More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

Brian Stewart
Supporter
...you mean like the fact the Earth hasn't warmed at all over the past 17 years? Or the fact the Arctic ice cap is BIGGER today than it's been in years - contrary to being gone in 2013 because of "global warming" as Al G. "predicted"? Or the fact that Antarctica has gotten colder? Or the fact that scientists are suggesting we now may be headed into a "mini-ice age"?

The problem here Larry is that some of these "facts" are plain wrong, and others should not be considered in isolation. The rate of surface temperature rise has certainly slowed in some areas over the past 17 years, but hasn't stopped. Surface temperatures have, in fact, continued to rise, albeit at a lower rate. Net global temperature rise, however (i.e. surface, atmosphere and oceans), hasn't slowed at all. Yes, the Arctic ice cap is larger this year, but waaay smaller than it was in the 70s, 80s and 90s. It will be interesting to see what it does over the next couple of years. Yes, a record low temperature was recorded recently near Vostock Station in Antarctica, but mean temperatures across the whole continent, especially the Antarctic Peninsula area, have risen markedly over the past few decades. Yes, some climate data sets were altered, but in most cases that I am aware of, after rigorous investigation by a number of independent bodies the reasons for doing so were validated (there have even been a number of court cases regarding this and the science has won each time). Yes, some of the statistical methods used in the generation of the hockey stick graph have been found wanting, but independent investigations and at least twelve calculations of alternative 'hockey sticks" all agree that the original hockey stick is basically correct. Easy to check all this stuff by going to the peer reviewed literature.

Now, back to sanding bodywork....
 
The problem here Larry is that some of these "facts" are plain wrong, and others should not be considered in isolation. The rate of surface temperature rise has certainly slowed in some areas over the past 17 years, but hasn't stopped. Surface temperatures have, in fact, continued to rise, albeit at a lower rate. Net global temperature rise, however (i.e. surface, atmosphere and oceans), hasn't slowed at all. Yes, the Arctic ice cap is larger this year, but waaay smaller than it was in the 70s, 80s and 90s. It will be interesting to see what it does over the next couple of years. Yes, a record low temperature was recorded recently near Vostock Station in Antarctica, but mean temperatures across the whole continent, especially the Antarctic Peninsula area, have risen markedly over the past few decades. Yes, some climate data sets were altered, but in most cases that I am aware of, after rigorous investigation by a number of independent bodies the reasons for doing so were validated (there have even been a number of court cases regarding this and the science has won each time). Yes, some of the statistical methods used in the generation of the hockey stick graph have been found wanting, but independent investigations and at least twelve calculations of alternative 'hockey sticks" all agree that the original hockey stick is basically correct. Easy to check all this stuff by going to the peer reviewed literature.

Now, back to sanding bodywork....

If you do a search for temperature over the last 10k years you will find that we are in a cooling period. To take a 17 year or 50 year period in 4.5 billion years for comparison is ridiculous.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Larry,

Perhaps debate isn't your thing, you dont even realize how ridiculous you sound.

First you say this:


"The Globe's temps have been going up and down on their own ('Earth "correcting" itself if you will) since the day it was created, Ron. That's a fact. And for 'man' to think HE can change that is the height of arrogance IMO".

So man thinking he can change temputure is "is the height of arrogance IMO".

Then after I post the average temps showing a steep increse in average temperature, you then say this:

Jim? You know...all the temp stations whose locations had originally been SUBurban sites (farmers fields or whatever)...sites that hadn't themselves been moved, but city limits physically had overtaken 'em which affectively converted 'em to URBAN sites instead...but, 'were still being classified and recorded as SUBurban? You know, little details like that?

**********

Larry your answer to the steep temp increase is that as man extends outward, the average temps at these recording sites go up because of course man causes an increase in the temp.

You can't have it both ways.
 
Last edited:
So Larry says this about the earths temp:

"The Globe's temps have been going up and down on their own ('Earth "correcting" itself if you will) since the day it was created, Ron. That's a fact. And for 'man' to think HE can change that is the height of arrogance IMO".

"These temp cycles appear to swing back & forth about every 30 years or so".

********

This is a NASA chart...

Larry 1984 was 30 years ago, show us where the "back and forth is.


giss_temperature.png


This is a Stanfod University study

ph
global_temp_graph.gif



Jim correct me if I'm wrong, from your bottom graph it looks like the temperature from 1880 to present (134 years) has gone up .9 degrees, less than 1 degree. That doesn't seem like a significant warming trend.
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
If man can change the environment intentionally, within a very short period of time (e.g. a simultaneous detonation of all nuclear weaponry that exists today), then why would anybody think that we couldn't do it long-term inadvertently within more subtle means? It is so bizarre to think that the most environmentally influential species on earth today cannot change the environment with a sufficient population (numbers we current possess). My greatest fear is not that we are changing the environment for the worse, it is that we don't or wont' do anything about it because it has an economic impact on someone's wallet, and that until the danger is 5" in front of our face instead of 5', we won't believe it is happening. That is the true arrogance, and not the "arrogant" belief that we could actually change the environment.
 

marc

Lifetime Supporter
Jim,
Why are your graphs stopping 14 years ago? If they where current I would tend to agree more with you. But the one shown by Bob goes to 2009. What gives? We had this disagreement before where it was Bush v Obama if I remember right where only 2 years of O vs the full B term.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Well, lookie here. (Note '79-81...'87-'92...'98-'07):




<LEGEND>Compare the above to this:


Attached Thumbnails</LEGEND>


HEEEELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Does anyone want to explain to Larry the difference between Sun Spots and Solar Flair cycles and the average temputure here on earth.

