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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

tfcmasta97

Platinum Member
Feb 7, 2004
2,003
0
0
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 on man-made global warming as justification for anti-emission regulations are relying upon outdated and misleading material from the United Nations that deliberately omits the influence of natural forces, according to climate skeptics.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.

Im surprised no one has pointed this little part out, it's a pretty big assumption...

Is there anything out there to back this up? Because it seems to be what this whole thing is based on
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Genx87
Anybody living in the upper plains, more specifically MN knows we have had bitter winters and mild summers the last 3 years. I really enjoyed the 65 and 30 MPH winds last weekend at the lake. Wearing a late fall jacket in the first weekend of August is not what I call a good time. Our winters have been brutal and longer than usual. This year was a little better but in 2008 we had 40s and 50 into early May and some places up north were still iced in for fishing opener.

Ah, so your "scientific method" is that if a four pack-a-day smoker has great health for three years, that must mean that cigarette smoking isn't dangerous to health. Or if you flip a coin four times and it comes up "heads" on every flip, that must mean that the coin is flawed. Or if you go to singles bars and have unprotected sex with numerous women over the course of three years and remain disease-free, that must mean there's no such thing as AIDs.

You're a cretin.

Ah, so you've already resorted to name-calling and wild hyperbole. Yup, no bias or agenda coming from you.

:roll:
You apparently don't recognize the difference between calling someone a name and making a statement of fact:

cretin: a stupid, obtuse, or mentally defective person

GenX is a cretin because he made a demonstrably cretinous argument. I say "demonstrably" because I demonstrated just how stupid and defective his argument is by providing three equally-stupid parallel arguments.

The fact that you think the stupidity of those parallel arguments borders is hyperbole - and isn't in fact the quintessence of what GenX wrote - means only that you may well be a cretin yourself.

Only cretins think that specific counter-examples refute correlation.

Statement by wise person: Conservatives tend to have low IQs.
Response by cretin: That's not true because I know a conservative who got a B in home economics.

No one but a cretin could argue as GenX did and think it carries any weight.
 

themusgrat

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2005
1,408
0
0
Moonbeam, first, the article doesn't really even give a thought to objectivity, second, it portrays dissenters as being "conspiracy theorists," and third, it fails to take into account the people who agree that global warming is happening, but that man's part is not all that big.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Genx87
Anybody living in the upper plains, more specifically MN knows we have had bitter winters and mild summers the last 3 years. I really enjoyed the 65 and 30 MPH winds last weekend at the lake. Wearing a late fall jacket in the first weekend of August is not what I call a good time. Our winters have been brutal and longer than usual. This year was a little better but in 2008 we had 40s and 50 into early May and some places up north were still iced in for fishing opener.

Ah, so your "scientific method" is that if a four pack-a-day smoker has great health for three years, that must mean that cigarette smoking isn't dangerous to health. Or if you flip a coin four times and it comes up "heads" on every flip, that must mean that the coin is flawed. Or if you go to singles bars and have unprotected sex with numerous women over the course of three years and remain disease-free, that must mean there's no such thing as AIDs.

You're a cretin.

WTF? he just pointed out what he has noticed in the area he resides. why in the hell did you call him a cretin for that?

Do you really not understand that GenX is arguing that climate change isn't really occurring because they've had cooler-than-normal weather in MN where he lives? Or do you, too, think that short-term weather patterns are relevant to climate theories?

Study my coin-flip example and see if you can make the connection.
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,395
2
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Brigandier


So, what is my realization? Make it succinct I have trouble understanding things, or so I've heard.

We are not Insignificant and that we are impacting the Earth on a large scale.

From the bottom looking up, humans are elevated above quite a bit, from the top looking down we are crushed under the vastness of reality and the curse of perspective.

I have already said I agree with many of the techniques the MMGW crowd advocates, but for completely different reasons. Why are you so hard set on me believing in all the demons and spookies cast out by the MMGW crowd?
 

ZeGermans

Banned
Dec 14, 2004
907
0
0
As a respected scientist I believe that that man made global warming has serious flaws. Why yes Exxon commissioned the study and pays me a huge retainer why do you ask?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Originally posted by: sactoking
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
...The consensus of the scientific community is that it is real... The fact of the matter is that the scientific concensus is that Global warming is real. It doesn't mattter that a bunch of scientists disagree. The scientific consensus is that global warming is real. As long as the consensus among scientists that global warming is real the science says it's real.

