More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

[Terry Oxandale]

Why People "Fly from Facts" - Scientific American

The “Pause” in Global Warming Is Finally Explained | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network


Related, and I feel pertinent, to this undying repetitive string.

 

[Larry L.]

The “Pause” in Global Warming Is Finally Explained | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network

"The so-called pause, or hiatus, in global warming means the rate of temperature rise has slowed."

:juggle2: :smartass:

...uh...but, what's caused it to "slow"? It was "...caused by the timing of two large ocean cycles, known as the Pacific multidecadal oscillation and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation" (both natural occurances!)...etc., etc., and more, etc. "...suggests that the slowdown will end in the next few decades."

^^^ Buuuuuut, if it doesn't ^^^, I'm sure they'll come up with a perfectly 'logical'(?) scientific reason for that...which will somehow still manage to validate their G.W./C.C. 'argument' that "man" is THEE primary cause of whatever's going on climate-wise.

It's the same ole 'cover-their-butt-after-the-fact', 'we're-still-right-and-here's-why' double-talking 'scientific spin' they apply every darned time their "predictions" don't materialize.

I ask again; what happened to the ICE AGE that 'science' said we were entering in the 1970s?...the current temps in the Eastern 1/2 of the U.S. aside...:annoyed:



Why People "Fly from Facts" - Scientific American

...uh...you DO REALIZE that article fires a direct broadside salvo into those who cling to the G.W./C.C. mantra regardless of all the failures/errors/flaws/fraud that have been observed/exposed/discovered regarding 'same, right?

 

[Larry L.]

.................crickets.

Surrrrrprise, surprise...

 

[Jack]

Simple, just keep following the money!

 

[Larry L.]

egg-DADGUM-zackly!!

 

[Keith]

There's three issues here:

1. Climate Change - Is it Real? YES/NO.

2. If Real, Mankind's contribution to the Change. YES/NO

3. If Real and YES , Mankind's solution to the Change.


My answers:

1. YES

2. YES

3. Don't know...But I've started being very aware of renewable resources and placing less reliance on fossil fuels. It's only a small contribution but if everyone did their bit... Butterfly Wings.

Of course, you could answer NO, NO and Bollocks, and that's your prerogative.

Either way, this is a far better way to make your views known than all that endless statistical garbage which makes my eyeballs bleed. No-one here is going to persuade anyone else here to change their views. Why? Because the main protagonists are playing the man and not the message.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

1. No!
2. No!
3. Bollocks.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

1. No!
2. No!
3. Bollocks.

Ditto!
Ditto!
Ditto!

 

[Keith]

Cool! :thumbsup:

See? This is much more fun than posting endless statistics and flicking scabs at each other,,,:shout:

 

[Terry Oxandale]

Yes
Yes
Sit on his ass as usual, and wait until the threat is debunked or it's too late to do anything about it.

 

[Doug S.]

I haven't posted in this thread for a long time, but something I was reading in a National Geographic magazine caught my attention. The article was about determining the origin of indiginous North Americans and the author was talking about a chain of islands off the western coast of the U.S. that seems to be one of the locations first visited by seafaring explorers. He writes "Sea levels are 300 to 400 feet higher than at the end of the last glacial maximum, which means that ancient coastal sites could lie under hundreds of feet of water and miles from the current shore."

So...think about this...the amount of water in Earth's atmosphere is fixed...at least as I understand it we aren't being bombarded by water from outer space so what we have is what we've had for a long time and what we'll have for a long time. Throughout time there have been periods of global cooling and when that happens the storage for the water moves to the glaciers at the poles of the earth, and during periods of global warming those sheets of ice melt and the water is stored in the oceans.

Just think about how much water must have been stored in those polar ice caps to have raised the level of all the seas on earth by 300 to 400 feet in the last 12,000 to 13,000 years (that's the age of the oldest human remains found in the Americas). We haven't had rises in the overall water levels of more than perhaps a few feet during our lifetimes, and how many lifetimes has man been using fossil fuels? Perhaps a few...although of course certain other "oils" have been used for lighting for milleniums.

At any rate, it seems to me that the huge majority of global warming that melted those polar ice caps must have occurred well before modern man could have made a significant contribution...the question is, has the rise in ocean levels during the relatively "short" period in which mankind has been guilty of gross environmental pollution been faster than that which has been occurring naturally for the past 12,000 to 13,000 years in general.

I guess that's what all the scientific brouhaha is about...but to me it just illustrates the incredible magnitude of the environmental changes that occur naturally over large periods of time here on earth. It's hard to blame those massive ancient effects on mankind...so can we really blame the current effects on mankind?

Again...I think the answer is "MAYBE"???

