A peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Geophysical Research confirms what anyone who isn't drunk on Kool-Aid has already figured out: fluctuations in the climate are not caused by capitalism. Via Climate Depot:
According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.

The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.

"The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely" says corresponding author de Freitas.

"We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis."

Fluctuations in solar activity account for most of what El Niño and volcanoes don't. Even if CO2 has any effect at all, the vast majority of it is generated naturally. The likely effect of all human activity is effectively zero — difficult as it may be for liberals to accept that the weather could escape their regulations.

Bob Carter, one of four scientists who has recently questioned the justification for the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme, says that this paper has significant consequences for public climate policy.

"The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes."

"Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS (emission trading scheme) will exert no measurable effect on future climate."

But I'm sure grasping hucksters like Al Gore know much better.

Hat tip: Planet Gore. On a tip from V the K. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.



From:

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/07/scientists_confirm_that_global.php

I heard about this a while ago too. I never believed in manmade global warming/climate change in the first place. It is a shame so many people got tricked into believing in it and a few people made quite a bit of money off of this too. I believe that climate change might be happening now, but it is not because of man.
Throughout the earth's history, it has gone through major climate and temperature changes such as the ice ages. This is just a natural thing and may have to do with the earth's proximity to the sun or something like that.
The major reason I never believed in manmade global warming though, was that scientists said that CO2 from industries was tearing holes in the ozone layer. But the largest hole in the earth's ozone layer is right above Antarctica; and there doesn't seem to be much industry down there compared to the other continents with billions of people inhabiting them.

ICEman64 : Hey, thanks for not fighting me, I was a little nervous about posting this. It's great to know that not everyone has been brainwashed into the global warming crap.

I've found arguing global warming to be a pointless thing. You're either on one side or the other and refuse to be swayed either way.

Is the earth warming? Yeah. Temperatures have gone up over the last 10,000 years. Is human activity over the last 200 years (most specifically carbon emissions) causing temperature to go to dangerous levels? I don't think so. And neither do a lot of other people.

What I think is driving climate "science" is money. That's what drives most things in the world now. You can get money to study the effect of nearly anything with regards to climate change. There are billions of dollars of scientific grants to get. And that's not even getting into the area of carbon credits and carbon trading. And guess who has one of the biggest stakes in carbon trading? Al Gore.

Follow the money.

geeogree : Heh, money. Science never makes much money unless there is something marketable, and there isn't much in this case, especially when compared to the lobbying done by oil companies. Al Gore is an activist, not a scientist; he has no control over what the scientists do.

But feel free to show me the "billions of dollars" in grants to study climate change, and be sure to give examples of all the scientists who have become ridiculously wealthy exploiting this.

Now as the for the actual paper, it is not new: if you'll notice the date, it is from 2009. This nonsense that "scientists confirm that global warming is a lie" could only have been dreamt up at a site like "Rightwingnews.com", where they apparently care more about flashy titles than actually reading and following the papers they cite. Here is the paper: http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/InfluenceSoOscillation.pdf

Their conclusion is that the data suggests Southern Oscillation (El-nino) is the major contributing factor behind the global shift in temperature. You'll notice they don't claim to have proven anything (scientists don't claim that). Since this paper has been around for over a year, here is a fairly thorough refutation of it.

http://deepclimate.org/2009/07/30/is-enso-responsible-for-recent-global-warming-no/

Here are a couple more in-depth looks at it.

EDIT: Having trouble with this link. Copy and paste the two parts together.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:

DUo4tBIVqzUJ:www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/Foster_et%2520alJGR09_formatted.pdf+Response+to+Influence+of+the+Southern+Oscillation+on+tropospheric+temperature+McLean&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjA4BD9bJIlYLlqAmSHZZJKyMwBAzRMVqyWSlLmnllHdUkgZOPF7R5nHT7xLshxH2-IoVVAkY7NfcLHIV7nMWHcxYYeJFYmexsDbDciEmbkb5sqyrZuGC-JkdMhf_FXPr7zpTy2&sig=AHIEtbTRL-J-9oSim25PlnhubOCncEXrgA

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=162

These are all climate experts who are citing numerous errors in analysis used by McLean paper, so the claim that somehow global warming has been disproven is far from the truth.

Incidentally, the organisation McLean et. al. are a part of, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Interestingly enough, there is a link or two between this organisation and prominent businessmen. Follow the money indeed.

http://deepclimate.org/tag/international-climate-science-coalition/

In closing, I'll just post the from the author's site where he tries to respond to these claims. It's not much to look at.

http://mclean.ch/climate/ENSO_paper.htm

Amusingly, at the bottom he tries to back himself up with a graph showing global temperatures dropping by about .3 degrees (he doesn't even bother mentioning if it's Celcius or Fagrenheit), as though that is helping to disprove climate change. Thing is, global temperature trends cannot be measured in months; they are measured in years and preferably decades. This sudden cooling trend can be very easily dismissed by looking at more reliable data courtesy of NASA.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/

Here is the actual chart.

imma be honest, i never cared much about fighting global warming ever since i heard a serious protester mention how cows gas contributed to it...if its tru what you say though, that means alotta peoples gunna want their donations back to these green companies

They are taxing everything these days, its just another way to make money as geo said. I mean, they even attempted to tax fat people in one state. If people are worried about global warming they might want to check out the HAARP... you got bigger problems then a little heat change coming. When the military industrial complex is in charge of the environment... good luck saving it is all I can say after all they are the ones who are destroying it the most with nukes, bombs, bioweapons etc...

I've always known this was a lie. This isn't the first thing that the environmentalists have said to get certain things banned. It's good to care for the environment but don't go overboard.

Its all to keep us in fear, and get us to buy their "green" "environmentally safe" products. How can they know that they are "environmentally safe"? This is our one planet, unless I missed something. Sooner or later we'll all find out that these products are more damaging than safe. Look at the, what I call, Al Gore lightbulbs. The mercury is so dangerous in those, they should be outlawed.

Yes! someone's got the balls to say it. global warming is bull! they have been lying to us and trying to win our trust with crap like the "polar bears"

Thank you, of course I do, I have big big balls

Nice Copy/Paste from the source.

I'm indifferent in this matter, so I did a bit of research concerning the validity of this source

I can't trust the source as those in question who created the article (Bob Carter, John McLean, and Chris De Freitas) were pretty biased beforehand. Bob Carter, and McLean published to the Australian, a biased newspaper that was against global warming.

Also, this debate is pretty old. The article has been dismissed some while ago, as it was published more than a year ago.

I am quite interested, so do you have the exact procedure that they used? It would be quite useful to see whether this study is actually trustworthy or not.

I'm just saying that we are extremely arrogant to say that we are effecting a change to the world and the climate. Green is the new "in" and it's just another fad that I just hope will disappear, like sillybands. We really think that WE can do anything to the world when we've only been here only a few thousand years really. It's sick that global warming, An Inconvenient Truth are the things that students are all learning about, it's bein' forced down people's throats. I'm just sick of it and well I do thank you for clearing up the article.

I personally was in doubt with global warming, so I did some research. I found out that the last 50 years in the scope of things is not much at all. We have to take the last 1000 years to see the increase in global warming we have caused.

When we see the decline of the polar caps, we see that it is real. I was quite interested on learning this that I looked for whether there has been global warming before and I found to my surprise after watching some documentaries that scientists believe that it happened a little over six thousand years ago, but the reason why it is bad now is that it will cause flooding.

According to the American Institute of Physics, because of the greenhouse effect trapped gases such as Carbon Dioxide raise global temperatures. While you will still feel cold in the winters and hot in the summers, the decline of the ice in the polar regions is what we should be wary about.

I found this an extremely interesting topic.

Personally, I'm indifferent to whether it is taught in schools. I believe that if it is, it should be taught as a theory as it is controversial, but students should be aware that there is such a theory and should be encouraged to make their own decisions for themselves.

I think that Tradeweise did a very through job of providing evidence to debunk this article in this thread... much has the scientific community has done in the years since it was published. I find it a shame that the majority of the members of this site don't bother to actually read past the first post and just blindly agree with the original statements rather than bother to do any actual research for themselves... which is why this article is still being read and believed by those that try so hard to pretend the problem doesn't exist or who try to convince themselves that there is nothing we can do about it.

Despite all of the above, I like to not be wasteful of our resources though. Water, and then trying to recycle. I had concern for global warming, but I already wasn't makin too much CO2 production other than driving now. And boy did the state of California make major changes, as well as the car industry in regards to smog and CO2.

UserMike : Well you do that when you don't want to live in a smog cloud all your life. Have you ever driven down from the mountains into the Los Angeles basin and just seen that brown smog layer that hovers over it all? I grew up in that, and it is so amazing how much bluer the sky is where I live now. The only days that I really saw skies like this in LA was after the big storms when the wind and rain would clear out most of the smog layer... then you could see the bright sky and clearly see the mountains in the distance and it was all so pretty.

I can't believe this. It's pretty hard to be a well respected scientist and not believe that there is climate change occurring. It's really not that hard to fathom. Carbon dioxide keeps light from the sun inside the Earth's atmosphere longer and as a result the planet warms up. Everything that we have which uses energy from burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide. Put the two together and it's quite obvious that we DO have an effect on the environment. The effects are very obvious now. Look at photos from the Arctic. Compare them with photos from a few decades ago, heck even last year. The glaciers are melting.

I am tired of hearing all of this denial about climate change. Most people take the side of "we're not the cause of it" or "there's nothing that we can do about it." That's bs. There is something we can do about it. You'd be surprised. Remember 9/11? For a few days all planes were grounded and there were no flights anywhere. The impact of this airplane free weekend? The temperature changed drastically (I can't recall whether it was warmer or cooler but that's besides the point). The point is, nature reacts quickly to change.

There is more than just 50 years of evidence. Scientists go down to Antarctica and take ice cores. Ice cores are samples of ice (up to around 60 feet long) that provide data from as far back as 400,000 years.

Most graphs look something like this:

As you can see, the temperature is rising, there's no doubt about that. It looks like a pattern that happens every roughly 100,000 years of the temperature rising quickly and slowly back down. However, human activity has only made this process faster. It's easy to say that it's hopeless and just give up, but, what's the harm in trying to save civilization? The planet will be fine, it's really mankind that would suffer.

Point is, research about something before you viciously deny it just because you don't want to accept it as reality.

I'll be honest, I believe in global warming... But i dont care about it enough to argue about it.

Oh no, lessening pollution and making everything sustainable!? What if we make the world a better place by accident!?! D: THE HORROR!!