That is typical Brit sensationalism. How many died from the wildfires and smoke inhalation. That is not any fault of warming. And only 6 days were record temps.
Death rates have escalated steadily since the heatwave began, according to statisticians. “We recorded 14,340 deaths in Moscow in July, that is 4,824 deaths more than in July, 2009,” said Yevgenia Smirnova, an official from the Moscow registry office.
Not to mention a rise in alcoholism in Russia. It could be part of that higher number. How many died directly from the higher heat is the question.
there are now 2.3 million registered alcoholics in Russia, 500,000 premature deaths from alcohol each year, and daily alcohol consumption by a third of Russia’s children
That is 41,000 per month dying in Russia from alcohol abuse. I'm not buying the 5k from warmer temps. Not good data backing up the headline.
PS San Diego registered the coldest July on record. Which all adds up to lots of goofy weather. Little data to pin it on man. AGW folks cannot have it both ways, hotter and colder.
Today is global warming’s birthday — well, the day the term was coined 35 years ago. What are you going to do on this day?
On Aug. 8, 1975, Wally Broecker used the phrase global warming in scientific literature for the first time. The article, published in the journal Science, was: “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?“
In the article, he wrote: “The exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.”
Exactly right! (See our latest summary on global warming news for some of the latest details.)
“Broecker’s paper is a reminder that global warming was actually predicted before it became evident in the global temperature records over a decade later (when Jim Hansen in 1988 famously stated that ‘global warming is here’),” RealClimate notes.
The question now is not if we are experiencing global warming (although many are still trying to make that the question), and the question is not about what the causes and effects of global warming are.
But, rather, the question is: what are we going to do about it?
What are you going to do about it today?
According to the cult NO MORE RESEARCH is needed. It is a done deal.
I'm not planning on doing anything but voting against any politician that is behind this ignorance of AGW. The climate is changing both warmer and colder. And there is nothing to do but try and survive. Insulate your home and yourself from the elements.
Argentina Has Colder Winter Than Antartica, Spurring Record Power Imports
In July, temperatures in Buenos Aires were, on average, 1 degree Celsius below the usual low and high of 8 and 14 degrees (46 and 57 degrees Farenheit), with temperatures plummeting to about 2 degrees Celsius on July 15.
Renewed Cold
Also on July 15, temperatures in Mendoza, the wine- producing region in western Argentina, fell as low as -8.9 degrees Celsius below the temperature registered that day in the Argentine-controlled area of the South Pole, according to a national weather institute report.
And where it is not hot it is well below normal. If we could believe anyone in the Biz we might get an honest answer as to how wide spread the below normal is compared to the above normal. With AGW being the agenda of the leaders of several powerful nations, it is unlikely to get an honest appraisal. All those leaders see is $$$$ to control this boogie man they call AGW. It is a shame that honest science is no longer considered important. It is not just in climate studies. It is in every field of endeavor. Politics is in control of science.
US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal – NOAA Disgraced
UPDATE 8-10-2010: It would appear CoastWatch has removed the original image. Never fear, it's shown here on the right. Please see author's addendum at end of article.
Global warming data apparently cooked by U.S. government-funded body shows astounding temperature fraud with increases averaging 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit.
The tax-payer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has become mired in fresh global warming data scandal involving numbers for the Great Lakes region that substantially ramp up averages.
A beleaguered federal agency appears to be implicated in the most blatant and extreme case of climate data fraud yet seen. Official records have been confirmed as evidence that a handful of temperature records for the Great Lakes region have been hiked up by literally hundreds of degrees to substantially inflate the average temperature range for the northeastern United States.
The web pages at the center of this latest climate storm were created by NOAA in partnership with Michigan State University.
"NOTICE: Due to degradation of a satellite sensor used by this mapping product, some images have exhibited extreme high and low surface temperatures. Please disregard these images as anomalies."
I think they better fix their check engine light. :P
Meanwhile, from the NY Times, "far-flung disasters are reviving the question of whether global warming is causing more weather extremes. The collective answer of the scientific community can be boiled down to a single word: probably."
Which shows that the idea of keeping track of the weather is fine. To use error prone systems to further an agenda such as AGW is not good. Everywhere the systems used by NOAA and NWS have been scrutinized they are found to be in error. Not all of them. Just enough to make a big difference in the over all scheme of things. Some places are warmer this year, some are cooler. That is the way it has been forever. The Russian reports say hottest weather in 1000 years. No SUVs 1000 years ago.
It seems that you always disregard information that doesn't conform to your biased views. This is not a good way to approach an issue that is a controversial as GW. Listen to research from both sides and you might learn something.
Unfortunately the GW issue has become polarized and very political. Would you really expect warmists to publish any information that went against their theory or to present a balanced viewpoint?
Rather than just trying to discredit the source, why don't you address the content of the article?
That data came from NOAA as posted by Steve. It was brought to the attention of the media by a blog. As it would have not been noticed. Just like much of the fraudulent data used to push the AGW cult agenda.
The data is real, you can deny its existence. That does not change the facts. Do we know for a fact that NOAA kicked out the data that was obviously screwed up. What would one station reporting 600 degrees do to the overall Global data? I know my RAWS station is consistently incorrect. How many more?
By the way, I am enjoying the coolest summer EVER here in So California. As was family in LA we visited. Only used AC 4 days so far. And does not look like we will need it again this year.
A properly discredited source just means that there is no more discussion required. They are spouting THEIR beliefs as to what happened. Anyone can put anything they want on a blog.
Everyone knows that all sides have agendas to push - I just wonder still what the "agenda" of the NOAA was under Bush, a GW denier ? If it's the SAME now under a "believer" like Obama, then what is the agenda?
Nothing in those reports changes the weather, or the fact that 2010 will be one of the hottest years ever globally.
