Scientific evidence now points to global cooling, contrary to U.N. alarmism

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,722
6,201
126
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: eskimospy
In this case science could be wrong too, it's always possible. To see this preponderance of evidence and choose not to act however is simply mind bogglingly irresponsible.

Then act for reasons we know (and there are many). Low level atmospheric pollution causes respiratory problems and acid rain, for example. These are things nobody disputes. But to isolate CO2 as THE cause of global warming is ridiculous. It is but one factor out of thousands (many of which we probably don't even know), and saying we need to cut CO2 output or it will turn our planet into Venus is sensationalist garbage.

My Dear Sir, I hate to inform you but you are a nobody just like me. Your opinion isn't worth shit. You don't get to invent out of your ridiculous imagination what is sensationalist garbage and what is good science. That's just how it is for nobodies. And you should be aware, that when it comes to matters of opinion, I value mine above all others. That's about all you get in compensation for being a nobody. You need to take a nice long walk down the railroad track in deep contemplation of the silly CO2 problem and how irrelevant it is in your life.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,131
5,659
126
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: eskimospy
In this case science could be wrong too, it's always possible. To see this preponderance of evidence and choose not to act however is simply mind bogglingly irresponsible.

Then act for reasons we know (and there are many). Low level atmospheric pollution causes respiratory problems and acid rain, for example. These are things nobody disputes. But to isolate CO2 as THE cause of global warming is ridiculous. It is but one factor out of thousands (many of which we probably don't even know), and saying we need to cut CO2 output or it will turn our planet into Venus is sensationalist garbage.

No one is isolating CO2 is the only culprit. Strawman some more.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,837
49,539
136
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: eskimospy
In this case science could be wrong too, it's always possible. To see this preponderance of evidence and choose not to act however is simply mind bogglingly irresponsible.

Then act for reasons we know (and there are many). Low level atmospheric pollution causes respiratory problems and acid rain, for example. These are things nobody disputes. But to isolate CO2 as THE cause of global warming is ridiculous. It is but one factor out of thousands (many of which we probably don't even know), and saying we need to cut CO2 output or it will turn our planet into Venus is sensationalist garbage.

I like how you complain about sensationalist garbage by making a ridiculous sensationalist clsim nobody has ever made about the earth becoming venus.

Dispense with the strsw men.
 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
Look folks...

All I'm asking you as a scientist... keep an open mind about these things. That is what a scientist should do. Use the science inside, folks... don't fucking give into popular political opinion.

There are a lot of really brilliant scientist who don't give GW the time of day. And a lot of these ladies and gents gave it a long hard look.

There is a lot of money in climate research and a lot of money to be made and power to be had in the control of energy markets and carbon emissions. Scientists, like politicians, are not above using 'things' to pave their way to tenure and big fat grant money.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,131
5,659
126
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Look folks...

All I'm asking you as a scientist... keep an open mind about these things. That is what a scientist should do. Use the science inside, folks... don't fucking give into popular political opinion.

There are a lot of really brilliant scientist who don't give GW the time of day. And a lot of these ladies and gents gave it a long hard look.

There is a lot of money in climate research and a lot of money to be made and power to be had in the control of energy markets and carbon emissions. Scientists, like politicians, are not above using 'things' to pave their way to tenure and big fat grant money.

Look dude, all I'm asking is that your Ilk distinguish between Science and simple Opinions that only call into question Science.
 

Grabo

Senior member
Apr 5, 2005
245
55
101
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Look folks...

All I'm asking you as a scientist... keep an open mind about these things. That is what a scientist should do. Use the science inside, folks... don't fucking give into popular political opinion.

There are a lot of really brilliant scientist who don't give GW the time of day. And a lot of these ladies and gents gave it a long hard look.

There is a lot of money in climate research and a lot of money to be made and power to be had in the control of energy markets and carbon emissions. Scientists, like politicians, are not above using 'things' to pave their way to tenure and big fat grant money.

I think most people outside of the U.S think the 'popular fucking opinion' in the U.S is that AGW is a term, a religion, that scientists who claim we are helping the earth warm are bought / fools / not realizing the benefits and so on. How true this(view of Americans) is I don't know.

If NASA, the NSIDC and the likes are only out to get big fat grant money or whatever, who are these 'really brilliant scientists' you speak of?

Anyway, Moombeam's long and largely ignored post some pages back was good, and, among other things, linked to an answer to the original article : http://chriscolose.wordpress.c...coming-global-cooling/ . I like reading realclimate.org.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Look folks...

All I'm asking you as a scientist... keep an open mind about these things. That is what a scientist should do. Use the science inside, folks... don't fucking give into popular political opinion.

