered by different groups of climate scientists.

10. Deception, the unbalanced use of scientific data, and exaggeration by certain policy makers and politicians have damaged the credibility of the good work done by IPCC scientists.

11. Climate scientists need to regroup and be more inclusive of research done by climate scientists with opposing viewpoints in order to develop a true scientific consensus on the extent and cause(s) of GW.

8.0 What should the GW community do next? We need to recognize that the global climate is constantly changing; it always has and it always will. There are many open questions for which climate scientists do not yet have good answers. Here are my suggestions:

• Recognize that the science of climate change is far from settled and that the scientific debate that can lead to better consensus is not over.
• Separate the issue of pollution from that of GW. Most scientists agree on the major contributors to pollution and the need to control the emission of those pollutants.
• Separate the green/renewable energy issue from that of GW. We need to promote green energy solutions (such as solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal) as they become economically viable anyway. That is just being a good steward of the earth's resources.
• There is no agreement yet on what the key drivers behind GW are, and whether there is a need to control these drivers, i.e. are man-made causes significant enough contributors to warrant costly remedial programs at this time?
• Develop a list of significant open issues in the field of climatology that need to be resolved in order to develop a true "consensus" GW solution, if indeed a solution is required. This will benefit the research funding agencies.
• Include both IPCC and NIPCC scientists in the "peer group" of climate scientists so that all scientific analyses and results are adequately considered.
• Provide grants/funds for climate researchers with opposing viewpoints.
• Develop credible climate models that accurately reflect the temperature measurements over the last few hundred years so that predictions of future climate changes have much greater credibility.
• Perform a cost benefit analysis of any proposed solution.
• Use common sense and take politics out of the determination of optimum climate change programs, if any should be required.

It is my sincere hope that my suggestions will be helpful to the members of the IPCC committee (including all climate scientists) in drafting future IPCC reports that end up having much greater credibility and that result in the implementation of effective and economical public policies that benefit all mankind. Thanks for your consideration.

Footnote: Climate scientists should pay special attention to the last finding documented by the NIPCC on page 8 of the Executive Summary in their report "Climate Change Reconsidered":

"There can be little doubt that ethanol mandates and subsidies have made both food and energy more, not less, expensive and therefore less available to a growing population. The extensive damage to natural ecosystems already caused by this poor policy decision, and the much greater destruction yet to come, are a high price to pay for refusing to understand and utilize the true

science of climate change."

Let's make sure that we use good science in establishing public policies related to climate change!

Heinz Lycklama can be reached at:

Dr. Heinz Lycklama

Open Systems Technology Associates

17818 Oxford Dr.

Arlington, WA 98223

Ph/Fx: 360-403-7445

Email: heinz@osta.com

URL: www.osta.com

References [Updated December 11, 2009]-

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change - Wikipedia writeup on "Climate Change."

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming - Wikipedia writeup on "Global Warming."

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernme..._Climate_Change - Wikipedia writeup on IPCC.

4. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Causes_of_climate_change - The Encyclopedia of Earth article on "Causes of Climate Change."

5. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/a...ar4-wg1-spm.pdf - Report of WG1 of IPCC, Summary for Policymakers – 2007.

6. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/wg1-report-2007-02.pdf - PowerPoint presentation on the Physical Science Basis for Climate Change.

7. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/a.../ar4-wg1-ts.pdf - Technical Summary Report of WG1 of IPCC.

8. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html - U. S. EPA article on "Past Climate Change."

9. http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf - IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 2007 Analysis and Summary, February 2007, by Lord Christopher Monckton.

10. http://climatecongress.ku.dk/presentations - Presentations made at the Climate Change Conference held in Copenhagen, March 10-12, 2009.

11. http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork08/proceedings.html - The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change held in NYC, March 2-4, 2008.

12. http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html# - International Climate Change Conference held in NYC – March 8-10, 2009.

