Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released...

reply to post by flashtrum

Glad you are seeing the err of your ways. Welcome to reality. Global warming is bullpoop.

Thanks for your educated opinion and scientific perspective.
I will take it under advisement.
You shouldn't be glad though because, I still think exactly opposite you.
In fact if you have any other ideas, please fill me in so I can do a 180 on those too.
We have nothing in common and I sure as heck don't want to.

Originally posted by flashtrum

Wow. Like this argument hasn't been put forth before. "Oh yeah, well, Big Oil". Come on, dude. Fossil fuels still happen to be extremely plentiful despite the social-political boot on the neck of the abundance of oil.

Let's say you are right about the oil industry and their attempt to stay ahead of the game. In a capitalist society, shouldn't we already know that? For example, we know nicotine is bad for us, yet some of us choose to continue to ingest it. Are we really that surprised that tobacco companies would be against the other side of the argument? Except in the case of global warming, or, what is it now "climate change" (because the OP may indeed be correct) solar companies for example simply have Joe Lunchbox's life as priority 1.

I'm "perceiving" nothing. I see capitalism at work - with the exception of when the government attempts to choose the winners in "alternative" energy. What a joke.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

The analogy with the tobacco industry is apt. After the first studies found cigarettes to be carcinogenic, the tobacco industry did everything in its power to obscure this fact and cast doubt on the findings. Not only did this fly in the face of evidence, they were actively working to harm more people by keeping them ignorant, all in the pursuit of the almighty dollar. I suppose that back then there was also a crowd of big tobacco defenders, crying, "all this science is just a liberal socialist plot to try to control what we can and can't put in our bodies!"

Similarly, when we started to uncover evidence that the rampant burning of fossil fuels has been having a noticeable impact on the climate as a whole, the oil industry turned out in force to deny the findings, instill doubt, and spread these absurd arguments. Just look how many people in this thread agree that we can just burn as much oil as we want, forever, because they think climate change either isn't occurring or isn't due to human activity. They're doing the work of big oil for free, by repeating lies which have been debunked ad nauseum!

This is indeed capitalism at work.

The only problem is that one cannot deny the evidence. The evidence for AGW is overwhelming, which is why scientists who have studied this field for their entire lives overwhelming agree that it is the theory which fits the data. It is as undeniable as the fact that cigarettes cause cancer.

To deny it places one in the same position as a young-earth creationist. You end up desperately picking through the facts, trying to find one little thing you can deny so that you can proudly declare, "AH-HA! The whole thing is a lie!" while ignoring the massive wealth of evidence to the contrary. Unlike a scientist, you already know what conclusions you must draw, before you even look at the data.

I'm not sure why I'm still arguing this, or have bothered to type this all out. I'm sure I can't convince anyone in this thread.

reply to post by ollncasino


Global warming theory was debunked years ago. The only people that still believe in this are the al gore cronies and people who are still asleep.

Still nice find OP

Originally posted by AngelofTheSun
reply to post by ollncasino

 

Global warming theory was debunked years ago. The only people that still believe in this are the al gore cronies and people who are still asleep.

Still nice find OP

That, and literally almost every single climate researcher who is alive today.

It's what I said 16 years ago. It's cyclical change.

All the hoop la is the dems trying to grab power and strangle the folks via the EPA.

This is hilarious. Whether global warming is fact or fiction is irrelevant at this point. It's a mind game for the masses.

If Global Warming = True, then they introduce carbon taxes and other policies, etc.

If Global Warming = False, then mega corporations will continue to rape and abuse the Earth, making more money to line their pockets.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
global warming does not, and never has, meant it gets warmer everywhere. the climate change as a result of global warming could mean an ice age in some areas

you'll still be here claiming it's a theory when london summers are 4 weeks long ?

lol

Then people should stop calling it GLOBAL warming and start calling it LOCAL, urban warming. Global means everywhere. In my country, snow is coming more and more earlier, and stops more and more later. Trees are damaged by cold and fall.

Originally posted by wirehead


Well then it would be awfully coincidental if the data just so happened to support the notion that the earth is warming due to an excess of greenhouse gasses. Oh wait...

