State climatologist not jumping on global warming bandwagon

[Tunderbar]

http://www.cdispatch.com/articles/2007/05/16/local_news/area_-
news/area01.txt

State climatologist not jumping on global warming bandwagon

By Joey Vaughan jvaughan@cdispatch.com Wednesday, May 16, 2007
11:10 AM CDT

>From left, state climatologist Dr. Charles Wax speaks with
>Rotary Club
members Bob Gilbert and Jennings Cox. (Photo: Vaughan)
Photo Gallery

Many people who saw "An Inconvenient Truth," a global warming
documentary featuring Al Gore, immediately became very
concerned about global climate change and impending weather
disasters.

Don't count state climatologist Dr. Charles Wax of Mississippi
State University as one of them.

"First off, there isn't a consensus among scientists," Wax
told the Columbus Rotary Club Tuesday. "Don't let anybody tell
you there is."

Wax spent much of his presentation telling the audience how
the global climate is cyclical. It's always gone through
periods of warming and cooling. As for cries of impending
doom, Wax says there's tons of data on both sides - and man's
ever-changing weather monitoring capability further clouds
the picture.

"I wouldn't want to be called a skeptic," Wax said. "I have
been called non-reputable (by people who believe
differently)."

The climate is changing, Wax admits - but it's always changing
and always has.

"I don't know if it's going to rain Thursday or not.
Certainly I don't know what the temperature is going to be in
2050," he said.

Wax said political and policy confusion have fueled the debate
over global warming, and changes in the way weather is tracked
have added to the confusion.

"In 1957, all the thermometers (the government uses to track
temperatures) were moved from fields onto airports," Wax
said. "It went from the Weather Bureau, which supported
agriculture, to the Department of Commerce. Cities are
hotter. (If you look at the numbers) you'll see a major
climate change in 1957 alone."

Wax showed Rotarians graphs of climate trends over 11,000
years, pointing out the cycles global temperatures have gone
through. He said the rise of civilization coincided with a
warming period.

"There was a little ice age from 1400 to 1800," Wax said.
"We're warming back up, but it's not nearly as warm as it was
2,000 or 7,000 years ago."

In "An Inconvenient Truth" Gore suggests the hurricane season
in 2005 that produced Katrina and Rita was directly
attributable to man's effect on the global environment.

Wax believes that's an oversimplification.

"It's not magic and it's not anything that's never happened
before," he said.

Wax said the 2005 hurricane season was the result of a
decades-long natural cycle coming around at the same time that
all six weather variables needed for hurricanes to form were
above normal levels.

Then, when forecasters called for another terrible hurricane
season in 2006, all was quiet.

"The vertical wind shear blasted everything off," Wax said.
"There wasn't a single hurricane. It's become known as the
'Year of Shear'."

That 2005 hurricane season set a record for named tropical
cyclone activity. The previous worst year was 1933.

"Are totally different things happening now? I think probably
not - we're just seeing more," Wax said.

"I think 1933 was worse. In '06, we had satellites, radar and
people flying around looking at storms," he continued. "In
1933, we had people on ships and people on land waiting for
the storms to hit. When you're on a ship, if you see a storm
you head the other way. We still managed to find 25."

[Gmcarter]

On 16 May 2007 12:57:52 -0700, Tunderbar
<tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote:

>http://www.cdispatch.com/articles/2007/05/16/local_news/area-
>_news/area01.txt
snip
>Don't count state climatologist Dr. Charles Wax of
>Mississippi State University as one of them.

Meanwhile, glaciers are melting all over and a huge melt down
has occurred in Antarctica.

No, gosh, there's no global warming. Listen to this asshole
and buy more gas! Not to worry!!

I wonder if he's one of those assholes that says HIV doesn't
cause AIDS too.

