|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Interesting reading for those who slavishly cling|
Interesting reading for those who slavishly cling
Posted - 8/9/2013 7:21:12 PM | show profile | flag this post
to the incendiary (no pun intended) pronouncements of the Intragovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). More and more scientists...even those with ties to the IPCC...are backing away from their dire predictions of the last few decades, admitting that global warming stopped about ten years ago and that the Earth could be headed for a new mini ice age.
The two main factors in this shift appear to be a low in solar activity and a massive change in the North Atlantic current...a huge component of the so-called Great Ocean Conveyer.
For around 70 years...between the 1930s and the late 1990s...we experienced a millenial high in solar activity. The last time that occured was...not coincidentally...the Medieval Warm Period from about 1000 to 1300 AD. That was closely followed by a little ice age in the Northern Hemisphere from about 1400 to 1900 AD.
Evidence seems to be lining up that would signal a return to unusually cold winters.
Here's a starting point...there is a great deal more in the literature, including several predictions of a coming little ice age emanating from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Note that the article acknowledges that what IPCC-connected scientists were calling "settled science" is no longer so considered.
Posted - 8/9/2013 7:36:05 PM | show profile | flag this post
it MIGHT be interesting reading..were it NOT from..
an oil and coal promoting website that's dedicated to the proposition that no global warming can possibly exist..that's dedicated to expanding the use of oil and coal..
in other words, cruiztwit.. a site that owes its very existence to the Koch brothers and their ilk..
much like you..
Posted - 8/9/2013 7:36:33 PM | show profile | flag this post
Just one article.
Proof that the record temperatures and vanishing glaciers and melting ice caps and severe storms and freaky weather and record carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are all an Obama plot to force us into accepting fluoridated water.
I was just waiting for the Danes to chime in on this one.
Posted - 8/9/2013 7:43:45 PM | show profile | flag this post
Here's a starting point...there is a great deal more in the literature.
Posted - 8/9/2013 7:51:43 PM | show profile | flag this post
And When You Click on the Link
To read the entire article it won't connect.
Clearly Denmark is already buried under the swiftly moving ice sheet brought on by the little ice age.
I'm going to go drive more so my car's exhaust can help warm us up and stop this frosty doom!!
Ooops! I forgot. Man made global warming is a myth. We're all going to die a slow chilly death.
Posted - 8/9/2013 7:57:33 PM | show profile | flag this post
It connected just fine for me
Posted - 8/9/2013 8:06:16 PM | show profile | flag this post
HE'S A WITCH!!!!!
Posted - 8/10/2013 2:51:24 PM | show profile | flag this post
As long as the left wing can
deflect and change the subject, I guess they're satisfied. No desire to confront the inconvenient fact that the IPCC and its minions are nothing but doomsday predictors.
Posted - 8/10/2013 5:37:04 PM | show profile | flag this post
let's see that would be as opposed to your..
head-in-the-sand, nobody cares, destroy the future, pave the world benefactors?
I think i'll stick with them..yours are more than a little repugnant to me..
Posted - 8/10/2013 7:45:10 PM | show profile | flag this post
it was anything but "interesting reading"
And it wasn't even a good 'starting point' either. I mean when I'm interested in new scientific research or breakthroughs I run--don't walk--run to the "Jyllands-Posten". And especially an in-depth 2 page article. That should counter years and years of respected science...(But this obscure POS was on Drudge; so it must be important)
"A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).
A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming."
So...ONE MORE TIME...it boils down to 97% of the worlds scientists believing one thing--and cruise (and his Danish sources) believing something else. Wow. That's a toughie.
Posted - 8/10/2013 11:15:37 PM | show profile | flag this post
Try following the path away from the starting point
to which I alluded. Read just SOME of the papers from people at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. There are several...going back at least a decade...postulating the possibility of a new mini ice age. And that's not all. Look at the figures on solar activity (it's at a millenial low...and guess what? It corresponds to the 1998 halt in global warming.) And research the CO2 sink in the ocean, the changes to the North Atlantic Current (part of the Great Ocean Conveyor). That is IF you have the curiosity and skepticism a journalist is supposed to have.