13. http://www.heartland.org/events/WashingtonDC09/index.html - Third International Conference on Climate Change held in Washington, DC, June 2, 2009.

14. http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_poli...t/pdf/22835.pdf - Heartland 2008 Report (50 pages) on "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate" [summary for Policymakers of the 2008 Report of the NIPCC.]

15. http://www.heartland.org/books/NIPCCFulltoc.html - Climate Change Reconsidered: Outline of NIPCC Report expected in May 2009.

16. http://www.nipccreport.org/ - Climate Change Reconsidered: The (868 page) Report of the NIPCC, published on June 2, 2009.

17. http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2009...pcc-2009-report - Summary of the NIPCC Report Findings and Conclusions, published on June 3, 2009.

18. http://www.sepp.org/ - Science & Environmental Policy Project.

19. http://www.sepp.org/publications/GWbooklet/withfigures.html - The Scientific Case Against The Global Climate Treaty by Fred Singer, July 1999.

20. http://www.sepp.org/publications/Kyoto%20n...-May%202002.doc - The Kyoto Protocol is not backed by Science, May 2002.

21. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...0B-BD9FAF4DCDB7 - U.S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.

22. http://www.petitionproject.org/ - GlobalWarming Petition Project, signed by more than 31,000 scientists.

23. www.co2science.org - Craig Idso's website on CO2 Science.

24. http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming - Global Warming Science.

25. http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_S...iedNutshell.htm - Global Warming - the Short Version of Why the Anthropogenic CO2 Theory is Wrong.

26. http://www.climatescienceinternational.org...7&Itemid=54 - International Climate Science Coalition, The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change.

27. http://www.climatescienceinternational.org - Website for International Climate Science Coalition.

28. http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com - Global Warming Clearinghouse with references to key reports, articles, papers and blogs with the latest information available on Global Warming.

29. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=10783 - Don Easterbrook article on "Global Cooling is Here," 11/2/08.

30. http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20090416/bs_.../prweb2329394_2 - Web Article on Natural GW/GC (global cooling) cycles, 4/16/09.

31. http://www.globalweathercycles.com/ - Global Weather Cycles eBook by Meteorologist David Dilley.

32. http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm - The Myth of Global Warming.

33. http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/cycles/fig8.htm - Global Temperature Anomalies (1979-2002).

34. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSzItt6h-s - The Great Global Warming Swindle – Produced by WAGTV.

35.

- Global Warming Hoax.

36. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html - The Global Warming Scam.

37. http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html - The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam.

38.

- Al Gore Debates Global Warming.

39.

- Climate Change – Is CO2 the Cause?

40.

- Evidence CO2 does not cause dangerous Global warming.

41. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_...o_thermometers/ - Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? A tale of two thermometers, Steven Goddard, posted in Science, 5/2/08.

42. http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/...iew_OISM300.pdf - Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Arthur Robinson, et. al., 2007.

43. http://www.discovery.org/v/30 - The Global Warming Myth – Dr. Noah Robinson, Telecosm 2007.

44. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html - Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System.

45. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages...l#anchor2108263 - Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective.

46. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/200...omo_code=35F1-1 - Canadian Professor: Prepare for Global Cooling.

47. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, Christopher C. Horner, 2007.

48. http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/PAS.htm - Position of the Geological Science Committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences on the Threat of Global Warming.

49. http://www.climatecooling.org - Global Climate Cooling Facts.

50. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/janu...-past-12-months - January 2008, 4 sources say "globally cooler" in the past 12 months.

51. http://www.metro.us/us/comic.xml?path=%2fu...000000508d:16fe - Global cooling (shown in four data sets).

52. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html - Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System.

53. http://video.newsmax.com/?bcpid=2097246000...omo_code=8009-1 - Interview with Dr. William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University on "Global Warming Not Our Biggest Problem."

54. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/...-background.pdf - Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data, Ross McKitrick and Patrick Michaels.

55. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/global...a-simple-model/ - Global Warming Causing CO2 Increases: A Simple Model, Roy Spencer.

56. http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?opti...71&Itemid=1 - Mankind has an insignificant impact on the climate of planet earth, Jay Lehr, Ph.D., Science Director of the Heartland Institute, USA.

57. http://www.sydneyminingclub.org/presentati...mer/player.html - Human-Induced Climate Change: A Load of Hot Air - Professor Ian Plimer.

58. http://joannenova.com.au - The Skepitcs Handbook on Global Warming, written by Joanne Nova, former believer in GHG, 2009.

59. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.We...obalWarming.pdf - Critical Topics in Global Warming: Supplementary Analysis of the Independent Summary for Policymakers, Fraser Institute, March 2009.

60. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._climate_change - Wikipedia article on Scientific Opinion on Climate Change.

61. http://www.skepticalscience.com - Skeptical Science, Examining the science of Global Warming skepticism.

62. http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/suppr...bal-warming.pdf -Proposed NCEE Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions under the Clean Air Act, Mar. 09.

63. http://carbon-sense.com/2009/09/13/climate-skeptics-090911 - PowerPoint slide show explaining the Climate Skeptics' scientific arguments against the threats of human-caused Global Warming and major problems associated with proposed Cap-n-Trade legislation.

64. http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads...bal-warming.pdf - Man-made Global Warming does not Exist, October 2009.

65. http://carbon-sense.com/2009/10/11/ipcc-science-scrutinised - Scrutiny of UN IPCC Climate Science.

66. http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/a-cal...of-the-poor.pdf - A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming, The Cornwall Alliance, 2006.

67. http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/...al-warming-hype - Cornwall Alliance introduces movie "Not Evil Just Wrong" that showcases the human cost of global warming hype, October 2009.

68. http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/doc...nckton_2009.pdf - Christopher Monckton presentation on the Global Warming alarmism using statistics and charts – October 2009.

69. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/s...mate-Crisis.pdf - Proved: There is no Climate Crisis, Paper by Christopher Monckton, July 2008.

70. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...generation.html - Climate Change: This is the worst scientific scandal of our generation, Christopher Booker, November 28, 2009.

71. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6936328.ece - Climate Change Data Dumped, Nov. 29, 2009.

72. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=32 - National Center for Policy Analysis list of documents exposing Climate Change political agenda, December 2009.

73. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/s...e%20Scandal.pdf - ClimateGate: Caught Green-Handed, An SPPI Paper by Christopher Monckton, November 30, 2009.

74. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/s...ewed_papers.pdf - 450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of AGW-Caused Global Warming, November 16, 2009.

75. http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/05/2...ing-agw-problem - Disproving the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem – by Leonard Weinstein on April 25, 2009.

76. http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork...y/miskolczi.pdf - Physics of the Planetary Greenhouse Effect, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, March 2008.

77. http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork...sday/zagoni.pdf - Some Paleoclimatic Consequences of Dr. Miskolczi's New Greenhouse Theory, Dr. Miklos Zagoni, March 2008.

78. http://landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction - The New Climate Theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi.

79. http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf - Greenhouse Effect in Semi-transparent Planetary Atmospheres, Dr Ferenc Miskolczi, January 2007.

Heinz Lycklama - heinz@osta.com

Last modified: December 11, 2009

Edited December 12, 2009 by Confucian

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articl.../4/112533.shtml

How dare he challenge the great scientific mind of al gore

At Harvard Mr. Gore's grades were for years lower than those Bush earned at Yale. Classmates remembered Gore, The Washington Post reported in 2000, spending "a notable amount of time" shooting pool, watching television and "occasionally smoking marijuana."

Gore (whose [confessional?] new book is titled "The Assault on Reason"), according to The Washington Post, "avoided all courses in mathematics and logic throughout college."

