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

[FiftyTwo]

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.

Actually, all the climate scientists are second rate, nobody with any real scientific ability studies 'climate science'.

It's peopled by those who didn't get good enough grades to study a real science subject at a real university.

[boomerangutang]

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.

Actually, all the climate scientists are second rate, nobody with any real scientific ability studies 'climate science'.

It's peopled by those who didn't get good enough grades to study a real science subject at a real university.

What a dumbass statement. It's probably because you don't like the types of scientific data they're recovering in Greenland ice cores and under Antarctic glaciers - all tough work, by the way. Oh but there's a big exception. GW deniers love the little bit of recent scientific data which indicates there's a bit of cooling going on. But wait a cottonpickinminute, that bit of cooling data was found by the same scientists which the deniers are so intent on denigrating. How can that be? You celebrate a bit of recent data, but still belittle 15 years of data compiled by the same scientists. Something smells weird, and it's not rotting tundra.

[FiftyTwo]

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.

Actually, all the climate scientists are second rate, nobody with any real scientific ability studies 'climate science'.

It's peopled by those who didn't get good enough grades to study a real science subject at a real university.

What a dumbass statement. It's probably because you don't like the types of scientific data they're recovering in Greenland ice cores and under Antarctic glaciers - all tough work, by the way. Oh but there's a big exception. GW deniers love the little bit of recent scientific data which indicates there's a bit of cooling going on. But wait a cottonpickinminute, that bit of cooling data was found by the same scientists which the deniers are so intent on denigrating. How can that be? You celebrate a bit of recent data, but still belittle 15 years of data compiled by the same scientists. Something smells weird, and it's not rotting tundra.

15 years of data compiled by scientists not good enough to study engineering, physics, chemistry et al at university level.

Give me a break!

Climate studies is the new sociology.

Edited October 9, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[wilcopops]

"Actually, all the climate scientists are second rate, nobody with any real scientific ability studies 'climate science'."

- this kind of statement just shows how little the poster understands of science, the topic or even what a scientist is let alone the bredth of scientific fields of study involved in Climate Change - as if it was as simple as being just one field.......

The comment is so ludicrous, it brings to mind the words of Thomas Jefferson

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; "

Edited October 9, 2013 by wilcopops

[marcusd]

I don't get it. I am from Australia. We are getting hotter for longer, more extreme weather conditions. The great barrier reef is heating. The oceans have higher pollution and that is from our CSIRO a government body independent. So I think we humans must be doing something serious. Lets face it we remove oil and gas from under the ground plus water and other things and I learned at school basic physics....FIR EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION...

Ice caps are nit the full story. Lakes in Africa. And glaciers dripping away....well enough said. Not tv. Not news for me. I have seen it travelling over 30 years and witnessing.

No armchair observation or critique here unlike some

Sent from my RM-892_apac_laos_thailand_219 using Tapatalk

[FiftyTwo]

The world has been hotter .... and humans weren't there.

The world has been colder ..... and humans weren't there.

Why would anyone think the cycle wasn't entirely natural, and humans not relevant to that cycle?

The real problem is, climate change has replaced (become) a religion in many people's lives.

You can't argue with religion, as you need faith, and unbelievers need to be killed or repressed in some way.

See the similarity

God is angry with us, we must stop our evil ways.

Climate is changing, we need to stop burning fossil fuels.

Edited October 9, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[boomerangutang]

15 years of data compiled by scientists not good enough to study engineering, physics, chemistry et al at university level. Give me a break! Climate studies is the new sociology.

You should get around more. The scientific disciplines that relate to climate cover a wide swath of specialties. Even if what you said had some credence, it's still ironic that deniers raptuously embrace some cooling data - but refuse to accept the same scientists mentioning that the overall decade-to-decade trend points to warming.

[boomerangutang]

Climate is changing, we need to stop burning fossil fuels.

Whether or not climate is approaching dire straits, we need to lessen dependence on fossil fuels. As for religion, I'm probably as divorced from religion as anyone, yet can still connect the dots between runaway fossil fuel burning and the greenhouse effect it exacerbates.

[francescoassisi]

The world has been hotter .... and humans weren't there.

The world has been colder ..... and humans weren't there.

Why would anyone think the cycle wasn't entirely natural, and humans not relevant to that cycle?

The real problem is, climate change has replaced (become) a religion in many people's lives.

You can't argue with religion, as you need faith, and unbelievers need to be killed or repressed in some way.

See the similarity

God is angry with us, we must stop our evil ways.

Climate is changing, we need to stop burning fossil fuels.

