User Tag List

Page 1 of 21 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 205

Thread: Global warming is over

  1. #1
    Permabanned Array
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default Global warming is over

    Since I love to swing my dick everywhere, I thought I'd go ahead and share one of many many MANY recent stories of former global warming asshat political whore scientists who have finally looked up and seen reality for what it is, that global warming is either NOT HAPPENING right now, or that the whole man made greenhouse apocalypse BS is something fit only for a story meant to be told to retarded children. But you never hear these stories because like everything else that doesn't fit the political left's agenda, the media ignores it. They love to make sure you stay mired in deep, dark, ignorance. Fortunately for you, I'm not like that .

    Anyway, this article (go find another one on the internet or newspaper if you don't like this one, because no matter which one you read, the reality is the same) tells the story of one of the lead IPCC scientists who has now come out to say that warming has halted and we are in a 30 or so year cooling period.


    Scientists pull an about face on global warming

    Scientists pull an about face on global warming


    By Lorne Gunter, For The Calgary HeraldSeptember 19, 2009Comments (32)



    Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn't marry. That might generate the odd headline, no?

    Or if Don Cherry claimed suddenly to like European hockey players who wear visors and float around the ice, never bodychecking opponents.

    Or Jack Layton insisted that unions are ruining the economy by distorting wages and protecting unproductive workers.

    Or Stephen Harper began arguing that it makes good economic sense for Ottawa to own a car company. (Oh, wait, that one happened.) But at least, the Tories-buy-GM aberration made all the papers and newscasts.

    When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it's usually newsworthy.

    So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute not given more prominence?

    Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

    Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference--an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change --Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

    The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.

    But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years.

    "How much?" he wondered before the assembled delegates. "The jury is still out."

    But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100.

    While they deny it now, the facts to the contrary are staring them in the face: None of the alarmist drummers ever predicted anything like a 30-year pause in their apocalyptic scenario.

    Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020 or 2030.

    In the past year, two other groups of scientists--one in Germany, the second in the United States--have come to the same conclusion: Warming is on hold, likely because of a cooling of the Earth's upper oceans, but it will resume.

    But how is that knowable? How can Latif and the others state with certainty that after this long and unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating will resume? They failed to observe the current cooling for years after it had begun, how then can their predictions for the resumption of dangerous warming be trusted?

    My point is they cannot. It's true the supercomputer models Latif and other modellers rely on for their dire predictions are becoming more accurate. But getting the future correct is far trickier. Chances are some unforeseen future changes will throw the current predictions out of whack long before the forecast resumption of warming.

    Lorne Gunter is a columnist with the Edmonton Journal and National
    However, he declined to say that global warming believers should just go to hell to find their mythical warming.

  2. #2
    Doesn't Read Your Posts Array Haight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    6,526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    Since I love to swing my dick everywhere, I thought I'd go ahead and share one of many many MANY recent stories of former global warming asshat political whore scientists who have finally looked up and seen reality for what it is, that global warming is either NOT HAPPENING right now, or that the whole man made greenhouse apocalypse BS is something fit only for a story meant to be told to retarded children. But you never hear these stories because like everything else that doesn't fit the political left's agenda, the media ignores it. They love to make sure you stay mired in deep, dark, ignorance. Fortunately for you, I'm not like that .
    Although I appreciate your fair and balanced setup for the article, let me ask you a question: Are you pro-pollution?
    "The only time I'm wrong is when I'm questioning myself."
    Haight

  3. #3
    Permabanned Array
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haight View Post
    Although I appreciate your fair and balanced setup for the article, let me ask you a question: Are you pro-pollution?
    I'm anti-polluting the planet with devout LIES, half truths, and deceptions merely for the benefit of special interests, corporations, politicians, and arrogant narcissists in need of a new religion. CO2 is not a form of pollution. Your IDEAS are a form of pollution that corrodes the collective intelligence of everyone you communicate them to.

    Anyway, here is another little story about that big giant globe of fire in the sky, and how scientists are giving the nod to the fact that it has a serious role on our variable climate, particularly in the recent low sun spot activity.

    Global warming and the sun -- latimes.com

    Global warming and the sun

    * Jonah Goldberg
    *
    Jonah Goldberg
    * Bio | Recent columns
    * Related
    *
    Discuss Jonah Goldberg's Sept. 1 Op-Ed column.

