Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

[francescoassisi]

The hornet thing is really no more than a furphy.it is the science that is important. The problems arising from the hornets is minuscule compared to the international conflict that will arise from displaced populations migrating from rising sea levels and the number one issue - water.

The hornets make a good story (like a 50s sci-fi B-movie) but that's about it - this story hits the papers every few years and may or may not be a symptom of man-made climate change - it is certainly a result of increased land use for agriculture or other development. I believe also that these particular hornets make their nests in low bushes, just above the ground and are therefore very susceptible to being kicked by people who have entered their ara - normally in the process of opening up new lkand for agriculture or building. Chinese are famous for their massive new city-building projects so I wouldn't be at all surprised if it wasn't connected to something like that.

Edited October 4, 2013 by francescoassisi

[canman]

I blame the media for tagging it Global Warming.

It is a substantial climate change.

Some areas warmer, some colder, some wetter, some dryer..

Too easy to argue against Global Warming when ,as you point out,, sometimes it is colder. Climates are changing. Argue that!

Of course climate changes, so do shoe styles. The issues are: are there trends? and are the changes affected by human-generated pollution and other human activities? If so, to what extent, and what can people do to make things better?

Should we do nothing, as a species? ....and just go on commandeering the entire planet and generating electricity by whatever is the cheapest method (currently, that's coal). and packing mega-cities with ever more int.combustion vehicles, as the Shinawatre gov't and others are fond of doing.

It's easy to adopt a 'what the <deleted>' attitude. Incidentally, that's how opiate addicts often see things: You can ask them to comment on any news topic, and you'll likely get a response like; "Yea man, shit happens. Nothing anyone can do about it."

Bit of a low blow there isn't it mate? Insinuating that people who question the current religion of AGW are akin to opioid addicts?

[canman]

From: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/03/ipcc-climate-report-eric-holthaus

A meteorologist who broke down in tears, mused about a vasectomy, and vowed to give up air travel in the wake of the blockbuster report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has found himself at the centre of a storm about personal responses to climate change.

Since his emotional musings on Twitter, meteorologist Eric Holthaus has been flooded with email about how individuals should respond to climate change.

I just broke down in tears in boarding area at SFO while on phone with my wife. I've never cried because of a science report before. #IPCC

— Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) September 27, 2013

And so the hysteria continues!

[RickBradford]

Nah, he's just copycatting Weepy Bill McKibben, who sent this classic from the 2009 Copenhagen conference (to which he flew, of course).

This afternoon I sobbed for an hour, and I’m still choking a little.

As the service started, dozens choristers from around the world carried three things down the aisle and to the altar: pieces of dead coral bleached by hot ocean temperatures; stones uncovered by retreating glaciers; and small, shriveled ears of corn from drought-stricken parts of Africa.

Really, somebody should give these guys parts in a Thai soapie, they'd feel right at home.

Being passionate about something is okay, but really, they need to learn some self-control.

[Scott]

A troll post and reply have been deleted.

[boomerangutang]

Nah, he's just copycatting Weepy Bill McKibben, who sent this classic from the 2009 Copenhagen conference (to which he flew, of course).

This afternoon I sobbed for an hour, and Im still choking a little.

As the service started, dozens choristers from around the world carried three things down the aisle and to the altar: pieces of dead coral bleached by hot ocean temperatures; stones uncovered by retreating glaciers; and small, shriveled ears of corn from drought-stricken parts of Africa.

Really, somebody should give these guys parts in a Thai soapie, they'd feel right at home.

Being passionate about something is okay, but really, they need to learn some self-control.

I hadn't heard those stories until now. Reminds me of when I resided in northern California for 25 years. As you know, it takes all types of characters in this mixed up world. There are probably GW deniers who take glee in revving up their large fossil fuel engines just for the rush of knowing they're being naughty.

Don't miss seeing the forest for the trees.

[RickBradford]

There are probably GW deniers who take glee in revving up their large fossil fuel engines just for the rush of knowing they're being naughty.

You may be right, though most skeptics I know have moved beyond the Play-Doh stage of seeing the world as either "naughty" or "nice".

There's a serious point to my post -- Weepy Bill is not just a nobody in the climate debate; he is the founder of a multi-million dollar organisation called 350.org, whose stated aim is to initiate global action to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels to 350ppm.

The only people he is going to impress by bursting into tears at the sight of a chunk of coral are those who already share his apocalyptic viewpoint; everyone else is going to be faintly embarrassed at the sight of an adult behaving this way.

That extends to the wider problem of communication, as a recent paper in the European Journal of Social Psychology notes:

"Despite recognizing the need for social change in areas such as social equality and environmental protection, individuals often avoid supporting such change. We .. [found] that individuals resist social change because they have negative stereotypes of activists, the agents of social change. Participants had negative stereotypes of activists (feminists and environmentalists), regardless of the domain of activism, viewing them as eccentric and militant."

Exactly. Weepy Bill is his own worst enemy; he may have relevant points to make about climate, but nobody apart from his cronies listens because of his name-calling, arrogance, and absurd grandstanding gestures.

He's not alone; the entire militant Green movement relies on many of the same methods, which is a good part of why they get nowhere, to their enduring frustration and rage.

[nisakiman]

There are probably GW deniers who take glee in revving up their large fossil fuel engines just for the rush of knowing they're being naughty.

You may be right, though most skeptics I know have moved beyond the Play-Doh stage of seeing the world as either "naughty" or "nice".

There's a serious point to my post -- Weepy Bill is not just a nobody in the climate debate; he is the founder of a multi-million dollar organisation called 350.org, whose stated aim is to initiate global action to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels to 350ppm.

The only people he is going to impress by bursting into tears at the sight of a chunk of coral are those who already share his apocalyptic viewpoint; everyone else is going to be faintly embarrassed at the sight of an adult behaving this way.

That extends to the wider problem of communication, as a recent paper in the European Journal of Social Psychology notes:

"Despite recognizing the need for social change in areas such as social equality and environmental protection, individuals often avoid supporting such change. We .. [found] that individuals resist social change because they have negative stereotypes of activists, the agents of social change. Participants had negative stereotypes of activists (feminists and environmentalists), regardless of the domain of activism, viewing them as eccentric and militant."

Exactly. Weepy Bill is his own worst enemy; he may have relevant points to make about climate, but nobody apart from his cronies listens because of his name-calling, arrogance, and absurd grandstanding gestures.

He's not alone; the entire militant Green movement relies on many of the same methods, which is a good part of why they get nowhere, to their enduring frustration and rage.

"He's not alone; the entire militant Green movement relies on many of the same methods, which is a good part of why they get nowhere, to their enduring frustration and rage."

What you should have said is "...why they get nowhere anymore...". It used to work, and it still does with some, but increasing numbers of people have woken up to the emotional blackmail to which the fanatics pushing their own agenda resort. It's becoming the new 'Godwin's Law' that as soon as you hear 'But think of the cheeeldren..." you know that there is no scientific justification for whatever follows or precedes it, and that you are being scammed.

[francescoassisi]

There are probably GW deniers who take glee in revving up their large fossil fuel engines just for the rush of knowing they're being naughty.

You may be right, though most skeptics I know have moved beyond the Play-Doh stage of seeing the world as either "naughty" or "nice".

There's a serious point to my post -- Weepy Bill is not just a nobody in the climate debate; he is the founder of a multi-million dollar organisation called 350.org, whose stated aim is to initiate global action to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels to 350ppm.

The only people he is going to impress by bursting into tears at the sight of a chunk of coral are those who already share his apocalyptic viewpoint; everyone else is going to be faintly embarrassed at the sight of an adult behaving this way.

That extends to the wider problem of communication, as a recent paper in the European Journal of Social Psychology notes:

"Despite recognizing the need for social change in areas such as social equality and environmental protection, individuals often avoid supporting such change. We .. [found] that individuals resist social change because they have negative stereotypes of activists, the agents of social change. Participants had negative stereotypes of activists (feminists and environmentalists), regardless of the domain of activism, viewing them as eccentric and militant."

