[Vision2020] Response To Courtney's Right-mind.us Re: Global Warming & Climate Science

[Ted Moffett]

The following post was too long to spell check via Gmail's system.  Errors
in fact and reasoning are my responsibility, but in the age of spell
checkers is anyone expected to know how to spell?
---------------
A Vision2020 post on anthropogenic climate change sourced from Dale
Courtney's blog, right-mind.us, apparently authored by Mr. Courtney, posted
on Vision2020 June 23, 2008, offers such egregious misrepresentations
and omissions regarding the science on climate change, and the attitudes of
the climate science community, that if the point of view espoused were not
so widespread, hampering efforts to mitigate climate change in the economic
and political world, it might be dismissed casually, rather than directly
and publicly in detail.

However, as Keely Emerine Mix recently wrote on Vision2020, "Silence is
assent."  And when misleading and/or fraud based claims are being
successfully and widely promoted as credible, "Silence is assent" in
allowing harmful falsehoods to go unchallenged.

Anthropogenic climate change is not a risk to dismiss casually..  Those who
publicly promote distortions or omissions of what the scientific community
is asserting regarding this problem, are pulling the wool over peoples
eyes.  Well reasoned and fact based skepticism should be respected.  But
misrepresentations and blatant omission or distortions of robust scientific
findings, should be documented and exposed in detail.

I am well aware that there is scientific dissent regarding the claim that
human impacts are dramatically altering climate.  Scientific dissent is
present on many scientific theories that are well supported.  Let's examine
this dissent, and the responses in the scientific community, rather
than quoting sources that misrepresent and mislead, to suit an agenda, while
claiming the scientific community is "conveniently ignoring" dissenting
arguments.  When propagandists successfully portray those doing objective
careful science as propagandists, Orwell rolls in his grave.  The climate
science community is not "conveniently ignoring" data on climate science, as
any reader of what may be the most informative website on climate science,
Realclimate.org, sponsored by a team of climate scientists, will discover.
All of Courtney's skeptical arguments regarding climate change are addressed
in detail.

After Courtney's right-mind.us response from June 23 (someone else posted
this right-mind.us post to Vision2020, not Courtney), I posted responses to
several of the claims made by Courtney.  These responses are at the URLs
below:

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-June/054638.html

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-June/054682.html

It might not have been clear that these posts were answering Courtney's post
on global warming, so I am responding to Courtney's claims below, some of
which I did not directly address earlier, placing my responses into the body
of the right-mind.us post from Courtney:

Courtney wrote:


>
>  Religion of "Global Warmers" Church's New Sermon<http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2008/06/22/60894.aspx>
>
> Ted Moffett<http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-June/054601.html> has
> taken me to task yet again for my comments that Global Warming is a
> fundamentalist religion.
>
> This is climate science, not religion, for those who understand the
> difference.  Subject heading tongue in cheek alert for right-mind.us<http://right-mind.us/tags/Global+Warming/default.aspx>readers, and other deniers of the scientific consensus among the
> global climate science community regarding anthropogenic climate change.
>
> Yet again we have more examples of the anthropogenic warming crowd acting
> like fundamentalists. Evidence after evidence demonstrates that they have
> wrongly interpreted the data, yet they tenaciously hold to their faith-based
> assumptions.
>




My response:

Courtney offered a long list of attachments that were included with the post
from right-mind.us under discussion.  These attachments were mostly aimed,
it appears, at showing that solar forcing is a more accurate variable to
explain our current warming climate than human impacts, a very common
skeptics argument.  Who is holding to "faith based assumptions" regarding
solar forcing of climate?  Who has "wrongly interpreted the data" on this
issue?

Courtney's "data" on solar forcing as it relates to contemporary climate
change has been examined using spacecraft.  According to the "Nature"
journal article referenced below, the results do not support the conclusion
that increasing global average temperatures, in the past 30 years, can be
explained mostly by solar variables.  It appears Courtney is not considering
all the peer reviewed scientific data published on this issue, though I am
not questioning that solar variations have influenced climate change in
recent centuries.