Inadvertently you've hit the nail right on the head. The whole point about climate change is that we are well aware that there have been changes before but THIS TIME THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES and these lead us to conclude that the changes are in fact man made.

I have to say you seem to be arguing your point of view from a position of little knowledge of even the most basic info on CC.

Edited October 9, 2013 by francescoassisi

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed. Please stay on topic.

[canman]

The world has been hotter .... and humans weren't there.

The world has been colder ..... and humans weren't there.

Why would anyone think the cycle wasn't entirely natural, and humans not relevant to that cycle?

The real problem is, climate change has replaced (become) a religion in many people's lives.

You can't argue with religion, as you need faith, and unbelievers need to be killed or repressed in some way.

See the similarity

God is angry with us, we must stop our evil ways.

Climate is changing, we need to stop burning fossil fuels.

Inadvertently you've hit the nail right on the head. The whole point about climate change is that we are well aware that there have been changes before but THIS TIME THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES and these lead us to conclude that the changes are in fact man made.

I have to say you seem to be arguing your point of view from a position of little knowledge of even the most basic info on CC.

Are the SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES you refer to greater than the temperature changes experienced from 1645-1715, the little ice age AKA the Maunder Minimum? Or how about the Dalton Minimum?

[wilcopops]

The world has been hotter .... and humans weren't there.

The world has been colder ..... and humans weren't there.

Why would anyone think the cycle wasn't entirely natural, and humans not relevant to that cycle?

The real problem is, climate change has replaced (become) a religion in many people's lives.

You can't argue with religion, as you need faith, and unbelievers need to be killed or repressed in some way.

See the similarity

God is angry with us, we must stop our evil ways.

Climate is changing, we need to stop burning fossil fuels.

Inadvertently you've hit the nail right on the head. The whole point about climate change is that we are well aware that there have been changes before but THIS TIME THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES and these lead us to conclude that the changes are in fact man made.

I have to say you seem to be arguing your point of view from a position of little knowledge of even the most basic info on CC.

Are the SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES you refer to greater than the temperature changes experienced from 1645-1715, the little ice age AKA the Maunder Minimum? Or how about the Dalton Minimum?

Yes they are! - You still don't seem to understand - those changes have evidence to suport them to - these things don't just happen. you also don't seem to appreciate time scale on these things.

Edited October 10, 2013 by wilcopops

[boomerangutang]

The world has been hotter .... and humans weren't there.

The world has been colder ..... and humans weren't there.

Why would anyone think the cycle wasn't entirely natural, and humans not relevant to that cycle?

The real problem is, climate change has replaced (become) a religion in many people's lives.

You can't argue with religion, as you need faith, and unbelievers need to be killed or repressed in some way.

See the similarity

God is angry with us, we must stop our evil ways.

Climate is changing, we need to stop burning fossil fuels.

Inadvertently you've hit the nail right on the head. The whole point about climate change is that we are well aware that there have been changes before but THIS TIME THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES and these lead us to conclude that the changes are in fact man made.

I have to say you seem to be arguing your point of view from a position of little knowledge of even the most basic info on CC.

Are the SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES you refer to greater than the temperature changes experienced from 1645-1715, the little ice age AKA the Maunder Minimum? Or how about the Dalton Minimum?

Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Some of us are open to scientific data and projections. Others don't want to hear certain types of data which point in a direction they don't want to acknowledge. Whether it's greater than past climate fluxes is 2ndary. It would be like taking an accident victim in to a hospital Emergency Ward. Doctor might say, "Oh, this patient only has a broken arm. Earlier, we had a someone come in with a bashed knee, so why should I be concerned about a broken arm?"

[wilcopops]

The world has been hotter .... and humans weren't there.

The world has been colder ..... and humans weren't there.

Why would anyone think the cycle wasn't entirely natural, and humans not relevant to that cycle?

The real problem is, climate change has replaced (become) a religion in many people's lives.

You can't argue with religion, as you need faith, and unbelievers need to be killed or repressed in some way.

See the similarity

God is angry with us, we must stop our evil ways.

Climate is changing, we need to stop burning fossil fuels.

Inadvertently you've hit the nail right on the head. The whole point about climate change is that we are well aware that there have been changes before but THIS TIME THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES and these lead us to conclude that the changes are in fact man made.

I have to say you seem to be arguing your point of view from a position of little knowledge of even the most basic info on CC.

Are the SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES you refer to greater than the temperature changes experienced from 1645-1715, the little ice age AKA the Maunder Minimum? Or how about the Dalton Minimum?

Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Some of us are open to scientific data and projections. Others don't want to hear certain types of data which point in a direction they don't want to acknowledge. Whether it's greater than past climate fluxes is 2ndary. It would be like taking an accident victim in to a hospital Emergency Ward. Doctor might say, "Oh, this patient only has a broken arm. Earlier, we had a someone come in with a bashed knee, so why should I be concerned about a broken arm?"

the reality is that there is no serious evidence poiting in the other direction.

[Scott]

A post with only an emoticon has been removed. Please don't quote large amounts of text, which takes up a lot of space and then post no contribution.

[Thaddeus]

the reality is that there is no serious evidence poiting in the other direction.

And there is no serious evidence pointing in the direction you favour,

I prefer to take my samples from millions of years, not a few centuries or less.

[Credo]

the reality is that there is no serious evidence poiting in the other direction.

And there is no serious evidence pointing in the direction you favour,

I prefer to take my samples from millions of years, not a few centuries or less.

That's all well and good, but the Industrial revolution and the pouring of green house gasses hasn't been going on for centuries, so that comparison is a little harder.

[francescoassisi]

The world has been hotter .... and humans weren't there.

The world has been colder ..... and humans weren't there.

Why would anyone think the cycle wasn't entirely natural, and humans not relevant to that cycle?

The real problem is, climate change has replaced (become) a religion in many people's lives.

You can't argue with religion, as you need faith, and unbelievers need to be killed or repressed in some way.

See the similarity

God is angry with us, we must stop our evil ways.

Climate is changing, we need to stop burning fossil fuels.

Inadvertently you've hit the nail right on the head. The whole point about climate change is that we are well aware that there have been changes before but THIS TIME THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES and these lead us to conclude that the changes are in fact man made.

I have to say you seem to be arguing your point of view from a position of little knowledge of even the most basic info on CC.

Are the SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES you refer to greater than the temperature changes experienced from 1645-1715, the little ice age AKA the Maunder Minimum? Or how about the Dalton Minimum?

There you go again.......the temperature changes and whether they are big or small is not the point, the thing is what is CAUSING these effects and the combined sciences not one field as you seem to think have identified particular characterists that make the changes we are seeing different and attributable to manmade factors.

Do you realise that you are applying the logic of the "my cat has 4 legs" argument?

Edited October 10, 2013 by francescoassisi

[Thaddeus]

the reality is that there is no serious evidence poiting in the other direction.

And there is no serious evidence pointing in the direction you favour,

I prefer to take my samples from millions of years, not a few centuries or less.

That's all well and good, but the Industrial revolution and the pouring of green house gasses hasn't been going on for centuries, so that comparison is a little harder.

Well, that's the point, the 'pouring of greenhouse gasses' as you describe it has been going on for millions of years, with no help from this insignificant little ape called 'man;

We are not as important to the planet as some of us would like to think we are, eventually the last species we will wipe out is ourselves, and that is not too far away, in geological terms just a blink away.

[nong38]

The Earth has ben warming and cooling throughout time, long before CO2 were known of and that will continue its cycle.

The revenues that have recently been hoovered up from tax payer's consciences will continue as there are enough "know alls" out there to be economic about what imformation they choose to use and provide endless graphs to support their dubious claims.

I am sure we all think its a good idea to re cycle whilst we can and not waste resources but that is a totally different topic.

[isawasnake]

Some VERY interesting scientific conclusions on how such a clear issue can be plagued by such dubiousness.

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/10/05/05climatewire-why-conservative-white-males-are-more-likely-11613.html?pagewanted=all

Link to the actual paper, which you'd have to pay for to get in full I believe. This passage from the abstract is one of the most fitting for our circumstances here: We find that conservative white males are significantly more likely than are other Americans to endorse denialist views on all five items, and that these differences are even greater for those conservative white males who self-report understanding global warming very well.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801100104X

Global Environmental Change is a respected journal btw. That in and of itself does not prove anything of course, but they don't just let people publish crap, that is for sure.

[RickBradford]

Some VERY interesting scientific conclusions on how such a clear issue can be plagued by such dubiousness.

Up to a point. The interesting parts are not scientific and the scientific parts are not interesting (the study is over 2 years old, incidentally).

The scientific conclusion that conservative white males are as a group more likely to be skeptical of climate change alarmism is so trivial as to be hardly worth stating. I could equally easily write a paper entitled "Hippie Environmentalists, Professional Activists and neo-Marxist drones are more likely to accept climate change alarmism" and it would be equally true.

