TPreston Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Sad isn't it? The truth stares people in the face and they can't see past their own ignorance... http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20130911/global-cooling-arctic-ice-cap-60-photo.htm They are calling this a "pause" now. If it were a pause then why are the ice caps growing? Let me tell you, because the world is entering a cooling stage not a global warming "pause". /wrist http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/10/poles-apart-a-record-breaking-summer-and-winter/ As for the regurgated "zomg no warming since 1998" totally no deception here unlike "climategate" Ask a canned question get a canned answer Q3: Did global warming end in 1998?%5Bhide%5D A3: One of the strongest El Ni?o events in the instrumental record occurred during late 1997 through 1998, causing a spike in global temperature. Choosing this abnormally warm year as the starting point for comparisons with later years produces a cooling trend; choosing any other year in the 20th century produces a warming trend. Scientists do not define a "trend" by looking at the difference between two given years. Instead they use methods such as linear regression that take into account all the values in a series of data. 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out.%5B6%5D In a BBC interview on 13 February 2010, Phil Jones agreed that from 1995 to 2009, the global warming "trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level", though close.%5B7%5D This has been misleadingly reported by some news sources.%5B8%5D On 10 June 2011 Jones told the BBC that the trend over the period 1995 to 2010 had reached the 95% significance level traditionally used as a threshold by statisticians.%5B9%5D While HadCRU reported an extreme peak in global temperature in 1998, the GISS and NCDC estimates showed a lower peak in 1998, and more subsequent warming.%5B10%5D The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record for the globe, with 2005 the warmest year.%5B11%5D So easy to give this kindergarten level debate the smackdown theyarecomingforyou and SecretAgentMan 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Once we run out of oil and or replace it with alternative energies this will be a mute point as if what they are saying about human carbon emissions happens to be true, when the emissions cease, things will start to cool down as our planet heals itself much the way it has in the past. I'm sorry, I usually don't go grammar Nazi because we all make mistakes, but I've seen this mistake made on Neowin like 1/2 a dozen times. It's moot point, not mute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vykranth Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 so controlled opposition? that's what this says. offer only one view point.. shut out folks with opposing views... controlled opposition. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=23746 A libertarian right-wing US blog citing an UK conservative newspaper citing a study by a professor of economics .... I am sure he has built a nice model with plenty of finely tuned parameters to give the results he wanted .... Forget about the change of climate that allows tropical diseases and parasites to move to places where these diseases were previously unknown Forget about drought and desertification which lead to famines and immigration of native population Forget about warm winter that do not destroy parasite larvae, then will be more abundant during spring and summer and will force farmer to overdose pesticides to keep their crops Forget about extra usage of energy during summer to use air conditioning I truly love this part: In fact, the death rate from droughts, floods and storms has dropped by 98 per cent since the 1920s, according to a careful study by the independent scholar Indur Goklany. Not because weather has become less dangerous but because people have gained better protection as they got richer: witness the remarkable success of cyclone warnings in India last week. That?s the thing about climate change ? we will probably pocket the benefits and mitigate at least some of the harm by adapting. For example, experts now agree that malaria will continue its rapid worldwide decline whatever the climate does. Yeah, because space technology did not bring weather satellites and globe monitoring of the weather which allows meteorologists to warn population of cyclones and typhoons far more in advance. Like this guy, this is typhoon Rammasun who is going to hit China today. From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/typhoon-rammasun-china_n_5598455.html Already, 54 people have died because of this typhoon in the Philippines, I hope there are not too many deaths in China Typhoon Rammasun made landfall on Hainan southwest of Hong Kong at about 3:30 p.m. (0730 GMT) with winds as strong as 216 kph (130 mph), the official Xinhua News Agency said. The agency said Rammasun was the most powerful storm in at least nine years and possibly since 1973. Because there have been absolutely no developments in hydrogeology, water management, water adduction or river control in the last 50 years Because there have not global efforts by the WHO and plenty of organisations since 1940 to eradicate malaria with chemical insecticides and treatments this is strange. when one polar cap melts, it accumulates at the other, hence the growth of Antarctica polar cap increase. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/10/polar_vortex_weather_mid_july_will_be_as_cool_as_mid_september_in_east_and.html eastern US to get hit by a polar vortex.. Yesterday, in the south of France, temperatures were ranging around the 40 C. I can find more anecdotal evidence if you want. Once we run out of oil and or replace it with alternative energies this will be a mute point as if what they are saying about human carbon emissions happens to be true, when the emissions cease, things will start to cool down as our planet heals itself much the way it has in the past. First, it is a moot point. Then, it is not just oil, but also coal, wood burning or cement production. After that, as the Decryptor said, this changes make take a long time to be changed, if the damage is not irreversible. For example, desertification, once your fertile soil is replaced, it is useless for several generations http://www.kcl.ac.uk/projects/desertlinks/downloads/deliverables/Deliverable%201.2b_en.pdf theyarecomingforyou 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alera Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 I'm sorry, I usually don't go grammar Nazi because we all make mistakes, but I've seen this mistake made on Neowin like 1/2 a dozen times. It's moot point, not mute. I actually don't like the modern suggestion (and US English definition) that "a moot point" is something that is debatable but ultimately meaningless, I prefer the original meaning of "this is a point we can debate about" from the Old English word Moot: "A meeting". Moot point, a point that can be brought before a meeting for debate. Anyway I digress! :p He's correct, we need to get ourselves off of the fossil fuels anyway and any excuse to move to renewable and cleaner energy sources is a good reason no matter if it's needed right now or not, the fact remains that we are still damaging the environment in other ways through our quest for power, whether climate change is as bad as they say or not which means it's a good idea to do so just in case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisj1968 Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 A libertarian right-wing US blog citing an UK conservative newspaper citing a study by a professor of economics .... I am sure he has built a nice model with plenty of finely tuned parameters to give the results he wanted .... Forget about the change of climate that allows tropical diseases and parasites to move to places where these diseases were previously unknown Forget about drought and desertification which lead to famines and immigration of native population Forget about warm winter that do not destroy parasite larvae, then will be more abundant during spring and summer and will force farmer to overdose pesticides to keep their crops Forget about extra usage of energy during summer to use air conditioning I truly love this part: Yeah, because space technology did not bring weather satellites and globe monitoring of the weather which allows meteorologists to warn population of cyclones and typhoons far more in advance. Bs0bFRvCQAEG810.png Like this guy, this is typhoon Rammasun who is going to hit China today. From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/typhoon-rammasun-china_n_5598455.html Already, 54 people have died because of this typhoon in the Philippines, I hope there are not too many deaths in China Because there have been absolutely no developments in hydrogeology, water management, water adduction or river control in the last 50 years Because there have not global efforts by the WHO and plenty of organisations since 1940 to eradicate malaria with chemical insecticides and treatments Yesterday, in the south of France, temperatures were ranging around the 40 C. I can find more anecdotal evidence if you want. First, it is a moot point. Then, it is not just oil, but also coal, wood burning or cement production. After that, as the Decryptor said, this changes make take a long time to be changed, if the damage is not irreversible. For example, desertification, once your fertile soil is replaced, it is useless for several generations http://www.kcl.ac.uk/projects/desertlinks/downloads/deliverables/Deliverable%201.2b_en.pdf http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/ http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm Just some examples from big name outlets to counter the global warming hysteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisj1968 Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Well no, the carbon is still in our atmosphere, it takes a while for it to be sequestered in things. It also depends on where it gets sequestered, you don't want it in the oceans for example (Because it turns the water acidic and breaks down the shells of shellfish and stuff like coral, which damages breeding grounds, etc.) carbon dioxide is changed from CO2 to O2 through trees and plants. we still have enough vegetation to convert CO2 back to what we need to live.. O2. not meaning to sound like a smart aleck but this is the truth. Guys like Al Gore and Michael rothschild stand to make a ton of money off selling proposed carbon credits, which is a tax. the global community as a whole doesn't need more taxes for sure. simplezz 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPreston Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/ http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm Just some examples from big name outlets to counter the global warming hysteria. Ask a canned question get a canned answer Q3: Did global warming end in 1998?%5Bhide%5D A3: One of the strongest El Ni?o events in the instrumental record occurred during late 1997 through 1998, causing a spike in global temperature. Choosing this abnormally warm year as the starting point for comparisons with later years produces a cooling trend; choosing any other year in the 20th century produces a warming trend. Scientists do not define a "trend" by looking at the difference between two given years. Instead they use methods such as linear regression that take into account all the values in a series of data. 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out. In a BBC interview on 13 February 2010, Phil Jones agreed that from 1995 to 2009, the global warming "trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level", though close.%5B7%5D This has been misleadingly reported by some news sources.%5B8%5D On 10 June 2011 Jones told the BBC that the trend over the period 1995 to 2010 had reached the 95% significance level traditionally used as a threshold by statisticians.%5B9%5D While HadCRU reported an extreme peak in global temperature in 1998, the GISS and NCDC estimates showed a lower peak in 1998, and more subsequent warming.%5B10%5D The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record for the globe, with 2005 the warmest year.%5B11%5D Much like denial of evolution climate change denialists are intellectually bankrupt sheeple who regurgitate the same old debunked trash again and again. "Where are the transitional fossils ?" They say and after being shown them thet say not ask the same question again and again because this is quite literally all you people have, :rolleyes: Also note none of these "big name outlets" are scientific journal's that's odd considering there's supposed to be massive debate on this issue :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisj1968 Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Much like denial of evolution climate change denialists are intellectually bankrupt sheeple who regurgitate the same old debunked trash again and again. "Where are the transitional fossils ?" They say and after being shown them thet say not ask the same question again and again because this is quite literally all you people have, :rolleyes: Also note none of these "big name outlets" are scientific journal's that's odd considering there's supposed to be massive debate on this issue :rofl: please can we keep this civil and avoid of name calling? what we all have to understand that, we all don't agree on this topic and surely others. the BBC laying the hammer down on anyone who doesn't agree with it, is unfair silencing arbitrarily. that should raise eye brows http://calwatchdog.com/2011/07/28/nasa-exposed-global-warming-hoax/ http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uq0mj/eli5_who_stands_to_gain_something_from_global/ http://qualimetrics.com/what-does-obama-stand-to-gain-from-global-warming/ http://humanevents.com/2007/10/03/the-money-and-connections-behind-al-gores-carbon-crusade/ Why is global warming such an issue? A: Because someone is always behind it and looking to benefit from it financially, not unlike how someone always benefits from wars financially. before we start a flame war, look at who benefits outside of us peons from pushing the global warming issue. it isn't us. Al gore stands to make billions from this because its all about money http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/ http://newsbusters.org/node/11149 Creators of carbon credit scheme look to cash in big: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm Now I ASK anyone who wants to flame me to please consider the links i posted about WHO benefits from this Global warming plan. it is not you or I but the global elite.http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/24/a-rothschild-plan-for-world-government/ excerpt: Hence, one should raise questions when the oligarchs who run the world financial system draw up world improvement schemes. One of those in the forefront of exposing such schemes has been Lord Christopher Monckton[1] who has focused on the climate change scenario as part of a world state agenda. Only after threatening a diplomatic incident, Lord Christopher obtained the draft of the Copenhagen treaty that would have imposed an international 2% tax on all financial transactions, a 2% tax on the GDP, and established 700 new United Nations bureaucracies, with the international tax revenue going to the World Bank. However, the 2009 UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference ended in disarray without the formal imposition of international taxation and bureaucracy. Lord Monckton stated of the agenda at Copenhagen: ?Once again they are desperately trying to conceal from everybody here the magnitude of what they?re attempting to do ? they really are attempting to set up a world government.? Emphasis mine.. but Please consider.. we have to look at who plans to benefit at our expense.. this is exactly what I'm saying this global warming is about. on the flip side, if you believe in global warming, i respect that.. I'm a critical thinker. I like to think for myself and investigate because as the war thing I mentioned is concerned, certain corporations stand to make money off of wars and this global warming.. think about this; Obama promised to shut down coal plants who generate electricity but looks to benefit companies who are supposedly into building green technologies. The end result will be higher energy bills for everyone PLEASE!... let us all be civil.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vykranth Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/ http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm Just some examples from big name outlets to counter the global warming hysteria. Same old 'look at the last 10 years of data' only .... And Forbes ... please can we keep this civil and avoid of name calling? what we all have to understand that, we all don't agree on this topic and surely others. the BBC laying the hammer down on anyone who doesn't agree with it, is unfair silencing arbitrarily. that should raise eye brows <Snip> And the same 'It is a scheme to get taxes from people for the NEWO' or 'the BBC is censorsing' These points have been given 12 pages earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts