As I read about these discoveries, I am in AWE of the great creator God of the Universe, and the profound and precise complexities of His creation. This inspires me in my faith.

That the earth’s climate is slowly changing is hardly news. It’s been doing that on its own for a long time now without any help from us. The issue is, rather, is the cycle of change being significantly affected by human activity?

What we do know is that it will cost uncountable BILLIONS of dollars to reduce CO2 emissions to some mythical level that has not even been approximately defined by anyone. And all that at a time when there isn’t a lot of loose change to throw around at a problem that is not defined to achieve a result that is not validated.

I don’t pretend to know the answer to the question. Why do people have to concoct phony emails to pretend that they do?

If I didn’t think better, I’d suppose that the Smithson trust has a lot of stock in the same companies that Al Gore invested in that took him from a net worth of around $700,000 to multi-millions in a few years. Nice work if you can get it.

Ask Fred Singer, or one of the many other skeptics, to write an article with the contrary opinion.

The most egregious editorial error, though, was listing this in the top 5 scientific achievements of the year??

You’re kidding, right?

Earth Lab: Observations

Weaving photography, artifacts, data visualizations, and interactive media, this section of the Earth Lab exhibit articulates the evidence of climate change and the role human activity is playing in its escalation.

The first display states the facts of climate change, such as receding glaciers and heat waves, and then enhances these statements with an interactive featuring slideshows and NASA visualizations. In the next area, physical artifacts introduce the key evidence scientists use to reconstruct temperature data; weather logs, ice cores, and tree rings are on display as historic indicators that inform us of what the climate was like in the distant past. In contrast to the physical objects, an interactive beautifully animates the basic principles of earth science that dictate climate change.

The interactive capstone to this section of the gallery, the Observations Explorer, peels back the layers behind global greenhouse emissions and those responsible. It’s a bold data visualization that brings life and clarity to otherwise dense information. A timeline allows visitors to zero in on the global contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and compare which nations have had the greatest carbon footprint over the past thirty years. An innovative circular data visualization specifically deconstructs U.S. emissions, providing a window into the gritty details behind emissions in the industrial and residential sectors…… Here is the URL for a set of photographs http://www.flickr.com/photos/second_story/5987660809/in/set-72157627309127020/

However, I also suggest that you visit the Koshland Museum on your next trip to Washington, DC and view the wall-sized interactive display that correlates increasing global temperatures from 1900 to the present with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

What made Hurricane Sandy particularly destructive and expensive was the rise in sea levels, which is one of the consequences of global warming.

——–

This links to a poll in the New York Times where New York State voters overwhelmingly say they believe that Hurricane Sandy demonstrated the effects of climate change.

However, this directly contradicts the scientific assessment of NOAA.

The author if this article points to the public’s misunderstanding as a “silver lining”?

Seriously, am I reading Smithsonian or Boy’s Life?

—————

10/31/2012 @ 4:00PM |13,694 views

As Hurricane Sandy prepared to strike the Northeast, climate scientists from alarmist and skeptical camps alike reported the storm had little if anything to do with global warming.

Martin Hoerling, who chairs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) climate variability research program, and who oversees NOAA’s Climate Scene Investigators, observed, “neither the frequency of tropical or extratropical cyclones over the North Atlantic are projected to appreciably change due to climate change, nor have there been indications of a change in their statistical behavior over this region in recent decades.”

Global warming models project no appreciable change in North Atlantic storm behavior, yet global warming alarmists now say global warming caused Hurricane Sandy.

Hoerling further explained, “In this case, the immediate cause is most likely little more that the coincidental alignment of a tropical storm with an extratropical storm. Both frequent the west Atlantic in October…nothing unusual with that. On rare occasions their timing is such as to result in an interaction which can lead to an extreme event along the eastern seaboard.”

So global warming models say global warming has little or no impact on North Atlantic storms and meteorologists report a convergence of natural factors that made Sandy especially powerful. To objective scientists not trying to sell global warming snake oil, this is yet another example of the very strong storms that always have – and always will – occur on our planet.

Scientists, moreover, report a striking decline in hurricane activity during recent years. National Hurricane Center data show a dramatic decline in major hurricanes striking the United States during the past half century. As the earth gradually recovers from the Little Ice Age (which lasted from approximately 1300 to 1900 A.D.), the frequency of major hurricane strikes is declining rather than increasing.

Sure, there will still be hurricanes and strong storms as the planet warms. But when the frequency of hurricanes and strong storms declines in a warming world, it defies common sense to claim that global warming is causing the increasingly rare hurricanes and strong storms that do still occur.

Far too many prominent global warming alarmists are ignoring these facts in their rush to exploit the victims of Hurricane Sandy.

You wonder why the public is skeptical.