Exactly. Weepy Bill is his own worst enemy; he may have relevant points to make about climate, but nobody apart from his cronies listens because of his name-calling, arrogance, and absurd grandstanding gestures.

He's not alone; the entire militant Green movement relies on many of the same methods, which is a good part of why they get nowhere, to their enduring frustration and rage.

"He's not alone; the entire militant Green movement relies on many of the same methods, which is a good part of why they get nowhere, to their enduring frustration and rage."

What you should have said is "...why they get nowhere anymore...". It used to work, and it still does with some, but increasing numbers of people have woken up to the emotional blackmail to which the fanatics pushing their own agenda resort. It's becoming the new 'Godwin's Law' that as soon as you hear 'But think of the cheeeldren..." you know that there is no scientific justification for whatever follows or precedes it, and that you are being scammed.

Like those who didn't believe in bacteria, viruses, evolution but chose to believe in n-rays, homeopathy and chiropractic, those who don't understand man made climate change are so involved in conspiratorial theories, as hominem attacks and stereotyping they still have no idea of how out of the game they really are.

[nisakiman]

^^^

Did you ever read the story about the boy who cried "wolf!"?

People get wise to the charlatans who constantly cry "apocalypse" in pursuit of their personal agendas. And of course one mustn't forget that all those in the IPCC and the ragtag minions hanging on their coattails would be out of a job if 'global warming / climate change / global cooling' (or whatever it will morph into when the next predictions don't materialise) ceases to be an issue. That's a powerful motivation to keep the gravy train rolling.

And I don't believe I indulged in any "conspiratorial theories, as hominem attacks and stereotyping" as you put it.

When organisations lie and cheat and manipulate the figures, it's no wonder that all but the gullible dismiss their exhortations to don sackcloth and ashes to avert the alleged impending armageddon.

[tartempion]

As we all know, we the human species are the best thing that happened to this planet

[Scott]

A post containing an inflammatory term has been deleted. Let's stay on topic.

[RickBradford]

Like those who didn't believe in bacteria, viruses, evolution but chose to believe in n-rays, homeopathy and chiropractic

Yes, this is known as the Flat Earth Ploy, routinely trotted out by politicians and activists who cannot find any substantive arguments.

Climate change is quite dissimilar to the discovery of bacteria, viruses, and evolution because it is not just a scientific theory; it is a trillion-dollar global business which directly or indirectly employs millions of people and makes many of them unreasonably wealthy.

All sorts of equipment and services have sprung up over the past 20 years intended to lower what is dubbed our “CO2 footprint”.

Apart from the bureaucrats -- Directorate-General for Climate Action (European Commission), the Australian Climate Commission, the Climate Change Authority, UK's Department of Energy & Climate Change, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation -- whole private sectors such as solar and wind energy farms have emerged, with one thing in common: they do not provide us with a better or a cheaper product, one that we would want to buy, but rely on subsidies guaranteed by legal frameworks instead.

This powerful business sector has all the money and resources to pay for adequate services in the world of science. So forget about any claims of “pure” science, ignore colorful screenshots and simply sniff for the smell of money – and you’ll be on the right trail.

Climate change is big business based on pseudo-science; similar to homeopathy, perhaps, but not evolution.

[wilcopops]

You can't cherry pick your science - it comes from critical thinking - Many also seem to think that CC is some kind of GOVERNMENT conspiracy - nothing could be further from the truth.....governments are for the large part deniers (nothing to do with fibres), it's just now that the evidence is becoming so overwhelming that even someone as stupid as a politician can't avoid it.

Edited October 7, 2013 by wilcopops

[RickBradford]

the evidence is becoming so overwhelming that even someone as stupid as a politician can't avoid it.

I quite agree.

This is why Tony Abbott has closed Australia's Climate Commission, and plans to collapse 33 climate change schemes run by seven departments and eight agencies into just three bodies run by two departments

This is why the Spanish government halted subsidies for solar and windmill projects last year.