...but...do we know enough at this time to be able to say for sure? And if we don't, how badly to we need to know for sure? Maybe...just maybe....we'll find out that what we're experiencing these days is the inevitable impact of a multitude of factors, only one of which may be mankind's contribution. If that's the case, I doubt that mankind has the ability or power to stop the "global warming" about which we're seeing definite signs, such as the recession of the glaciers near the north pole.

So...

1. YES

2. YES

3. We can't...so would that be a "NOTHING"?

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

You know I'm all for stopping pollution in all its forms, and I'm quite happy for people to research and develop renewable energy. Except wind farms that are fugly and kill birds and bats and have a way of catching fire. Drive your Prius if you want to no objection from me.
I have solar panels on my roof augmenting my electricity usage.
What I object to is governments and the U.N. Using global warming as an excuse to tax the shit out of me and trying to redistribute wealth. Mainly out of people like me and into their own corrupt pockets.
I also object to scientists fudging the numbers to get a result that the people paying their research grants will like. Of course the moment they do that they are no longer scientists but charletons.
And mostly I object to the sheeple who are led by the nose by the media and their respective Governments, more fool them for not having a mind of their own.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

double post.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!

 

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. I'm not sure we can stop it, but I sure as hell would rather try than sit around doing nothing.

 

[Keith]

Interesting. The YES vote outnumber the NO's at this point..

Anyone see the UK "Horizon" program on BBC4 the other night?. It ran right through the history of climate change including all the "hockey stick" moments and examined the science in detail, also including the infamous University of East Anglia interpretations.

It covered sea ice, ice cores, glacial movements, investigated trapped methane in frozen lakes and perma frost analysis in Siberia.

It certainly got my attention....

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

The warmist's and Sheeple have always outnumbered the deniers, no big deal.

 

[Larry L.]

Interesting. The YES vote outnumber the NO's at this point..

Anyone see the UK "Horizon" program on BBC4 the other night?. It ran right through the history of climate change including all the "hockey stick" moments and examined the science in detail, also including the infamous University of East Anglia interpretations.

It covered sea ice, ice cores, glacial movements, investigated trapped methane in frozen lakes and perma frost analysis in Siberia.

It certainly got my attention....

The warmist's and Sheeple have always outnumbered the deniers, no big deal.

I didn't see the BBC4 program. Did 'they' explain how the Earth managed to warm up ending the Ice Age w/o man, or SUVs, or industry, or whatever else is being blamed today for contributing to it...or why the NEW Ice Age predicted in the 1970s failed to materalize? Or why - absent the NATURALLY OCCURING Pacific and Atlantic current oscillations and sun spots, etc. - the "warming" of the Earth has stopped/taken a break/come to a halt...at least for now?

After all, we STILL have (and HAVE had) in play today aaaaaaaaall the various "polluters" spewing the same amount (or more) crap into the air and water as we did 20 years ago...do we not?

WHAT HAS MAN DONE that has resulted in/created the current 'pause' in 'global warming'???

'Serious question...

 

[Terry Oxandale]

I've not seen a poll in a while that indicates the majority does not believe the climate change is happening, and that we are contributing significantly to the unusually rapid pace of that change.

I keep hearing "follow the money". Does that logic not also follow for those that wish to continue reaping the rewards for the status quo, by instilling doubt on the science. Are you not concerned as well that you're a patsy for those that want to convince the public to believe they (the public) know more about climate change than the dedicated science does? Obviously they want to continue the current money line on their terms rather than on someone else's terms. Anyone could say "follow the money" for any situation (it just depends on which money you want to follow...old or new).

WHAT HAS MAN DONE that has resulted in/created the current 'pause' in 'global warming'???

'Serious question...

I'm not as smart as the folks actually studying these things, but smarter folks than me think man has done nothing to initiate the "pause", which they think may be the ocean currents and temps out of phase with each other. Down the road they think these changes will fall back into phase with each other (like a twin engine "beating" when the engines are not perfectly sychronized), and if their predictions are correct, then the question may be moot at that point. I'm sure all of this climate change didn't simply pop into everybody's head all at once. Climatological science is still maturing, but that doesn't automatically exclude every conclusion or theory put forth.

 

[Larry L.]

Does that logic not also follow for those that wish to continue reaping the rewards for the status quo, by instilling doubt on the science.

Science has itself instilled the doubt by virtue of all the things scientists have TOLD US is/was the case and what's actually turned out to BE the case...time after time after time.

Therefore, to blindly believe what science is telling us about C.C./G.L. requires we deny what our own EYES and common sense tell us.

'Kinda like continuing to believe we can KEEP our doctor/med. plan...even though observable REALITY clearly tells us otherwise.

 

[Jeff Young]

Yes
Yes
It's complicated...obviously we need to pick and choose what we do, and can afford to do.

Your own eyes and common sense tells you the world is flat, and the stars revolve around the Earth. Do you believe that too?