Data is supporting the notion that the Earth is cooling due to an excess of CO2.

Originally posted by swan001

Then people should stop calling it GLOBAL warming and start calling it LOCAL, urban warming. Global means everywhere. In my country, snow is coming more and more earlier, and stops more and more later. Trees are damaged by cold and fall.

This is why there's been a switch to calling it climate change. Yes, temperatures on the whole on average are increasing, because greenhouse gasses trap heat. However, weather is a complex and nonlinear phenomenon; when you drive it hotter and hotter, the local results will vary depending on the presence of mountains, bodies of water, etc. kind of like how weather itself is not one constant thing across the entire planet. The end result of climate change is exactly what you're seeing: in some places the winters will become harsher.

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by flashtrum

It's much more than that, my friend. It's an INDUSTRY. The light bulb nonsense, the 90 million in gov backed loans to failed solar energy companies. Al Gore and his HUGE carbon footprint made untold wealth on this scam. His was indeed an inconvenient truth.

It's interesting that you can perceive a profit motive at work in climate science, and yet you apparently discount the incredible incentive that oil and industry in general has to muddy the water and cast doubt on climate science.

Don't forget those evil people who produce coal. Didn't want you to leave any of Satan's death army out. If my industry was under attack for something that isn't true, yeah, I'm fighting back.

"A profit motive in climate science" - isn't perceived. Am I not seeing an agenda? Do I not see this liberal administration attempting to prop up an industry when they give millions of dollars in loans to companies who's business model was seriously flawed? Solar and wind have been around for quite some time. I guess it's Dick Cheney's fault we don't all have solar panels on our rooftops and that we're not all riding bicycles to work. Good grief.

I certainly don't need BP's help in looking at the data and concluding that I smell a rat. Exxon doesn't need to explain to me that something is wrong when a scientist is fired for not agreeing with his liberal colleagues.

Originally posted by swan001

Data is supporting the notion that the Earth is cooling due to an excess of CO2.

An excess of CO2 would act exactly like the walls of a greenhouse. It allows light to pass through (it is invisible to the eye, after all) but will reflect infrared radiation, the heat radiated by the earth after it absorbs the light. In other words, it traps heat like a blanket. This is not controversial, we can observe it in a lab quite easily.

It's undeniable that human activity has measurably increased the amount of CO2 in the air. Just based on what we know quite trivially, this CO2 will act to trap heat. Everything we know about CO2 tells us that this should be the case. If it isn't acting like a greenhouse, there would have to be a really good reason.

Originally posted by flashtrum

Don't forget those evil people who produce coal. Didn't want you to leave any of Satan's death army out. If my industry was under attack for something that isn't true, yeah, I'm fighting back.

Nobody is talking about "Satan's death army," but yes, the coal industry also has a major incentive to deny science.

"A profit motive in climate science" - isn't perceived. Am I not seeing an agenda? Do I not see this liberal administration attempting to prop up an industry when they give millions of dollars in loans to companies who's business model was seriously flawed? Solar and wind have been around for quite some time. I guess it's Dick Cheney's fault we don't all have solar panels on our rooftops and that we're not all riding bicycles to work. Good grief.

Nobody is talking about Dick Cheney. I'm talking about how these businesses have an obvious reason to spread the lies you're apparently happy repeating.

Millions of dollars to one single failed solar panel company? How terrible! You do realize that a million dollars is less than a tenth of a percent of the total budget, right? I'm sure no president in the history of the united states has ever subsidized a failed business before...

I certainly don't need BP's help in looking at the data and concluding that I smell a rat. Exxon doesn't need to explain to me that something is wrong when a scientist is fired for not agreeing with his liberal colleagues.

Oh yeah? You've looked at the data published independently by the NOAA, NASA, the Met Office, etc. ? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're trained in reading and interpreting such data. I'm sure you aren't just reading content-free blurbs in the Daily Mail that reinforce your preexisting notions and nodding your head and cursing those evil liberal socialist scientists, right?

Hell, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're just listening to talk radio for all your info and not even reading.