Like anyone in their right mind would believe that crock of ....stuff.... UM scientists and the NOAA fudging numbers up into the 400 degree range to affect the averages....what a crock. Totally impossible to believe.
This is just the :deniers: battling the fact that 2010 is hotter and they can't 'splain it away.
Looks like the climatechangefraud bloggers are getting desperate.
The state's slogan is "Don't mess with Texas." But the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is doing just that, and at stake is whether the Obama administration can impose its global-warming agenda without a vote of Congress.
President Obama's EPA is already well down the path to regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, something the act was not designed to do. It has a problem, however, because shoehorning greenhouse gases into that 40-year-old law would force churches, schools, warehouses, commercial kitchens and other sources to obtain costly and time-consuming permits. It would grind the economy to a halt, and the likely backlash would doom the whole scheme.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chairman Bryan W. Shaw saw the tailoring rule for what it really is: a massive power grab and centralization of authority. They are fighting back, writing to the EPA:
For those that believe AGW is just good science. It is nothing but a political agenda. Designed to centralize control of the country the World and our individual lives. Not much different than the recent Federal lawsuit against AZ immigration law. It is all about power and greed. They get liberal minded eco folks believing that it is good for the country. Before long we will all have a GPS assigned to US and the Feds will decide when we can drive to the grocery store.
Gary says, "Before long we will all have a GPS assigned to US and the Feds will decide when we can drive to the grocery store."
Please, Gary. Really? You really worry about something that ridiculous? Really? With all the REAL problems in the world, you worry about something that could NEVER really happen, EVER?
I feel for you amigo. I hope I never get as cynical as that.
Refresh my memory:
What actual benefit, again, do these "mysterious plotters" get from regulating pollution? How exactly does "regulating pollution" get converted to "controlling our lives?"
Oh, by the way, that is a political take on the issue. The author is a member of "Americans for Prosperity" which is a right-wing, Tea-Party organization.
So you are complaining about the politicization of the AGW issue by posting a link to an opinion piece written by someone directly related to a political organization.
Please, Gary. Really? You really worry about something that ridiculous? Really? With all the REAL problems in the world, you worry about something that could NEVER really happen, EVER?
You really need to keep up here. There are entities that would like to control how much CO2 each of US emit. Are you with me still? Just as there are people that want to control how much Pot you grow in states that it has been legalized. Now for the good part. The 9th Circuit court has just said that it is perfectly legal for the government to put a tracking device on YOUR car while it is parked in YOUR driveway, for the purpose of tracking where you go. So how hard would it be for some zealot to decide in this whacked out society, how much you can drive your car and where?
I realize that Time magazine is a left wing rag. But this issue is raising hackles on both ends of the spectrum as well as the middle.
Oh, by the way, that is a political take on the issue. The author is a member of "Americans for Prosperity" which is a right-wing, Tea-Party organization.
Every one has an opinion these days in the media. Are you saying she did not post the facts about the EPA and the progress made in TX? Maybe the Washington Times would like your take on the subject.
Al Gore is mad at everyone for not pushing Cap n Trade legislation. Of course he is, it has cut into his massive Carbon Credit scheme, costing him millions of dollars.
PATTERSON: Al Gore's global-warming crusade shrinks Eco-autocrats are exposed as frauds
Poor Al Gore. As if an im- pending divorce and allegations of sexual misconduct from an Oregon masseuse weren't bad enough (he has since been cleared of wrongdoing), the apparent collapse of "cap-and-trade" legislation in the U.S. Senate has driven the former vice president to despair.
Only about a third of the population is fooled by his lies and the whole AGW agenda. Too bad, so sad. He can go back to his McMansions and continue his personal carbon footprint the size of many small cities.
GPS Tracking of my car.....not moving my quiver-meter one iota.
OnStar does it. Guvmint could get access to that info if they wanted it. Nothing new. Can be done with cell phones with GPS software also.
You know who cares about this issue?
C R I M I N A L S.
If you ain't doing nothing wrong, WHO GIVES A FLAT DAM about where you are going?
I'll VOLUNTEER to let the Guvmint put a tracking device on my car. "Oh My God, he took his KIDS TO SCHOOL !!! He stopped at FRY'S for groceries !!! He went to WalMart !!! OMG !!!!! "
You know, I can understand why people with a criminal bent, or people having an affair, or anyone doing something unethical or illegal might be worried about this.
But I don't fall into that category, and neither do YOU, Gary.
I agree that tracking with GPS is a great tool for apprehending criminals. We have laws that make it easy to do just that. It is called a warrant. I just find the whole business of AGW and the people behind it very repressive. It is the same mentality that has attacked AZ laws on immigration. Using the EPA to do what Congress is not willing to do, is circumventing Congress and the whole Constitutional basis of 3 separate entities to balance the power.
If I was in charge I may want to do something about you taking your kids to school and picking them up in a private vehicle. That causes a lot of extra emissions of GHG. If it is hot and several hundred parents are lined up, AC running waiting to pick up kids, it could be warming the planet. So ban parents from taking their kids to school and make them ride a school bus. Of course that will be $500 per year, per kid. At least it is in our school district.
Gary says, "Everyone has an opinion these days in the media. Are you saying she did not post the facts about the EPA and the progress made in TX? Maybe the Washington Times would like your take on the subject."
It's just odd that you complain about how politicized this issue is, then post (promote) an opinion piece from one of the political sides.
If it shouldn't be politicized by one side, then the other side can't do it either, right?
Don't use a politicized opinion to complain about the politicization of the issue.
It's just odd that you complain about how politicized this issue is, then post (promote) an opinion piece from one of the political sides.
