(For anyone who doesn't know, England is in the middle of a BIG FREEZE and that satellite image is real; not like the photo-shopped images Al Gore puts on the front of his books.)
You can read about the climate scientists who predict a 20 to 30 year period of global cooling here at The Daily Mail.
Here's the intro:
Britain's big freeze is the start of a worldwide trend towards colder weather that seriously challenges global warming theories, eminent scientists claimed yesterday.
The world has entered a 'cold mode' which is likely to bring a global dip in temperatures which will last for 20 to 30 years, they say.
Summers and winters will all be cooler than in recent years, and the changes will mean that global warming will be 'paused' or even reversed, it was claimed.
The predictions are based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
They are the work of respected climate scientists and not those routinely dismissed by environmentalists as 'global warming deniers'.
Some experts believe these cycles - and not human pollution - can explain all the major changes in world temperatures in the 20th century.
31 comments:
Ignoring the hockey stick graph is unscientific, denier.
The GLOBE is warming, overall. There might be some regional variations, but overall anthropocentric global warming is occurring.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IIwXh_3d20
Nope, there is no correspondence between solar activity and climate change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20
Stop spreading retardacy.
The hockey stick graph is unscientific.
You obviously didn't read the article. It said nothing of solar activity.
LOL, you just can't state that it is unscientific. You have to prove that it is. Now, the hockey stick is support by the Academy of Science. I therefore see no reason to reject it.
That is why you are called a denier. You deny what can not be denied. It is obstructionist politics pure and simple.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm
"To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume
Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM
So now you agree the globe is cooling because a stooge from the IPCC framed in a context that works for them?
I'm called a "denier" because you enjoy parroting propagandistic terms.
Not at all. The data graphs have always shown fluctuation. However, they have not shown 30-year fluctuations that correspond to the Industrial Revolution created warming. Just like the solar crap, this is also crap.
"I'm called a "denier" because you enjoy parroting propagandistic terms."
No, you are called a denier because you deny the evidence and do not have a counter-argument.
I question the evidence being presented that has obvious corporate backers. I question evidence used by a bureaucratic body to build power for a centralized global government.
I do not know if the world is freezing, warming, or sitting still. I do not study the climate.
There are certainly enough scientists questioning what is coming from the IPCC to warrant skepticism and when I can point that out I will.
Science does not occur be consensus; consensus limits discussion and encourages prejudice. It presumes an answer and then all science must be built around explaining it based on that given answer.
Consensus does not leave room to question.
"I question the evidence being presented that has obvious corporate backers. I question evidence used by a bureaucratic body to build power for a centralized global government. "
LOL, it is science, Josh, not fascism.
"I do not know if the world is freezing, warming, or sitting still. I do not study the climate. "
I know, you are ignorant.
"There are certainly enough scientists questioning what is coming from the IPCC to warrant skepticism and when I can point that out I will."
Nope. The hockey stick has been reaffirmed, to the chagrin of a conservative Congress, by the US National Academy of Science, WHICH IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION BENT ON CREATING A ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT>>>
"Science does not occur be consensus;"
Yes, it does! BECAUSE THE GODDAMNED DATA CAN NOT BE DENIED! IT IS ONLY THOSE WHO WANT TO DENY THE FACTS THAT THINK SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT CONSENUS!
"consensus limits discussion and encourages prejudice. It presumes an answer and then all science must be built around explaining it based on that given answer."
This is trash-reasoning. Consensuses can be broken by objective data, just as they are/were formed by objective data. The reason why the global warming consensus has not broken is the fact that their science is solid.
"I know, you are ignorant."
At least I understand what I do not know.
The NAS is government funded. Its tainted.
Few scientists would have the balls to reject global warming at this point for fear of being labeled a "denier". The science community is like any other community, full of politics and fueled by money. You assume the science community is somehow independent and not affected by propaganda, reputation, and money. You're wrong. There's no room for dissent.
How we can we trust the science of those who so viciously attack any who question it?
Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
"At least I understand what I do not know."
That is impossible.
"The NAS is government funded. Its tainted."
It is mind-boggling just how brain-washed you are.
"Few scientists would have the balls to reject global warming at this point for fear of being labeled a "denier". The science community is like any other community, full of politics and fueled by money. You assume the science community is somehow independent and not affected by propaganda, reputation, and money. You're wrong. There's no room for dissent. "
Wow, you really are a wacko paranoid.
Sorry, until the hockey stick is disproved, I see no reason to believe in your "They are out to get me" personal politics.
"How we can we trust the science of those who so viciously attack any who question it?"
Look at the facts. You have decided to ignore them, so YOU SHOULD BE attacked as a liar.
"Me thinks thou doth protest too much."
Methinks you are confusing facts with politics.
"That is impossible."
Wow. You're dumb.
"It is mind-boggling just how brain-washed you are."
Brain-washed because I understand money = power?
"Wow, you really are a wacko paranoid."
Name me one scientist that argues against man-made global warming that hasn't been black-balled and labeled a "denier"?
"Sorry, until the hockey stick is disproved, I see no reason to believe in your "They are out to get me" personal politics."
Has the hockey stick been proved?
