Andrew Bolt

Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 06:03am



A new peer-reviewed study by Professor Arthur B. Robinson,
Professor Noah E. Robinson and noted astrophysicist Dr Willie
Soon concludes:



A review of the research literature concerning the environmental
consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide
leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early
21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's
weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however,
markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic
effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor
greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental
knowledge....



Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates
in activity as shown in Figure 3; by the greenhouse effect,
largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other
phenomena that are more poorly understood. Solar irradiance
correlates well with Arctic temperature, while hydrocarbon use
(7) does not correlate. There are no experimental data to support
the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in
atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are
causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global
temperatures, weather, or landscape.



UPDATE 1

But don't tell the Age's old Marxist Kenneth Davidson to calm
down:



According to a paper prepared by Carbonequity, The Big Melt:
Lessons from the Arctic Summer of 2007, which is available
online, with the speed of change now in the climate system and
the positive feedbacks that two degrees will trigger, it looms as
a death sentence for a billion people and a million species.



Davidson demands urgent action - now:



Even for the few million people who might win the lottery to
survive at the poles at the end of the century in the disastrous
wake of the softer option, it will sure beat the alternative.



What has Davidson freaking is the melting of the Arctic ice, a
topic which takes up most of his column as proof of man-made
catastrophic warming.



But for a columnist so fascinated with ice, it's odd he didn't
find room to include two pertinate facts in his alarmist column:



First, sea ice in the southern hemisphere is actually increasing.
As the University of Illinois reported this month:



The Southern Hemisphere sea ice area narrowly surpassed the
previous historic maximum of 16.03 million sq. km to 16.17
million sq. km.



Second, the Arctic ice melt (which isn't unusual) is not
predominantly caused by a warming globe. Hear it from NASA's Son
Ngheim, whose team has studied this very thing:



Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past
two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric
conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice,
loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow
out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower
latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.



"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an
unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the
beginning of this century," Nghiem said.



Simply including those two relevant facts would have destroyed
much of Davidson's fear-mongering. Why did Davidson ignore them?



UPDATE 2

It seems our recent drought has been caused not by warming, but
cooling. So says the Bureau of Meteorology, but maybe it's been
bought off by Exxon, too, right?


-- 

Regards

Bonzo

"Christians look to the Second Coming, Marxists look to the
collapse of capitalism, with the same mixture of fear and longing
... The discovery of global warming filled a gap in the canon ...
[and] provides justification for the link between the sins of our
past and the catastrophe of our future." John Kay, The Financial
Times

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?