There are NO unbiased sources on either side of the AGW issue. Nothing you have posted here has been from a totally unbiased source. It does not exist. Everyone has an opinion and agenda. I just happen to agree with those that do not believe you can tax & spend your way out of every problem. The AGW group believe you can. I also believe that climate changes are mostly natural. With very little man can do to change it either way. You disagree so we are on opposite sides of the issue. Both with our own views and opinions.
GW Science is at least 90% opinion with maybe 10% verifiable, irrefutable facts.
Gary says, " I just happen to agree with those that do not believe you can tax & spend your way out of every problem."
Oh, Believe me Amigo, we are on the same page there.
I am just sad that so many of my Republican Amigos seem to think that investigating whether or not man is or is not having an effect on global climate is something they see framed as "some wacky liberal telling me how to live and what to drive."
It's not about that AT ALL in my opinion.
It's ALL about - "we have a problem, let's find a solution."
Don't deny the problem just because you don't want to be a part of the solution. I see SO many Republicans taking that mindset.
It's ALL about - "we have a problem, let's find a solution."
Sadly that is not what AGW is all about. It started in the 1970s with global cooling. When that did not generate interest outside of the eco nut realm. They went for global warming caused by cars. Al Gore in his early writings wanted to do away with the ICE as a polluter. When the automakers started building cleaner cars they had to come up with some other scam. It has been about greed and power from the beginning. It is the use of FEAR to control people. If it was pure unadulterated science I could get behind it. If you look at all that has come down it is about generating fear of the future. When they could not get logical thinking adults to believe them, they switched to the schools and indoctrinate the children. Kids come home telling mom and dad they are killing the polar bears by driving an SUV.
If the people like Al Gore & companies that promote the AGW agenda, really believed what they were saying, don't you think they would want to set an example for the rest of US? They do not believe the hocus pocus they are trying to sell the masses. We are talking $BILLIONS and maybe $TRILLIONS in redistributed wealth. Yours and mine already with higher utility bills.
How, exactly, does AlGore collect all that money he started taking from my higher utility bills?
Unless he is a solar contractor, or wind power generation contractor, how do mandates that utility companies produce cleaner power put money into AlGore's bank account?
How, exactly, does AlGore collect all that money he started taking from my higher utility bills?
Carbon Credits man. Where have you been?
Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world's first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.
Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.
The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.
The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the *Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.
*that would be our tax dollars
On Wednesday, despite claims by one of Gore's representatives two months ago, it was revealed that his Generation Investment Management private equity fund has taken a 9.5 percent stake in a company that has one of the largest carbon credit portfolios in the world.
You want to spew carbon into the air, you pay the man.... Even if you don't want to spew CO2 and your business has no choice to do otherwise. You still pay the man.
AGW is all about money and power. Nothing else. Oh, the eco nuts think they have won. They will pay with the rest of us schmucks. :sick:
P.S. I'm ALL FOR smart grid grants and other energy-saving technology grants. My tax money could (and does) go to a lot worse causes.
I am not. It is not constitutional in any way shape or form. And how do you know this company is not selling vaporware at a huge price? Too much room for corruption in a very corrupt government.
If you are getting any electricity from 4 corners coal generation plant, you are lucky. And you are right no Carbon credits being bought. It is on Sovereign Indian land and does not come under EPA regulations as do most producers. It is also the largest electric plant in the USA.
Since this plant has been able to operate without any meaningful federal, state, or tribal emission limits, the plant emits an astonishing amount of pollution. Every year the plant emits over 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide emissions. It also emits 590 pounds of mercury. The plant’s annual emission of nitrogen oxides, 40,742 tons, is the highest of all coal-fired power plants in the nation and is equivalent to the emissions from approximately 2 million vehicles that have driven 15,000 miles a year.
So you can smile for a while as AZ has not fallen victim to the same kind of Eco Nuts we have in CA. The type that would put all US little people back into the caves.
Either GHG and CO2 are making it warmer or colder. Not both unless the science they are spewing is all fallacy.
Cold empties Bolivian rivers of fish
Scientists who have visited the affected rivers say the event is the biggest ecological disaster Bolivia has known, and, as an example of a sudden climatic change wreaking havoc on wildlife, it is unprecedented in recorded history.
"There's just a huge number of dead fish," says Michel Jégu, a researcher from the Institute for Developmental Research in Marseilles, France, who is currently working at the Noel Kempff Mercado Natural History Museum in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. "In the rivers near Santa Cruz there's about 1,000 dead fish for every 100 metres of river."
With such extreme climatic events potentially becoming more common due to climate change, scientists are hurrying to coordinate research into the impact, and how quickly the ecosystem is likely to recover.
The extraordinary quantity of decomposing fish flesh has polluted the waters of the Grande, Pirai and Ichilo rivers to the extent that local authorities have had to provide alternative sources of drinking water for towns along the rivers' banks. Many fishermen have lost their main source of income, having been banned from removing any more fish from populations that will probably struggle to recover.
The blame lies, at least indirectly, with a mass of Antarctic air that settled over the Southern Cone of South America for most of July. The prolonged cold snap has also been linked to the deaths of at least 550 penguins along the coasts of Brazil and thousands of cattle in Paraguay and Brazil, as well as hundreds of people in the region.
It is a natural weather pattern. We just have not been around long enough to see such extremes. They did in 1000 AD when they were farming Greenland. Instead of wasting $billions trying to change the climate. We should be finding ways to adapt to whatever mother nature throws at us.
Wouldn't MY SPECIFIC utility have to be buying "carbon credits" though, for it to affect MY utility bills directly?
Utilities are only a small part of the carbon credit market. By your above statement you are showing that you don't have a good view of how far reaching the selling of carbon credits would go. Entities that would have to buy carbon credits are the many manufacturing and transportation companies of the world. There would be a carbon-credit cost built into every product you buy. If your bananas from Central America come on a diesel ship, your vegetables from CA come on a truck, your toilet paper coming from a paper-mill in Maine and then being shipped to you ... everything would have this added carbon credit cost in it. Manufacturing and shipping companies are going to pass this cost onto you, just like every other government mandated program adds cost to what we buy.