George M. Carter

[Tc]

On May 17, 5:22 am, GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 16 May 2007 12:57:52 -0700, Tunderbar
> <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.cdispatch.com/articles/2007/05/16/local_news/ar-
> >ea_news/are...
> snip
> >Don't count state climatologist Dr. Charles Wax of
> >Mississippi State University as one of them.
>
> Meanwhile, glaciers are melting all over and a huge melt
> down has occurred in Antarctica.
>
> No, gosh, there's no global warming. Listen to this asshole
> and buy more gas! Not to worry!!
>
> I wonder if he's one of those assholes that says HIV doesn't
> cause AIDS too.
>
> George M. Carter

The climate has been changing forever. From around 900 to
around 1400 we had a warming period that was warmer than
todays temperatures. Then we went thru the Little Ice Age from
around 1400 to around 1750 when the global temperatures were
significantly lower than today.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/1000-yrs.gif

This temperature record has been compiled from many different
datasets of data from different sources. Most climate related
scientists agree that that chart accurately represents the
temperature record.

1) Global warming is real.

It is well known that global temps are going up at about .6
degrees celsius per 100 years since the end of the Little Ice
Age, and nothing has happened to show that this is increasing
or decreasing. There is no real evidence that this has
accelerated in the 30 years or the last 10 years.

2) Does CO2 cause global warming?

The argument is that greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse
effect that causes global warming.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse
gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

TABLE 1.

The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor) U.S.
Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1) (all concentrations
expressed in parts per billion)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Pre-industrial baseline 288,000 Natural
additions 68,520 Man-made additions 11,880 Total (ppb)
Concentration 368,400 Percent of Total 99.438%

So of the 5% of the total hreenhouse gases that is not
ascribable to water vapor, most of the 5% is from CO2. Of that
total CO2, 368,400 ppb, the man-made component is only
0.04125% (11,880 ppb). In fact the naturally occurring
fluctuation is 6 times the amount of the man-made
CO2.

So, even if CO2 did drive climate warming, the amounts being
contributed by man are miniscule compared to naturally
occurring fluctuation and is minute compared to the impact of
water vapor.

3) There is no science that definitively shows that CO2 in
fact causes global warming. Most science points to CO2 as
actually increasing as a recult of global warming and not
the other way around.

4) Computer models can't even predict weather a week down the
road, how can we rely on them to predict climate 10 or 20
years down the road.

-------

It is claimed that (a) CO2 causes global warming and (b) CO2
levels are at their highest in recorded history therefore
temperatures will skyrocket as many as 7 degrees in the next
decade or two.

If that is the case that (a) CO2 cause global warming and (b)
CO2 is at an all time high, why are todays temperatures not
the highest in recorded history? Looking at the fudged and
cherry-picked hockey stick graph that, indeed, *appears* to be
the case but if you look at the actual real data, you will see
that the Medieval Warming period was in fact much warmer than
todays temperatures. And that was just 500 years ago.

-------

The IPCC is a committee of politicians from the UN. In 1997,
they showed the above reakl temperature graph in their
report. But that was an inconvenient truth so in 1998, they
omitted that graph. They showed this graph, the infamous
hockey stick graph:

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/hockey_stick/hockeyst-
ick01.html

This is what the IPCC hangs it hat on with regards to global
warming. Complete scientific revisionism at its worse.

Suddenly, the temperature record omits the Medieval Warm Spell
and the Little Ice Age. Michael Mann, a "scientist", on behalf
of the UNs IPCC, took two different sets of cherry picked data
that would give him the results he wanted and tacked them
together. He also shifted some of the data and arbitrarily
shifted it by 87 years. This chart is a complete fraud. No
climateologist worth his salt would agree that the hocky stick
graph is an accurate representation of global temperatures in
the past 2000 years.

The IPCC created its latest reports by drafting the statement
first, then they call on "scientists" to provide data to
support it. That is not how science works. Many real
scientists have walked away from the process because of this.
Some are still listed as contributors to the report even after
they have walked away.

The IPCC gathers this cherry picked data to support their
politics, then they publish it and announces a consensus. The
consensus only exists amongst themselves, the politicians on
the IPCC. Few of the scientists tapped by the IPCC agree that:

CO2 is the main force behind accelerated global warming.
Sunspot activity nas a stronger correlation that CO2. Water
vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect.