His grades at Harvard were pathetic, especially for someone who today holds himself up as the national arbiter of scientific issues. As a sophomore he got a D in Natural Sciences, and only a C-plus in another low level Natural Sciences course his senior year. In Economics — yet another field in which Gore has exhibited lifelong ignorance — he earned a C-minus.

For two of his four years at Harvard, Gore ranked in the bottom fifth of his class academically.

After squeaking through Harvard, Gore returned to Tennessee and, after flunking out of its Divinity School, entered but failed to earn a degree from Vanderbilt University Law School.

[Danno 1,228]

One must be in THE CLUB to be critical of THE CLUB, being a nuclear physicist .... is meaningless.

(Just repeating what I've been told)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[HAL 9000 96]

OK so I did the right thing and read through this 'independent' analysis and found it to be recycling every other denial website's story I've come across.

The science mentioned is correlative, implying all Dr. Heinz Lycklama did in writing this memo is rehash numbers from the cited sources. You tube. Wow, really...

I hope people that have a better understanding of the term 'independent analysis' can most certainly review data from an independent point of view. Confu... you should google a little more into this guy... it won't help your cause that he's also really big into debunking the theory of Evolution as well.

[웃 910]

OK so I did the right thing and read through this 'independent' analysis and found it to be recycling every other denial website's story I've come across.

The science mentioned is correlative, implying all Dr. Heinz Lycklama did in writing this memo is rehash numbers from the cited sources. You tube. Wow, really...

I hope people that have a better understanding of the term 'independent analysis' can most certainly review data from an independent point of view. Confu... you should google a little more into this guy... it won't help your cause that he's also really big into debunking the theory of Evolution as well.

Think you know the score on climate change? Take FoxNews.com's quiz and see just how well you stack up.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/11/...test=latestnews

[mawilson 2,133]

Not to mention his scientific credentials are a bit dubious. Who has heard of "McMaster University" outside of Canada?

[웃 910]

While on the topic of Facebook a friend of mine lives in Edmonton, Ca. His status is:

Tonight where I am (Edmonton,Alberta) temperature is supposed to go as low as -50C (which = -58F) SHITTY!!!! The news is saying that you will get frostbite within 1 min to any uncovered skin!! Just be happy you live where you do!!!

These folks could use a little global warming in their lives...

Temperature of -46C in Edmonton area makes it coldest in Canada: meteorologist

(CP) – 2 hours ago

EDMONTON — There's one way to deal with some of the coldest winter temperatures yet on the Prairies - outright denial.

At least that's how some folks were taking it as they strode into the Edmonton airport over the weekend after arriving from their vacations in Mexico, still dressed in their shorts and sporting tans.

Christopher Toutant walked out of the international arrivals area still wearing Bermuda shorts and a light shirt.

It didn't occur to him to prepare for a record-breaking cold snap back home.

Peter Spiker, a meteorologist with Environment Canada, says temperatures in the Edmonton area early Sunday morning were among the coldest anywhere in the country.

The mercury dipped to a frigid -46C at the Edmonton airport, making it the coldest place in Canada, he said.

With the wind chill, it felt more like -59C.

Spiker said it crushed the same day coldest temperature record of about -33C set in 1968.

The vacation buzz was soon to be killed when Toutant heard the pilot announcing the current weather conditions as they landed in Edmonton.

"My smile kind of fell of my face and I think my tan fell off along the way," he said with a chuckle.

Bob McDonald's tanned face stands out in stark comparison to the wind-whipped, ruddy faces of others in the terminal who are wearing heavy coats and gloves to fend off the cold.

He just spent nearly three weeks in sunny Mexico, where the temperature was over 30C every day during his vacation.

When told how cold it was just outside those terminal doors, his eyes widened in horror.

"I am in shock," he said.

Marie Scott thoughtfully brought along some winter gear to help her daughter, son-in-law and grandson prepare for the weather after returning from their winter getaway.

"I think they're going to want to turn around and go back. I would," she said. "I'm just trying to warm their jackets because they're going to freeze just putting them on."