"Brain-washed because I understand money = power?"
Oh NOES! LETS ALL BECOME MONKS! SCIENCE CANT BE BASED ON FACTS WHEN MONEY IS PAID! OH NOES!
"Name me one scientist that argues against man-made global warming that hasn't been black-balled and labeled a "denier"?"
It is not a label. It is a fact. They deny facts; therefore, they are deniers.
"Has the hockey stick been proved?"
Yup, at least until new data eradicates it. Sorry, Josh, I don't think the US Academy of Science contradicted Congress just because they want to set up a one-world government.
You really need to stop chatting with your American friends. They are bat-crazy.
I believe it could be argued that this arguement is contributing to global climate cahnge!
As usual you both miss the real point. The human activities that despoil our planet are the true issue. Global warming or global cooling is a red herring arguement that diverts us from the true issue.
Science can no longer be accepted at face value. As we have seen in the science of nutrition it has been corrupted by special interests.
Political leaders do not have our best interests at heart.
In a growing number of coutries potable water is no longer available. Major rivers have been dammed and diverted to the point some do not reach the ocean. Clean air is becoming an ever increasing problem. Toxic chemical dumps and the residue of our consumption continue to pile high. Natural resouces continue to be gobbled up.
Your arguement should be a debate over which of you is doing the least harm and how you each may live a life attempting "to do the best you can" to lessen your contribution.
As long as the population continues to talk about these things at a level far removed from day to day living then the individual can remove his/her self from having to self examine their own activities.
Would you create a toxic dump in your back yard? Would you foul your own water and contaminate your own food on your land. Would you turn your property into a wasteland? of course not, at least not knowingly, so why do we think it is okay everywhere else?
The arguement is not about science or politics. It is about the individual and what we do, the choices we make. Everyday.
If enough of us make an effort everyday to make the right decisons, the rest will work itself out.
1. I'm not arguing about global warming.
2. There is no such thing as freedom of choice.
The problem here is that you did far too much partying when you were a young boomer and hence have not given these issues any serious thought. Underlying each "choice" is one or more causes, ALWAYS. Choice does not exist. It is a business slogan that makes capitalism feel freer when it definitely is not free.
"The problem here is that you did far too much partying when you were a young boomer and hence have not given these issues any serious thought. Underlying each "choice" is one or more causes, ALWAYS. Choice does not exist. It is a business slogan that makes capitalism feel freer when it definitely is not free."
You chose to write such an ignorant comment on my blog. I'm choosing to respond and call it ignorant. OH LOOK! CHOICE!
"You chose to write such an ignorant comment on my blog. I'm choosing to respond and call it ignorant. OH LOOK! CHOICE!"
Nope, there are thousands of causes underlying each action.
"Nope, there are thousands of causes underlying each action."
True, but it does not disprove free will.
Ah, since there is nothing I can point to that is 'free will', it becomes an article of Faith. I can point to the causes underlying action, I can point to will, but I can not point to "free will". Free will is a Christian, faith-based concept.
Okay so how do you choose to feel about climate change? Just asking!
He doesn't choose to believe anything about climate change. His thoughts on climate change are simply a result of trillions of events throughout history. To assume he has a thought about climate change assumes he is able to choose to think about climate. Since choice doesn't exist in his world any thought he has is simply a reaction to his entire life. So, don't ask him what he thinks about climate change, because he can't think, everything is reactionary. Leave the robot alone. I, however, look to my choice to post this message, choosing which words to use throughout it, to prove free will exists. Sometimes, to some people, the obvious is not so obvious.
"Okay so how do you choose to feel about climate change? Just asking!"
Christian language.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=choose&searchmode=none
Both choose and choice come from a Germanic root word that meant to taste, relish. LOL. That makes a lot of sense, actually.
"He doesn't choose to believe anything about climate change. His thoughts on climate change are simply a result of trillions of events throughout history."
Indeed, the trillions of events that lead to the scientists who found the facts that support their theory that the globe is warming.
"To assume he has a thought about climate change assumes he is able to choose to think about climate."
No, it assumes that my brain has the ability to process information. It has nothing to do with tasting.
"Since choice doesn't exist in his world any thought he has is simply a reaction to his entire life."
Not a reaction, a logical conclusion.
"So, don't ask him what he thinks about climate change, because he can't think, everything is reactionary."
Thought is a series of causes defined by a narrow set of formulae. It makes sense, it is a process, and that process is a long series of causes. You may not like it, you may call it "reactionary" because you don't like the content of reality, but that is the way it is. You can not point to something that is radically free. It is a fact. GET OVER IT.
"Leave the robot alone. I, however, look to my choice to post this message, choosing which words to use throughout it, to prove free will exists. Sometimes, to some people, the obvious is not so obvious."
Ahahahaha, now you are going to prove that the causes that underlie your "choosing" are somehow not causes because you can say "I choose to post this message and I choose which words"? That is garbage, and just goes to show you how steeped in Christian mysticism and superstition you are.
Just because you can move your arms does not mean you are existentially free. Fact. There are literally billions of causes that allow you to do it at any one moment.
Soo about climate change......
Post a Comment