Galileo Galilei would disagree. Consensus does not make science, fact does. All the world's scientists could wake up tomorrow and declare the sky to be green. The consensus among scientists that the sky is green does not alter the fact that the sky is blue. The facts of "climate change" are still in debate.

You're missing the point. Yes, even a huge scientific consensus can be utterly wrong. But why does PJabber CHOOSE to believe the NON-consensus? Unless he's in the field himself what is his rationale for rejecting the mountains of data in support of the theory and adopting the much LESS well supported view that human activity is NOT having a significant effect on climate?

Look at Moonbeam's long post again: If 39 out of 40 scientists in the climate-related fields believe that mankind's behavior is having a significant effect on climate, why would anyone else choose to reject that view? Religion? Economic self-interest? Ideology? Plain old contrariness?

If you saw 40 cardiologists, and 39 of them said you urgently needed bypass surgery and had voluminous data to back those opinions up, would you defer to the 1 cardiologist who told you to do nothing?

Edit: And I should add: You will ALWAYS find someone (a scientist, a physician, or whatever) who will tell you to do nothing.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,812
10,346
136
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: sactoking
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
...The consensus of the scientific community is that it is real... The fact of the matter is that the scientific concensus is that Global warming is real. It doesn't mattter that a bunch of scientists disagree. The scientific consensus is that global warming is real. As long as the consensus among scientists that global warming is real the science says it's real.

Galileo Galilei would disagree. Consensus does not make science, fact does. All the world's scientists could wake up tomorrow and declare the sky to be green. The consensus among scientists that the sky is green does not alter the fact that the sky is blue. The facts of "climate change" are still in debate.

You're missing the point. Yes, even a huge scientific consensus can be utterly wrong. But why does PJabber CHOOSE to believe the NON-consensus? Unless he's in the field himself what is his rationale for rejecting the mountains of data in support of the theory and adopting the much LESS well supported view that human activity is NOT having a significant effect on climate?

Look at Moonbeam's long post again: If 39 out of 40 scientists in the climate-related fields believe that mankind's behavior is having a significant effect on climate, why would anyone else choose to reject that view? Religion? Economic self-interest? Ideology? Plain old contrariness?

If you saw 40 cardiologists, and 39 of them said you urgently needed bypass surgery and had voluminous data to back those opinions up, would you defer to the 1 cardiologist who told you to do nothing?

Edit: And I should add: You will ALWAYS find someone (a scientist, a physician, or whatever) who will tell you to do nothing.

because the funding for those 39 of 40 cardiologists has to come from somewhere. money doesn't just grow money on trees for everyone. with the politicization of climate change/AGW, the theory has become much more scrutinized because politicians generally have an agenda. scientists do too, but not nearly as badly as some guy who needs to win an election next year.
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Let's take pc's, produce much heat? Present in most houses? End of debate. If anybody, deaf to the calls of "ass", still persists, ask them to consider ovens and demographic trends.


 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
Cycles, always cycles within cycles. That we are irrelevant to climate change is impossible, that we are significant is improbable.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,531
2
81
Against all logic, I have to agree with TLC for the most part.

however - the cons of 'going green' are so insignificant it's sad this is still argument.
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Cycles, always cycles within cycles. That we are irrelevant to climate change is impossible, that we are significant is improbable.

Beautifully balanced sentence, worthy of a politician, but it does not allay my fears.
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Originally posted by: NeoV
Against all logic, I have to agree with TLC for the most part.

however - the cons of 'going green' are so insignificant it's sad this is still argument.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner: a man who likes to hedge his bets.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,701
6,198
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Cycles, always cycles within cycles. That we are irrelevant to climate change is impossible, that we are significant is improbable.

Give me a place to put my levers.....

Snowballs

catalysts
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
Originally posted by: Red Irish
Originally posted by: Vic
Cycles, always cycles within cycles. That we are irrelevant to climate change is impossible, that we are significant is improbable.

Beautifully balanced sentence, worthy of a politician, but it does not allay my fears.

That's because fear is the real problem.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Genx87
Anybody living in the upper plains, more specifically MN knows we have had bitter winters and mild summers the last 3 years. I really enjoyed the 65 and 30 MPH winds last weekend at the lake. Wearing a late fall jacket in the first weekend of August is not what I call a good time. Our winters have been brutal and longer than usual. This year was a little better but in 2008 we had 40s and 50 into early May and some places up north were still iced in for fishing opener.