Environment Canada says record low temperatures were also set in other areas of Alberta on the weekend, including Cold Lake, northeast of Edmonton and in Grande Prairie, in the northwestern part of the province.

Wind chill warnings were issued for areas of Alberta Saskatchewan as a large mass of Arctic air hovered over the Prairies with conditions that could feel

like -50C.

The Alberta Motor Association also urged motorists to take along thick blankets, warm clothing and an emergency kit if they're travelling during the cold weather.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianp...SSDZojzmglpV8fw

Edited December 14, 2009 by Confucian

[HAL 9000 96]

OK so I did the right thing and read through this 'independent' analysis and found it to be recycling every other denial website's story I've come across.

The science mentioned is correlative, implying all Dr. Heinz Lycklama did in writing this memo is rehash numbers from the cited sources. You tube. Wow, really...

I hope people that have a better understanding of the term 'independent analysis' can most certainly review data from an independent point of view. Confu... you should google a little more into this guy... it won't help your cause that he's also really big into debunking the theory of Evolution as well.

Think you know the score on climate change? Take FoxNews.com's quiz and see just how well you stack up.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/11/...test=latestnews

Just like weather is often mistaken for climate, that poll is confused with a 'quiz.'

The answers do glean a peek into the state of ignorance into where lots of the voters thus far have voted... then again, you know what they say about FOX News fans. Who generated those 'official' answers anyway? Some of the answers were CO2-related (with the answers I expected to get from FOX) and others were not.

[Wei&Shu(Joe) 2]

One must be in THE CLUB to be critical of THE CLUB, being a nuclear physicist .... is meaningless.

(Just repeating what I've been told)

1. ANYONE can be critical of "THE CLUB"

2. ONLY a person who was either intentionally or unintentionally ignorant would propose that every person's criticism carries the same weight.

3. Ideologues assume that the "credentials" required to substantiate one's critique is that said critique agrees with their position of ignorance

4. Scientists, and other rationalists/non-religious thinkers assume that an entirely different set of criteria are required to substantiate one's critique

Those criteria being a) the critic is backed with sound data derived from reliable sources b) the critic follows rational and reasonable logical pathways from that data to reach reasonable conclusions on the subject being critiqued.

5. Because our criteria for defining "believable" critique are so diametrically opposed, the rationalists will never convince the denialists that their criteria for evaluating critique should be objective rather than subjective. Objectively critiqueing their ideological stance would force them to abandon it, which they will never do because faith is more important than rational knowledge of reality for all religious thinkers, including denialists.

That being said, the above critique, by someone who is supposedly a nuclear physicist (I mean he says so on the internet. You couldn't say that on the internet if it wasn't true, right?) is just incredible . Why he even challenges the mass of data accumulated since Ahrennius published the first model of anthropogenic climate warming in 1896 with references to (gasp) Wikipedia! How could anyone expect that 114 years of accumulated, reproducible scientific data could stand up to something as powerful and all-knowing as Wikipedia.

It makes it abundantly more entertaining however to look at Dr. Heinz Lycklama's accumulated work. His treatises and lectures on creationism and his brilliant "critiques" of evolution are just as ideologically pure as his scathing, brilliant despite being entirely false, take down of climate science. I especially enjoyed his powerpoint presentation laying out his rationale for why the bible is a reliable scientific source. In fact, my sides are still aching from the laughter and I blame all of you for the stuff I spit all over my monitor. You made me google this fool.

But, still, for those who find ideology more comforting than reality, he is a master of making false arguments sound true to the true believers. He is...a preacher and he preaches the mythology of his religion with fervor. He is obviously someone whose ideologic slant on climate science would be much more valuable then say, someone who studied climate science (science being the key word) all their life. We should definitely discount those who have studied climate all their life because, frankly, they probably haven't studied the bible as intensely as the doctor who likes llamas. They have only studied reality and the realities of climate change. Reality is a useless concept to the ideologue and they project upon the rational thinkers their own tendency to replace reality with their ideologic fairy tales.

Alas, there is a difference between data and logic as opposed to ideological rhetoric. It is good to note however that the less you ACTUALLY know about a subject the harder it is to distinguish rational conclusions based on sound data from ideological rhetoric. One might find more value here in reading Dr David Dunning's work at Cornell that demonstrates how assessment of our competence in a field goes up in proportion to our lack of competence in that field than in reading Like-A-Llama's drivel.

If you truly believe this man's BS then please tell me your solution to this dilemma.

You are rushed to the emergency room with a high fever and severe pain in the Rt lower abdomen. You are examined by a surgeon and a CT of the abdomen is done. The surgeon informs you that both his exam and the CT confirm that you have an acute appendicitis, in fact, one that is quite swollen and could burst at any moment. He recommends immediate emergency surgery and leaves to arrange for an OR. He informs you that delaying the surgery could result in much more serious illness or even death.

While he is gone a gentleman wanders into your room and identifies himself as a "nuclear physicist". He informs you that "acute appendicitis" doesn't really exist and has several references to Wikipedia that agree with him. He makes reference to some of the medical literature on appendicitis and says some scientific sounding stuff about it that you really don't have the training to understand, let alone effectively evaluate as to whether or not he knows what he is talking about, but he sounds smart and maybe since he knows big medical words, you might assume he knows something about appendicitis (at your own peril). He tells you that he snuck in to look at your CT scan, a rather confusing array of shadows on a computer screen, and he is certain that the radiologist who read it and the surgeon who reviewed it (who do this every day, it's their job) are wrong. You don't have appendicitis and you should go home and have a beer and a big meal and relax.

At that point, the surgeon returns to the room and announces that an OR is ready. You have to make a choice. Whose opinion will you give more weight to, the surgeon who has seen this just about every day of his career, backed up by the objective data on the CT, interpreted for you by the expert who has spent his life learning to decipher the shadows on that study OR the nuclear physicist who tells you he is really sure that even though he has no training in medicine or surgery that he's figured out the "correct" answer on his own, possibly with the help of a secret bible code that proves that evolution is the work of the devil.

All the denialists are going home for a beer, right? or not? Is the answer different when you remove your ideological context? Please do let me know. I really am interested in the answers.

[Wei&Shu(Joe) 2]

While on the topic of Facebook a friend of mine lives in Edmonton, Ca. His status is:

These folks could use a little global warming in their lives...

If one is not intelligent enough to know that local weather and global climate are different things entirely, than one is probably best served staying silent rather than parading that ignorance around like it is a badge of honor. Wouldn't it be minimally prudent to be able to define weather and global climate and at least know the difference between the two before offering your brilliant scientific conclusions based on 1 night in Edmonton.

So all you have accomplished here is to broadcast to everyone who stumbles upon this thread that you don't have the mental acuity needed to distinguish "the planet Earth" from "the city of Edmonton." BTW, Is there really an Edmonton, California that is that cold or did you mean Edmonton, Alberta, Canada? I guess whatever city it is, if it appears to be a planet to you, it wouldn't fit into any of our states or Canada's provinces.

Did you stop to think before posting this that 98% of kindergarten students could tell you the difference between the planet Earth and the city of Edmonton? Do you realize that those same kindergarten students would be able to tell you that it is cold in Canada in the winter but you are apparently unaware of this simple fact about the world. Do you have some reference to actual climate science that predicts the winter won't be cold in Edmonton in 2010? Of course not because actual climate science makes no such claim or prediction. If Edmonton has a really hot day in the summer will you find that is evidence for global climate change? Are you willing to commit to your own astute observations and admit that if Edmonton has 1 very hot day this summer, you will accept that global climate change theory has been proven?

