What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?
Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.
With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.
But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask?
Global warming…another scary prediction from the consultants that warned us of Y2K, and received billions in fees to avoid a non-event.
The City of Toronto spent multi-millions in frenzied preparation for Y2K, and achieved the same result as municipalities that spent, and did, nothing.
I look at the demented grin on the face of the fool with the Global warming sign and see the cognitive state of the climate doom death cult….the reality of standing in knee deep snow in sub zero weather promoting global warming doom, oblivious (or in denial of) of the dramatic irony of this is in essence an act of faith.
In the last thread there was a discussion on faith and false prophets….to me, this picture is a graphic example of placing faith in false prophets.
Reading the comments at the link, I am struck by how the believers come up with reasonable arguments when on the defensive. Saying that 7 or 8 years is not a statistically significant amount of time to establish a trend is correct. But, that same principle still applies (or should still apply) when the temperature has been rising for only that amount of time. But, they don’t seem to think so.
Fact is that 120 years is (in terms of climate) barely statistically significant. Tens of thousands of years is preferable.
I have one big question for the believers…How many years of stasis or cooling temperatures do you need to abandon this theory. 8 is not enough. OK…so what is? I find the predictions of the Pulkovskaya Observatory in Russia very compelling. They have a long history of predicting climate trends accurately (always plus or minus 3 years). They base their predictions on the Sun and, if they are right again…this period of stasis will be followed by a semi-dramatic drop-off in global temperatures starting between 2012 and 2015. This drop should last until about 2050.
If we do indeed see this drop…will the believers apologize and stop the rhetoric? Remember that we are supposed to see a rise of up to 5 degrees Centigrade over the next 92 years (when we’ll all be conveniently dead). It’s easy to believe something that you know you won’t live to see. But, if the temperature does indeed go dramatically in the other direction in just 7 years – a time that most of us should still be alive to see – will that stop the yammering of the believers?
People who truly believe in science will openly accept it when their theories are shot to sh!t because they care about the science more than they care about having a following. Crazy people who stand on the street corner with a sign that says, “The End is Nigh” don’t pack up and go home when doomsday doesn’t arrive on the appointed date. They simply change the date on their placard and get back out there.
The believers are behaving a lot more like the latter than the former. Time will tell.
• Why was a very large island in the North Atlantic Ocean, given the name “Greenland” rather than “Whiteland”?
• I wander if it might have had anything to do with the color of it at the time?
• Or the color of even part of it, like the fiords?
• And if those fiords were green at the time, why were they?
• Could it possibly be that the very thick layer of ice overlaying them melted?
• And might that have been caused by the prevailing temperatures at that time?
• My goodness they must have had a heck of a lot of global warming to have melted that much glacier ice?
• and with that amount of warming, the polar bears, did they all perish and subsequently come back again, from the dead?
• Is there a lot of evidence of the great amount of worldwide flooding that must have occurred when much of that ice cap of that huge island melted?
• Or even any evidence?
• Is it true that the world’s climate has always been changing and will always continue to be changing?
• Is it true that some leading researchers (McKittrick et al) have discovered that much of the temperature data used by the IPCC to model world temperature changes was found to be seriously flawed and as such has put into question the basic foundation of the theory of temperature change/ climate change on which the Kyoto accord was founded upon?
• Is it true that over one hundred eminent climate scientists signed an open letter to His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations on Dec 13, 2007, wherein they give a very strong rationalization of why IPCC should give up the futile attempts to combat climate change, as it is in their opinion impossible to stop?
The ‘questions’ that I submitted above concerning “Green”land, were submitted for the “Global Warmingist” fanatics and “Settled Science” followers.
Lewis
which means the Warmongers will scream louder and make wilder & crazier claims of doom & gloom to cover up reality.
Should be an interesting year. Time to nail Dion’s smarmy global warming crisis believing ass to the wall with some tough questions about Kyoto targets and what it means to our economy and way of life.
Mr Dion, if Canada took every car, truck, train, plane and bus out of service, what percentage of our Kyoto 1 GhG emission cut would we achieve ??
The answer is 69%, but you wanna bet Dion would just mumble platitudes about greener & richer blah, blah, blah because he is smart enough to know that when Canadians find out the real impacts of Kyoto, the fact that not just “other people” will be impacted, they will be shocked at what a bad deal Jean Cruton signed us up to.
Only a liberal would be stupid enough to believe in this hoax, just think of the airplanes that could stay grounded and not spewing out baddness by flying people to warmer places this time of the year, if in fact it did warm up. These dullards running around screaming and yelling have never even been cold, go hang off a monkey board in 30 below and a wind blowing you liberal putzes if in fact you could get a meaningful job. To see this scam get the kind of traction is saddening it proves the education system is failing miserably and critical thinkers are shunned, to believe something that virtually weighs nothing coming out of an exaust pipe could be classed as a ton amazes me, if this had any validity then lead zeppplins would be popular flying machines, a ton can’t float morons. Lets clean up our emmissions yes but to waste money and time on this lunacy of Stepon Dions is out of this world.
Re:” If we do indeed see this drop…will the believers apologize and stop the rhetoric?”
My theory – Not only will they not apologize, they will take credit for accomplishing what would have happened anyway. That’s why they are in such a hurry – because they want to take advantage of the natural cycle to dupe us out of billions.
Of course , closer to home, we in Canada are still producing some 2% of the world production of CO2.
I do not believe that CO2 has anything to do with global temperature, but i also believe that we should be pursuing forms of energy production other than fossil fuels. We should be doing it carefully and put our money into R&D rather than some silly money transfer scheme that does nothing for the environment.
Lets manufacture efficient scrubbers and sell them to China to stop the flow of particulate matter which is settling on our country.
We are concentrating on matters over which we have no control to the detriment of issues we can do something about.
A refocusing is in order.
Re: Lewis
Yes, back when Eric the Red named the island Greenland, the place is a tad bit warmer. But it also have to do with the fact that he has been kicked out of both Norway and Iceland and a bit of Florida swampland real estate advertisement to attract settlers. I mean, he needed people to get his little bit of dirt going.
“My theory – Not only will they not apologize, they will take credit for accomplishing what would have happened anyway.”
Bingo Jimbo…you ‘bin readin’ Librano/leftoid revisionist histrity long enough to see the pattern.
Being a climate zealot/green commie/leftard means never having to say you’re wrong/sorry…just concoct another myth to explain the previous myth which proved to be horribly wrong.
We have short memories….we need to recall the vacant leftoid hysteria over global cooling and the peak oil shortage hysteria of the 70s….same old crap in a new climate wrapper…frik these people bore me…they’re so predictable and they never get a new game plan.
R&D people have given us the quick-charge fire-safe Lithium Polymer battery. The one most effective thing to eliminate city pollution and a range of poisonous gases.
The peace prize, however, goes to Al Gore who produced a unproven public relations propaganda movie that serves as a smokescreen for the Saudis, ExxonMobile and governments as they continue with status quo.
Curious. = TG
Lee @ 11:11 gets it,
** Lets manufacture efficient scrubbers and sell them to China to stop the flow of particulate matter which is settling on our country.
We are concentrating on matters over which we have no control to the detriment of issues we can do something about.
A refocusing is in order.**
Here*s hoping more people recognize real priorities. = TG
“If we do indeed see this drop…will the believers apologize and stop the rhetoric?”
Rather, the ringleaders should be brought up on charges of engineering and conducting the biggest fraud in human history – then convicted, locked up for the rest of their lives and financially destroyed.
The ‘believers’ should be placed in the unenviable position of having to answer, “No, I wasn’t a Nazi.”
before global climate change we had this
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990215.html
Lewis and all, I’ve mentioned before here and at other sites that the reason for Columbus’ belief and voyage to the New World was based on a Viking map drawn sometime in the tenth century. The Vikings were supposed to have explored up the west coast of Greenland across the Davis Straight and part of Baffin Island, prior to 1200AD. This gave rise to the exploration by the English/British for the Northwest Passage that occurred for the better part of 300 years. Perhaps this search was based on the fact that the far north was warm enough in the pre-Renaissance period to have allowed Viking longships to travel that far north and begin settlement. Unfortunely the influx of explorers caused the mini-Ice age and the passage became ice locked and has remained so for the last 500 years. Perhaps we are only returning to normal now.
@Jimbo:
That’s why wiser government officials are stringing them along.
Good comments Lee. Look for Harper to use same argument to blunt red green wave. AGW theory doesn’t matter; what does is embracing nuclear to power our infrastructure., and making concerted, funded effort to replace fuel at the pump. Dion is rigid enough to stick with his to his Kyoto rhetoric, thus ensuring Grit election defeat, and if Dion does something extra stupid, a Tory majority.
BTW, another side benefit of getting off fossil fuels; Europe doesn’t have to rely on ME oil, and we don’t have to bail them out them out, again. Let’s deprive Arab despots access to Westrn capital by turning off their taps.
Contrast that with using carbon credit system, with funds flowing to China, India and Russia so they’ll develop new technologies, ’cause they’re so clean themselves (actually by definition according to Kyoto). It defies common sense, and no matter the capacity of the voter to do something realy stupid, when Kyoto actually intersects their wallet, Dion might be advised to spruce up his CV.
[quote]I do not believe that CO2 has anything to do with global temperature, but i also believe that we should be pursuing forms of energy production other than fossil fuels. We should be doing it carefully and put our money into R&D rather than some silly money transfer scheme that does nothing for the environment.[/quote]
Lee,
Be careful what you wish for! If we follow the mantra of efficiency, Fossil fuels will only be replaced by Super-Conductivity. The impact on the World Economy by effective/results based R&D may not be what most PLL expect.
SASK Power should be considering Nuclear power & locking up Long Term Contracts (like Ontario did)before ND or Montana.
Global Warming is not fit for scientific argument. When Politics & Money drive the Process, the Science “is” fatally flawed
Phil
ARRRRRRRRRRRGH!
http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/Environment/article/288763
Lee….wait though, China is saying all new Anti Global Warming technology should be transferred to them gratis….it is ALWAYS about money
Antenor at December 26, 2007 1:49 PM
You say:
“…the influx of explorers caused the mini-Ice age” Antenor that is one of the most ridiculous comments that I have heard yet concerning climate change, where on earth did you get it? Or did you dream it?
So a few Vikings caused the Little Ice age.
And I suppose a few others caused the “Medieval Warming Period”. My goodness Antenor, if a few hundred Vikings had that impact on climate change, how much do you suppose the 6 or 7 billion inhabitants of the earth today, affect the climate? The fact is that they probably have very little effect thus that little handful of Vikings that you reference, without doubt, most definitely also had none.
Antenor, either your antenna is incorrectly mounted or you have mistaken children’s fairy tales as being journals of science.
Happy Neww Year 2008
Big Fire,
The little bit of dirt that you speak of was covered with a couple or more, thousand feet of ice until a rather large ‘Chinook wind’ came along don’t you think? Really, it was warm weather over some many years that caused the melting of a very thick layer of ice regardless of the ariel extent of the patch of ice that you speak of although I believe that it was primarily in the rather large fiords in the south where the green meadows developed..
Here is some more reading for you:
WORD HISTORY How did a glacier-covered island get the name Greenland? In Norse legends written in the 12th century and later, it is told that Eric the Red explored the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland in A.D. 983-986 and gave the country its name because people would be more likely to go there if it had an attractive name. Greenland was warmer in the tenth century than it is now. There were many islands teeming with birds off its western coast; the sea was excellent for fishing; and the coast of Greenland itself had many fjords where anchorage was good. At the head of the fjords there were enormous meadows full of grass, willows, junipers, birch, and wild berries. Thus Greenland actually deserved its name. Another attraction of Greenland was that Iceland and northwestern Europe, including England, had a grievous year of famine in 976, and people were hungry for food as well as land, etc.
Prolonged periods of relatively warm climate, cause the warming and the resultant Medieval Warming Period as well as every other interglacial period too. And, cooler than normal weather caused the ice build ups (glaciation) in the Little Ice Age and all of the other ice ages.
The climate has always been changing and always will be changing. The UN and it’s IPCC are helpless and will not suceed in building a ‘global thermostat’. It won’t work.
Lewis
there are remains of farms in Greenland. They farmed for about 500 years. but in the days before government subsidies when the farm failed you left.
i should google first – say 400 years not 500
http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=776
“Records broken in heat waves in North America, Europe”
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2007/12/26/4740534-ap.html
Baaa! Baaa!
Buzzzz, Buzzz…
Hey! It’s chilly out here without my fleece!
@BigFire:
Warriors don’t make for good salespeople. Too much of their culture militates against it. It’s hard to ballyhoo when you live by honour, and it’s even harder when you believe that you shame your ancestors (as well as your descendants) by hyping it up. Many warrior cultures (or subcultures) do believe, quite seriously, that the sins of the man make the entire family line look bad.
Had Erik the Red been a businessman, your point (though common-sensical in its own way) would be more credible – but he wasn’t. As best we know, he was a farmer-warrior.
FYI to all: Erik the Red was not the first to discover Greenland:
“Even though popular history credits Erik as the founder of Greenland, earlier Norsemen both discovered and tried to settle it before him. Tradition credits Gunnbjörn Ulfsson (also known as Gunnbjörn Ulf-Krakuson) with the first sighting of the land-mass. Nearly a century earlier, strong winds had driven Gunnbjörn towards a land he called “Gunnbjarnarsker” (“Gunnbjörn’s skerries”). But the accidental nature of Gunnbjörn’s discovery has led to his neglect in the history of Greenland, with Erik the Red thought of as the discoverer.
“After Gunnbjörn, Snaebjörn Galti had also visited Greenland. According to records from the time, Galti headed the first Norse attempt to colonize Greenland, an attempt that ended in disaster….”
[For the rest of the story, please click this Wikipedia link to read the article from which I clipboarded the above quote.]
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm
“Not So Hot”.
…-
Where was the press? A Google search reveals that with the exception of a few blog citations, the only major story ran in Canada’s Financial Post.
There are several reasons why the press provides so little coverage to science indicating that global warming isn’t the end of the world. One has to do with bias in the scientific literature itself. Theoretically, assuming unbiased climate research, every new finding should have an equal probability of indicating that things are going to be more or less warm, or worse-than-we-thought vs. not-so-bad.
But, when someone finds that there’s only half as much warming as we thought, and the story is completely ignored, what does this say about the nature of the coverage itself? Somehow, you’d think that would have been newsworthy. […]
Not So Hot
By Patrick J. Michaels
Published 12/27/2007 12:07:49 AM
If a scientific paper appeared in a major journal saying that the planet has warmed twice as much as previously thought, that would be front-page news in every major paper around the planet. But what would happen if a paper was published demonstrating that the planet may have warmed up only half as much as previously thought?
Nothing. Earlier this month, Ross McKitrick from Canada’s University of Guelph and I published a manuscript in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres saying precisely that.