So while it is fine to have costs to minimize pollution and improve worker safety - known problems, I don't see how taxing companies for carbon credits is going to change the amount of energy that is required to produce and transport your toilet paper. If there was a better, lower cost way (less energy used) to make and ship goods, the manufacturers would have already done so.
Tuesday August 31 2010 THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.
A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.
It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.
The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC’s hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
The panel was forced to admit its key claim in support of global warming was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were “speculation” and not backed by research.
Independent climate scientist Peter Taylor said last night: “The IPCC’s credibility has been deeply dented and something has to be done. It can’t just be a matter of adjusting the practices. They have got to look at what are the consequences of having got it wrong in terms of what the public think is going on. Admitting that it needs to reform means something has gone wrong and they really do need to look at the science.”
Climate change sceptic David Holland, who challenged leading climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia to disclose their research, said: “The panel is definitely not fit for purpose. What the IAC has said is substantial changes need to be made.”
The IAC, which comprises the world’s top science academies including the UK’s Royal Society, made recommendations to the IPCC to “enhance its credibility and independence” after the Himalayan glaciers report, which severely damaged the reputation of climate science.
It condemned the panel – set up by the UN to ensure world leaders had the best scientific advice on climate change – for its “slow and inadequate response” after the damaging errors emerged.
Among the blunders in the 2007 report were claims that 55 per cent of the Netherlands was below sea level when the figure is 26 per cent.
It also claimed that water supplies for between 75 million and 250 million people in Africa will be at risk by 2020 due to climate change, but the real range is between 90 and 220 million.
The claim that glaciers would melt by 2035 was also rejected.
Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistic.”
In yesterday’s report, the IAC said: “The IPCC needs to reform its management structure and strengthen its procedures to handle ever larger and increasingly complex climate assessments as well as the more intense public scrutiny coming from a world grappling with how to respond to climate change.”
The review also cast doubt on the future of IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri.
Earlier this year, the Daily Express reported how he had no climate science qualifications but held a PhD in economics and was a former railway engineer.
Dr Pachauri has been accused of a conflict of interest, which he denies, after it emerged that he has business interests attracting millions of pounds in funding. One, the Energy Research Institute, is set to receive up to £10million in grants from taxpayers over the next five years.
Speaking after the review was released yesterday, Dr Pachauri said: “We have the highest confidence in the science behind our assessments.
“The scientific community agrees that climate change is real. Greenhouse gases have increased as a result of human activities and now far exceed pre-industrial values.”
Article in WSJ today says that Obama Admin and EPA want to put letter grades on cars to show their efficiency in MPG and extent of carbon footprint. Cars like Prius might get an A, and SUV a C, an Exotic sports car, a D. Our politicians in DC still fixated on idea that cars contribute to global warming. Auto mfrs do not like letter grade idea in that grades are value judgements. Also pointed out is that people have bad memories from letter grades in school.
A "D" put on a big HD pickup used by contractors for heavy hauling or by ranchers for example would not make sense in that there are no alternatives with better letter grades (A, B, C) that can accomplish the tasks/work called for.
Good find, thanks for posting. You should also read the comments at the end of the article. There are only a few but they are very enlightening. It is good to see that the English know exactly what is going on.
It is good to see that the English know exactly what is going on.
Well, that'll be a first ! We don't normally have a clue. (I am a Brit, so I'm allowed to make jokes against my own country).
Seriously, though, AGW seems to have almost disappeared off the political radar since the last bunch of self-serving left-wing capitalists were voted out of office. Oh how we miss them.............rather like you'd miss toothache.
If you and others are so committed to this nonsense then do what others do in the face of non believers....put your own money up to study the issue, show a little sacrifice of your own and quit whining for other people's money to study your pet project. Enough of my hard earned cash has already been wasted by these lying charlatans.
I think you will find that the IAC is a very credible scientific organization. Just because they exposed the lies and bad science put out by the AGW cult, does not make them deniers. They are trying to find the facts, as you say you are. The UN and its IPCC agenda is a fraud. And the bunch from East Anglia University their paid lackeys.
The InterAcademy Council (IAC) produces reports on scientific, technological, and health issues related to the great global challenges of our time, providing knowledge and advice to national governments and international organizations.
The eighteen-member InterAcademy Council Board is composed of presidents of fifteen academies of science and equivalent organizations—representing Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States, plus the African Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)—and representatives of the IAP: the global network of scientific academies, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS), and the InterAcademy Medical Panel (IAMP) of medical academies.
The IAC Secretariat is hosted by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
This "Dr. Pachauri" is hilarious! His answers (actually non answers) are so transparent even Johnny Winter can see them for what they are.
Yes climate change is real....It's been happening since time immemorium. Explain please, Dr. Pachaun, why ice ages came and went before there was Man, not to mention "modern man". (Does he even know what core samples are?)
IPCC: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PABLUM ON CLIMATE CHANGE...
When you spread lies and ignorance, as Al Gore has done, you will influence imbalanced individuals.
Lee said he experienced an ‘‘awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.”
Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution.
Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don't build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!
Some people take all the AGW BS seriously. Then you have a problem like this one. Someone needs to give the guy some Prozac and explain that AGW is a political agenda, not a reality. If anyone is killed it is on Al Gore's conscience.
If it were that small, then "denier" climate scientists could SCIENTIFICALLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY, INARGUABLY SLAM anyone who said man's contributions are substantial, and that's not the case.
Do you blame music bands who write songs about suicide and someone kills themselves? No.