Hey everyone in this thread, if you're open minded and interested in fresh perspectives and facts, check out this article:

Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)

A shame that such a thing has to be buried after ten pages...

The Met Office yesterday stressed it had not "issued a report" on the figures which come from an update on a global temperature data set compiled jointly with the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.

link

It is so funny when skeptics are so desperate for information, that they cling to the first faulty media report they can find.

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them
ex]

metoffice

edit on 16-10-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by BlindBastards
It still astounds me that people believe in the man made global warming myth. It simply is not true. It’s just a tax grab, that’s it. If it’s all true, then why do those purporting it fly all over the world constantly, live in giant mansions and drive big gas guzzling cars?

My grandson was sent to the principles office for challenging his science teacher over global warming.

He was so worried about it after he was given the full propaganda spiel in school that day. I sat him down and showed him how most of the "facts" presented were actually lies.

So when his teacher started in the next day he was prepared, and according to the priciple he made the teacher look foolish.

I think it's great that a 9th grader can shut down a poor teacher.

Originally posted by wirehead


An excess of CO2 would act exactly like the walls of a greenhouse. It allows light to pass through (it is invisible to the eye, after all) but will reflect infrared radiation, the heat radiated by the earth after it absorbs the light. In other words, it traps heat like a blanket. This is not controversial, we can observe it in a lab quite easily.

I know what they say what happens. Once I put my thread up, however, I would be honoured if you would visit it... and see the other side of the Big Theory. You know, the "what if the media didn't tell us everything" side. It'll be quite interesting. I tried not making it too long, but it was hard. But when I say CO2 could lead to cooling, I also agreeing that CO2 acts like a blanket. That's actually the beauty of it...

Tomorrow I won't be there, but after tomorrow I'll put the thread up. I'll send you a link to it with open invitation.

I too believed in warming theory... but then I got thinking... and then I did some searches... and now I see big troubles with the theory.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


Yes. And these folks call themselves scientists? Looks like narrow-minded folks to me. Global Warming is only there to push more taxes, and limit our freedom - the only thing which stands in the way for communism which is corrupting our government.

I thought they stopped using the term Global Warming and have been using Climate Change for the last 7 years? Where have you been to see the old term used?

Originally posted by Renegade2283

Yes CO2 is necessarily for life. However it is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere that determines how healthy it is to breath. Back when dinosaurs were alive, the percentage of CO2 was much higher. However, it you were instantly teleported back into the cretaceous, then you would immediately notice breathing problems, and then suffocation shortly after.
...

WRONG...at about 2,000ppm all you get are supposed concentration problems... You don't suffocate with that amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...

The normal international safety limit of atmospheric CO2 is 5,000ppm... Which didn't exist during the cretaceus...

Not to mention that with MORE atmospheric CO2 than at present all plantlife would give MORE oxygen and MORE food, and would use LESS water, leaving MORE water for humans and animals...

Again, you are showing a total lack of knowledge on the topic...

I have also gone back in this thread to see your "links", yet all I can see is a link to the register newspaper, another newspaper and a couple of articles which are really lacking in knowledge...

The other links state for example, "ice melting at an alarming rate", but that in itself doesn't prove humans are behind it first of all, and second of all similar, and even FASTER and HOTTER Climate Changes have occurred in the past...

Also, perhaps you are unaware but in fact the Earth's magnetic shield has been weakening since the 1880s and it is now 10-15% weaker, and in many areas even weaker than that. This can account with part of the ozone layer hole, because as Earth's magnetic field weakens, part of the top atmospheric layers dissipate into space more than normally.

This weakening of Earth's magnetic field hasn't occurred in more than over 400,000 years...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/750fc3934f0e.jpg[/atsimg]

If you look at the image above, our present time can be found to the left of the graph, and you can see how much weaker Earth's magnetic field is.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
I thought they stopped using the term Global Warming and have been using Climate Change for the last 7 years? Where have you been to see the old term used?

Of course, these people are using the term Climate Change to encompass the ongoing NATURAL Climate Change and to claim it is humans who are causing it when we are not.

Humans are to blame for a lot of things but not for Climate Change.