There is no wide consensus that supports the IPCCs report.
Fewer than a few hundred scientists took part in writing the
report. The final content was determined by politicians. Many
scientists who took part in the report process strongly
objected to the methodology and the final content. Few real
scientists agree with its temperature forecasts. Over 17,000
scientists have signed a petition against the IPCCs report,
its position and its forecasts.

http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm

The pro-global warming advocates attempt to stifle discussion
and debate on the topic, not by presenting the science, but by
political browbeating. They insist that there is a consensus
where there is none. By insisting that there is a consensus,
they then can attack scientists as being "deniers" and
"denialists" as if they had a consensus and the mainstream is
now on the outside looking in. Long respected climatologists
who express doubt about the IPCCs reports find themselves
attacked personally and professionally and sometimes find
themsleves losing funding and status.

There cannot be a consensus because there never was a debate
or discussion. The IPCC said it was so and the world better
accept it, regardless of the science.

So when a scientists expresses doubt about the IPCCs
forecasts, they are not bucking a consensus, they are
questioning a politically imposed "scientific" view.

Global warming is real, at .6 degrees celsius per 100
years. Not at any grossly exagerated rate as the IPCC would
have us believe.

It doesn't matter how loudly or how often the IPCC shouts out
its forecasts, most scientists do not consider global warming
to be a threat to anything.

[Tc]

On May 18, 9:39 am, TC <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 5:22 am, GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 16 May 2007 12:57:52 -0700, Tunderbar
> > <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.cdispatch.com/articles/2007/05/16/local_news/-
> > >area_news/are...
> > snip
> > >Don't count state climatologist Dr. Charles Wax of
> > >Mississippi State University as one of them.
>
> > Meanwhile, glaciers are melting all over and a huge melt
> > down has occurred in Antarctica.
>
> > No, gosh, there's no global warming. Listen to this
> > asshole and buy more gas! Not to worry!!
>
> > I wonder if he's one of those assholes that says HIV
> > doesn't cause AIDS too.
>
> > George M. Carter
>
> The climate has been changing forever. From around 900 to
> around 1400 we had a warming period that was warmer than
> todays temperatures. Then we went thru the Little Ice Age
> from around 1400 to around 1750 when the global temperatures
> were significantly lower than today.
>
> http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/1000-yrs.gif
>
> This temperature record has been compiled from many
> different datasets of data from different sources. Most
> climate related scientists agree that that chart accurately
> represents the temperature record.
>
> 1) Global warming is real.
>
> It is well known that global temps are going up at about .6
> degrees celsius per 100 years since the end of the Little
> Ice Age, and nothing has happened to show that this is
> increasing or decreasing. There is no real evidence that
> this has accelerated in the 30 years or the last 10 years.
>
> 2) Does CO2 cause global warming?
>
> The argument is that greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse
> effect that causes global warming.
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_d-
> ata.html
>
> Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse
> gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_d-
> ata.html
>
> TABLE 1.
>
> The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor) U.S.
> Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1) (all
> concentrations expressed in parts per billion)
>
> Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Pre-industrial baseline 288,000 Natural
> additions 68,520 Man-made additions 11,880 Total (ppb)
> Concentration 368,400 Percent of Total 99.438%
>
> So of the 5% of the total hreenhouse gases that is not
> ascribable to water vapor, most of the 5% is from CO2. Of
> that total CO2, 368,400 ppb, the man-made component is only
> 0.04125% (11,880 ppb). In fact the naturally occurring
> fluctuation is 6 times the amount of the man-made
> CO2.

This should read that the man-made component of CO2 is only
4.125% of the baseline of the 5% of non-water-vapor
greenhouse gases.

And it is in fact only 3.2247% of the total of the 5% of
non-water vapor greenhouse gases.

