PersianPaladin

Indeed... And people have the nerve to call ME a "raving conspiracy theorist"....whils't they simultaneously spread sensationalist speculative and intentionally misleading CRAP on the internet about AGW.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/450.short

George Monboit points out, to avoid dangerous climate change - the entire world must dramatically reduce greenhouse gases by no less than 90 per cent by 2030 (in fact, it should be BEFORE 2020, with further efforts to safely capture and store carbon from the atmosphere through carbon sequestration, among other methods, according to NASA's Hansen). Doing so, he shows, would require large-scale changes in the infrastructure of Western societies to downsize energy consumption and revert to renewable energies. Sadly, our current globalised political-economic industrial system (with deep control from vested corporate interests) stands in the way of such change. With green-washing and rhetoric seemingly the only thing that politicians and companies offer on the issue of climate change - it will be in the hands of the people to forcefully demand a change away from this highly wasteful and damaging system. If the peoples' minds remain controlled by those who hold the greatest monetary power - the future of our children looks very dark indeed. Only Jesus can save us now....it seems.

Yup, it's very misleading...as I already said.

Just pointing out that the Telegraph headline is very misleading. A quote from my link:- "Many of the Himalayan Glaciers are retreating at an accelerating rate (Ren 2006) and roughly 500 million people depend on the melt water from these glaciers (Kehrwald 2008)." http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2573&from=rss_home

Glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, despite 1 error in 1 paragraph in a 1000 page IPCC report.

70 Trillion cubic feet of New Arctic Ice http://modernsurvivalblog.com/weather-preparedness/13-billion-cubic-feet-of-new-arctic-ice/

With string-theory, you don't even need a Big Bang As for AGW. It's way too much of a complex subject for most people to handle and discuss. There is so much obfuscation out there and nobody has the time really to correct or rebutt the denial-matrix.

And you ignore the very large warming anamolies in the Arctic region of Canada (in my previous post).

And your point is? He went to Daily Snail for a reason. And the reason is to simply distract people from the science - and the fact that the evidence for AGW and highly dangerous potential of feedback-sensitivity (as demonstrated by David Wasdell in the video I posted) is overwhelming.

Regarding the high-pressure anamolies, check this from the Climate-Progress blog:- The extremes have been just as impressive when you look high in the atmosphere above these areas. Typically the midpoint of the atmosphere’s mass—the 500-millibar (500 hPa) level—rests around 5 kilometers (3 miles) above sea level during the Arctic midwinter. In mid-December, a vast bubble of high pressure formed in the vicinity of Greenland. At the center of this high, the 500-mb surface rose to more than 5.8 kilometers, a sign of remarkably mild air below. Stu Ostro (The Weather Channel) found that this was the most extreme 500-mb anomaly anywhere on the planet in weather analyses dating back to 1948. Details are at the conclusion of Ostro’s year-end blog post. Farther west, a separate monster high developed over Alaska last week. According to Richard Thoman (National Weather Service, Fairbanks), the 500-mb height over both Nome and Kotzebue rose to 582 decameters (5.82 km). That’s not only a January record: those are the highest values ever observed at those points outside of June, July, and August. http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/23/canada-mildness-high-presure-record-ostro-global-warming/

On accelerating feedback mechanisms:-

Most of the warming is occuring in the polar regions; a lot of the heat has been absorbed by the oceans and we're seeing a lot more instability worldwide (whether it's hot or cold) as a result of the extra moisture and energy in the system. GMO's = Big agribusiness, fossil-fuel dependency, big pesticide business (go read up on Monsanto in India), and industrial degradation of the soil. We would be far better off with permaculture and de-centralized solutions.

A bit of a strawman - lumping GM food skeptics in with climate skeptics. I happen to know some very credible individuals who promote AGW theory, but reject GM food as un-neccessary and damaging (e.g. ask most poor Indian farmers about Monsanto corporation).

TEQ's are the most pragmatic way of dealing with energy security in the context of peak oil and climate change. People are going to have to get used to a more de-centralised economic system. I also suggest that the people whining about this should do something constructive - and start joining the Transition Towns movement. A push to more decentralized economies will rejuvenate many areas that have suffered as a result of economic centralisation.