The interesting part is to note that, even back in 2011, the alarmists were desperately keen to talk about anything but the science -- bring in a racial aspect and a political/ideological aspect, but whatever you do don't mention the physical science, because it undermines our position.

[boomerangutang]

We are not as important to the planet as some of us would like to think we are, eventually the last species we will wipe out is ourselves, and that is not too far away, in geological terms just a blink away.

I don't agree. I think the residual toxins we leave, even after humans as a species are gone, will continue to decimate the planet's ecosystem and wipe out additional species. Just look at radioactivity. In less than 50 years, we've had major breaches at Chernobyl and Fukushima. How many more major breaches will there be in the next 50 or 150 years? Radioactivity can last tens of thousands of years. Then look at the 'Great Pacific Trash Vortex'. Humans created that in 15 years, and it will last tens of thousands of years, and it's getting larger week by week - and there's no viable way to clean it up, even if all the world's sea vessels were devoted to the task.

[francescoassisi]

the reality is that there is no serious evidence poiting in the other direction.

And there is no serious evidence pointing in the direction you favour,

I prefer to take my samples from millions of years, not a few centuries or less.

That's the point - The CC theories ARE based on millions of years

That's all well and good, but the Industrial revolution and the pouring of green house gasses hasn't been going on for centuries, so that comparison is a little harder.

Well, that's the point, the 'pouring of greenhouse gasses' as you describe it has been going on for millions of years, with no help from this insignificant little ape called 'man;

We are not as important to the planet as some of us would like to think we are, eventually the last species we will wipe out is ourselves, and that is not too far away, in geological terms just a blink away.

The basis for blaming manmade factors on the current climate change is just that - knowledge of what happened over millions of years. We know where the continents were, we know of huge changes in climate and environment and we are able to say that the current changes are significantly individual enough this time to be caused by man.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Scott

[francescoassisi]

Here's a summary from the UN. I'm sure some will still consider an as hominem attack on the UN as a valid counter argument. Of it isn't you need to counter the info not the messenger.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jLcTqapbrvWKnsu_vcyhzSka745g?docId=cc6d173b-bce8-47ee-832a-13100894d0f3

GENERAL

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased?. Human influence on the climate system is clear."

"Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions."

[RickBradford]

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased?. Human influence on the climate system is clear."

"Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions."

Another trivial result hardly worth the paper it's written on.

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.." - Of course it is, we're coming out of an ice age.

"The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished [debatable], sea level has risen and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased?." - Of course they have, so what?

"Human influence on the climate system is clear." - This is more of the trivially obvious. Land clearance, burning rainforest, city building, CO2, SO2, CFCs, soot and other particulates all affect the climate. Again, so what?

The only contentious part of this political document is the statement "many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia." There isn’t any nice way to say this — it’s an outright lie. A vast published literature exists showing that recent warming is not only not unusual, but more intense warming has occurred many times in the past centuries and millennia.

The lie is so egregious that even scientists involved in reviewing the report complained, but were, unsurprisingly, overridden by the politicians who crafted the final draft.

As MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen put it: "The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to the level of hilarious incoherence — it is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going."

Edited October 11, 2013 by RickBradford

[FiftyTwo]

1 volcanic eruption will put 100x the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all the human produced gasses ever combined.

Our effect is trivial compared to natures.

Edited October 11, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[Credo]

A volcanic eruption also puts a huge amount of ash in the upper atmosphere, blocking the sun and may negate the effect of the gases released.

[Pitts]

1 volcanic eruption will put 100x the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all the human produced gasses ever combined.

Our effect is trivial compared to natures.

This ^

Our effect, although bad, is still relatively minor. That is not to say we shouldn't try to reduce our impact on the environment but we don't have as bigger impact as people make out.

[RickBradford]

One of the most tedious aspects to the UN's climate reports is their Ladybird book insistence on tying climate change almost exclusively to CO2, and in particular, man-made emissions of CO2.

They try to convey the notion that CO2 is like a thermostat; more CO2 means warmer, less CO2 means colder. Simples.

This leads politicians (John Kerry, in this instance) to say facile things like: "Climate change is real, it’s happening now, human beings are the cause of this transformation, and only action by human beings can save the world from its worst impacts."

See? Stop using those evil fossil fuels, and let's return dear old Gaia to whatever it was before we started.

You'd think that after 20 years and tens of billions of dollars of research, they might have found time to consider other factors.

Luckily, there are other scientists who have taken the trouble to point out that the Earth's climate system is enormously complex and chaotic.

Of course, this doesn't play well with the UN, politicians, NGOs, or the 'progressive' media.

The simple story, demonising industrial CO2, is all they want to hear.