Published in the journal "Nature," examining the theory of solar forcing of
climate, the findings of which it appears Courtney is dismissing, or
ignoring:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html

*Nature* *443*, 161-166 (14 September 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05072
Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate

P. Foukal1<
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html#a1>,
C. Fröhlich2<
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html#a2>,
H. Spruit3<
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html#a3>and
T. M. L. Wigley
4 <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html#a4>
Top of page<
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html#top>
Abstract

Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by
changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the
11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978
are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming
over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of
these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of
solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that
brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on
global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by
changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas,
cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to
evaluate meaningfully at present.
--------------------

Also, published scientific work on the Maunder Minimum sun spot period, and
the Little Ice Age, which are often referenced by anthropogenic climate
change skeptics (including Courtney) to argue that current climate warming
is a natural effect of solar variations, suggests that the Little Ice Age
was more of a local cooling phenomenon in the Northern Hemisphere, with
average global temperatures only dropping .3-.4 C.  Yes, changes via solar
forcing of climate occured, but not as dramatically on a global scale during
the LIA as some claim.  Climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, one of the authors
of the "Science" journal artical below, has argued elsewhere that solar
forcing has played a role in 20th century climate change, but that the
current upswing in warming cannot be explained mostly by solar variations:

Published in the journal "Science" December 7, 2001:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/5549/2149

Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum

*Drew T. Shindell,1 Gavin A. Schmidt,1 Michael E. Mann,2 David Rind,1 Anne
Waple3 *
We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the late
17th-century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. Global average
temperature changes are small (about 0.3° to 0.4°C) in both a climate model
and empirical reconstructions. However, regional temperature changes are
quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift
toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic
Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases. This leads to colder
temperatures over
the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1° to 2°C), in
agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures.

--------
More info from scientists on solar forcing of climate at the URLs below.
The second URL below offers a detailed examination of solar forcing of
climate by climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, placing the issue within the
relevant debates in the climate science community:

Professional Bio from NASA on Gavin Schmidt at URL immediately below:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=171

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2001/200112065794.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180

Quote below from URL immediately above:

Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the
sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with
radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the
1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.
-----------------------
Courtney wrote:

>   First, I'm not too sure how old Ted is. But I'm old enough to remember
> the scientific consensus in the 70's about the "Coming Ice Age". As history
> has well demonstrated, having a consensus of scientists on your side doesn't
> prove anything.
>
My response:

In fact, according to the climate effects of the astronomically based
Milankovitch Cycles, (which involve three primary variables: precession of
the Equinoxes, changes in the tilt of the Earth in reference to the ecliptic
(obliquity to ecliptic), and changes in the ellipse of the Earth's solar
orbit), and other variables, the Earth should be entering a climate cooling
phase.  The claims of some climate scientists in the 1970s that we could be
entering the next ice age have not been refuted.  Rather, human impacts as
the current dominant climate forcing influence are overcoming the influences
of natural variables.  Eventually, the natural climate variables causing ice
ages may reduce the long term (over centuries or millenia) impacts of
anthropopgenic warming, given climate feedback mechanisms (methane hydrate
disruption, carbon sink reversal, desertification, albedo reduction due to
ice and snow cover loss, et. al.) may shift the Earth's climate into a
warmer state lasting thousands of years.  The two URLs below offer more info
on the Milankokvitch cycles and impacts on climate change, the first from
the National Climate Data Center, quoted below:

"Cool summers in the northern hemisphere, where most of the earth's land
mass is located, appear to allow snow and ice to persist to the next winter,
allowing the development of large ice sheets over hundreds to thousands of
years."
---------------
"Theory suggests that the primary driver of ice ages is the total summer
radiation received in northern latitude zones where major ice sheets have
formed in the past, near 65 degrees north. Past ice ages correlate well to
65N summer insolation (Imbrie 1982). Astronomical calculations show that 65N
summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years, ..."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/seasons_orbit.php
----------