Yes they are partially responsible. Any celebrity type that advocates something that is wrong is and should be held responsible. In the case of Al Gore's movie, he told 11 blatant lies to put fear into people. This now dead nut case believed those lies and acted on them. If an Imam incites someone to strap on a bomb and blow up himself and kill others he can and should be held responsible. The blind cleric that incited the 1993 bombing of the WTC was sent to jail. Al Gore has incited many with his lies and half truths. He belongs behind bars. Don't forget the claim that 1 in 5 Californians are nut cases. Giving them ideas that can lead to committing a crime should be punished.
I say man may be 5% responsible at MOST for any kind of changes in the weather. Not worth all the tax money being wasted on studies. Not worth the $billions wasted on alternative energy subsidies.
Comments
Death rates have escalated steadily since the heatwave began, according to statisticians. “We recorded 14,340 deaths in Moscow in July, that is 4,824 deaths more than in July, 2009,” said Yevgenia Smirnova, an official from the Moscow registry office.
Not to mention a rise in alcoholism in Russia. It could be part of that higher number. How many died directly from the higher heat is the question.
there are now 2.3 million registered alcoholics in Russia, 500,000 premature deaths from alcohol each year, and daily alcohol consumption by a third of Russia’s children
http://www.eurasiareview.com/201007094671/russias-highest-levels-blocking-needed- -efforts-to-limit-alcohol-consumption.html
That is 41,000 per month dying in Russia from alcohol abuse. I'm not buying the 5k from warmer temps. Not good data backing up the headline.
PS
San Diego registered the coldest July on record. Which all adds up to lots of goofy weather. Little data to pin it on man. AGW folks cannot have it both ways, hotter and colder.
On Aug. 8, 1975, Wally Broecker used the phrase global warming in scientific literature for the first time. The article, published in the journal Science, was: “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?“
In the article, he wrote: “The exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.”
Exactly right! (See our latest summary on global warming news for some of the latest details.)
“Broecker’s paper is a reminder that global warming was actually predicted before it became evident in the global temperature records over a decade later (when Jim Hansen in 1988 famously stated that ‘global warming is here’),” RealClimate notes.
The question now is not if we are experiencing global warming (although many are still trying to make that the question), and the question is not about what the causes and effects of global warming are.
But, rather, the question is: what are we going to do about it?
What are you going to do about it today?
According to the cult NO MORE RESEARCH is needed. It is a done deal.
I'm not planning on doing anything but voting against any politician that is behind this ignorance of AGW. The climate is changing both warmer and colder. And there is nothing to do but try and survive. Insulate your home and yourself from the elements.
http://planetsave.com/2010/08/08/global-warming-birthday/
In July, temperatures in Buenos Aires were, on average, 1 degree Celsius below the usual low and high of 8 and 14 degrees (46 and 57 degrees Farenheit), with temperatures plummeting to about 2 degrees Celsius on July 15.
Renewed Cold
Also on July 15, temperatures in Mendoza, the wine- producing region in western Argentina, fell as low as -8.9 degrees Celsius below the temperature registered that day in the Argentine-controlled area of the South Pole, according to a national weather institute report.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-03/argentina-colder-than-antarctica-spurs-- record-power-imports-shuts-plants.html
If we blame the warming on man, got to blame the cooling also. It is logical, according to many of the ECO NUTS running things.
My question is if CO2 causes warming what is causing the cooling?
It wasn't an OPINION piece Gary - it was a news story.
Heat waves rocking the planet, all over:
Israel
Midwest and Southeast
18 States
Alabama
Arkansas
Souf Carolina
A well-put question my friend, which bolsters my point that MORE research needs to be done.
UPDATE 8-10-2010: It would appear CoastWatch has removed the original image. Never fear, it's shown here on the right. Please see author's addendum at end of article.
Global warming data apparently cooked by U.S. government-funded body shows astounding temperature fraud with increases averaging 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit.
The tax-payer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has become mired in fresh global warming data scandal involving numbers for the Great Lakes region that substantially ramp up averages.
A beleaguered federal agency appears to be implicated in the most blatant and extreme case of climate data fraud yet seen. Official records have been confirmed as evidence that a handful of temperature records for the Great Lakes region have been hiked up by literally hundreds of degrees to substantially inflate the average temperature range for the northeastern United States.
The web pages at the center of this latest climate storm were created by NOAA in partnership with Michigan State University.
Check the NOAA chart
And here:
http://www.examiner.com/environmental-policy-in-boston/us-government-massive-new- -global-warming-scandal-noaa-disgraced
http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/37451-us-government-in-massive-new-global-war- ming-scandal--noaa-disgraced
Coastwatch
I think they better fix their check engine light. :P
Meanwhile, from the NY Times, "far-flung disasters are reviving the question of whether global warming is causing more weather extremes. The collective answer of the scientific community can be boiled down to a single word: probably."
Can be disregarded as politically-based bias.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Wrong on TWO counts:
1. Not ALWAYS. I just dismiss things coming from people who have obvious, closed-minded biases, such as the people running the blogs Gary posted.
2. I don't HAVE a "bias" other than "We cannot DISMISS the POSSIBILITY that man's activities are contributing to harmful warming."
That's a pretty reasonable stance, and that's the one I have stood on for a while now.
Rather than just trying to discredit the source, why don't you address the content of the article?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The data is real, you can deny its existence. That does not change the facts. Do we know for a fact that NOAA kicked out the data that was obviously screwed up. What would one station reporting 600 degrees do to the overall Global data? I know my RAWS station is consistently incorrect. How many more?
By the way, I am enjoying the coolest summer EVER here in So California. As was family in LA we visited. Only used AC 4 days so far. And does not look like we will need it again this year.