[…]
Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and a member of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
http://tinyurl.com/3duros (American Spectator) …-
>>>> Here is the article from the Financial Post. >>>>
Contaminated data
Hot cities, not CO2, cause urban thermometers to rise
Ross McKitrick, Financial Post Published: Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Below is the famous graph of “global average surface temperature,” or “global temperature” for short. The data come from thermometers around the world, but between the thermometer readings and the final, famous, warming ramp, a lot of statistical modelling aims at removing known sources of exaggeration in the warming trend. In a new article just published in the Journal of Geophysical Research — Atmospheres, a co-author and I have concluded that the manipulations for the steep post-1980 period are inadequate, and the above graph is an exaggeration. Along the way, I have also found that the United Nations agency promoting the global temperature graph has made false claims about the quality of its data. […]
In other words, we have confirmed, on new and stronger grounds, that the IPCC’s global surface-temperature data is exaggerated, with a large warming bias. Claims about the amount of surface warming since 1980, and its attribution to anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions, should be reassessed using uncontaminated data. And governments that rely on the IPCC for advice should begin asking why it was allowed to suppress earlier evidence of this problem.
— Ross McKitrick is associate professor and director of graduate studies, Department of Economics, University of Guelph.
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=145245
Is the temperature of the planet changing? Yes. It always has, it always will.
Is it getting warmer? Most likely in the current trend — say, the last 500 years or so.
Are humans responsible? They very well could be a component. I mean, why not? To say we have no influence on this planet has to be a bit naive.
Is nature responsible? It always has been an always will be.
The argument that we should do nothing does not hold. But, the argument that we should all return to be cavemen doesn’t hold either.
It should be pretty clear to everyone now that “man made global warming” is pretty much a marketing term dreamed up by beauracrats to get people to change their behavior. Whether it’s scientific based is pretty irrelevant to guys like Al Gore, whose soaking up the big bucks from the trend he’s helped push along.
What’s really happening is a push for people to eliminate oil from their daily “diet”. And, in fact, that’s not a bad idea. Someday it’s going to run out and the guys who have more of it will be in the driver’s seat. That’s what this argument is all about.
Don’t believe me? It’s simple. Of ALL the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, what is by far and away the largest component? It’s water vapor. So, what do the alarmists want us to switch to? Either burning hydrogen in cars or using it in fuel cells to power cars. What is the bi-product of either of these? Water vapor. So, if we are trying to reduce green house gases, why are we moving to add more of it into the air? It simply makes no sense — unless your REAL agenda is elsewhere.
What I object to is the out and out trashing of “science”. Science should be based on facts. You can prove something factually. It’s not to be taken lightly as something you can just use to scare people for no reason. Believe me, we NEED science to be credible if we are to continue to exist. Without it, we are simply back in the dark ages begging for some higher authority to help us out of whatever calamity we’re in.
Beaurecrats around the world love to scare people to get them to think differently. 40 years ago it was global COOLING. We’ve had scares about economic collapses, food shortages, water shortages, and technological disasters of all sorts. It’s all a way to scare people into changing their behavior.
What I don’t understand is this. Why not just say “hey! This oil stuff is an economic and political pain! Let’s design and build some new stuff to take it’s place!” If they did that, I would totally agree with them. But, there are some out there so far off the scale NOTHING less than a complete shut down of every source of power known to man will do in the quest to remove the dreaded “green house gases”.
I have one more example on how silly the discussion can get on this issue. In California, they have strick codes for what people can do with fossil fuels. They have special blended gasolines that cost more. They don’t let you light your bar-be-que. They want you stop using your gas lawn mower and leaf blower…. stuff like that.
But, when they had their brush fires a month ago, some genius from the California pollution control board said that the fires contributed in ONE WEEK the equivalent of the total output of 400,000 cars in a YEAR. So, I ask you, what’s the point? You get rid of 400,000 cars for a year and in one week of nature doing what it does naturally — burning desert brush — you are in the exact same place. It’s silly to attack the problem this way.
So, you want to get rid of oil? I’m with you. You want to insult my intelligence with this marketing ploy called “global warming”? Go find yourself another sucker.