There are a lot of really brilliant scientist who don't give GW the time of day. And a lot of these ladies and gents gave it a long hard look.

There is a lot of money in climate research and a lot of money to be made and power to be had in the control of energy markets and carbon emissions. Scientists, like politicians, are not above using 'things' to pave their way to tenure and big fat grant money.

The exact same thing can be said regarding the other side your coin.
 

microbial

Senior member
Oct 10, 2008
350
0
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Look folks...

All I'm asking you as a scientist... keep an open mind about these things. That is what a scientist should do. Use the science inside, folks... don't fucking give into popular political opinion.

There are a lot of really brilliant scientist who don't give GW the time of day. And a lot of these ladies and gents gave it a long hard look.

There is a lot of money in climate research and a lot of money to be made and power to be had in the control of energy markets and carbon emissions. Scientists, like politicians, are not above using 'things' to pave their way to tenure and big fat grant money.

The exact same thing can be said regarding the other side your coin.

More to the point: There is an awful lot to be lost in profits if global warming is to be reduced.

But the larger principle which the OP alludes to (knowingly or not) is:

Let scientist do their job. In science, conclusions are made based on the facts, and when a consensus is achieved--that is the standard by which future decisions can be made.

Administrivials and political whores can and should take a very back seat when it comes to climate policies.
 

extra

Golden Member
Dec 18, 1999
1,947
7
81
Yeah, I support socialized medicine, etc, but I'm gonna hafta side with the evil horrible righties on this one. Whenever there is a consensus on something that is doom and gloom and oh god we must do this or our world is going to end, I tend to take it with a grain of salt. I somehow think that this global warming deal is just not going to ever materialize in the same way that I remember the "oh god, everyone is going to starve to death because of population growth" thing from the 80's.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,616
3,471
136
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: eskimospy
In this case science could be wrong too, it's always possible. To see this preponderance of evidence and choose not to act however is simply mind bogglingly irresponsible.

Then act for reasons we know (and there are many). Low level atmospheric pollution causes respiratory problems and acid rain, for example. These are things nobody disputes. But to isolate CO2 as THE cause of global warming is ridiculous. It is but one factor out of thousands (many of which we probably don't even know), and saying we need to cut CO2 output or it will turn our planet into Venus is sensationalist garbage.

No one is isolating CO2 is the only culprit. Strawman some more.

Sorry, but I've never heard the term "methane footprint". Can you point to another factor in global warming getting even close to the amount of attention that CO2 is? You can't go two minutes without hearing about "carbon neutral" this and "carbon footprint" that.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: PJABBER
Among other friends, I spend quite a bit of time with researchers at or associated with NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.) A couple of nights ago I was having dinner with three of them and I decided to conduct an informal poll as to whether they thought climate change is anthropogenic (man-made) and to my surprise all three said that they highly doubted it. The discussion that followed was technical in the extreme but none of the arguments was for human caused climate change.

Now, a dinner discussion is not a sign of scientific consensus, but doesn't it seem as though we are seeing almost daily reports of scientists, not politicians, debunking the entire concept of anthropogenic climate change and even more astonishingly, arguing that the Earth is entering a period of global cooling?

Up until now, critics of the Waxman-Markey bill inside and outside of Congress have focused mostly on the severe economic costs of emission caps. During the August recess, it might be helpful to ask members why they continue to pursue regulatory schemes unattached to what new scientific data now shows.

I believe this is a very, very good idea!

Scientific evidence now points to global cooling, contrary to U.N. alarmism
By: Kevin Mooney
Commentary Staff Writer
The Washington Examiner
08/04/09 3:51 PM EDT

Scientific evidence now points to global cooling

Opponents of the Waxman-Markey ?cap and trade? bill would do well to invoke recent scientific studies that show global surface temperatures have not increased since 1998, contrary to what climate models have predicted.

U.S. policymakers who cite ?consensus? on man-made global warming as justification for anti-emission regulations are relying upon outdated and misleading material from the United Nations that deliberately omits the influence of natural forces, according to climate skeptics. In fact, a growing body of evidence now points to the emergence of another cooling cycle that could persist for decades.

Dr. Don Easterbrook, a geologist and professor emeritus at Western Washington University, has presented data that shows a cooler and wetter climate is in order for the next 25 to 30 years. The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO, he said in a recent study.

The shift away from a cooling cycle in 1945 triggered several decades of warming that ended in 1998, according to the study. However, the PDO has now reverted back over to a cool mode, Easterbrook has concluded. This data raises questions about the reliability of models used by the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Easterbrook has said. This U.N. prediction of global temperatures 1° F warmer by 2011 and 2° F by 2038 appear to be very much off track.

