The short answer is, its a website run by two guys named Cliff Harris and Randy Mann which, among other things, and for $129 U.S. (per year?), advises clients on "profitable weather commodity trades" and "highlights the major commodity markets that have been and will be affected by Ma Nature's wild ways in recent years."
It also hosts some pretty graphs (see above) which, according to NuzeBuzzster's Noel Sheppard, Al Gore doesn't want you to see.
It also hosts some pretty graphs (see above) which, according to NuzeBuzzster's Noel Sheppard, Al Gore doesn't want you to see.
So who the heck are Cliff Harris and Randy Mann? Well, Randy Mann is a weatherman for the Spokesman Review, a newspaper out of Spokane Washington, and is known locally for his ant-GW rants. But the real gem here is Cliff Harris. Although, according to the site, he "has been...rated as one of the top ten climatologists in the world for nearly 4 decades", he is entirely self-taught, having studied weather since he was "nine years old". In his predictions,
...he bases his predictions on a wide variety of scientific resources and historical records. “He’s also a devout Christian and believes the Bible is loaded with clues on predicting the weather.”
And while at this moment, Mann and Harris seem to be predicting a bout of cooling (none of their archived pieces are dated), a couple of years ago they were firmly on the side of the "warmers":
Although Harris stresses that he believes “global warming” as a theory is exaggerated, he does believe, however, in a period of extreme global warming. “That will be in The Tribulation period … and for those us believers, we’re looking forward to it.”
“I believe this planet is a breathing entity, made by God, to clean itself, adjust itself.” Harris said in the article by James Hagengruber. This would be The Rapture. The premise of this argument appears to be: human beings are not responsible for climate change because it is part of God’s greater Plan, therefore investing in costly forms of clean energy is not necessary or useful. In addition, curtailing business and the economy by demanding reductions of carbon dioxide emissions is actually counter-productive. Instead, Harris asserts, our limited resources should be devoted to” ending poverty, curing diseases or providing universal health care”.
Note that, minus the biblical references, he sounds quite alot like Lomborg, although I don't think Lomborg would be willing to offer advice to good Christians wondering how to invest during the "Tribulation Period". Mann and Harris, on the other hand, say buy real estate!
What does being a Christian have to do with it?
ReplyDeleteIt's a very interesting graph. What it shows is that there is an inverse relationship between particulate matter in the atmosphere and global temperatures, something environmentalists and the green house effect movement have ignored.
ReplyDeleteAs we have increased our carbon production, warming the atmosphere, we also increased are particulate pollution, cooling or "dimmming" the atmosphere until very recently aka industrial revolution in England spewing coal everywhere. We have focused our pollution reduction on reducing particulate pollution, which is relatively easy to do and we have been relatively successful at it. What we didn't realize we were doing at the same time was inceasing global warming.
All global warming statistics due to carbon pollution have been underestimated. As we continue to reduce particulate pollution, something the Harper government chooses to focus on in his "clean air act" instead of reducing carbon output, we actually increase global temperatures.
Yes, volcanoes have a massive polluting and dimming effect on the atmosphere, much more than humans could produce at one moment, and they do cool the planet. Yes, if volcanoes are naturally decreasing in frequency due the general cooling of the planet's surface and stabilization of the core, global temperatures would increase, human activity or no human activity.
Yes the planet is much bigger than we think it is and we have much less of an efffect on it than we think. This is a "deep ecology" view and not a pop science environmentalist view, which is usually reactionary and more about assuaging Liberal guilt than actual benefit or science.
What's my point??? It's a good graph, and I'm not Christian or otherwise theologically inclined.
Why do all of your pro-AGW arguments begin with denouncing the scientists on the other side?
ReplyDelete"Who are they?"
It seems that for some reason you are either unwilling or unable to critique or refute their scientific claims. Instead, you attack the messenger. Why is that?
He's shooting the messenger because the graph is so completely unscientific it (should) speak for itself. The x axis obviously represents time, but what exactly is the y axis supposed to show? Temperature? Yeah right! Hmmm - I wonder why a scale isn't used?
ReplyDelete"I wonder why a scale isn't used?"
ReplyDeleteIt is. What is the temperature now? Wheree is it on the graph? There's your scale.
probably total crap, but the graph is beautifully drawn.
ReplyDeleteMost of the comments are sadly wrong, the drop in temperature at 1300AD is make believe.
ReplyDeleteCheck the real graphs here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
In these there's a smooth decline in temperature which takes decades to reach moderately below average temperature from slightly above, in their version there is an immediate plummet from what appears to be tropical to ice age.
You can put a approx date on their article'"Could the cycle of 'global warming' be winding down" using www.archive.org
It was written in august 2004, possible earlier...
http://web.archive.org/web/20040828210823/www.longrangeweather.com/articles.htm
The link broke
ReplyDeletewhat you said didn't effectively disprove the graph at all, you did was bad mouth the alleged experts.
ReplyDeleteCO2 in the atmosphere LAGS temperature changes. This truth is CONVENIENTLY left out. The oceans contain dissolved CO2. Enormous amounts of CO2. And CO2 dissolves better in cold water. So as the oceans warm up (due to natural causes), they can't hold as much CO2 and so atmospheric CO2 levels rise. As oceans cool, they absorb more atmospheric CO2 and the concentrations fall.
ReplyDeleteThis is well documented. Just ignored by the scam artists.
I have been reading and looking for What The Hell Is Long Range Weather and is amazing and disturbing how many blogs related to generic viagra are in the web. But anyways, thanks for sharing your inputs, they are really useful and helpful.
ReplyDeleteHave a nice day
This is cause of global warming.
ReplyDeleteMaria[dress shirts]
It looks like they decided to update their temperature graph.
ReplyDeleteUnlike the 2014 version of the graph, the peak is no longer in 1998 but 2016, and the cooling from 2014 and 2019 has been postponed until the 2020s.