Regarding cosmic rays, Jethro may be interested in this piece that critiques the Gregory-Lockwood findings that cosmic rays were not responsible for global temperature increases in the twenty years prior to 2007:- http://members.shaw....queLockwood.pdf My view is that there is no compelling evidence that cosmic rays even approach CO2 as the cause of the warming. The arguments will continue though...it seems.

Cosmic rays have an influence on cloud formation, but to suggest that they over-ride the warming from CO2 - is actually incorrect (as is explained here):- "Cosmic rays may play a part in helping form clouds. If this is the case, increased cosmic rays would lead to more cloud cover, resulting in a cooling effect. Conversely, decreased cosmic rays would warm the earth. To calculate the maximum possible role of cosmic rays in recent warming, global temperatures were compared to cosmic radiation levels measured by neutron monitors at the Earth's surface. While there was good correlation between cosmic radiation and temperature prior to 1970, the correlation breaks down sharply after 1970. The analysis concludes that "between 1970 and 1985 the cosmic ray flux, although still behaving similarly to the temperature, in fact lags it and cannot be the cause of its rise. Thus changes in the cosmic ray flux cannot be responsible for more than 15% of the temperature increase" (Krivova 2003)." and "Similarly, a comparison of neutron monitor measurements, Beryllium 10 and Carbon 14 isotopes (both proxies for cosmic radiation) with global temperatures found that cosmic rays "have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures" (Lockwood 2007). Regardless of whether cosmic rays help form clouds, the trend in cosmic radiation is opposite to that required to cause warming. " http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm

GrayWolf...that article is misleading. I strongly suggest you actually read this to understand the context:- http://ourworld.unu....k-oil-and-coal/ I clarify things further, here:- http://hozturner.blo...ge-there-i.html

Right now, we’re headed towards an ice-free planet. That takes us through the Eemian interglacial period of about 130,000 years ago when sea levels were 15 to 20 feet higher, when temperatures had been thought to be about 1°C warmer than today. Then we go back to the “early Pliocene, when sea level was about 25 m [82 feet] higher than today,†as NASA’s James Hansen and Makiko Sato explain in a new draft paper, “Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change.†The question is how much warmer was it in the Eemian and early Pliocene than today — and how fast can the great ice sheets disintegrate? We already know we’re at CO2 levels that risk catastrophe if they are sustained or exceeded for any extended period of time (see Science: CO2 levels haven’t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher). http://climateprogre...sea-level-rise/

I suspect it is, but we shall see. Meanwhile I suggest you buy the book "Confronting Collapse" (by Mike Ruppert) and read the chapter on evaluating new alternative energy claims:- http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/1603582649

Economic terms simply means the loss of life was not big, but the damage to property was unprecedented - so that does mean it was the worst in terms of scale and damage (in Australian history). As for the Hockey Stick..I think you're mistaken about the actual synthesis of data around the world that supports it. There is a link here for anybody who is interested:- http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/ Your claim is incorrect. Bunk patent claims have been created, as is mentioned in this piece about scientific snake oil:- http://www.chem1.com/CQ/coralscams.html

It will be worth reading the report, here's a notable quote from it:- At times of scarcity, consumers will need to be sure that they can obtain their entitlement of fuel and energy. Without such an entitlement, or ration, those who are unsuccessful in bidding for the energy they need, or who are not quick enough to get hold of whatever fuel is available, will be left with none. http://www.appgopo.o...Q_18Jan2011.pdf

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/01/18/can-we-drop-it-stopped-warming-in-1998-now/

Fuel Rationing in U.K. Needed by 2020 to Cut CO2 Emissions, Lawmakers Say By Alex Morales - Tue Jan 18 18:26:56 GMT 2011 Fuel rationing may be needed by 2020 in the U.K. to meet the government’s carbon emission targets, a panel of lawmakers said, suggesting an electronic trading system for energy quotas. Under the system, called Tradable Energy Quotas, or TEQs, energy credits would be distributed free to every adult, who could then buy and sell surplus units, the London-based research group The Lean Economy Connection said today in a report commissioned by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil. The multi-party panel of lawmakers looks at the impacts of declining fossil-fuel production. http://www.bloomberg...co2-target.html In my view, this should be implemented asap.

Can we drop “It Stopped warming in 1998″ Now?