Meanwhile, some scientists are convinced earth could experience more than just cooling over the next few decades. Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics with the National Autonomous University of Mexico sees evidence that points to the onset of a ?little ice age? in about 10 years that could last for much of the 21st Century. The IPPC models are not correct because they do not take into account natural factors like solar activity, he said in a lecture.

This view is also advanced in a paper published by the Astronomical Society of Australia. The authors anticipate that sun?s activity will diminish significantly over the next few decades.

Up until now, critics of the Waxman-Markey bill inside and outside of Congress have focused mostly on the severe economic costs of emission caps. During the August recess, it might be helpful to ask members why they continue to pursue regulatory schemes unattached to what new scientific data now shows.

GGGGEEEEZZZZ, pjabber do all the janitorial staff share this opinion? Or is it just the small group you take lunch with?
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
GGGGEEEEZZZZ, pjabber do all the janitorial staff share this opinion? Or is it just the small group you take lunch with?

Kind of an elitist are you?

I have no problem with hanging out with janitors, security guards, building engineers, kitchen staff or the girls in the mail room.

Some years back I used to run fairly large business services company divisions that provided some of the above mentioned staff and I made it a point to show up for the graveyard and weekend shifts and just talk to whomever was working. I may have been one of the few senior executives to do that, but I learned more from the life stories I heard then than in any forum you have ever frequented.

If you happen to get yourself down from that ivory tower you live in you may find that a significant portion of these people may hold advanced degrees, have worked in other occupations at very senior levels here and in other countries and, in other ways, have very interesting life stories, very different I am sure than your own.

In the current economy many people have lost their jobs and some may be willing to take any job to keep their families fed and to keep their pride. Not everyone is happy to be living off unemployment or welfare.

No, the people I had a meal with were PhDs with U.S. and international degrees in climatology, atmospheric physics and meteorology. Kind of a well rounded group right? Which is why I was surprised that they independently reached consensus that anthropogenic causes were not a significant factor in climate change.

No one had ever asked them point blank to render an opinion like this in a casual dinner setting so they each kind of glanced around before commenting, maybe they were afraid of the politically correct like you?
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Fact the sun is (long term) growing hotter and expanding. Right now it is in the "cool phase" of its' sunspot cycle. The Earth's poles are still shrinking, glaciers are still shrinking. This does not sound like evidence for global cooling, rather a respite to a higher degree of global warming.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,722
6,201
126
Originally posted by: PJABBER
GGGGEEEEZZZZ, pjabber do all the janitorial staff share this opinion? Or is it just the small group you take lunch with?

Kind of an elitist are you?

I have no problem with hanging out with janitors, security guards, building engineers, kitchen staff or the girls in the mail room.

Some years back I used to run fairly large business services company divisions that provided some of the above mentioned staff and I made it a point to show up for the graveyard and weekend shifts and just talk to whomever was working. I may have been one of the few senior executives to do that, but I learned more from the life stories I heard then than in any forum you have ever frequented.

If you happen to get yourself down from that ivory tower you live in you may find that a significant portion of these people may hold advanced degrees, have worked in other occupations at very senior levels here and in other countries and, in other ways, have very interesting life stories, very different I am sure than your own.

In the current economy many people have lost their jobs and some may be willing to take any job to keep their families fed and to keep their pride. Not everyone is happy to be living off unemployment or welfare.

No, the people I had a meal with were PhDs with U.S. and international degrees in climatology, atmospheric physics and meteorology. Kind of a well rounded group right? Which is why I was surprised that they independently reached consensus that anthropogenic causes were not a significant factor in climate change.

No one had ever asked them point blank to render an opinion like this in a casual dinner setting so they each kind of glanced around before commenting, maybe they were afraid of the politically correct like you?

Naturally, I can't be guided by questions you asked at a dinner party. I have to go by the scientific consensus. Hearsay data from somebody else's dinner party isn't science.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: eskimospy
What I find interesting is that you guys want policymakers to use single studies to base their decisions on instead of hundreds if not thousands of them. Gee, I wonder if this has anything to do with you cherry-picking science that agrees with your already held viewpoint?

I haven't read the study yet, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it does not refute the basic premise of global warming.

If you haven't read it yet , then you should sign it.
This would qualify you for congress, and give you secure employment for 4 years.

Back to civics class ...

Sorry, I should of said an average of four years. (6+2)/2=4

Each of the 435 members of the House of Representatives represents a district and serves a two-year term. House seats are apportioned among the states by population. The 100 Senators serve staggered six-year terms.
wiki
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,131
5,659
126
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: eskimospy
In this case science could be wrong too, it's always possible. To see this preponderance of evidence and choose not to act however is simply mind bogglingly irresponsible.