Hell, even NASA...often clung to by devotees of the IPCC as a credible source supporting global warming...has been for the last decade publishing articles about the possibility of a sudden reversal of the global temperature trend...and the possibility of a new ice age.
But one never hears the doomsday prophets from the IPCC give that wide dissemination...ESPECIALLY the IPCC swallowers on here.
You need to get real, get impartial, and get honest. WAY more than 97% used to think the Earth revolved around the Sun. Now every 4th grader knows different.
Posted - 8/11/2013 12:09:59 AM | show profile | flag this post
Please seperate your fruit
Meaning your apples and oranges.
Fine. I'll agree with you: ANY Solar activity has nothing to do with what we do here on our little planet. THAT'S not what we're talking about and you damn well know it.
We're talking about man made climate change. That's it. And the science is about as crystal clear on that as it's ever going to get. You just keep dumping billions of tons of garbage into a closed atmosphere without it having an effect. It's a third grade science fair project. Apparently above your understanding.
A totally obscure two page Danish newspaper article isn't going to change the mind of 97% of the worlds scientists. And would you PLEASE stop your constant harping on what 'some people from some organization' think--they are the discredited ones--they do NOT speak for the prestigious groups they were once affiliated with.
Why don't YOU look at what Woods Hole ACTUALLY says: "While the concentrations of almost all greenhouse gases have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide has had the greatest effect on changing the climate....Human beings are causing the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at rates much faster than the earth can cycle them....This means that the CO2 emitted today will likely be affecting the climate for generations..." etc etc etc
NASA says the same thing: "Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree" (Gee?? Where have I heard that before?!!?)
Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space...On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse."
Yes; both organizations may have a couple who disagree. (But then a former NASA astronaut also claims the we've been "visited" before, and "ET's were similar to the traditional image of a small frame, large eyes and head." So just because you worked for NASA doesn't mean I'm going to believe you.
The point is that you are GROSSLY over-stating these groups consensus on the issue.
Posted - 8/11/2013 2:13:30 AM | show profile | flag this post
No, pal, I'm not
You are grossly ignoring credible evidence that refutes the IPCC.
Posted - 8/11/2013 9:20:51 AM | show profile | flag this post
THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL TOPIC!!!
At least it wasn't until the right wing nut cases made it one. I have NO reason to believe in climate change other than the research overwhelmingly points to its validity. Carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing steadily since the Industrial Revolution began. Altering the planet's atmosphere cannot come without change, with appears to be warming. That will effect the entire ecosystem. Even if global warming is not a disaster in the making, the benefits of cutting out fossil fuels are tremendous...cleaner air, cleaner water and not having to invade countries to get their oil. Anyone who is against moving towards renewable energy sources should go back into their cave.
Posted - 8/11/2013 11:11:50 AM | show profile | flag this post
It makes no difference to me
what any of you believe. My aim is simply to present the facts as my scientific training causes me to understand them. What you do with that information is up to you.
As far as not being politiized, that's bullsh*t. The entire IPCC approach is political. Why do you think they have policy wonks publishing position papers (which they call assessment reports) rather than explanations of the scientific phenomena?
And why do you think the head of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University sought to discredit and destroy scientists who were/are skeptical of the IPCC's entire storyline?
One just doesn't do those sorts of things when his/her philosophy is based on facts.
Posted - 8/11/2013 12:41:40 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** My aim is simply to present the facts as my scientific training causes me to understand them. ***
If you're so brilliantly trained, then why don't you show it sometime?
Posted - 8/11/2013 1:08:24 PM | show profile | flag this post
I can't show anything to those who refuse to accept
"There is none so blind as he who will not see." - Ray Stevens
Posted - 8/11/2013 1:18:03 PM | show profile | flag this post
So your "scientific training"
Puts you in the 3% of those who believe one thing--v. the 97% who believe something else...Well thanks for making that perfectly clear for all of us.
And I still think you should apologize for totally mis-representing the position of both Woods Hole and NASA. You continually make it sound that these fine organizations have somehow back-tracked on Man Made Global Warming--and that's clearly a lie. I showed you quite clearly their main web pages on the subject support the scientific results--"On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse."
And, hopefully, would you also put to bed that tired old argument 'that well...hundreds of years ago we thought this...and that turned out to be wrong..' That's a playground desperation 'So there!' way to stop the debate. This is 2013, not 1633. Our scientific instruments and measurements have improved somewhat. Except maybe, in your basement lab. Being the scientist you are.
Posted - 8/11/2013 3:18:52 PM | show profile | flag this post
And as we already knew
Your extensive "scientific training" doesn't even extend to Google.
"There is none so blind as he who will not see." is not from a country music song; it's "been traced back to 1546 (John Heywood), and resembles the Biblical verse Jeremiah 5:21 (‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not’
Yea, it's a small detail, but you just thought you were being sooooo witty...
Posted - 8/11/2013 7:00:44 PM | show profile | flag this post
And you're totally witless
What I posted was the source of the EXACT quote I referenced. While yours may...or may not...have been its genesis, it was not exact. But then, you don't have even a rudimentary understanding of quotes anyhow.
I can tell you STILL have not availed yourself of the literature. Otherwise you wouldn't be making such foolish assertions.
In the past, 100% of scientists believed the Sun rotated around the Earth. The vast majority of medical doctors believed "bleeding" a patient would cure diseases. These are just two of literally dozens of good intentioned...but fatally wrong..."common knowledge" examples. Anthropogenic climate change will likely join these at some point in the near future.
We've been through conditions similar to the present before...likely thousands or millions of times. The last time the Earth experienced high solar activity like the period from roughly 1940 to 1998, it was called the Medieval Warm Period. And the last time it experienced a millenial low in solar activity such as now occuring was a little ice age in the Northern Hemisphere from around 1400 to 1900 AD. Y'see, the effects of CO2 have been WAY overblown, And the effects of solar activity have been WAY underestimated.
Is the climate changing? Hell yes. It has been for all of the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth. Sometimes it's warm, sometimes it's cold. And the level of CO2 has been MUCH, MUCH higher in the past without the dire consequences being trumpeted by the doomsayers of the IPCC. Is man responsible for climate change? Not for more than an INFINITESIMALLY SMALL percentage that should go unnoticed.
Posted - 8/11/2013 7:32:30 PM | show profile | flag this post
Your 'When Science was wrong' examples were from hundreds of years ago. Long before we had the scientific instruments or expertise we do now. We didn't know about germs either, and when we found about them, it became settled science. What's your point.
It's an extemely lame, desperate attempt 'Climate Deniers' fall back on all the time, especially when they've got nothing else. 'But but but we didn't know the Earth was round either!! So there!! Take that!! Okay...so when we could photograph the earth from space and proved it was round to even the most ignorant person--didn't that end the argument?? Well Yea...but but but...But NOTHING. Put a lit cigarette or two and maybe a few burning coals into a terrarium and tell me what happens.
One last time--I swear--There's 97% of the worlds scientists, and then there's you among the 3%. Guess who I'm goin with.
Posted - 8/11/2013 7:51:18 PM | show profile | flag this post
Poor cruiser, smacking around people while at the same time expecting them to believe he's a highly trained genius.
Posted - 8/11/2013 8:40:28 PM | show profile | flag this post
The reason you lean so heavily
on that 97% is because you don't have the knowledge to make an independent judgment. But even if you did I doubt you'd do so because you and that 97% are political birds of a feather.
Posted - 8/11/2013 10:39:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
actually cruiztwit.. we HAVE made independent judgment..
that you are nothing more than a rightwingnut troll..and nowhere near as smart as you purport to be..
Posted - 8/11/2013 11:32:53 PM | show profile | flag this post
If that strokes your ego
embrace it with my blessing.