    Recent studies seem to show that there's more to climate change than we know.
    By Jonah Goldberg

    September 1, 2009

    * EmailE-mail
    * printPrint
    *
    Share
    * increase text size decrease text size Text Size

    Assuming there are no sunspots today, a 96-year record will have been broken: 53 days without any solar blemishes, giant magnetic disruptions on the sun's surface that cause solar flares. That would be the fourth-longest stretch of stellar solar complexion since 1849. Wait, it gets even more exciting.

    During what scientist call the Maunder Minimum -- a period of solar inactivity from 1645 to 1715 -- the world experienced the worst of the cold streak dubbed the Little Ice Age. At Christmastime, Londoners ice skated on the Thames, and New Yorkers (then New Amsterdamers) sometimes walked over the Hudson from Manhattan to Staten Island.

    Of course, it could have been a coincidence. The Little Ice Age began before the onset of the Maunder Minimum. Many scientists think volcanic activity was a more likely, or at least a more significant, culprit. Or perhaps the big chill was, in the words of scientist Alan Cutler, writing in the Washington Post in 1997, a "one-two punch from a dimmer sun and a dustier atmosphere."

    Well, we just might find out. A new study in the American Geophysical Union's journal Eos suggests that we may be heading into another quiet phase similar to the Maunder Minimum.

    Meanwhile, the journal Science reports that a study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR, has finally figured out why increased sunspots have a dramatic effect on the weather, increasing temperatures more than the increase in solar energy should explain. Apparently, sunspots heat the stratosphere, which in turn amplifies the warming of the climate.

    Scientists have known for centuries that sunspots affected the climate; they just never understood how. Now, allegedly, the mystery has been solved.

    Last month, in another study, also released in Science, Oregon state researchers claimed to settle the debate over what caused and ended the last Ice Age. Increased solar radiation coming from slight changes in the Earth's rotation, not greenhouse gas levels, were to blame.

    What is the significance of all this? To say I have no idea is quite an understatement, but it will have to do.

    Nonetheless, what I find interesting is the eagerness of the authors and the media to make it very clear that this doesn't have any particular significance for the debate over climate change. "For those wondering how the [NCAR] study bears on global warming, Gerald Meehl, lead author on the study, says that it doesn't -- at least not directly," writes Moises Velasquez-Manoff of the Christian Science Monitor. "Global warming is a long-term trend, Dr. Meehl says. ... This study attempts to explain the processes behind a periodic occurrence."

    This overlooks the fact that solar cycles are permanent "periodic occurrences," a.k.a. a very long-term trend. Yet Meehl insists that the only significance for the debate is that his study proves that climate modeling is steadily improving.

    I applaud Meehl's reluctance to go beyond where the science takes him. And for all I know he's right. But such humility and skepticism seem to manifest themselves only when the data point to something other than the mainstream narrative about global warming. For instance, when we have terribly hot weather, or bad hurricanes, the media see portentous proof of climate change. When we don't, it's a moment to teach the masses how weather and climate are very different things.

    No, I'm not denying that man-made pollution and other activity have played a role in planetary warming since the Industrial Revolution.

    But we live in a moment when we are told, nay lectured and harangued, that if we use the wrong toilet paper or eat the wrong cereal, we are frying the planet. But the sun? Well, that's a distraction. Don't you dare forget your reusable shopping bags, but feel free to pay no attention to that burning ball of gas in the sky -- it's just the only thing that prevents the planet from being a lifeless ball of ice engulfed in total darkness. Never mind that sunspot activity doubled during the 20th century, when the bulk of global warming has taken place.

    What does it say that the modeling that guaranteed disastrous increases in global temperatures never predicted the halt in planetary warming since the late 1990s? (MIT's Richard Lindzen says that "there has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.") What does it say that the modelers have only just now discovered how sunspots make the Earth warmer?

    I don't know what it tells you, but it tells me that maybe we should study a bit more before we spend billions to "solve" a problem we don't understand so well.

  4. #4
    Doesn't Read Your Posts Array Haight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    6,526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    I'm anti-polluting the planet with devout LIES, half truths, and deceptions merely for the benefit of special interests, corporations, politicians, and arrogant narcissists in need of a new religion. CO2 is not a form of pollution. Your IDEAS are a form of pollution that corrodes the collective intelligence of everyone you communicate them to.
    LOL.

    So I guess you're not going to answer the question?
    "The only time I'm wrong is when I'm questioning myself."
    Haight

  5. #5
    Permabanned Array
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haight View Post
    LOL.

    So I guess you're not going to answer the question?
    I answered as honestly as I could Haight .

  6. #6
    Doesn't Read Your Posts Array Haight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    6,526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    I answered as honestly as I could Haight .
    It's a simple question. Why don't you drop the hyperbole and give me your honest answer to the following question: Are you pro-pollution?

    In other words, do you want to drop all anti-pollution legislation and laws? Do you think being "Green" is bad, etc.?
    "The only time I'm wrong is when I'm questioning myself."
    Haight

  7. #7
    Permabanned Array
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haight View Post
    It's a simple question. Why don't you drop the hyperbole and give me your honest answer to the following question: Are you pro-pollution?

    In other words, do you want to drop all anti-pollution legislation and laws? Do you think being "Green" is bad, etc.?
    Green is not bad. Fighting pollution is good. Being good stewards of this land is only logical. I consider that to be, however, a separate issue from global warming, which is why I'm not going to discuss another word on the issue in a thread about global warming. Please do respect the topic at hand. Thank you.

  8. #8
    Doesn't Read Your Posts Array Haight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    6,526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    Green is not bad. Fighting pollution is good. Being good stewards of this land is only logical. I consider that to be, however, a separate issue from global warming, which is why I'm not going to discuss another word on the issue in a thread about global warming. Please do respect the topic at hand. Thank you.
    Oh sorry, I was actually responding to the guy that wrote:
    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    I'm anti-polluting the planet with devout LIES, half truths, and deceptions merely for the benefit of special interests, corporations, politicians, and arrogant narcissists in need of a new religion. CO2 is not a form of pollution. Your IDEAS are a form of pollution that corrodes the collective intelligence of everyone you communicate them to.
    But anyway. Just so you know there's an interesting correlation between pollution and global warming. So maybe you should investigate the issue more thoroughly.
    "The only time I'm wrong is when I'm questioning myself."
    Haight

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array kuranes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    XNXP
    Posts
    1,065

    Default

    Risen -

    I guess you respect the opinion of this guy now, but only because he's saying what you think he ought to be saying.

    One of the phenomena that I've heard is associated with trends that cover huge cycles of time is "bumps" that occur ( which might last quite a while ) but which are nevertheless exceptions to a bigger picture trend.

    I'm not a scientist that has studied the issue extensively, and so I don't think I'll be sneering at sincere efforts to understand ( versus having a predetermined agenda ) from either side.
    "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
    Reichsfuhrer Herman Goering at the Nuremburg trials.

  10. #10
    Permabanned Array
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kuranes View Post
    Risen -

    I guess you respect the opinion of this guy now, but only because he's saying what you think he ought to be saying.

    One of the phenomena that I've heard is associated with trends that cover huge cycles of time is "bumps" that occur ( which might last quite a while ) but which are nevertheless exceptions to a bigger picture trend.

    I'm not a scientist that has studied the issue extensively, and so I don't think I'll be sneering at sincere efforts to understand ( versus having a predetermined agenda ) from either side.
    I sneer because I've been right, and they've been wrong. I sneer because the things I've been saying have come to fruition, while they have had to renege their beliefs and models. I sneer because I see what the issue is being turned into, the greatest amalgam of animal fecal matter I have ever seen trying to pass as "truth". I sneer because people are foolish enough to continue to believe. I sneer because I actually know what the hell I'm talking about, and have spent YEARS looking at the various points of climate data and technical arguments for an against the man made model. I sneer because so many are trapped in the greatest illusion of this century.

    I'd wager the very existence of my soul upon my sound judgment in this arena. That's how confident I am, and how INCOMPETENT the man made global warming model is.

Similar Threads

  1. Global Warming
    By Mole in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-31-2011, 06:49 PM
  2. Fe and global warming
    By entropie in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-07-2009, 05:16 AM
  3. Fatties cause global warming
    By matmos in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 04-25-2009, 03:18 AM
  4. Global warming explained
    By Virtual ghost in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 08-20-2008, 04:30 AM
  5. Global warming
    By Nocapszy in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 04-09-2008, 11:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO