Jump to content

Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling


AFTiger

Recommended Posts

Do you believe in science or religion?

So-called global-warming alarmists are in a frenzy after the latest climate data confirmed the Earth actually appears to be entering a potential cooling trend, sea-ice cover in Antarctica is growing to record levels, tornadoes and hurricanes are at record lows, and more. According to experts, the most recent revelations continue to make a mockery of alarmist claims — debunking United Nations theories about human-caused global warming and the wildly inaccurate supposed “climate models” used to forecast doom and gloom by forces seeking carbon taxes and more centralized government.

Proponents of what is known as “anthropogenic global warming” theories, which claim that human activity is to blame for alleged warming, have long warned that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to “catastrophic” warming. The problem is that even based on data gathered by the planet’s premier climate alarmists — the U.K. Met Office, for example, or various U.S. agencies — shows that global warming stopped more than a decade and a half ago, as The New American reportedlast year.

Now, a leaked version of the upcoming UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report highlighted in the mediasuggests that the global body’s “climate scientists” are struggling hard to publicly explain the lack of warming they predicted with such confidence. Among the possible explanations offered by the UN’s supposed experts: “ash from volcanoes,” a “decline in heat from the sun,” or more heat being “absorbed by the deep oceans,” according to news reports.

more--http://thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16372-climate-theories-crumble-as-data-and-experts-suggest-global-cooling

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 282
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Do you believe in science or religion?

So-called global-warming alarmists are in a frenzy after the latest climate data confirmed the Earth actually appears to be entering a potential cooling trend, sea-ice cover in Antarctica is growing to record levels, tornadoes and hurricanes are at record lows, and more. According to experts, the most recent revelations continue to make a mockery of alarmist claims — debunking United Nations theories about human-caused global warming and the wildly inaccurate supposed “climate models” used to forecast doom and gloom by forces seeking carbon taxes and more centralized government.

Proponents of what is known as “anthropogenic global warming” theories, which claim that human activity is to blame for alleged warming, have long warned that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to “catastrophic” warming. The problem is that even based on data gathered by the planet’s premier climate alarmists — the U.K. Met Office, for example, or various U.S. agencies — shows that global warming stopped more than a decade and a half ago, as The New American reportedlast year.

Now, a leaked version of the upcoming UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report highlighted in the mediasuggests that the global body’s “climate scientists” are struggling hard to publicly explain the lack of warming they predicted with such confidence. Among the possible explanations offered by the UN’s supposed experts: “ash from volcanoes,” a “decline in heat from the sun,” or more heat being “absorbed by the deep oceans,” according to news reports.

more--http://thenewamerica...-global-cooling

Al Gore will have a heart attack and some here will rationalize it all shortly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in science. This is what scientists tend to say: First, data shows that the planet is not cooling but that warming has halted. There is a difference:

"Climate scientists largely agree that warming has paused over the past decade (especially in measurements of surface temperature), but they say that break is temporary, and the near-consensus on human-caused global warming remains unbroken.

"There has been a slowdown or hiatus in the rate of change of global temperature in the 21st century, and that's real," says David Gutzler, an earth- and planetary-sciences professor at the University of New Mexico who contributed to the IPCC report. "Most of us think that this is probably a temporary hiatus as opposed to a cessation of global warming."

So if global warming is still the future, what's causing the temporary pause, and why should anyone worry that more warming is coming?

The IPCC report attributes this hiatus to short-term factors that result in temporary cooling periods, including volcanoes, solar cycles, absorbent oceans, non-greenhouse-gas pollutants, and a string of other temporary-yet-powerful natural forces.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/separating-science-from-spin-on-the-global-warming-pause-20130821

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You originally asked, do you believe in what science or religion has to say on the mattert: 97.1% of scientists surveyed believe global warming is directly impacted by man:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/americans-don-t-care-what-scientists-think-about-climate-science-20130820

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said the operative word Shabby, "believe".

You will never get the 97% to admit they were wrong. They have too much invested. Just a temporary pause. Of course it may last 20000 years, but still it is temporary. How many times does a faucet have to drip before you say it is leaking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snip--Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

Investigative journalists at Popular Technologylooked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

snip-- These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.