Courtney wrote:



>   Second, there are *a lot* of scientists who flatly disagree with
> anthropogenic global warming. 31,072 American Scientists have publicly
> signed a petition denying anthropogenic global warming. There are 228 from
> Idaho<http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_By_Statephpcontent.php?run=Idaho>and 603
> from Washington<http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_By_Statephpcontent.php?run=Washington>that have signed; and 9,021 with PhD's. Over
> 500 scientists published studies countering global warming fears<http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2007/09/17/54654.aspx>.
> That's not a small dissent. That's a group who is being vilified because
> they disagree with Moffett's theory. And that's a fundamentalist response,
> not a scientific one.
>
My response:

I will reference info from the top two URLs in this post, both Vision2020
posts answering the claims in the paragraph above.  The petition Courtney
referenced originated in part from a former president of the National
Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, who misused his connections to the NAS
to present the peitition as though it originated from the NAS.  This forced
the NAS to issue a public statement of rejection of connection to the
peitition, and an emphatic disagreement with the scientifc claims made in
this peitition. The results of any peitition presented with
misrespresenation of its origins should be questioned.  And the climate
science arguments used by Seitz, and his associates promoting this
peitition, have been examined in detail and found to be highly questionable
(a polite way of saying "junk science").  Where is Courtney's
skepticism regarding Seitz and the Oregon Institute of Science and
Medicine?   Apparently, Courtney applies extreme levels of skepticism rather
selectively.  Seitz, the peition under question, and the Oregon Insitute of
Science and Medicine, are examined in detail at URL below:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey

At the URL below is the statement from the NAS regarding the petition
Courtney cited, with a few quotes below:

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998

The Council of the National Academy of Sciences
<http://www2.nas.edu/nas/>(NAS) is concerned about the confusion
caused by a petition being circulated
via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition
criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide
emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate
Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the
U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall
Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that
of scientific articles published in the *Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences* <http://www.pnas.org/>.  The NAS Council would like to make it
clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of
Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the *Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences* or in any other peer-reviewed journal."

The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the
Academy.
--------------
Regarding the list of 500 scientists who "counter global warming fears" many
of these scientists have stated their work is being misused and
misrepresented, and have asked for their names to be removed from this
list.  This is a fraudulent effort to spread misinformation and
misrepresentaion on climate science, in part from Singer and Avery, author
of the book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years."

Many aspects of climate science are undergoing vigorous debate and
discussion.  Disagreements are common, which is how science should operate.
But many of the scientists in this list of  500 scientists Courtney claims
"dissent," who "flatly disagree with anthropogenic global warming," in fact
do not dissent.  Use of their work in this biased effort is not ethical
science.  Quotes from some of the scientists who have objected to the use of
their name and work in this list are at URL below:

http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute

More discussion of Singer and Avery's claims in "Unstoppable Global Warming:
Every 1500 Years" is presented at Realclimate.org, a website sponsored by
climate scientists referenced already.  As is clear from the comments
section at the URL below, well reasoned and fact based skepticism on climate
science is discussed in detail.  Even the use of the term "denialist" is
criticised, and defended... After all, some do engage in mindless denial of
evidence and reasoned argument... But no theroy is "conveniently ignored, "
as Courtney writes.  Nor does Singer and Avery's misuse of the scientific
work of the scientists they claim support their agenda, escape exposure.
Courtney should be more skeptical of his chosen skeptics:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/
-----------------
I make a point of studying all theories on climate science, dissenting or
not...

