Consider the working hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It states "man-made CO2 causes global warming". The question now is does this hypothesis work? Is it true? Is it valid? Does it explain the climate observations and the data that are found in the real world?

First we need some crucial evidence. The Earth’s climate has always been warming and cooling. Singer and Avery discuss this in their book “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years”. Over the past one million years there have been a nominal 600 periods of warming. We can surmise that there also have been 600 periods of cooling in between them. Why wouldn’t we expect these obviously natural cycles to continue? Obviously these warming periods result from variations in natural forces having little to do with human activities.

I'm doing just fine. And you?

You know, when I stuck my neck out several years ago and said, based primarily on the "smell test," that the theory of anthropogenic global warming was full of hot air, I caught a lot of flack.  I still do, but it's diminishing.

That flack is diminishing because the nails upon which believers in this religion can hang their faith become fewer and fewer, almost on a weekly basis.

When the socialists first came up with this scheme to emasculate America and other Western industrialized nations, there was little science to support this fantasy.  Of course, the objection was, "Well, by the time the science gets behind it, it'll be to late!  WE MUST ACT NOW!!!"

Something quite extraordinary happened on Saturday, January 3rd. The Huffington Post.com, a bastion of liberal thought, published a commentary by Harold Ambler that demanded an apology from Al Gore for all the lies he’s been telling about “global warming” or, as the alarmists now call it, “climate change.”

Ambler’s lengthy commentary was jam-packed with solid scientific data about what actually warms or cools the Earth, neatly dispatching the “climate change” verbiage by noting that climate change is a redundancy. “The climate has always changed and always will.” This was followed by a list of the many known periods of warming and cooling that have occurred during the Holocene period that had marked the rise of human civilization. “The lie is that the climate has ever been stable.”

Recent satellite photos reveal a vast ice sheet covering the Arctic Ocean. This is a noteworthy development because of concern among some scientists that the Arctic Ice Cap would disappear entirely this year due to predictions of Global Warming.

Reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, the study concludes that worldwide sea ice covering is equal to that monitored in 1979, when satellite photos first became available of the Arctic.

Researchers predicted that the thinness of the new Arctic sea ice meant it would melt more quickly. This actually fostered its growth because less snow accumulated on the ice as it grew. In related news, Polar Bear numbers are on the rise.

Source

One of the "pumps" contributing to the ocean's global circulation suddenly switched on again last winter for the first time this decade, scientists reported Tuesday (Dec. 23) in Nature Geoscience. The finding surprised scientists, who had been wondering if global warming was inhibiting the pump-which, in turn, would cause other far-reaching climate changes.

One of the “pumps” contributing to the ocean’s global circulation suddenly switched on again last winter for the first time this decade, scientists reported Tuesday ( Dec. 23 ) in Nature Geoscience. The finding surprised scientists, who had been wondering if global warming was  inhibiting the pump—which, in turn, would cause other far-reaching climate changes.

The “pump” in question is the sinking of cold, dense water in the North Atlantic Ocean in the winter. It drives water down into the lower limb of what is often described as the Great Ocean Conveyor. To replace that down-flowing water, warm surface waters from the tropics are pulled northward along the Conveyor’s upper limb.

From Energy and Environment News (subscription required):

CLIMATE: Pelosi says House can pass cap and trade, but timetable is uncertain.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said today that she has enough votes to pass cap-and-trade legislation aimed at curbing the effects of global warming but would not commit to holding a vote in 2009.

Speaking to reporters in the Capitol, Pelosi said she has sufficient backing in the Democratic-controlled House to move a cap-and-trade bill, but will not force the issue. "I'm not sure this year, because I don't know if we'll be ready," Pelosi said. "We won't go before we're ready."

The left loves to scare monger over the threat global warming presents to the United States. Last year the Natural Resources Defense Council put out a report claiming global warming would cost the U.S. $3.8 trillion annually. The report was full of fanciful assumptions and its conclusions had no basis in reality.

Actual scientists from MIT and Northwestern University recently examined annual variations in climate to determine the impact of temperature changes on national economies. And what did they conclude:

Our main results show large, negative effects of higher temperatures on growth, but only in poor countries. In poorer countries, we estimate that a 1°C rise in temperature in a given year reduced economic growth in that year by about 1.1 percentage points.

'Lou Dobbs Tonight' host observes global warming alarmists cherry-pick facts in climate change arguments. 

From illegal immigration and trade to voter fraud, CNN’s Lou Dobbs is never shy about expressing his opinions. That rule held true when Dobbs brought up global warming on Jan. 5.

The outspoken host of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” observed that global warming activists treat their belief in global warming like a religion following a segment about the issue by CNN correspondent Ines Ferre.

“The one issue here, and as we have examined and reported on the issue of global warming, uh, it is so clear that on both sides, but particularly the pro-global warming, if there’s such a thing, uh, if I can put it that way, uh, there,  they bring this thing to a personal belief system,” Dobbs said. “It’s almost a religion without any question.”

Barnaby Joyce

Australia's ruling Labor Party is seeking to impose an expensive emissions trading scheme. Barnaby Joyce, the leader of the small conservative National Party in the Australian Senate has denounced the move in unusually pointed language. Perhaps the GOP could learn a thing or two from Down Under:

I'm going to be serious and quite frank with you here as the issues I am about to raise will be contentious not only amongst coalition MP's but also my own party.

Every age comes up with a witch to burn, a sect that apparently if it is not succumbed will bring about the destruction of an empire, an issue that occupies the rigours of the day.

Okay, children, let’s all sit up straight at our desks. We are going to begin 2009 with a lesson about carbon dioxide (CO2).

Why do we need to know about CO2? Because the President-elect, several of his choices for environmental and energy agencies, the Supreme Court and much of the U.S. Congress has no idea what they are talking about and, worse, want to pass legislation and regulations that will further bankrupt the United States of America.

Do I have your attention now?

For the purpose of the lesson, I will be borrowing heavily from a paper on CO2 written by Robert A. Ashworth. It requires some understanding of science, but anyone with a reasonable education and common sense should be able to read it on their own. Ashworth is a chemical engineer.

Lawrence H. Summers

In the fall of 1997, when the Clinton administration was forming its position for the Kyoto climate treaty talks, Lawrence H. Summers argued that the United States would risk damaging the domestic economy if it set overly ambitious goals for reducing carbon emissions.

Mr. Summers, then the deputy Treasury secretary, said at the time that there was a compelling scientific case for action on global warming but that a too-rapid move against emissions of greenhouse gases risked dire and unknowable economic consequences.

His view prevailed over those of officials arguing for tougher standards, among them Carol M. Browner, then the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and her mentor, Al Gore, then the vice president.