The article---http://www.forbes.co...nsensus-claims/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at superstorm Sandy on October 29th, the ocean water east of New Jersey was nine degrees fahrenheit above average. That’s what put so much more energy into that storm. That’s what put so much more water vapor into that storm. Would there be a storm anyway? Maybe so. Would there be hurricanes and floods and droughts without man-made global warming? Of course. But they’re stronger now. The extreme events are more extreme. The hurricane scale used to be 1-5 and now they’re adding a 6. The fingerprint of man-made global warming is all over these storms and extreme weather events.
- Al Gore

No, Al. They aren't. There are no official plans to add a 6th category to the hurricane scale.

( But I'd not put it past the political types to put pressure on the scientific community to do so )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said the operative word Shabby, "believe".

You will never get the 97% to admit they were wrong. They have too much invested. Just a temporary pause. Of course it may last 20000 years, but still it is temporary. How many times does a faucet have to drip before you say it is leaking?

Bingo...there is no warming...the models are wrong...but they say with certainty that just you wait...we believe it will start warming...it doesn't matter what the actual data says...they are working off their own models which, obviously, can't be wrong...I mean, come on, it's a model...we all know those are never wrong.

This is such utter horse s***...tools, bureaucrats and foreign governments trolling for money at the tit of the great whore...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My memory must be bad then. I just remember when we moved to Alabama in 1983 it never seemed to get as hot as it does nowadays. The winters are a joke. I'm wearing T-shirts and shorts outside on Thanksgiving for Pete's sake. I'm not saying I believe in global warming but it does seem hotter nowadays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've lived in Alabama my entire life, and I remember several Christmas mornings as a kid, going out in shorts to ride my new bike. It has always been blistering hot here. Old saying is that Alabama is the only state where you can experience all four seasons in one week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've lived in Alabama my entire life, and I remember several Christmas mornings as a kid, going out in shorts to ride my new bike. It has always been blistering hot here. Old saying is that Alabama is the only state where you can experience all four seasons in one week.

You know what-you're right. I just looked and I guess I got spoiled on that first Christmas here being low 2 degrees and high 23. After that the next year was 70's and 50's after that, etc, etc.

I guess i just blocked out the hot ones. =(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Las Vegas, NV

TodayAug 25

38.png

86°F

70°F

Scattered T-Storms

CHANCE OF RAIN: 60% WIND: SE at 13 mph

MonAug 26

4.png

85°

72°

T-Storms

CHANCE OF RAIN: 80% WIND: ESE at 7 mph

TueAug 27

37.png

91°

77°

Isolated T-Storms

CHANCE OF RAIN: 30% WIND: E at 7 mph

WedAug 28

37.png

93°

79°

Isolated T-Storms

CHANCE OF RAIN: 30% WIND: ESE at 9 mph

ThuAug 29

38.png

94°

81°

Scattered T-Storms

CHANCE OF RAIN: 40% WIND: SE at 8 mph

FriAug 30

38.png

95°

78°

Scattered T-Storms

CHANCE OF RAIN: 40% WIND: SE at 10 mph

SatAug 31

37.png

98°

78°

Isolated T-Storms

CHANCE OF RAIN: 30% WIND: SSE at 12 mph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My memory must be bad then. I just remember when we moved to Alabama in 1983 it never seemed to get as hot as it does nowadays. The winters are a joke. I'm wearing T-shirts and shorts outside on Thanksgiving for Pete's sake. I'm not saying I believe in global warming but it does seem hotter nowadays.

I remember some 20+ consecutive days over 100 when I was in college at Bama in like 98 or 99. I don't believe we hit 100 this year in Birmingham.

What I find awfully convenient about climate science is that ALL our warming is because of the mean evil humans, but when the warming slows - counter to their projected models - it's all because of nature. Maybe, just maybe, that warming has to do with nature as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My memory must be bad then. I just remember when we moved to Alabama in 1983 it never seemed to get as hot as it does nowadays. The winters are a joke. I'm wearing T-shirts and shorts outside on Thanksgiving for Pete's sake. I'm not saying I believe in global warming but it does seem hotter nowadays.

I remember some 20+ consecutive days over 100 when I was in college at Bama in like 98 or 99. I don't believe we hit 100 this year in Birmingham.

What I find awfully convenient about climate science is that ALL our warming is because of the mean evil humans, but when the warming slows - counter to their projected models - it's all because of nature. Maybe, just maybe, that warming has to do with nature as well?

That's actually what most scientists think. You get your view of what the proponents of global warming think from folks with their own agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at superstorm Sandy on October 29th, the ocean water east of New Jersey was nine degrees fahrenheit above average. That’s what put so much more energy into that storm. That’s what put so much more water vapor into that storm. Would there be a storm anyway? Maybe so. Would there be hurricanes and floods and droughts without man-made global warming? Of course. But they’re stronger now. The extreme events are more extreme. The hurricane scale used to be 1-5 and now they’re adding a 6. The fingerprint of man-made global warming is all over these storms and extreme weather events.
- Al Gore

No, Al. They aren't. There are no official plans to add a 6th category to the hurricane scale.

( But I'd not put it past the political types to put pressure on the scientific community to do so )

Spinal_Tap_-_Up_to_Eleven.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's actually what most scientists think. You get your view of what the proponents of global warming think from folks with their own agenda.

Most scientists assert what keeps grant money flowing in. They're not gonna cannibalize their own jobs.

Most scientists also thought we'd keep warming and warming and warming. Now that they were wrong, they have to come up with some reason that still supports their original theory. Just like it used to be 'global warming' and now it's 'global climate change.'

I'm still waiting on that ice age that those same scientists predicted in the 70s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said the operative word Shabby, "believe".

You will never get the 97% to admit they were wrong. They have too much invested. Just a temporary pause. Of course it may last 20000 years, but still it is temporary. How many times does a faucet have to drip before you say it is leaking?

That's both hilarious and sad at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you believe in science or religion?

more--http://thenewamerica...-global-cooling

Faulty comparison. Should have been: Do you believe in science or wacko "denier" sites?

Do you believe science ever makes mistakes? Or takes guesses?

Science is a process, so by definition, it cannot make a mistake. However, science being a self-correcting process, whatever mistakes may be made by scientists are ultimately corrected.

The scientific process often starts with a "guess", called an hypothesis. Once this hypothesis is explored, a thesis often results, which is then further tested by scientists in order to confirm or deny it.

Does that help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you believe in science or religion?

more--http://thenewamerica...-global-cooling

Faulty comparison. Should have been: Do you believe in science or wacko "denier" sites?

Do you believe science ever makes mistakes? Or takes guesses?

Science is a process, so by definition, it cannot make a mistake. However, science being a self-correcting process, whatever mistakes may be made by scientists are ultimately corrected.

The scientific process often starts with a "guess", called an hypothesis. Once this hypothesis is explored, a thesis often results, which is then further tested by scientists in order to confirm or deny it.

Does that help?

I understand the scientific method. But your initial assertion suggested that science never makes mistakes. And that anyone who disagrees with science (that's inherently self-serving) is a wacko.

So if you disagreed with scientists in the 70s that we were going to enter another ice age, were you a wacko?

You can either assert another smarmy pedantic semantical sidebar, or you can participate in a legitimate discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you believe in science or religion?

more--http://thenewamerica...-global-cooling

Faulty comparison. Should have been: Do you believe in science or wacko "denier" sites?

Do you believe science ever makes mistakes? Or takes guesses?

Science is a process, so by definition, it cannot make a mistake. However, science being a self-correcting process, whatever mistakes may be made by scientists are ultimately corrected.

The scientific process often starts with a "guess", called an hypothesis. Once this hypothesis is explored, a thesis often results, which is then further tested by scientists in order to confirm or deny it.

Does that help?

I understand the scientific method. But your initial assertion suggested that science never makes mistakes. And that anyone who disagrees with science (that's inherently self-serving) is a wacko.

So if you disagreed with scientists in the 70s that we were going to enter another ice age, were you a wacko?

Excuse me, but I overlooked that. Can you point it out to me?

(Or is this another effort to turn me into a straw man?)

And if you really want to take me on concerning science, please don't. It's not one of my strengths and I am afraid I may not be much competition to someone who is so well versed in the field as you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you believe in science or religion?

more--http://thenewamerica...-global-cooling

Faulty comparison. Should have been: Do you believe in science or wacko "denier" sites?

Do you believe science ever makes mistakes? Or takes guesses?

Science is a process, so by definition, it cannot make a mistake. However, science being a self-correcting process, whatever mistakes may be made by scientists are ultimately corrected.

The scientific process often starts with a "guess", called an hypothesis. Once this hypothesis is explored, a thesis often results, which is then further tested by scientists in order to confirm or deny it.

Does that help?

You can either assert another smarmy pedantic semantical sidebar, or you can participate in a legitimate discussion.

Are you referring to my response to your question above? (my post #22).

How is that a "smarmy pedantic semantical sidebar"?? It seems like a reasonable response to me. It was a relative short and direct answer to a simple question.

Frankly, if that didn't qualify as part of a "legitimate discussion" I don't know what would qualify in your mind. Are you looking for me to fling poo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...