The lower chart is about right, it shows approximately 1 degree increse in average temps since 1979.

A chart that did not stop in 2009 would better show the current trend.
 
Last edited:

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
By Viv Forbes.

Cut the Costly Climate Chatter

Twenty-two years ago a bunch of green activists calling themselves “The Earth Summit” met in Rio and invented a way to tour the world at tax-payers’ expense – never-ending conferences on environmental alarms.

Like any good bureaucratic committee, they soon established sub-committees on sustainability, pollution, development, energy, forestry, water, biodiversity, endangered species, poverty, health, population and Agenda 21 (this item alone had 40 chapters each with its own sub-committee). Environmental conferences became the greatest multi-national growth industry in the world financed mainly by tax-payers via participating public servants, climate academics, employees of nationalised industries and tax-sheltered green “charities” such as Greenpeace and WWF.

They really hit the Mother Lode with their creation of the “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change” which, in good bureaucratic tradition, duplicated the work of the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPCC). These then created their own brand-names called “Global Warming”, and its proxies “Climate Change” and “Extreme Weather”.

These “noble causes” generated a hierarchy of steering committees, reference committees, political committees, science sub-groups, working committees, reviewers and peak bodies and could muster meetings with 20,000 attendees from 178 countries at hardship locations such as Rio, Berlin, Geneva, Kyoto, Buenos Aires, Bonn, The Hague, Marrakesh, New Delhi, Milan, Montreal, Nairobi, Bali, Poznan, Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban, Qatar, Doha, Warsaw, Stockholm, Lima, Abu Dhabi and New York.

The 21st Climate Change birthday party will be held at the Conference of the Parties in Paris in December 2015, while the Small Islands Developing States will tour to Samoa, but any important decisions will be taken behind closed doors by the canny BRICS Nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).

The Climate Conference Circuit became a bigger boost to airlines, hotels and fine dining than the Olympic Games and G20. Australia alone sent the PM plus a team of 114 to the failed Copenhagen Conference. Rich and poor all over the world have endured over 20 years of wasteful spending that could have built flood-proof infrastructure, drought-proof water supplies, erosion-proof beach fronts and pollution-free waterways. It has gone down the global warming gurgler without a single visible benefit for suffering tax payers.

With most western governments running desperate financial deficits, it is time to cut the costs of this climate chatter. Australia should burn no more jet fuel sending people to any climate conference anywhere. If they want one, they should use bicycles, tele-conferencing or the postal service.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
You are truly one of the most clueless individuals I've ever encountered. Did you even read that article?

The reason for the coverage:

CEO of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Tony Worby, said the warming atmosphere is leading to greater sea ice coverage by changing wind patterns.

"The extent of sea ice is driven by the winds around Antarctica, and we believe that they're increasing in strength and part of that is around the depletion of ozone," he said.


That's from YOUR article.
 
Jeff, haven't you ever noticed that there's always some "expert" with a pretzel logic refutation of cold hard physical data?

You know the kind they can't alter to support their agenda?

If you haven't, maybe you may want to check into your own naivety.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Jeff, haven't you ever noticed that there's always some "expert" with a pretzel logic refutation of cold hard physical data?

You know the kind they can't alter to support their agenda?

If you haven't, maybe you may want to check into your own naivety.

Good grief. That article was written by a scientist who said the reason for the coverage was changing wind patterns due to warming.

So what cold hard physical data does Dr. Lonesome Bob, PhD of All Things Climate Change have to refute THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE YOU CITED.
 
Good grief. That article was written by a scientist who said the reason for the coverage was changing wind patterns due to warming.

So what cold hard physical data does Dr. Lonesome Bob, PhD of All Things Climate Change have to refute THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE YOU CITED.

Good grief yourself, the article was written by Jane Ryan and Sam Ikin.

Their opening statement is, "Scientists say the extent of Antarctic sea ice cover is at its highest level since records began."

Then we get the pretzel logic that can be expected by organizations getting their funding from the Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax cabal.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
What the fuck are you talking about?

The point of the article is that sea ice is expanding BECAUSE THE EARTH IS GETTING WARMER.

What scientific principle are you citing to refute what scientists are saying?

Good grief you are a dumbass. You cited an article that DISPROVES your own point.

How do you function in modern society? Do you not believe in gravity? Is that a "cabal" funded by science conspirators as well?
 
OK jeff, I've given you a few hours to ponder your response, but of course, your blind beliefs, wedded to your ham fisted arrogance has caught you out.

The world hasn't seen any global warming in over seventeen (17+) years, and yet this "scientist," funded by the Australian government expects us all to believe that global warming now causes record Antarctic ice.

I'm sure Pete has a few choice words for Tony Worby.




What the fuck are you talking about?

The point of the article is that sea ice is expanding BECAUSE THE EARTH IS GETTING WARMER.

What scientific principle are you citing to refute what scientists are saying?

Good grief you are a dumbass. You cited an article that DISPROVES your own point.

How do you function in modern society? Do you not believe in gravity? Is that a "cabal" funded by science conspirators as well?
 
Back
Top