Ah, so your "scientific method" is that if a four pack-a-day smoker has great health for three years, that must mean that cigarette smoking isn't dangerous to health. Or if you flip a coin four times and it comes up "heads" on every flip, that must mean that the coin is flawed. Or if you go to singles bars and have unprotected sex with numerous women over the course of three years and remain disease-free, that must mean there's no such thing as AIDs.

You're a cretin.

WTF? he just pointed out what he has noticed in the area he resides. why in the hell did you call him a cretin for that?

Do you really not understand that GenX is arguing that climate change isn't really occurring because they've had cooler-than-normal weather in MN where he lives? Or do you, too, think that short-term weather patterns are relevant to climate theories?

Study my coin-flip example and see if you can make the connection.

You invented what I said in your mind. I was only observing a trend in MN the last couple of years of cooler than avg weather.

How you went so off the deepend only you can answer.
 

halfpower

Senior member
Mar 19, 2005
298
0
0
Originally posted by: PJABBER
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

...The shift away from a cooling cycle in 1945 triggered several decades of warming that ended in 1998, according to the study....

1998 was an anomalously warm year. The warming trend did not end in 1998. See

http://www.skepticalscience.co...ng-stopped-in-1998.htm

for a detailed explanation.
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Red Irish
Originally posted by: Vic
Cycles, always cycles within cycles. That we are irrelevant to climate change is impossible, that we are significant is improbable.

Beautifully balanced sentence, worthy of a politician, but it does not allay my fears.

That's because fear is the real problem.

I see, the oven in my kitchen isn't giving off heat, but rather, both this sensation and the baked pizza are products of my paranoia. Presumably, this is the case with every oven, in every house, on every street? The pizza tasted nice anyway.

Fornication - there's an interesting source of heat. I have to confess that it's a hot and sweaty affair when I'm involved, a situation that is undoubtedly aggravated by cigarettes, beer and the passage of the years. See many children on your street? Hell, some people are even fornicating for recreational purposes: that produces a lot of heat, and the by-products may eventually buy more ovens.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
Originally posted by: Red Irish
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Red Irish
Originally posted by: Vic
Cycles, always cycles within cycles. That we are irrelevant to climate change is impossible, that we are significant is improbable.

Beautifully balanced sentence, worthy of a politician, but it does not allay my fears.

That's because fear is the real problem.

I see, the oven in my kitchen isn't giving off heat, but rather, both this sensation and the baked pizza are products of my paranoia. Presumably, this is the case with every oven, in every house, on every street? The pizza tasted nice anyway.

Fornication - there's an interesting source of heat. I have to confess that it's a hot and sweaty affair when I'm involved, a situation that is undoubtedly aggravated by cigarettes, beer and the passage of the years. See many children on your street? Hell, some people are even fornicating for recreational purposes: that produces a lot of heat, and the by-products may eventually buy more ovens.

<-taps sarcasm meter
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Originally posted by: halfpower
Originally posted by: PJABBER
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

...The shift away from a cooling cycle in 1945 triggered several decades of warming that ended in 1998, according to the study....

1998 was an anomalously warm year. The warming trend did not end in 1998. See

http://www.skepticalscience.co...ng-stopped-in-1998.htm

for a detailed explanation.

Thank you for that link to Skeptical Science. While I found the opinions expressed by the site's author, John Cook, to be interesting and well organized in his attempt to refute scientific research and opinion contrary to anthropogenic climate change, I was much more interested in reading all of the critical responses on the site.

Based on the commentary of the responding posters, there seems to be a site wide consensus that the Skeptical Science site author is himself attempting to manipulate the data, the statistical analysis and the graphical representation to reach his stated "science" conclusions. He is effectively challenged on all of the questions that I bothered to read.

Does this mean that he doesn't score some points? No, but as he himself is relying on a select subset of data and flawed statistical analysis it emphasizes that there are a substantial number of advocates of pre-established positions rather than impartial researchers in the review of science. As an advocate, the site is a fine attempt, but don't think they represent scientific consensus (which they also attempt to address, to the great hilarity of the responding posters.)