So, if in order to support your belief system, you have to maintain your knowledge level and awareness of the world you live in below the level of a Kindergarten student, what does that say about your religious beliefs about climate? Take an objective look at your belief system for a few moments. Purchase a globe. This is a model of the planet Earth. WARNING: It is not actual size. The actual planet is much bigger. The actual surface area of the Earth is 510,072,000 square kilometers, which is 196,940,400 square miles. The city of Edmonton (assuming Alberta, Canada) is 684 square kilometers or 264 square miles. Look at Edmonton on your globe. Notice how much smaller it is THAN the globe. The surface area of Edmonton is actually around one one thousandth of one percent of the total surface area of the globe. Can you see how small a number that is. Now when you start talking about global yearly temperatures that 1 night represents less than 1/365th of what we are talking about on the time scale. Can you see how 1/365 is very much less than 1? That is what Kindergarten students would call a very small number.

Here's the really great part. That thing you bought is called a globe! That can help you to remember that what we refer to in climate science is GLOBAL warming. Do you see how similar the words are? Globe; Global. Now what you referred to was 1 night in Edmontonial cooling. Do you see that if climate science were referring to that than we'd be debating "1 night in Edmontonial weather change" and not "Global Climate Change". I think they use that phrase to make it relatively easy to follow. Maybe there is a Kindergarten student in your neighborhood who has a globe and could help you understand this planet vs city differentiation that is getting in the way of you understanding what is being discussed.

Especially if you are going to express strong opinions on the topic, you ought to at least have the difference between cities and planets down pretty clearly in your head. Otherwise, you just look foolish because, frankly, most people know the difference between a city in Canada and the planet. Outside of your religion, it is very hard to be taken seriously when you are unable to distinguish planets from cities. I certainly hope you don't leave home without a GPS! That could be dangerous. You could get lost on Mars or Saskatchewan, they look a lot alike!

[웃 910]

Here's the really great part. That thing you bought is called a globe! That can help you to remember that what we refer to in climate science is GLOBAL warming. Do you see how similar the words are? Globe; Global. Now what you referred to was 1 night in Edmontonial cooling. Do you see that if climate science were referring to that than we'd be debating "1 night in Edmontonial weather change" and not "Global Climate Change". I think they use that phrase to make it relatively easy to follow. Maybe there is a Kindergarten student in your neighborhood who has a globe and could help you understand this planet vs city differentiation that is getting in the way of you understanding what is being discussed.

You are really intelligent Wei&Shue(Joe).

The Wei&Shue(Joe)ial world must be a great place to live in. You get to make up words. How's tonights New Yorkial weather, lmao. The Michigonial (Michigan) weather has been relatively mild this winter. It's like we're experiencing a Georgial weather pattern.

I wish I was as smart as you. I want to be so intelligent I can make up words'ial'.

Thanks for the globalial warmingial lesson Wei&Shue(Joe). I am much smarterial now.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

OK so I did the right thing and read through this 'independent' analysis and found it to be recycling every other denial website's story I've come across.

The science mentioned is correlative, implying all Dr. Heinz Lycklama did in writing this memo is rehash numbers from the cited sources. You tube. Wow, really...

I hope people that have a better understanding of the term 'independent analysis' can most certainly review data from an independent point of view. Confu... you should google a little more into this guy... it won't help your cause that he's also really big into debunking the theory of Evolution as well.

Hey Hal! Put that out in an e-mail wouldya.

[scandal 951]

If one is not intelligent enough to know that local weather and global climate are different things entirely, than one is probably best served staying silent rather than parading that ignorance around like it is a badge of honor. Wouldn't it be minimally prudent to be able to define weather and global climate and at least know the difference between the two before offering your brilliant scientific conclusions based on 1 night in Edmonton.

Welcome to VJ OT. It always marvels newcomers (it certainly did me...) the extent to which commonsense and elementary logic simply do not apply in most discussions here. Eventually you get the hang of it though. Logic and OT are, at best, passing acquaintances.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Why would I care about earth? What I really want to know is if Mars is experiencing global warming. (seriously)