What happened to global warming?

**Jesus Jones** · 15-10-2009, 08:56 AM

Of course the the intercontinetal scientist is bound to push the global warming theory, he's probably bullied by the governments afterall.

As for the other scientist who claims natural cycles are the cause, his findings like so many others will fall on deaf ears unfortunately. The world governments have got a good system rolling at the moment and the ain't going to let anyone stop it.
________________

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?

**Jet Gorgon** · 15-10-2009, 09:32 AM

^ Erm, the donkeys reworded it to "climate change" when they realised they had feked up. Their sheeples just followed.

**StrontiumDog** · 15-10-2009, 10:59 AM

2 words, solar output.

**BobR** · 15-10-2009, 11:01 AM

6 words: convenient excuse for lower standard of living............................................ ............................and solar output

**Rural Surin** · 15-10-2009, 11:12 AM

1 word: Illusionists

**AntRobertson** · 15-10-2009, 11:19 AM

One word: I is confused.

**Takeovers** · 15-10-2009, 02:41 PM

Are you aware of the difference between weather and climate?

It seems not.

**budmak** · 15-10-2009, 02:51 PM

Earth tilts on its axis every 30,000 years makes it warmer tests in artic ice samples about snow fall have proved this why dont the bods admit it but i think we do need to reduce greenhouse gases

**BobR** · 15-10-2009, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by budmak

Earth tilts on its axis every 30,000 years makes it warmer tests in artic ice samples about snow fall have proved this why dont the bods admit it but i think we do need to reduce greenhouse gases

I don't think there is any reasonable debate that global warming and climate change are happening, the only reasonable debate is whether it's man made or not. I think the Governments top people know it's not man made but by lying and saying it is, they can is they can use it convenient excuse to explain the crashing standard of living in western countries.

**Jesus Jones** · 15-10-2009, 05:35 PM

There is no global warming. Period.
You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global warming is with us."
There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends - be they teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming.
Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius.
A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days. Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming

APC: United Nations > Articles > There is No Global Warming

**Jesus Jones** · 15-10-2009, 05:39 PM

Snowfall: Two mongrels enjoy today's fresh snow in Austria - the earliest snow since records began

In the freezing foothills of Montana, a distinctly bitter blast of revolution hangs in the air.

And while the residents of the icy city of Missoula can stave off the -10C chill with thermals and fires, there may be no easy remedy for the wintry snap's repercussions.

The temperature has shattered a 36-year record. Further into the heartlands of America, the city of Billings registered -12C on Sunday, breaking the 1959 barrier of -5C.

Closer to home, Austria is today seeing its earliest snowfall in history with 30 to 40 centimetres already predicted in the mountains.
Such dramatic falls in temperatures provide superficial evidence for those who doubt that the world is threatened by climate change.

But most pertinent of all, of course, are the growing volume of statistics.

According to the National Climatic Data Centre, Earth's hottest recorded year was 1998.

If you put the same question to NASA, scientists will say it was 1934, followed by 1998. The next three runner-ups are 1921, 2006 and 1931

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1220052/Austria-sees-earliest-snow-history-America-sees-lowest-temperatures-50-years-So-did-global-warming-go.html#ixzz0U02UrxPk

**woodenshoe** · 15-10-2009, 07:16 PM

So, if every following year is not warmer then the previous, there is no global warming.......

Like Takevers said: weather and climate....

**ItsRobsLife** · 15-10-2009, 09:44 PM

Arctic to be 'ice-free in summer'
By David Shukman
Science and environment correspondent, BBC News

The Arctic Ocean could be largely ice-free and open to shipping during the summer in as little as ten years' time, a top polar specialist has said.

"It's like man is taking the lid off the northern part of the planet," said Professor Peter Wadhams, from the University of Cambridge.

Professor Wadhams has been studying the Arctic ice since the 1960s.
He was speaking in central London at the launch of the findings of the Catlin Arctic Survey.

The expedition trekked across 435km of ice earlier this year.
Led by explorer Pen Hadow, the team's measurements found that the ice-floes were on average 1.8m thick - typical of so-called "first year" ice formed during the past winter and most vulnerable to melting.

The survey route - to the north of Canada - had been expected to cross areas of older "multi-year" ice which is thicker and more resilient.

When the ridges of ice between floes are included, the expedition found an average thickness of 4.8m.
Professor Wadhams said: "The Catlin Arctic Survey data supports the new consensus view - based on seasonal variation of ice extent and thickness, changes in temperatures, winds and especially ice composition - that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer within about 20 years, and that much of the decrease will be happening within 10 years.

"That means you'll be able to treat the Arctic as if it were essentially an open sea in the summer and have transport across the Arctic Ocean."

According to Professor Wadhams, faster shipping and easier access to oil and gas reserves were among short-term benefits of the melting.

But in the longer-term, losing a permanent feature of the planet risked accelerated warming, changing patterns of circulation in the oceans and atmosphere, and having unknown effects on ecosystems through the acidification of waters.
Pen Hadow and his companions Ann Daniels and Martin Hartley endured ferocious weather - including a wind chill of minus 70 - delayed resupply flights and starvation rations during the expedition from 1 March to 7 May.

When I met them on the ice, as part of a BBC team that joined the pick-up flight, all three had lost weight and were evidently tired from the ordeal.

The expedition had been blighted by equipment failures. A pioneering radar system, designed to measure the ice while being dragged over the ice, broke down within days. Another device to measure the water beneath the ice never functioned at all.

A planet transformed

The technical breakdowns forced the team to rely on hand-drilling through the ice which slowed progress and meant the team's planned destination of the North Pole had to be abandoned.
Pen Hadow admitted that the expedition had not led to "a giant leap forward in understanding" but had been useful as an incremental step in the science of answering the key questions about the Arctic.

His view was backed by Professor Wadhams who said the expedition had provided information about the ice that was not available from satellites and that no submarines had been available to science at that time either.

Pen Hadow said he was shocked by the image of how "in my lifetime we're looking at changing how the planet looks from space."

He also described how polar explorers were having to change their methods from the days when sledges could be pulled by dogs over the ice.
"Dogs can swim but they can't tow a sledge through water which is what's needed now."
"Now we have to wear immersion suits and swim and we need sledges that can float. I can foresee needing sledges that are more like canoes that you also pull over the ice."

Story from BBC NEWS:
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Arctic to be 'ice-free in summer'

Published: 2009/10/14 23

31 GMT

© BBC MMIX

**robuzo** · 15-10-2009, 09:58 PM

Not sure how this fits into any of the conspiracy theories, but it turns out the Saudis have an interesting view of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions reduction:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/bu....html?_r=1&hpw
Saudi Arabia is trying to enlist other oil-producing countries to support a provocative idea: if wealthy countries reduce their oil consumption to combat global warming, they should pay compensation to oil producers.

The oil-rich kingdom has pushed this position for years in earlier climate-treaty negotiations. While it has not succeeded, its efforts have sometimes delayed or disrupted discussions. The kingdom is once again gearing up to take a hard line on the issue at international negotiations scheduled for Copenhagen in December.
---
If it pisses off the Saudis, and means we send them less money while causing fewer emissions of all the other crap in vehicle exhaust, I say trying to get off of fossil fuels is a winner no matter how accurate the current science turns out to be. If we can slow the pace of climate change, great; if not, we (and this is a big "we", not just the US) still reduce our dependence on our enemies, a bunch of late-medievalists who happen to be some of Al Qaeda and the Taliban's biggest supporters.

**Rattanaburi** · 15-10-2009, 10:02 PM

Well, I hope you are taking herbal medicines and using acupuncture rather than using things created by the 'non-natural' scientists. Why is it that the rightwingers who are so supportive of scientists in every other area reject the same scientists on this? You trust them to build nukes, put all kinds of chemicals in your food, send men to the moon but when their same logic is applied to this issue, you reject them completely. Shhhhht!

**Don Juan** · 16-10-2009, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

The Arctic Ocean could be largely ice-free and open to shipping during the summer in as little as ten years' time, a top polar specialist has said

He's absolutely right.

Soviet scientists on board an icebreaker drifting just 300 miles from the North Pole have concluded that the world is getting hotter.

Warm-water fish are appearing in increasing numbers in Arctic seas as temperatures have risen, melting the ice caps.

The Russian explorers believe that very soon ships will be able to sail right across the Pole.

Thing is - this was December 12, 1938

A few short years later, by 1947, the ice caps were restored to their former glory.

I'd take this latest prediction with a healthy dose of sea-salt.

**BillyBobThai** · 16-10-2009, 02:12 AM

Man made global warming is just another excuse to tax the productive populace to give to the unproductive ones.

**PlanK** · 16-10-2009, 02:33 AM

Originally Posted by Rattanaburi

You trust them to build nukes, put all kinds of chemicals in your food, send men to the moon but when their same logic is applied to this issue

Personally I don't trust them to do that, cause they've screwed up plenty of times. There's a commonality there... Scientists fuck things up on a regular basis, and they get paid for it either way.

Originally Posted by BillyBobThai

Man made global warming is just another excuse to tax the productive populace to give to the unproductive ones.

Sounds good for me.

**ItsRobsLife** · 16-10-2009, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by Don Juan

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

The Arctic Ocean could be largely ice-free and open to shipping during the summer in as little as ten years' time, a top polar specialist has said

He's absolutely right.

Soviet scientists on board an icebreaker drifting just 300 miles from the North Pole have concluded that the world is getting hotter.

Warm-water fish are appearing in increasing numbers in Arctic seas as temperatures have risen, melting the ice caps.

The Russian explorers believe that very soon ships will be able to sail right across the Pole.

Thing is - this was December 12, 1938

A few short years later, by 1947, the ice caps were restored to their former glory.

I'd take this latest prediction with a healthy dose of sea-salt.

Link?

**helge** · 16-10-2009, 03:12 AM

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

Link?

Today in climate history – Dec 12th, 1938 – getting warmer « Watts Up With That?

**Don Juan** · 16-10-2009, 03:28 AM

I know what's coming next.

Whenever these guys are presented with evidence which contradicts their view, they either ignore it or pretend it doesn’t exist.

**mtone9317** · 16-10-2009, 03:32 AM

man made global warming theory is just another shell game to strip the American Middle Class of their hard earned money and give it to the greediest bunch of people the world has ever known. Example:
A Mr. Wood financially engineered the rise of gas prices in the summer of 2008 to the highest in American history. His reward: a 100 million dollar bonus in May as a Citibank associate, the bank we, the citizens of American gave them a 15 billion dollar bailout.

**mordred** · 16-10-2009, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Don Juan

I know what's coming next.

Whenever these guys are presented with evidence which contradicts their view, they either ignore it or pretend it doesn’t exist.

I don't believe the issue here is global warming. Instead, it is how man has changed and will continue to change the face of the Earth. We live on a planet with limited resources and a finite amount of space. I believe, like our bodies, the Earth must maintain a balance and when this balance is lost there are consequences. How will the Earth regain balance once it is lost? Climate changes? Maybe. A super virus? Maybe. You can see evidence of imbalance on a smaller scale if you just look around. What do we do when we are looking at this problem on a global scale?

Think about how your neighborhood, town, or city has changed over the course of your lifetime and multiply that by 20 more lifetimes. Mine has changed considerably. When I go to the supermarket and see all the food, take a look at long lines of cars on the highway, think about how much copper has been used in wiring a city, and see areas where trees used to grow I wonder how long it can be sustained. I think most of us go about our routine without considering the sum of our usage.

The question is: at what point does our way of life threaten our future? You can bicker back and forth about some bullshit statistics from any point of view you choose, but you have to consider what will happen if you are wrong. You have to be willing to consider that what you believe isn't true and what it could mean to mankind.

<--This guy is a dipshit!

**robuzo** · 16-10-2009, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by mordred

You can bicker back and forth about some bullshit statistics from any point of view you choose, but you have to consider what will happen if you are wrong.

Or, as I like to emphasize, consider what is the downside to being wrong and not attempting to reduce fossil fuel consumption and deforestation (climate catastrophe) versus the consequences of cutting fossil fuel consumption and stopping deforestation and having it turn out that it had no effect on climate change- we stop funding corrupt, criminal regimes in Africa, South America, and the Middle East (not to mention right wing loonies from Texas and Alaska), and free ourselves from trying to keep them happy. Plus we get cleaner air, water, and soil. I shouldn't have to enumerate the reasons to preserve the world's forests.

We should have been off of oil and coal long ago, but it was so cheap we became complacent and failed to look for alternatives. Decades of cheap oil fouled the planet and actually encouraged undeveloped countries to stay that way:
Crude World: An interview with Peter Maass | Environment | PRI's The World

**kmart** · 16-10-2009, 10:21 AM

Scientists are paid to come up with the results that their backers / fund providers demand. Science is not "pure" anymore, just a business or a commodity to be bought.

Thread: What happened to global warming?

Thread Tools

Display

What happened to global warming?

It's happening but not man made.

There is No Global Warming

Whatever happened to global warming? How freezing temperatures are starting to shatte

Arctic to be 'ice-free in summer'

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions