global warming stalled...

desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
"University of Alabama climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer have released their monthly statistics on global warming trends detected by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency satellites. In the press release accompanying the data, Christy notes that the rise in global average temperatures has been largely stalled since the big El Nino event in 1998"

"Based on the empirical data gathered by the NOAA satellites, Christy remains skeptical of climate models that predict future catastrophic warming:
“There are so many natural variations and oscillations that we just can’t say that this looks like a human fingerprint on the lower atmosphere’s climate,” said Christy. “We know that some human activities must have an impact on the climate system. But one has considerable difficulty in looking at what has happened over the past 34 years and reasonably or with scientific accuracy saying whether or by how much the change has been natural or caused by us.
“Changes of this amount over these time scales could be essentially natural. Such a hypothesis has not been proven false. Scientists would love to have these types of measurements from the past 2,000 years to see to what extent Mother Nature can cause changes over decades on her own. But the thorny question of how sensitive the climate is to extra greenhouse gases we are putting into the atmosphere is still up in the air.”
​
http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/26/34-years-of-satellite-temperature-data-s
 
desert dude said:
"University of Alabama climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer have released their monthly statistics on global warming trends detected by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency satellites. In the press release accompanying the data, Christy notes that the rise in global average temperatures has been largely stalled since the big El Nino event in 1998"

"Based on the empirical data gathered by the NOAA satellites, Christy remains skeptical of climate models that predict future catastrophic warming:
“There are so many natural variations and oscillations that we just can’t say that this looks like a human fingerprint on the lower atmosphere’s climate,” said Christy. “We know that some human activities must have an impact on the climate system. But one has considerable difficulty in looking at what has happened over the past 34 years and reasonably or with scientific accuracy saying whether or by how much the change has been natural or caused by us.
“Changes of this amount over these time scales could be essentially natural. Such a hypothesis has not been proven false. Scientists would love to have these types of measurements from the past 2,000 years to see to what extent Mother Nature can cause changes over decades on her own. But the thorny question of how sensitive the climate is to extra greenhouse gases we are putting into the atmosphere is still up in the air.”
​
http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/26/34-years-of-satellite-temperature-data-s
Click to expand...

[video=youtube;j97bzH7DFtg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j97bzH7DFtg[/video]

.......................................tell me what you think ;)​
 
Look up the Global Climate Coalition for the opposite view.


The guy's logic is faulty, his conclusion is faulty and he is talking to a biased audience - this is pretty much bullshit "if Gore is involved it is a scam" is his logical approach - and he gets applause.
 
oh no global warming is still happening but the earths temp has cooled............................................:)
 
So lets close the EPA & remove all emission controls. Lets pollute this shit out of everything, for our grandkids! Hell I'm old, I'm not gonna see much of it anyway. Lets build 1000 coal & nuke fired power plants & un-regulate them! We could make lots of money!!!!
 
desert dude, I have a question for you.

What is the harm in being good stewards of the planet? Even if the global warming science is bunk, and everybody is wrong, what is the harm in recycling, reducing emissions, finding renewable sources of energy, etc?
 
st0wandgrow said:
desert dude, I have a question for you.

What is the harm in being good stewards of the planet? Even if the global warming science is bunk, and everybody is wrong, what is the harm in recycling, reducing emissions, finding renewable sources of energy, etc?
Click to expand...


Nothing, but people should do this at their own will. When you regulate businesses with government you get corruption and inefficiencies. People will mostly make rational decisions on their own, with exceptions. People will buy cars with better gas mileage, generally, with out being forced to do so.
 
st0wandgrow said:
desert dude, I have a question for you.

What is the harm in being good stewards of the planet? Even if the global warming science is bunk, and everybody is wrong, what is the harm in recycling, reducing emissions, finding renewable sources of energy, etc?
Click to expand...

No harm at all in the things you mention. I am for it, well most of it. The "renewable sources of energy" is mostly a bunch of baloney and the taxpayer should not be paying for your baloney.

Let me ask you a question. If the actual temperature data does not jibe with the AGW models, then does that not at least imply that the models are wrong? Why should the planet embark on a path set to upset the world economy based on faulty models? Why should we tax the shit out of everybody because of a few self-interested elitist's wet dream?

Obama said electricity rates must increase substantially to "pay the true costs", a sentiment echoed on this board by Canndo and others for other energy sources. Poor people will hurt the most if that happens. The cost burden will be shifted to the middle class: you and me.
 
lifegoesonbrah said:
Nothing, but people should do this at their own will. When you regulate businesses with government you get corruption and inefficiencies. People will mostly make rational decisions on their own, with exceptions. People will buy cars with better gas mileage, generally, with out being forced to do so.
Click to expand...

And when business goes unregulated we get corners being cut. Profit trumps all else.

I understand the desire to get big brother out of our lives, but in some cases regulation is needed.
 
desert dude said:
No harm at all in the things you mention. I am for it, well most of it. The "renewable sources of energy" is mostly a bunch of baloney and the taxpayer should not be paying for your baloney.

Let me ask you a question. If the actual temperature data does not jibe with the AGW models, then does that not at least imply that the models are wrong? Why should the planet embark on a path set to upset the world economy based on faulty models? Why should we tax the shit out of everybody because of a few self-interested elitist's wet dream?

Obama said electricity rates must increase substantially to "pay the true costs", a sentiment echoed on this board by Canndo and others for other energy sources. Poor people will hurt the most if that happens. The cost burden will be shifted to the middle class: you and me.
Click to expand...

Sure, the models may be wrong, but should we not embark on this journey either way?

There is a finite amount of fossil fuel on this planet. At some point in time the transition has to begin. Why not invest elsewhere knowing that?
 
NLXSK1 said:
The data is the data. The globe is not getting warmer right now and has not been for a while.
Click to expand...

the last decade was the hottest on record, moron. the data is the data.

considering what a bang up job you did at interpreting simple polling data before the election, you are in no position to rebut the people writing peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject.

dumbass.
 
st0wandgrow said:
desert dude, I have a question for you.

What is the harm in being good stewards of the planet? Even if the global warming science is bunk, and everybody is wrong, what is the harm in recycling, reducing emissions, finding renewable sources of energy, etc?
Click to expand...

You've recieved some interesting answers, and I'll add one to the stack.

The price for halting global warming (if indeed, as I suspect, we're causing most of it) is enormous. Civilization-ending big. We'd have to give up most of our energy per capita, and that is the indispensable key to quality of life.

Imagine the egg we'd have on our faces if we yanked the emergency brake on all technical and social progress ... and it turned out that we were wrong.

Even if we're right, what would be worse? Definitely killing fossil fuel burning now, with the readily-imagined disastrous consequences (famine, war, and a coupla other horsemen riding unchecked) or riding the wave, losing the icecaps and most of our arable land?

Imo they're both awful futures. But the second one contains at least the hope of a technology of salvation, a deus ex machina to take us on to wonders we can hardly conceive from the here&now.

But the other route is one of certain abdication from a future that leads forward and not just in circles. The eco-friendly lifestyle of e.g. some native groups is one of stasis and eternal poverty. I'd hate to live in a world that has known thoracic surgery, steaks on sale and polyester fleece pajamas ... and turned away from them. Oh and dentistry. Hard to do dentistry without carbide bits, local anesthetics and photosetting polymers ... cn
 
UncleBuck said:
the last decade was the hottest on record, moron. the data is the data. considering what a bang up job you did at interpreting simple polling data before the election, you are in no position to rebut the people writing peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject. dumbass.
Click to expand...
"peer reviewed" is a phrase you like to use as if it is some sort of unarguable absolute. It isn't. The choice of the "peer" group determines the outcome, not the facts involved. So it may have nothing to due with the facts at all. Oh, yeah, you don't care about know stinkin' facts.
 
I've viewed The History of Man episodes on the History channel lately. I was floored when the narrative attributed the MWP to solar cycles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DIY-HP-LED
Climate change: IPCC report
Replies
8
Views
341
DIY-HP-LED
DIY-HP-LED
Jimdamick
  • Poll Poll
Climate in the 21st Century
246 247 248
Replies
5K
Views
255K
injinji
injinji
King.Capello
The Australian Bush Fire TRUTH
6 7 8
Replies
151
Views
10K
Lucky Luke
Lucky Luke
hanimmal
Biden nominates Deb Haaland to be first Native American to serve as interior secretary.
Replies
11
Views
404
hanimmal
hanimmal
Friendly_Grower
Compost Danger :
Replies
6
Views
1K
Week4@inCharge
Week4@inCharge
Back
Top