The 25-30 year cycle cited by Gray is supported by NOAA experts and even published as fact on NOAA web sites. We seem to be tilting into a period of global cooling. (It is a fact that the cooling periods are smaller in magnitude than the warming periods- a case for AGW.) It will be interesting to see if the trillions of dollars we’ll spend to counter AGW will get the credit if the planet is cooler in 2020, or if it would’ve cooled down anyway. We’ll never know for sure. One point worth noting however, the earth did cool down from 1945 to 1975. and we didn’t do anything to counter AGW activities. In fact, vehicles had the highest level of GHG emissions, coal fired power plants were dirtier than ever, (acid rain was a major problem in the east) and by 1975 people were talking about the perils of global cooling and what to do about it.

Another fact worth noting is that Antarctica is cooling and the sea ice has grown slightly larger since 1980, while the Artic sea ice has been reduced significantly. Why only on one pole? I haven’t heard a good explanation of why they are different.

Finally, on CO2, as it increases we’ll have more vegetation, larger agricultural areas, be able to feed more people, and use less energy to heat our homes in winter. We’ll have 100 years to relocate people from coastal flood areas which may be an economic engine world wide. Global cooling on the other hand would reduce agricutural area and increase energy usage in winter. History has shown that the global climate is always changing and always will independent of AGW effects. Being from New Hampshire, I’d rather have global warming than cooling any day!

Excellent point Doomed, we shouldn’t meddle with trying to “take care” of the Mother Nature. The earth has always figured it out, and always will until we are swallowed by the sun, and probably longer than we humans inhabit it. That is not to say that we shouldn’t impart the least bit of negative effect as possible in our efforts to become a greater more financially stable and prosperous country (Making sure we more closely follow the rules of Capitalism that we have for the past 20 years or so).

Unfortunately, being in a recession, “Improving the public and private sectors financially stability and prosperity

(Which should be separate undertakings by the way, we need to cut out the public-private “partnership” stuff)

just isn’t possible with the cost of cap and trade, and a public health insurance option on the middle class.

Furthermore, centralizing the planning of and forcing Americans to “taking care” of the earth is not feasible, in fact it is a ludicrous undertaking in this recession. Sure, we could set an “example” for China, et al. but why do I get he sense that our “nice guy” attitude here will put us in last place financially?

On the other hand, perhaps we actually could have pulled all this off if…
We didn’t have a Congress that planted the seed for this meltdown in the first place, (Barney Frank, etc.)
and if we had a financial services sector that didn’t “dance with the devil” and just played by the rules Frank and company set. The financial sector should have known better to take advantage of this setup for the private financial services industry.

Many Climate Scientists appear to be completely uninformed of some relevant science and appear to understand other relevant science poorly (it’s not in their curriculum). With understanding of the missing science and knowledge of accepted paleo temperature data it is trivial to show that added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature. See the pdfs linked from http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true for the evidence, to identify the missing science and to see the cause of the temperature run-up in the late 20th century.

(CBS) It was 20 years ago that firefighters got their first glimpse of what was to come. In 1988, a third of Yellowstone National Park burned.

The policy was to put out all fires immediately. “Because we so successfully fought fire and eliminated fire from this ecosystem for a hundred years, because we thought that was the right thing to do, we’ve allowed a huge buildup of fuel in these woods. So now, when the fires get going, there’s a lot more to burn than historically you would’ve seen in a forest like this,” Boatner explains.

In other words the more man interferes with mother nature the more we tend to screw things up. The earth can take care of herself. And will.

Ah yes but the new data being released on forest fires is alarming at best. A single forest fire in a state can produce as much co2 as the state can in one entire year.