At the URL below is a famous paper by MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen, et.
al., often sourced by climate change skeptics, arguing for Lindzen's
legendary "Iris" effect for dissipation of thermal energy to space, which
has been examined by the scientific community, and found to be
questionable.  However, I certainly don't want to "conveniently ignore"
Lindzen's claims:

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf
-----------------------
Courtney wrote:

>   Third, to demonstrate causality they have to disprove all other theories
> (sunspots causing global warming on Mars<http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2007/04/10/51131.aspx>,
> Pluto <http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2007/03/12/50564.aspx>,
> Triton <http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2007/10/08/55133.aspx>).
> Space.com reports that Mars is emerging from an ice age<http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html>.
> Unless Moffett thinks that Martians are driving too many SUVs around, then
> there has to be another explanation. And why doesn't that explanation work
> for the earth and only for Mars/Pluto/Triton/etc?
>
My response:

For a scientific theory to be regarded as credible, the theory does not have
to disprove all other theories.  No one can *disprove* *all* other possible
theories for any claim.  No scientific theory could pass this test.  After
examining all known theories and data, the theory that best and most simply
(Occams Razor) explains the data is most credible. This does not mean other
theories may never be discovered to better explain the data, which would be
the case if all other theories were incontrovertibly *disproved*.

There is ample data and reliable theory that human greenhouse gas emissions
are altering climate.  This has been predicted based on prinicples of
physics going back to Arrhenius in 1896. And the other theories that could
mostly displace human emissions as the cause of the observed warming of the
past 30 years have been examined by the scientific community in detail...
Maybe new data will refute the general claims of anthropogenic climate
change, showing other variables are causing warming more than thought, or
that the magnitude of the temperature changes from human greenhouse gas
emissions was exagerated.  Maybe new data will only reinforce this
scientific claim.

An excellent well researched discussion from the American Institute of
Physics (it seems it is not well known that the science behind atmospheric
CO2's relation to temperature is a question of basic physics) on the history
of the science regarding atmospheric CO2 and temperature is at URL below,
with a quote from the article:

The computations pinned down an imbalance. The Earth was now taking in from
sunlight nearly a watt per square meter more than it was radiating back into
space, averaged over the planet's entire surface. That was enough energy to
cause truly serious effects if it continued. James Hansen, leader of one of
the studies, called it "smoking gun" proof of greenhouse effect
warming.(56)<http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#N_56_>

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
--------------

If Courtney is making a scientific argument that solar or other climate
forcing variables, external to the Earth's climate system, are warming other
planets, therefore this implies Earth's warming is not caused by human
impacts (an argument the "religion of global warming conveniently
ignores?"), he might ponder the following discussions from Realclimate.org,
showing that, one, his claim is not being "conveniently" ignored, and two,
is in fact not very credible.  Both global warming on Mars, and cosmic rays
(our solar system's position in the galaxy has been suggested as a climate
change variable responsible for current global warming) are discussed at
URLs below:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/a-galactic-glitch/#more-534
----------------------
The rest of Courtney's post focuses mostly on the so called "Religion of
Global Warming," not on specific scientific claims, except the chart
inserted regarding sunspots and temperature, a subject I already addressed.


Some people approach the subject of global warming like a "religion."  In
fact, the extreme nature of opinions on this subject have a "faith based"
component that swings both ways;  those questioning that human impacts on
climate are major and should be mitigated are sometimes just as dogmatic and
unreasoning as those who have adopted the cause of anthropogenic global
warming as a kind of "religion."  These sorts of emotional and biased
responses are why respect for the scientific method is important to temper
the irrational impacts of emotion driven belief.  This applies emphatically
to many of the unscientific and biased arguments (sometime motivated by
economics, politics or religion) against the scientific evidence that human
impacts are altering climate.  This is not to say there are not well
reasoned and fact based arguments to question anthropogenic global warming,
or its severity.

Is there a consensus among climate scientists that human impacts are
dramatically altering climate?  This question woiuld take a tome to answer
in detail, but the two following sources lend credence to the claim there is
a consensus, which of course does not mean there are not scientists who
dissent.

Below read a statement signed by the leaders of numerous scientific
organizations worldwide, supporting the scientific conclusion indicating
human impacts on climate are a serious issue that must be addressed:

 http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf
-------------------
Also consider this long list at the URL below, an attempt at collating all
the published scientific studies regarding what is called "climate
sensitivity," the temperature change to be expected from a doubling of
atmospheric CO2.  These studies demonstrate that the majority of scientists
examining this question have concluded that doubling atmospheric CO2 will
warm the climate significantly, though some of the studies show a very
slight warming.  This is sourced from the website of Barton Paul Levenson.

The average of the predictions regarding a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is
close to an increase of 3 degree C., 5.4 degree F., which represents a
radical shift in climate.  These findings are a robust scientific argument
that increases in atmospheric CO2 are likely to significantly increase
temperature, based on well understood principles of physics.  Given the
gigatons of CO2 the human race is emitting into the atmosphere, and CO2
atmospheric lifespan, it is highly questionable that the measured increases
in atmospheric CO2 are not human caused (the oceans are not "fizzing out"
CO2 like soda pop, as one Vision2020 post suggested, to explain atmospheric
CO2 increases, but in fact are in total absorbing huge amounts of human
sourced CO2 from the atmosphere, helping to lower atmospheric CO2, though
carbon sink reversal is slowing this process) nor that these increasing
levels of CO2 will not eventually significantly raise temperature,
especially with continuing high CO2 emissions, without other powerful
variables mitigating the climate forcing of CO2:

http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/ClimateSensitivity.html

Ted Moffett


>   There is a ton of evidence that the religion of global warmingconveniently ignores. Since the
> global warming alarmists are unable to disprove alternative theories, they
> ignore them or vilify them. Convenient. And quite the fundamentalist
> approach.
>
> Fourth, they censor and deionize anyone who doesn't tote the party line.
> It's funny how "only real scientists agree with us." That's a convenient
> fundamentalist bate-and-switch tactic. "Only our religion is the true one."
>
> For the record, Ted, it wasn't I who came up with the analogy of global
> warming as a fundamentalist religion. It was Michael Crichton in a speech
> delivered in 2003 <http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm>.
>
> John Brignell compares the religion of global warming and the medieval
> Roman Catholic Church (especially in dealing with that heretic/denier
> Galileo). Brignell notes <http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm> many
> of the glaring similarities. As I've posted before<http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2008/04/23/59576.aspx>:
>
>
>    - *Faith and scepticism*: "the science of global warming is settled",
>    as if science were ever settled.
>    - *Sin and absolution*: the sin is your carbon footprint. The
>    indulgence being sold is for "carbon offsets".
>    - *Proselytes and evangelists*: the global warming crowd are more
>    evangelistic to their cause than any Mormon missionary or Jehovah's Witness
>    door-knocker.
>    - *Demagogues and hypocrites*: Al Gore is the classic example. He
>    chastises everyone for their carbon wastefulness while himself flying all
>    over the world and heating all of his mansions.
>    - *[image: Sunspot-lenght-&-teperature]Infidels and apostates*: anyone
>    who questions anthropogenic global warming is a "Denier" — as bad as a
>    Holocaust Denier. Heaven forbid someone change his mind on global
>    warming. He would be an apostate.
>    - *Prophecy and divination*: "huge and generously funded university and
>    government departments do nothing but develop computer models, involving
>    assumptions about physical interactions that are still not understood by
>    science. Their dubious (to say the least) results are used by the new
>    international priesthood to frighten the people into conformity." This goes
>    back to statements like "the science of global warming is settled."
>    - *Puritans and killjoys*: As Mencken said, Puritans have "the haunting
>    fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." The church of global
>    warming offers nothing in the way of improvement or even maintenance of
>    the human condition. It's as if they wanted us all to become desert hermits
>    — flagellants coercing us into conformity.
>    - *Censorship and angles*: "If you think you have a good case, you can
>    afford to present both sides, but they don't. The great majority of the
>    population have no idea that there is an alternative view. That is not
>    science, it is religion." In Moffett's case, everything that would be a
>    counter-example to his faith is dismissed as an anomaly. Everything that
>    confirms his faith is a fact. That is not science. That's fundamentalism.
>    - *Control and taxation*: People now accept laws that restrict their
>    liberty and standard of living, which would once have provoked riots,
>    because they are cloaked in a quasi-religious formula of global warming.
>
>    - *Contradictions and irrationality*: for instance, "The EU, for
>    example, gratuitously destroys a tiny industry making traditional
>    barometers, on the grounds of an irrational fear of mercury, then imposes
>    the use of fluorescent light bulbs that distribute that same dreaded
>    substance in huge quantities across the continent, all on the basis of the
>    threat of global warming."
>    - *Wealth and power*: "What passed as scientific research a quarter of
>    a century ago now barely exists. To get funding, your project has to conform
>    to one of the mantra descriptions, such as "sustainable development".
>    Doubters are afraid to speak out. Their institutions are dependent on
>    millions in grants at the disposal of green officials to obtain
>    "appropriate" results relevant to global warming and related scares.
>    When your institution is involved in a fight for survival, you do not rock
>    the boat."
>    - *Confession and salvation*: "Young children now have nightmares about
>    the burning planet, just as some of us once had nightmares about burning in
>    hell unless we believed, and then lay awake at night wondering whether we
>    believed or not, or what "believe" actually means. The ruthless exploitation
>    of the receptivity of the young, and their relentless indoctrination, is one
>    of the less pleasant characteristics of much of religion." "One of the most
>    offensive manifestations of the new religion occurred when hundreds of the
>    priesthood went on one of their lavish junkets in Africa, where all around
>    them was suffering and death."
>    - *Envoi*: "Extremists of the new religion regard humanity as an
>    inconvenience or a pestilence that can be disposed of (not including
>    themselves, of course)."
>
> Moffett's religion even has its own pope (Al Gore).
>  2008-06-22 10:58<http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2008/06/22/60894.aspx>by
> Right-Mind <http://right-mind.us/members/Right-Mind.aspx> to Right Mind<http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/default.aspx>
> Filed under: Global Warming<http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/tags/Global+Warming/default.aspx>
>
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> *To:* vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 21, 2008 2:56 PM
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] Religion of "Global Warmers" Church's New Sermon
>
>
> This is climate science, not religion, for those who understand the
> difference.  Subject heading tongue in cheek alert for right-mind.usreaders, and other deniers of the scientific consensus among the global
> climate science community regarding anthropogenic climate change:
>
> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080619_climatereport.html
>
> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/images/climatetable.jpg
>
> http://www.climatescience.gov/
> --------------
>  Scientific Assessment Captures Effects of a Changing Climate on Extreme
> Weather Events in North America
>
> June 19, 2008
>
> Global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced
> increases in heat-trapping gases, according to the report. Many types of
> extreme weather and climate event changes have been observed during this
> time period and continued changes are projected for this century. Specific
> future projections include:
>
>    - Abnormally hot days and nights, along with heat waves, are very
>    likely to become more common. Cold nights are very likely to become less
>    common.
>    - Sea ice extent is expected to continue to decrease and may even
>    disappear in the Arctic Ocean in summer in coming decades.
>    - Precipitation, on average, is likely to be less frequent but more
>    intense.
>    - Droughts are likely to become more frequent and severe in some
>    regions.
>    - Hurricanes will likely have increased precipitation and wind.
>    - The strongest cold-season storms in the Atlantic and Pacific are
>    likely to produce stronger winds and higher extreme wave heights.
>
> -------------------------------------------
>  Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080727/61b62d44/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 67562 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080727/61b62d44/attachment-0001.jpe 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 12049 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080727/61b62d44/attachment-0001.gif