Everyone knows that all sides have agendas to push - I just wonder still what the "agenda" of the NOAA was under Bush, a GW denier ? If it's the SAME now under a "believer" like Obama, then what is the agenda?
Nothing in those reports changes the weather, or the fact that 2010 will be one of the hottest years ever globally.
Laughable.
Like anyone in their right mind would believe that crock of ....stuff.... UM scientists and the NOAA fudging numbers up into the 400 degree range to affect the averages....what a crock. Totally impossible to believe.
This is just the :deniers: battling the fact that 2010 is hotter and they can't 'splain it away.
Looks like the climatechangefraud bloggers are getting desperate.
President Obama's EPA is already well down the path to regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, something the act was not designed to do. It has a problem, however, because shoehorning greenhouse gases into that 40-year-old law would force churches, schools, warehouses, commercial kitchens and other sources to obtain costly and time-consuming permits. It would grind the economy to a halt, and the likely backlash would doom the whole scheme.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chairman Bryan W. Shaw saw the tailoring rule for what it really is: a massive power grab and centralization of authority. They are fighting back, writing to the EPA:
TX response
For those that believe AGW is just good science. It is nothing but a political agenda. Designed to centralize control of the country the World and our individual lives. Not much different than the recent Federal lawsuit against AZ immigration law. It is all about power and greed. They get liberal minded eco folks believing that it is good for the country. Before long we will all have a GPS assigned to US and the Feds will decide when we can drive to the grocery store.
Please, Gary. Really? You really worry about something that ridiculous? Really? With all the REAL problems in the world, you worry about something that could NEVER really happen, EVER?
I feel for you amigo. I hope I never get as cynical as that.
Refresh my memory:
What actual benefit, again, do these "mysterious plotters" get from regulating pollution? How exactly does "regulating pollution" get converted to "controlling our lives?"
.
.
.
.
?
So you are complaining about the politicization of the AGW issue by posting a link to an opinion piece written by someone directly related to a political organization.
HHHMMMM..............
You really need to keep up here. There are entities that would like to control how much CO2 each of US emit. Are you with me still? Just as there are people that want to control how much Pot you grow in states that it has been legalized. Now for the good part. The 9th Circuit court has just said that it is perfectly legal for the government to put a tracking device on YOUR car while it is parked in YOUR driveway, for the purpose of tracking where you go. So how hard would it be for some zealot to decide in this whacked out society, how much you can drive your car and where?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html
I realize that Time magazine is a left wing rag. But this issue is raising hackles on both ends of the spectrum as well as the middle.
Oh, by the way, that is a political take on the issue. The author is a member of "Americans for Prosperity" which is a right-wing, Tea-Party organization.
Every one has an opinion these days in the media. Are you saying she did not post the facts about the EPA and the progress made in TX? Maybe the Washington Times would like your take on the subject.
PATTERSON: Al Gore's global-warming crusade shrinks
Eco-autocrats are exposed as frauds
Poor Al Gore. As if an im- pending divorce and allegations of sexual misconduct from an Oregon masseuse weren't bad enough (he has since been cleared of wrongdoing), the apparent collapse of "cap-and-trade" legislation in the U.S. Senate has driven the former vice president to despair.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/24/al-gores-global-warming-crusade-- shrinks/
Only about a third of the population is fooled by his lies and the whole AGW agenda. Too bad, so sad. He can go back to his McMansions and continue his personal carbon footprint the size of many small cities.
OnStar does it. Guvmint could get access to that info if they wanted it. Nothing new. Can be done with cell phones with GPS software also.
You know who cares about this issue?
C R I M I N A L S.
If you ain't doing nothing wrong, WHO GIVES A FLAT DAM about where you are going?
I'll VOLUNTEER to let the Guvmint put a tracking device on my car. "Oh My God, he took his KIDS TO SCHOOL !!! He stopped at FRY'S for groceries !!! He went to WalMart !!! OMG !!!!! "
You know, I can understand why people with a criminal bent, or people having an affair, or anyone doing something unethical or illegal might be worried about this.
But I don't fall into that category, and neither do YOU, Gary.
If I was in charge I may want to do something about you taking your kids to school and picking them up in a private vehicle. That causes a lot of extra emissions of GHG. If it is hot and several hundred parents are lined up, AC running waiting to pick up kids, it could be warming the planet. So ban parents from taking their kids to school and make them ride a school bus. Of course that will be $500 per year, per kid. At least it is in our school district.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Actually, my kids ride the METRO BUS most days. I take them on rare days when the schedule calls for something unusual.
And it's $315 for both kids for the whole year if they rode EVERY school day, which they don't.
And I'm traveling in PZEV hybrid. If you want to pick on someone for pollution, I ain't that someone.
It's just odd that you complain about how politicized this issue is, then post (promote) an opinion piece from one of the political sides.
If it shouldn't be politicized by one side, then the other side can't do it either, right?
Don't use a politicized opinion to complain about the politicization of the issue.
There are NO unbiased sources on either side of the AGW issue. Nothing you have posted here has been from a totally unbiased source. It does not exist. Everyone has an opinion and agenda. I just happen to agree with those that do not believe you can tax & spend your way out of every problem. The AGW group believe you can. I also believe that climate changes are mostly natural. With very little man can do to change it either way. You disagree so we are on opposite sides of the issue. Both with our own views and opinions.
GW Science is at least 90% opinion with maybe 10% verifiable, irrefutable facts.
Oh, Believe me Amigo, we are on the same page there.
I am just sad that so many of my Republican Amigos seem to think that investigating whether or not man is or is not having an effect on global climate is something they see framed as "some wacky liberal telling me how to live and what to drive."
It's not about that AT ALL in my opinion.
It's ALL about - "we have a problem, let's find a solution."
Don't deny the problem just because you don't want to be a part of the solution. I see SO many Republicans taking that mindset.
Sadly that is not what AGW is all about. It started in the 1970s with global cooling. When that did not generate interest outside of the eco nut realm. They went for global warming caused by cars. Al Gore in his early writings wanted to do away with the ICE as a polluter. When the automakers started building cleaner cars they had to come up with some other scam. It has been about greed and power from the beginning. It is the use of FEAR to control people. If it was pure unadulterated science I could get behind it. If you look at all that has come down it is about generating fear of the future. When they could not get logical thinking adults to believe them, they switched to the schools and indoctrinate the children. Kids come home telling mom and dad they are killing the polar bears by driving an SUV.
If the people like Al Gore & companies that promote the AGW agenda, really believed what they were saying, don't you think they would want to set an example for the rest of US? They do not believe the hocus pocus they are trying to sell the masses. We are talking $BILLIONS and maybe $TRILLIONS in redistributed wealth. Yours and mine already with higher utility bills.
How, exactly, does AlGore collect all that money he started taking from my higher utility bills?
Unless he is a solar contractor, or wind power generation contractor, how do mandates that utility companies produce cleaner power put money into AlGore's bank account?
Oh, that's right, it DOESN'T, that's how.
.
.
.
Carbon Credits man. Where have you been?
Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire
Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world's first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.
Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.
The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.
The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the *Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.
*that would be our tax dollars
On Wednesday, despite claims by one of Gore's representatives two months ago, it was revealed that his Generation Investment Management private equity fund has taken a 9.5 percent stake in a company that has one of the largest carbon credit portfolios in the world.
You want to spew carbon into the air, you pay the man.... Even if you don't want to spew CO2 and your business has no choice to do otherwise. You still pay the man.
AGW is all about money and power. Nothing else. Oh, the eco nuts think they have won. They will pay with the rest of us schmucks. :sick:
BUT:
Wouldn't MY SPECIFIC utility have to be buying "carbon credits" though, for it to affect MY utility bills directly?
I've done a complete search on Google and on my utility website and there is not a line about them buying any carbon credits, anywhere to be seen.
So take THAT, AlGore !!!!
P.S. I'm ALL FOR smart grid grants and other energy-saving technology grants. My tax money could (and does) go to a lot worse causes.
I am not. It is not constitutional in any way shape or form. And how do you know this company is not selling vaporware at a huge price? Too much room for corruption in a very corrupt government.
If you are getting any electricity from 4 corners coal generation plant, you are lucky. And you are right no Carbon credits being bought. It is on Sovereign Indian land and does not come under EPA regulations as do most producers. It is also the largest electric plant in the USA.
Since this plant has been able to operate without any meaningful federal, state, or tribal emission limits, the plant emits an astonishing amount of pollution. Every year the plant emits over 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide emissions. It also emits 590 pounds of mercury. The plant’s annual emission of nitrogen oxides, 40,742 tons, is the highest of all coal-fired power plants in the nation and is equivalent to the emissions from approximately 2 million vehicles that have driven 15,000 miles a year.
So you can smile for a while as AZ has not fallen victim to the same kind of Eco Nuts we have in CA. The type that would put all US little people back into the caves.
Cold empties Bolivian rivers of fish
Scientists who have visited the affected rivers say the event is the biggest ecological disaster Bolivia has known, and, as an example of a sudden climatic change wreaking havoc on wildlife, it is unprecedented in recorded history.
"There's just a huge number of dead fish," says Michel Jégu, a researcher from the Institute for Developmental Research in Marseilles, France, who is currently working at the Noel Kempff Mercado Natural History Museum in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. "In the rivers near Santa Cruz there's about 1,000 dead fish for every 100 metres of river."
With such extreme climatic events potentially becoming more common due to climate change, scientists are hurrying to coordinate research into the impact, and how quickly the ecosystem is likely to recover.
The extraordinary quantity of decomposing fish flesh has polluted the waters of the Grande, Pirai and Ichilo rivers to the extent that local authorities have had to provide alternative sources of drinking water for towns along the rivers' banks. Many fishermen have lost their main source of income, having been banned from removing any more fish from populations that will probably struggle to recover.
The blame lies, at least indirectly, with a mass of Antarctic air that settled over the Southern Cone of South America for most of July. The prolonged cold snap has also been linked to the deaths of at least 550 penguins along the coasts of Brazil and thousands of cattle in Paraguay and Brazil, as well as hundreds of people in the region.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100827/full/news.2010.437.html
It is a natural weather pattern. We just have not been around long enough to see such extremes. They did in 1000 AD when they were farming Greenland. Instead of wasting $billions trying to change the climate. We should be finding ways to adapt to whatever mother nature throws at us.
Utilities are only a small part of the carbon credit market. By your above statement you are showing that you don't have a good view of how far reaching the selling of carbon credits would go. Entities that would have to buy carbon credits are the many manufacturing and transportation companies of the world. There would be a carbon-credit cost built into every product you buy. If your bananas from Central America come on a diesel ship, your vegetables from CA come on a truck, your toilet paper coming from a paper-mill in Maine and then being shipped to you ... everything would have this added carbon credit cost in it. Manufacturing and shipping companies are going to pass this cost onto you, just like every other government mandated program adds cost to what we buy.
So while it is fine to have costs to minimize pollution and improve worker safety - known problems, I don't see how taxing companies for carbon credits is going to change the amount of energy that is required to produce and transport your toilet paper. If there was a better, lower cost way (less energy used) to make and ship goods, the manufacturers would have already done so.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Tuesday August 31 2010
THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.
A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.
It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.
The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC’s hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
The panel was forced to admit its key claim in support of global warming was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were “speculation” and not backed by research.