Peer-reviewed articles
Landscheidt, T. 2000. River Po Discharges And Cycles Of Solar Activity – Discussion. Hydrological Sciences Journal-Journal Des Sciences Hydrologiques 45 (3): 491-493. Times Cited: 4
Landscheidt, T. 1999. Extrema In Sunspot Cycle Linked To Sun’s Motion. Solar Physics 189 (2): 415-426. Times Cited: 15
Landscheidt, T. 1988. Solar Rotation, Impulses Of The Torque In The Suns Motion, And Climatic Variation. Climatic Change 12 (3): 265-295. Times Cited: 7
Landscheidt, T. 1987. Cyclic Distribution Of Energetic X-Ray Flares. Solar Physics 107 (1): 195-199. Times Cited: 1
Landscheidt, T. 1981. Swinging Sun, 79-Year Cycle, And Climatic-Change. Journal Of Interdisciplinary Cycle Research 12 (1): 3-19. Times Cited: 5

Another person Carlin relied on while making his work was that of an astrologer who believed the rise of Hitler and Stalin was because of cosmic cycles.

Yup, and I give you this comment:
“I have looked at the arguments against Carlin’s claims. Some of the criticisms of his side points may be credible, but I would think you would at least concede that the data in the meat and potatoes of his report (the ones that generated his now “famous chart”) is based on credible scientists”

“The debunking article you provided does the typical, “Attack the credibility of the man and his sources, not the question” tactic”
So it’s wrong to hold the previous lapses in scientific thought against someone who aims to have scientific claims a second time? They hold the history of people like Carlin or Pielkes against them.

No, but that is not what is happeing here. what is happening is ignoring his question that sill stands, how do you answer the question that multiple (3000) measurements show a downward trend in temp, and was corroberated by data collected by Scientists, and analized by Watts.

““Assessments” (and this is what Carlin’s report was) are summaries of the relevant science as reflected in scientific studies which *have already been peer-reviewed* and published.”
You’re wrong again – here’s one of the items on the list of “scientific” sources Carlin used: a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray

And again, I said “I have looked at the arguments against Carlin’s claims. Some of the criticisms of his side points may be credible, but I would think you would at least concede that the data in the meat and potatoes of his report (the ones that generated his now “famous chart”) is based on credible scientists”

“Look, let’s face it, this has nothing to do with scientific “peer-review” (even as ridiculous as that process has become).”
Sigh. Now *you’re* the one smearing all the peer-reviewing scientists (baselessly) rather than criticize their science.

No, I am not smearing ALL the peer-reviewing scientists. Just the ones that choose to call squelching of ideas, peer-review. Like the other 700 scientists that call this theory bunk, I want to hear the other side in the media and as I wrote in my last post with the google search, that is not happening anytime soon)

As I said before, I just want both sides of the story exposed in the media. I want 2 credible scientists one for and one against, on ABC or CNN, etc. It is not such a crazy idea to think that real scientists can oppose this, and there may be evidence from non-scientists that will be in line with what these scientists are saying.

Carlin based this assertion on debunked research by others who started measuring in 1998 (El Niño: hot global temperatures) and ended on a La Niña (low global temperatures). That’s very convenient for them but it is conscious cherry-picking and is not only unscientific but even childish. Another person Carlin relied on while making his work was that of an astrologer who believed the rise of Hitler and Stalin was because of cosmic cycles.

Here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/

Carlin’s questions do *not* stand.

“The debunking article you provided does the typical, “Attack the credibility of the man and his sources, not the question” tactic”
So it’s wrong to hold the previous lapses in scientific thought against someone who aims to have scientific claims a second time? They hold the history of people like Carlin or Pielkes against them.

“Look, let’s face it, this has nothing to do with scientific “peer-review” (even as ridiculous as that process has become).”
Sigh. Now *you’re* the one smearing all the peer-reviewing scientists (baselessly) rather than criticize their science.

““Assessments” (and this is what Carlin’s report was) are summaries of the relevant science as reflected in scientific studies which *have already been peer-reviewed* and published.”
You’re wrong again – here’s one of the items on the list of “scientific” sources Carlin used: a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray

Do a google news search for the past week on “Jim Inhofe skeptic scientist”

http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Jim+Inhofe+skeptic+scientist&as_qdr=w&as_drrb=q&cf=all

and lo-and-behold the only credible new sources covering this are:

Washington Times
Wall Street Journal

and in the not necessarily credible area, (depending on your point of view, Fox News), and a handful of blogs…

Why no NY times? No MS(NBC)? no CBS, ABC? Golly, it makes you wonder, doesn’t it.

Must just be me I guess, I’m overreacting.