>
> So, even if CO2 did drive climate warming, the amounts being
> contributed by man are miniscule compared to naturally
> occurring fluctuation and is minute compared to the impact
> of water vapor.
>
> 3) There is no science that definitively shows that CO2 in
> fact causes global warming. Most science points to CO2 as
> actually increasing as a recult of global warming and not
> the other way around.
>
> 4) Computer models can't even predict weather a week down
> the road, how can we rely on them to predict climate 10
> or 20 years down the road.
>
> -------
>
> It is claimed that (a) CO2 causes global warming and (b) CO2
> levels are at their highest in recorded history therefore
> temperatures will skyrocket as many as 7 degrees in the next
> decade or two.
>
> If that is the case that (a) CO2 cause global warming and
> (b) CO2 is at an all time high, why are todays temperatures
> not the highest in recorded history? Looking at the fudged
> and cherry-picked hockey stick graph that, indeed,
> *appears* to be the case but if you look at the actual real
> data, you will see that the Medieval Warming period was in
> fact much warmer than todays temperatures. And that was
> just 500 years ago.
>
> -------
>
> The IPCC is a committee of politicians from the UN. In 1997,
> they showed the above reakl temperature graph in their
> report. But that was an inconvenient truth so in 1998, they
> omitted that graph. They showed this graph, the infamous
> hockey stick graph:
>
> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/hockey_stick/hockeystic-
> k01.html
>
> This is what the IPCC hangs it hat on with regards to global
> warming. Complete scientific revisionism at its worse.
>
> Suddenly, the temperature record omits the Medieval Warm
> Spell and the Little Ice Age. Michael Mann, a "scientist",
> on behalf of the UNs IPCC, took two different sets of cherry
> picked data that would give him the results he wanted and
> tacked them together. He also shifted some of the data and
> arbitrarily shifted it by 87 years. This chart is a complete
> fraud. No climateologist worth his salt would agree that the
> hocky stick graph is an accurate representation of global
> temperatures in the past 2000 years.
>
> The IPCC created its latest reports by drafting the
> statement first, then they call on "scientists" to provide
> data to support it. That is not how science works. Many real
> scientists have walked away from the process because of
> this. Some are still listed as contributors to the report
> even after they have walked away.
>
> The IPCC gathers this cherry picked data to support their
> politics, then they publish it and announces a consensus.
> The consensus only exists amongst themselves, the
> politicians on the IPCC. Few of the scientists tapped by the
> IPCC agree that:
>
> CO2 is the main force behind accelerated global warming.
> Sunspot activity nas a stronger correlation that CO2. Water
> vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect.

This should read "CO2 is not proven to be the main
force......"

>
> There is no wide consensus that supports the IPCCs report.
> Fewer than a few hundred scientists took part in writing the
> report. The final content was determined by politicians.
> Many scientists who took part in the report process strongly
> objected to the methodology and the final content. Few real
> scientists agree with its temperature forecasts. Over 17,000
> scientists have signed a petition against the IPCCs report,
> its position and its forecasts.
>
> http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm
>
> The pro-global warming advocates attempt to stifle
> discussion and debate on the topic, not by presenting the
> science, but by political browbeating. They insist that
> there is a consensus where there is none. By insisting that
> there is a consensus, they then can attack scientists as
> being "deniers" and "denialists" as if they had a consensus
> and the mainstream is now on the outside looking in. Long
> respected climatologists who express doubt about the IPCCs
> reports find themselves attacked personally and
> professionally and sometimes find themsleves losing funding
> and status.
>
> There cannot be a consensus because there never was a debate
> or discussion. The IPCC said it was so and the world better
> accept it, regardless of the science.
>
> So when a scientists expresses doubt about the IPCCs
> forecasts, they are not bucking a consensus, they are
> questioning a politically imposed "scientific" view.
>
> Global warming is real, at .6 degrees celsius per 100 years.
> Not at any grossly exagerated rate as the IPCC would have us
> believe.
>
> It doesn't matter how loudly or how often the IPCC shouts
> out its forecasts, most scientists do not consider global
> warming to be a threat to anything.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Gmcarter]

On 18 May 2007 07:39:16 -0700, TC <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 17, 5:22 am, GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 16 May 2007 12:57:52 -0700, Tunderbar
>> <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://www.cdispatch.com/articles/2007/05/16/local_news/a-
>> >rea_news/are...
>> snip
>> >Don't count state climatologist Dr. Charles Wax of
>> >Mississippi State University as one of them.
>>
>> Meanwhile, glaciers are melting all over and a huge melt
>> down has occurred in Antarctica.
>>
>> No, gosh, there's no global warming. Listen to this asshole
>> and buy more gas! Not to worry!!
>>
>> I wonder if he's one of those assholes that says HIV
>> doesn't cause AIDS too.
>>
>> George M. Carter
>
>The climate has been changing forever.

Of course it has. And it will stop changing when the sun
belches and incinerates the inner planets.

The difference is that this time, our species is accelerating
the change and potentially creating the next great extinction.

It is little surprise that you embrace, though sad to see,
this denial of global warming and its anthropogenic sources,
much in the same way that you deny that HIV causes AIDS.

Sadly, it renders your more cogent criticisms of the
pharmaceutical industry less potent.

George M. Carter

[Tc]

On May 19, 5:15 am, GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 18 May 2007 07:39:16 -0700, TC <tdcom...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 17, 5:22 am, GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On 16 May 2007 12:57:52 -0700, Tunderbar
> >> <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.cdispatch.com/articles/2007/05/16/local_news-
> >> >/area_news/are...
> >> snip
> >> >Don't count state climatologist Dr. Charles Wax of
> >> >Mississippi State University as one of them.
>
> >> Meanwhile, glaciers are melting all over and a huge melt
> >> down has occurred in Antarctica.
>
> >> No, gosh, there's no global warming. Listen to this
> >> asshole and buy more gas! Not to worry!!
>
> >> I wonder if he's one of those assholes that says HIV
> >> doesn't cause AIDS too.
>
> >> George M. Carter
>
> >The climate has been changing forever.
>
> Of course it has. And it will stop changing when the sun
> belches and incinerates the inner planets.

Or cools off and heats up again and keeps cycling like that
for another several million years.

>
> The difference is that this time, our species is
> accelerating the change and potentially creating the next
> great extinction.

CO2 does not drive the temperatures. Temperatures drive CO2.
Water Vapor is 95% of all the greenhouse gas effect.

TABLE 1.

The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor) U.S.
Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1) (all concentrations
expressed in parts per billion)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Pre-industrial baseline 288,000 Natural
additions 68,520 Man-made additions 11,880 Total (ppb)
Concentration 368,400 Percent of Total 99.438%

So of the 5% of the total hreenhouse gases that is not
ascribable to water vapor, most of the 5% is from CO2. Of that
total CO2, 368,400 ppb, the the man-made component of CO2 is
only 4.125% of the baseline of the 5% of non-water-vapor
greenhouse gases.

Naturally occurring fluctuations are 6 times more than the
entire globes man-made additions.

>
> It is little surprise that you embrace, though sad to see,
> this denial of global warming and its anthropogenic sources,
> much in the same way that you deny that HIV causes AIDS.

We are discussing CO2 causing catastrophic global warming.
Man-made CO2 cannot possibly drive temperatures.

CO2 is at its highest levels ever. Why are temperatures not at
their highest levels ever right now?

>
> Sadly, it renders your more cogent criticisms of the
> pharmaceutical industry less potent.
>
> George M. Carter

Actually it shows that I am independent minded and fair minded
enough to not rant and rave against a given industry just for
the hell of it, or for some prejudicial reasons or for reasons
of ideology. I abhor the fossil fuel industry and their global
gouging of their products end users, not to mention the damage
to the environment, (remember the Exxon Valdez), but I will
not jump on the global warming bandwagon just because I have
antipathy towards the industry. I consider myself an
environementalist but I will not accept crap science as a way
to advance the cause. I actually look at the science and make
my determinations from that.

Global warming is an out and out fraud. It is a view held by a
few politicians, activists and weather "scientists" that have
a vested interest in perpetuating their industry.

Fewer than a few hundred people wrote and support the lie in
the IPCCs reports. It is all politics.

More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition against the
IPCC and its predictions. Real scientists.

Wake up and smell the coffee. You've been had.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q-
=global+warming+swindle