Independent climate scientist Peter Taylor said last night: “The IPCC’s credibility has been deeply dented and something has to be done. It can’t just be a matter of adjusting the practices. They have got to look at what are the consequences of having got it wrong in terms of what the public think is going on. Admitting that it needs to reform means something has gone wrong and they really do need to look at the science.”
Climate change sceptic David Holland, who challenged leading climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia to disclose their research, said: “The panel is definitely not fit for purpose. What the IAC has said is substantial changes need to be made.”
The IAC, which comprises the world’s top science academies including the UK’s Royal Society, made recommendations to the IPCC to “enhance its credibility and independence” after the Himalayan glaciers report, which severely damaged the reputation of climate science.
It condemned the panel – set up by the UN to ensure world leaders had the best scientific advice on climate change – for its “slow and inadequate response” after the damaging errors emerged.
Among the blunders in the 2007 report were claims that 55 per cent of the Netherlands was below sea level when the figure is 26 per cent.
It also claimed that water supplies for between 75 million and 250 million people in Africa will be at risk by 2020 due to climate change, but the real range is between 90 and 220 million.
The claim that glaciers would melt by 2035 was also rejected.
Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistic.”
In yesterday’s report, the IAC said: “The IPCC needs to reform its management structure and strengthen its procedures to handle ever larger and increasingly complex climate assessments as well as the more intense public scrutiny coming from a world grappling with how to respond to climate change.”
The review also cast doubt on the future of IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri.
Earlier this year, the Daily Express reported how he had no climate science qualifications but held a PhD in economics and was a former railway engineer.
Dr Pachauri has been accused of a conflict of interest, which he denies, after it emerged that he has business interests attracting millions of pounds in funding. One, the Energy Research Institute, is set to receive up to £10million in grants from taxpayers over the next five years.
Speaking after the review was released yesterday, Dr Pachauri said: “We have the highest confidence in the science behind our assessments.
“The scientific community agrees that climate change is real. Greenhouse gases have increased as a result of human activities and now far exceed pre-industrial values.”
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642
A "D" put on a big HD pickup used by contractors for heavy hauling or by ranchers for example would not make sense in that there are no alternatives with better letter grades (A, B, C) that can accomplish the tasks/work called for.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Well, that'll be a first ! We don't normally have a clue.
Seriously, though, AGW seems to have almost disappeared off the political radar since the last bunch of self-serving left-wing capitalists were voted out of office. Oh how we miss them.............rather like you'd miss toothache.
He (the guy getting criticized) said this:
"Greenhouse gases have increased as a result of human activities and now far exceed pre-industrial values.”
That part is true. That's why we need more study.
That's why anyone "poo-pooing" the climate changes we have DEFINITELY WITHOUT A DOUBT SEEN is, for the most part, just being ignorant and stubborn.
We "don't know enough" to rest on our laurels.
.
.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The InterAcademy Council (IAC) produces reports on scientific, technological, and health issues related to the great global challenges of our time, providing knowledge and advice to national governments and international organizations.
The eighteen-member InterAcademy Council Board is composed of presidents of fifteen academies of science and equivalent organizations—representing Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States, plus the African Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)—and representatives of the IAP: the global network of scientific academies, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS), and the InterAcademy Medical Panel (IAMP) of medical academies.
The IAC Secretariat is hosted by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
http://www.interacademycouncil.net/
Yes climate change is real....It's been happening since time immemorium. Explain please, Dr. Pachaun, why ice ages came and went before there was Man, not to mention "modern man". (Does he even know what core samples are?)
IPCC: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PABLUM ON CLIMATE CHANGE...
Lee said he experienced an ‘‘awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38957020/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
From this ECO NUT'S manifesto:
Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy
human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution.
Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don't build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!
http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0901_demands.pdf
Some people take all the AGW BS seriously. Then you have a problem like this one. Someone needs to give the guy some Prozac and explain that AGW is a political agenda, not a reality. If anyone is killed it is on Al Gore's conscience.
Bull. Corn. Also known as, Bullcorn.
Blame Jesus/Allah for anyone who kills for religious reasons? No. Is it Jesus' fault when those wacko abortion foes kill abortion doctors? No.
Do you blame music bands who write songs about suicide and someone kills themselves? No. (Well, SOME people DO, but they are WRONG too.)
Do you blame the inventor of the automobile when someone dies in a car wreck? No.
So you blame the inventor of the gun when someone shoots someone? No.
AlGore is not making the arctic ice melt.
THE WARMING IS REAL.
Full causes, as yet unknown.
BUT: Man's contribution to the warming CANNOT BE RULED OUT.
Crazy people kill for a lot of reasons. Mostly, though, it's because they are C-R-A-Z-Y.
That refrain is sure getting old. There is a lot of things that can't be ruled out, including aliens with ray guns blasting the glaciers.
We are all aware that in all probability man does contribute...maybe one thousandth of one per cent.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
If it were that small, then "denier" climate scientists could SCIENTIFICALLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY, INARGUABLY SLAM anyone who said man's contributions are substantial, and that's not the case.
I, Um, DO think THAT one can be ruled out.
Yes they are partially responsible. Any celebrity type that advocates something that is wrong is and should be held responsible. In the case of Al Gore's movie, he told 11 blatant lies to put fear into people. This now dead nut case believed those lies and acted on them. If an Imam incites someone to strap on a bomb and blow up himself and kill others he can and should be held responsible. The blind cleric that incited the 1993 bombing of the WTC was sent to jail. Al Gore has incited many with his lies and half truths. He belongs behind bars. Don't forget the claim that 1 in 5 Californians are nut cases. Giving them ideas that can lead to committing a crime should be punished.
I say man may be 5% responsible at MOST for any kind of changes in the weather. Not worth all the tax money being wasted on studies. Not worth the $billions wasted on alternative energy subsidies.