This is why the German government is now building 23 new coal-fired power stations

This is why the UK Government is planning to do away with the Planning and Energy Act, which effectively mandated the use of windmills around the country.

The evidence has indeed become so overwhelming that these bodies and schemes are pure waste of taxpayers' money.

[wilcopops]

the evidence is becoming so overwhelming that even someone as stupid as a politician can't avoid it.

I quite agree.

This is why Tony Abbott has closed Australia's Climate Commission, and plans to collapse 33 climate change schemes run by seven departments and eight agencies into just three bodies run by two departments

This is why the Spanish government halted subsidies for solar and windmill projects last year.

This is why the German government is now building 23 new coal-fired power stations

This is why the UK Government is planning to do away with the Planning and Energy Act, which effectively mandated the use of windmills around the country.

The evidence has indeed become so overwhelming that these bodies and schemes are pure waste of taxpayers' money.

I have to say that it is becoming patently clear that you are unable to ditiguish between the subjective and objective. You seem to think that anything that you agree with is the objective. The point about REAL science is that it is permanently skeptical. there is however a difference between skeptically and mere gainsaying - this significant differentiation seems to have passed you by.

Edited October 7, 2013 by wilcopops

[RickBradford]

You seem to think that anything that you agree with is the objective.

These are not statements with which I 'agree' or 'disagree' -- they are official government pronouncements, provided to add relevant information to the debate.

[nisakiman]

The point about REAL science is that it is permanently skeptical.

Indeed, never a truer word was spoken. Which is why when AL Gore and his acolytes were shouting loudly "The science is settled!" they were simply illustrating that their main concern was to shut down debate. Which suggests that they were well aware of the weaknesses of their "Global Warming" (as it was then, until the globe inconveniently failed to warm) theories, and didn't want to be challenged on them.

[wilcopops]

The point about REAL science is that it is permanently skeptical.

Indeed, never a truer word was spoken. Which is why when AL Gore and his acolytes were shouting loudly "The science is settled!" they were simply illustrating that their main concern was to shut down debate. Which suggests that they were well aware of the weaknesses of their "Global Warming" (as it was then, until the globe inconveniently failed to warm) theories, and didn't want to be challenged on them.

Unfortunately you don't seem to realise how facile your post is............AG is NOT the scientist. Cherry picking opinion is not scientific either.

[wilcopops]

You seem to think that anything that you agree with is the objective.

These are not statements with which I 'agree' or 'disagree' -- they are official government pronouncements, provided to add relevant information to the debate.

Information is NOTHING without analysis - simply "reporting" without understanding is a complete waste of time. The problem with this thread is that in reality the argument hasn't started because no one has actually put forward an argument against CC with anything like a valid premise.

[wilcopops]

Skepticality - the research continues but the question like evolution is not whether or not it is happening, it is the processes involved that science - ( i.e us ) - is trying to understand more fully. Those arguing against the existence of man-made climate change have missed the boat.

...and one has to say that ad hominem attacks and obsessively clinging to singular "instances" as examples against the theory is just risible.

Edited October 7, 2013 by wilcopops

[NBD]

Information is NOTHING without analysis - simply "reporting" without understanding is a complete waste of time. The problem with this thread is that in reality the argument hasn't started because no one has actually put forward an argument against CC with anything like a valid premise. 

You can't really "argue" with abject lunacy. What possible "valid" premise can there be to dispute such a wild assertion?

[Scott]

You are welcome to discuss the topic. You are not welcome to discuss other posters. Respond to the topic, not the poster.

[nisakiman]

The point about REAL science is that it is permanently skeptical.

Indeed, never a truer word was spoken. Which is why when AL Gore and his acolytes were shouting loudly "The science is settled!" they were simply illustrating that their main concern was to shut down debate. Which suggests that they were well aware of the weaknesses of their "Global Warming" (as it was then, until the globe inconveniently failed to warm) theories, and didn't want to be challenged on them.

Unfortunately you don't seem to realise how facile your post is............AG is NOT the scientist. Cherry picking opinion is not scientific either.

