Al Gore's in Trouble Now

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

At least, that's what Al Gore and Global Warming Inc. have been saying for years and are hawking their carbon offsets now.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril. Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

Here it comes...

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

What?! Cooling? How could that be? There's been nothing but hot air for the past 15 years from Al Gore and company about global warming and now we find out that the earth has been cooling for 10 years?

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Because anything contrary to Al's prophesy is controversial and heresy.

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

What? No correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature? Oh horrors!

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Are you suggesting that the media would only tell ONE SIDE OF THE STORY? Buwahahaha! We all know the media would never do that, would they?

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

The sky is falling because Chicken Little says it is.

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

You mean Mother Nature has the ability to heal herself? What a concept! In other words, it is a complex system that requires more than one factor to be altered to cause a cataclysmic change.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Aha! Now we have arrived at the Sniper's Theory, that, by the way, I provided to the world at no cost. The cyclical rise in temperatures that the Earth has experienced have been caused by solar activity not man-made gases. That would of course explain why the Martian polar ice cap has been receding during the same period where there is no man-made greenhouse gases.

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Sounds like the junk science used by the Al Gore Inc. crowd is finally being exposed because of advancing in our ability to monitor the Earth from space.

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Al, all I need is an address for my lawyer to file my suit against you, you freakin' charlatan!

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

It's not nice to fool MOther Nature...

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

I'm sure Al and his group of junk scientists are formulating an excuse for this.

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could be considerable ..."

Considerable? I'd say for a start, somebody's Nobel Peace prize should be returned.

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

The only people who are in shock are the sheeple that bought into Al's charade.

If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.

I read Al's book many years ago and I didn't buy into his paradigm then and I've watched and listened to his proponents for years and still didn't buy into it. It simply did not make any sense since all of the data used for this fraud has come from a narrow window into the Earth's weather history and refused to consider any data that was contrary to the desired outcome. I'm sorry but where I stand that is junk science. This is the kind of "connect the dots" process you see lawyers use to LEAD a jury to a specific conclusion, not schooled scientists. Scientists investigate the record, devise an experiment to test a hypothesis and get a result. If the result does not match the hypothesis, then either the experiment was flawed or the scientist's understanding of the system is incorrect. Al's scientists simply ignored any results that were contrary to their desired outcome.

The global warming paradigm has nothing to do with climatic change. It has everything to do with social change. It was yet another way that the elitists could force the rest of us to live a certain way while they continue to live however they wished, hence the need for carbon offsets that the average person could never afford but the elite could. Al and company line their pockets with cash from selling carbon offsets to elitists that don't want to change their lifestyles but don't want to feel guilty for contributing to the global cataclysm.

The next time you see some Hollywood twit on TV harping about stopping global warming or some politician exclaiming that we're heading to the climate tipping point, write them a letter and include pictures of them in their SUV's and private jets and remind them that the best way to sell something to someone is to practice what they preach. And when global warming never happens (which it won't) they can take full credit for averting it and get their Nobel prizes. For being frauds.