I thought the responding posters there were a lot more oriented toward discovering an objective "truth" that could be confirmed by logical and scientifically valid review of data than we are experiencing on this forum. A lot of the question responses are criticisms of analytical methodology and mechanisms of statistical analysis, which I can highly appreciate.

I'll share the last responding post on the question of "Consensus" by Tiranse at 05:16 AM on 3 August, 2009 -

"So where does the Scientific Method inject "consensus" into conclusion? Consensus, by definition, is a social and political construct that has no use in real science."

Priceless.
 

halfpower

Senior member
Mar 19, 2005
298
0
0
Originally posted by: PJABBER
Originally posted by: halfpower
Originally posted by: PJABBER
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

...The shift away from a cooling cycle in 1945 triggered several decades of warming that ended in 1998, according to the study....

1998 was an anomalously warm year. The warming trend did not end in 1998. See

http://www.skepticalscience.co...ng-stopped-in-1998.htm

for a detailed explanation.

Thank you for that link to Skeptical Science. While I found the opinions expressed by the site's author, John Cook, to be interesting and well organized in his attempt to refute scientific research and opinion contrary to anthropogenic climate change, I was much more interested in reading all of the critical responses on the site.

Based on the commentary of the responding posters, there seems to be a site wide consensus that the Skeptical Science site author is himself attempting to manipulate the data, the statistical analysis and the graphical representation to reach his stated "science" conclusions. He is effectively challenged on all of the questions that I bothered to read.

Does this mean that he doesn't score some points? No, but as he himself is relying on a select subset of data and flawed statistical analysis it emphasizes that there are a substantial number of advocates of pre-established positions rather than impartial researchers in the review of science. As an advocate, the site is a fine attempt, but don't think they represent scientific consensus (which they also attempt to address, to the great hilarity of the responding posters.)

I thought the responding posters there were a lot more oriented toward discovering an objective "truth" that could be confirmed by logical and scientifically valid review of data than we are experiencing on this forum. A lot of the question responses are criticisms of analytical methodology and mechanisms of statistical analysis, which I can highly appreciate.

I'll share the last responding post on the question of "Consensus" by Tiranse at 05:16 AM on 3 August, 2009 -

"So where does the Scientific Method inject "consensus" into conclusion? Consensus, by definition, is a social and political construct that has no use in real science."

Priceless.

I'd hesitate to say that cook did any statistical analysis. I tend to look at these things more as spectral analysis, and 1998 does appear to be consistent with high frequency noise. The data points in general, are randomly distributed around some kind of average.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: Citrix
Sat morning Aug 1 at my house just 30 miles north of Denver the morning temp was 49 degrees. we have had a very mild and wet summer. my tomatoes are not ripening due to the low night time temps and the farms are worried about their crops.

My tomatoes are doing fine. Just ate some tonight on some burgers.

Conclusion: Global Warming is real
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
The "pro" global warming lobby is the same as any other liberal group. Makes up its mind and shuts down any discussion and suppresses any other opinion.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...climate-change-report/

Look at health care. They say they are open for discussion but then let it slip that they will push it through regardless of what the public wants or looking for an alternative bipartisan solution.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,701
6,198
126
Originally posted by: Patranus
The "pro" global warming lobby is the same as any other liberal group. Makes up its mind and shuts down any discussion and suppresses any other opinion.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...climate-change-report/

Look at health care. They say they are open for discussion but then let it slip that they will push it through regardless of what the public wants or looking for an alternative bipartisan solution.

Hehe. Tell me you believe the scientific community is similarly a liberal group that is pushing for the theory of evolution and wants to stifle the Creationist freaks.

When an objective body is attackers by loons they fight back with reason. That does not bring them down to the same level as the fruit loops.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Patranus
The "pro" global warming lobby is the same as any other liberal group. Makes up its mind and shuts down any discussion and suppresses any other opinion.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...climate-change-report/

Look at health care. They say they are open for discussion but then let it slip that they will push it through regardless of what the public wants or looking for an alternative bipartisan solution.

Hehe. Tell me you believe the scientific community is similarly a liberal group that is pushing for the theory of evolution and wants to stifle the Creationist freaks.

When an objective body is attackers by loons they fight back with reason. That does not bring them down to the same level as the fruit loops.

Like this?

http://199.6.131.12/en/scictr/...mages/global_temp2.jpg

or this

http://www.architecture2030.or...02-CO2-Temperature.gif

LOL
 
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/    |