Al Gore was the AGW poster boy, the spokesman around whom all the 'climate scientists' rallied. (And the one who made millions out of it.)

Who would you prefer I quote? Michael Mann, with his notorious 'hockey stick' graph? He was also one of the "the science is settled" adherents. Or perhaps Phil Jones and his 'Hide the decline' emails, which unfortunately (for him and the church of Global Warming) were hacked and published. Facile? I think not. There has been a litany of lies and corruption at the very heart of the Global Warming scam. It will go down in history as the most expensive con ever perpetrated on the human race.

[isawasnake]

You can't cherry pick your science...

What a great quote. You're right of course, one can't cherry pick the science he believes in, but they do. You have the best, most dedicated and intelligent scientists in the world developing techniques and medicines aimed at making people live healthier lives. Do we believe in the science? Yes, conveniently so, most of us do. You have the best, most dedicated and intelligent scientists in the world studying climate change. Do we believe in the science? Many of us don't. It is kind of mystifying to me the level of trust we have in these scientists, and then when it happens to be convenient for us, the level of distrust we have in the science.

I have never understood why climate change is a left/right issue myself. Anybody ever thought of that? Why in the world do conservatives just so happen to deny climate change, while most all of those to the left accept the science? Perhaps this is the more important question.

[RickBradford]

Why in the world do conservatives just so happen to deny climate change, while most all of those to the left accept the science? Perhaps this is the more important question.

Because those on the Left are broadly speaking content to follow 'leaders', while those on the right prefer to think for themselves.

So it is inaccurate to say that 'conservatives deny climate change' as there is a huge divergence of opinion among conservatives as to the attribution,extent, and required policies on climate change.

As they prefer individuality over conformity, skeptics disagree with one another almost as much as they do with with those taking a more alarmist and monolithic position on climate change.

This is a main reason why the Left's relentless agit-prop on climate change has failed, since there is no single target to aim at. Try a blanket insult at skeptics as 'flat-earthers' and it's like water off a duck's back to 99.9% of skeptics.

Luckily, the Left doesn't understand individuality, so they will never make any headway with their agit-prop and struggle meetings. Now that the climate 'science' has been routed, I don't know where they will go next. Onto the next scare, probably. Biodiversity, maybe. Or mandatory sit-down toilets for men.

[wilcopops]

Why in the world do conservatives just so happen to deny climate change, while most all of those to the left accept the science? Perhaps this is the more important question.

Because those on the Left are broadly speaking content to follow 'leaders', while those on the right prefer to think for themselves.

So it is inaccurate to say that 'conservatives deny climate change' as there is a huge divergence of opinion among conservatives as to the attribution,extent, and required policies on climate change.

As they prefer individuality over conformity, skeptics disagree with one another almost as much as they do with with those taking a more alarmist and monolithic position on climate change.

This is a main reason why the Left's relentless agit-prop on climate change has failed, since there is no single target to aim at. Try a blanket insult at skeptics as 'flat-earthers' and it's like water off a duck's back to 99.9% of skeptics.

Luckily, the Left doesn't understand individuality, so they will never make any headway with their agit-prop and struggle meetings. Now that the climate 'science' has been routed, I don't know where they will go next. Onto the next scare, probably. Biodiversity, maybe. Or mandatory sit-down toilets for men.

"Because those on the Left are broadly speaking content to follow 'leaders', while those on the right prefer to think for themselves" - from the sublime to the ridiculous.....mind you we finally know where you are coming from.

[canman]

You can't cherry pick your science...

What a great quote. You're right of course, one can't cherry pick the science he believes in, but they do. You have the best, most dedicated and intelligent scientists in the world developing techniques and medicines aimed at making people live healthier lives. Do we believe in the science? Yes, conveniently so, most of us do. You have the best, most dedicated and intelligent scientists in the world studying climate change. Do we believe in the science? Many of us don't. It is kind of mystifying to me the level of trust we have in these scientists, and then when it happens to be convenient for us, the level of distrust we have in the science.

I have never understood why climate change is a left/right issue myself. Anybody ever thought of that? Why in the world do conservatives just so happen to deny climate change, while most all of those to the left accept the science? Perhaps this is the more important question.

Many of you arguing that the science doesn't lie. My question is what science? There is a theory that CO2 is causing temperature increases. The scientific method is to test your theory by using it to make predictions. That was done 15 years ago and the predictions were all wrong. No catastrophic sealevel rises, no increase in global temperatures, no increase in extreme weather events, no complete loss of glaciers, no complete loss of arctic sea ice etc. etc.

Edited October 8, 2013 by canman

[francescoassisi]

You can't cherry pick your science...

What a great quote. You're right of course, one can't cherry pick the science he believes in, but they do. You have the best, most dedicated and intelligent scientists in the world developing techniques and medicines aimed at making people live healthier lives. Do we believe in the science? Yes, conveniently so, most of us do. You have the best, most dedicated and intelligent scientists in the world studying climate change. Do we believe in the science? Many of us don't. It is kind of mystifying to me the level of trust we have in these scientists, and then when it happens to be convenient for us, the level of distrust we have in the science.

I have never understood why climate change is a left/right issue myself. Anybody ever thought of that? Why in the world do conservatives just so happen to deny climate change, while most all of those to the left accept the science? Perhaps this is the more important question.

Many of you arguing that the science doesn't lie. My question is what science? There is a theory that CO2 is causing temperature increases. The scientific method is to test your theory by using it to make predictions. That was done 15 years ago and the predictions were all wrong. No catastrophic sealevel rises, no increase in global temperatures, no increase in extreme weather events, no complete loss of glaciers, no complete loss of arctic sea ice etc. etc.

You are wrong on just about everything there apart from you summary of the "history" of CC . What is and isn't science is clearly definable if you understood the concept of critical thinking you wouldn't have needed to ask....it's just that if you don't understand the definition it is not possible to identify it. Try to o Google a definution

[boomerangutang]

Many of you arguing that the science doesn't lie. My question is what science? There is a theory that CO2 is causing temperature increases. The scientific method is to test your theory by using it to make predictions. That was done 15 years ago and the predictions were all wrong. No catastrophic sealevel rises, no increase in global temperatures, no increase in extreme weather events, no complete loss of glaciers, no complete loss of arctic sea ice etc. etc.

You're adding adjectives which are out of line.

>>>> You say "No catastrophic sealevel rises" yet there have been sea level rises. Only you added the word 'catastrophic.'

>>>> You say, "no increase in global temperatures," ....and you're flat out wrong about that, though thankfully, you didn't insert your own adjective.

>>>> You say, "no increase in extreme weather events, no complete loss of glaciers, no complete loss of arctic sea ice..." Again, a lot of added adjectives. but you're plain wrong across the board. There has been alarming loss of glacier bulk. It's well documented and plain to anyone except those who are fixatedly opposed to wanting to see it. Same with Arctic sea ice. To wit......

"CAMBRIDGE BAY, Nunavut -- In 2005, when Roger Swanson tried to cross the Northwest Passage in his 57-foot ketch, the ice scraping against the boat's fragile fiberglass hull sounded like bones snapping underfoot.

When the vessel became bottled up in ice and Mr. Swanson and his boat narrowly escaped, he swore he would never again return to this graveyard of a waterway.

Last month, he was back for a third attempt, he said, at commanding the first American yacht to make the east-west trip in a single year. But this time, instead of encountering the deadly ice floes that have crushed far sturdier ships, it was all smooth sailing.

"There was hardly any ice," said Mr. Swanson, a 76-year-old Minnesota pig farmer turned yachtsman, relaxing aboard ship while docked in this Canadian town about 170 miles north of the Arctic Circle. "It has been a beautiful trip."

In the past six years, as climate change has steadily thawed the arctic, more recreational boats have crossed the passage than in the first 95 years since Roald Amundsen pioneered the route between 1903 and 1906. The hope, then and now, was to establish a trade route from the Atlantic to the Pacific."

source: Wall Street Journal