Then act for reasons we know (and there are many). Low level atmospheric pollution causes respiratory problems and acid rain, for example. These are things nobody disputes. But to isolate CO2 as THE cause of global warming is ridiculous. It is but one factor out of thousands (many of which we probably don't even know), and saying we need to cut CO2 output or it will turn our planet into Venus is sensationalist garbage.

No one is isolating CO2 is the only culprit. Strawman some more.

Sorry, but I've never heard the term "methane footprint". Can you point to another factor in global warming getting even close to the amount of attention that CO2 is? You can't go two minutes without hearing about "carbon neutral" this and "carbon footprint" that.

CO2 is the most important component, but like I said it is not the only component.
 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Look folks...

All I'm asking you as a scientist... keep an open mind about these things. That is what a scientist should do. Use the science inside, folks... don't fucking give into popular political opinion.

There are a lot of really brilliant scientist who don't give GW the time of day. And a lot of these ladies and gents gave it a long hard look.

There is a lot of money in climate research and a lot of money to be made and power to be had in the control of energy markets and carbon emissions. Scientists, like politicians, are not above using 'things' to pave their way to tenure and big fat grant money.

The exact same thing can be said regarding the other side your coin.

I absolutely agree with you.

There are massive profits left to be made from oil, coal, and gas and the fossil fuel interests don't want concerns about the environment getting in their way.

I am all for green science and engineering and working to minimize our 'environmental footprint'. Rather than taking a nice 100k+ salary job in industry I'm doing a 40k a year post-doc instead. I am working on thin film technology for fuel cell catalysis, Li-ion battery improvement, solar cells, protective/barrier coatings for OLED's... all green energy initiatives in their own right. I'm doing this because I care.
 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Naturally, I can't be guided by questions you asked at a dinner party. I have to go by the scientific consensus. Hearsay data from somebody else's dinner party isn't science.

The problem is that this consensus has largely been politically engineered... if you read through the congress report of dissenting persons that PJ linked you see that several main authors of the original IPCC climate reports are on the dissenting list. More and more of the top scientists from various climate research institutes around the world are adding their names to 'the list of dissenters'.

I know people who do climate research... profs, Ph.D. students, Ph.D's who did their thesis in climate/atmospheric modeling. The fact is we know so little about the climate system... the GW climate research circle more recently actively campaigns against the use of 'better science/math' whenever it starts shooting holes in the GW theory. This whole thing has turned very political even from the standpoint of 'in the trenches, getting our hands dirty, top notch research'.

Article reviewers and journal editors often will move to prohibit research from being published because it goes against the GW mantra. Try to go get funding to look the fundamental, analytic uncertainty in global climate models with goal of really assessing the uncertainty of climate predictions... no one will fund you.

Nonetheless more and more cracks are forming the GW dam against 'opposing' information.

Physics Today recently ran an article discussing the impact of solar activity on the energy balance of the earth... simple conclusions: even the slightests of changes have a very significant impact on the equilibrium surface temperatures of the planet and Sun's activity has definitely been 'higher' in the recent past but is trending downwards. A lot of GW proponents will simply dismiss this article out of hand with logical fallacies left and right (the author's don't understand climate models, they are stupid, etc... I have heard climate research do this sort of thing with my own ears!!), regardless of the fact that it is good science and should garner significant consideration
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,227
36
91
Originally posted by: blanghorst
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I predicted everything, where's my Nobel prize?

You're right, you were spot on with that $10/gallon gas prediction. :roll:

Fill up now, it could happen tomorrow!
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: blanghorst
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I predicted everything, where's my Nobel prize?

You're right, you were spot on with that $10/gallon gas prediction. :roll:

Fill up now, it could happen tomorrow!

I think the only award Dave might see is the Darwin Award.
 

tk149

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2002
7,256
1
0
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: OCguy
Manbearpig

NontrollOCpost

I'm not going to stop searching, are you?
*************************************************
Let's look at the pro's and con's of acting on MMGW.

Pro's
1. We might avert extinction(this rates very highly with most humans)
2. We'll have cleaner air to breathe
3. Sustainable energy development

Con's
1. Higher energy prices.
2. ????????

Now of not acting.

Pro's
1. Energy prices remain more or less what they are now, with declining supplies certain to lead to much higher prices in the future.
2. Telling those commies in the EU to suck it.

Con's
1. The possible extinction of the human race.
2. Certainly loss of arable land in the US, perhaps presenting the US with the possibility of not being able to feed her populace for the first time in history.
3. Surrendering the future to the EU, China, and India. Because they are moving on, with or without us.

Just wanted to mention a consequence you missed. Hindering the development of Second and Third World nations, thereby keeping them in poverty and keeping their life expectancy rates and quality of life lower than the First World. I guess it's a "pro" or "con" depending on your point of view.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |