Global warming stopped 16 years ago

[fmccap]

 

What cooling are you specifically referring to?

Whatever it is "pause" I think they like to call it.

[Langston Hughes]

Whatever it is "pause" I think they like to call it.

 

A pause is not cooling.

 

Call it what you will, but I believe in the preponderance of evidence that we as a species are effecting the earth in not so good terms. I have laid out the numerous ways and i will continue to believe that we must do something to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. The models which you and others rant and rave about are merely a discussion point and it does not diminish my desire to make changes because a volcanic eruption or two mitigate our effect for some years.

 

That there could be some mitigation is not a reason to act like we don't have negative effects on our planet. Neither is a political philosophy about smaller government

 

 

 

[akirby]

we must do something to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions.

 

I agree. Therefore we should all stop breathing. You go first......

[TomServo92]

Any chance you could tell us how much they say the underestimated it and link to the admission? To the actually admission and not some deniers biased take on the admission, like your last one. I can't believe you posted that one, a study of people who work in the petroleum industry. LMAO!

Go ahead and laugh your ass off. You posted material from DeSmogBlog, a PR site funded by businesses and entrepreneurs with a financial interest in "green" technologies to address climate change. Hypocritical much?

 

The IPCC AR5 SOD report states in Chapter 11, Section 3.6.2.2 (emphasis added):

 

As discussed in Section 8.2.1.4.1, a recent satellite measurement (Harder et al., 2009) found much greater

than expected reduction at UV wavelengths in the recent declining solar cycle phase. Changes in solar uv

drive stratospheric O3 chemistry and can change RF. Haigh et al. (2010) show that if these observations are

correct, they imply the opposite relationship between solar RF and solar activity over that period than has

hitherto been assumed. These new measurements therefore increase uncertainty in estimates of the sign of

solar RF, but they are unlikely to alter estimates of the maximum absolute magnitude of the solar

contribution to RF, which remains small (Chapter 8). However, they do suggest the possibility of a much

larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have

suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate (as discussed in 10.3.1.1.3), that are

not necessarily reflected by the RF metric (see 8.2.16).

 

And yes, I am aware that I included a JPEG from Slate. OMG that was so wrong of me to include a graphical representation of Powell's scholarly work, and link to his guest post at that blog. Of course you didn't read his work, nor did you read the work of Cook either which I also linked to.

In case you haven't been paying attention, I don't agree with Cook.

 

Toss me some weak as shit meat, so i can smack it out the park.

So you like smacking shit meat.......interesting....

[goinbroke2]

Wow...I've been gone for what, a year now and I come back and....the same shit by the same people.

Some hard left, some hard right, same old fight.

 

If you guys would stop the "your saying there's none" and "oh yeah, your saying there's lots" and actually read what each other is saying, your not as far apart as you think.

Yes the earth was warming and now has stopped warming, possibly cooling. Now, go back 50,000 years and you could say the same thing...or 20,000 years ago...or 1000 years...

 

WHAT IS THE CORRECT TEMPERATURE?????

 

Before we blame rich western countries and have the solution as "communism is better at fighting global warming"????? WHAT THE F%^& IS THAT??? I think that was an "ooops" moment where they let the communist cat out of the bag. I can hear them now, "crap, don't tell them the end game, they'll fight it! Do it quietly and they'll never know how they got in that position"

 

So, to sum up, the earth has ALWAYS been warming and cooling but in the last 100-150 years, this time it's rich western countries fault and the only way to prevent "the world from having another ice age by the year 2000" (their claim in 1975) or "the world will burn up by the year 2015" (another claim in 2007) is to transfer wealth to poor countries and become communist's.

 

Umm, yeah, ok, why would anybody think that's not a perfectly plausible possibility? They even have 3000+ "peer reviewed reports" so gosh, that's gotta mean something doesn't it? I mean, just because their basing their future earnings on writing what is popular to garner more support, so their future earnings are higher, so they write more....wash, rinse,repeat......

 

I say looking at pollution in China to make an argument that man effect's earth is like having a demo derby with blue cars and when someone gets hurt, scream "BLUE CARS HURT PEOPLE". Or for that matter seeing a millionaire CEO caught doing illegal stuff and jumping to the conclusion that ALL CEO's are crooks and the only way somebody gets rich is either by illegal or immoral actions.

 

So again....WHAT IS THE CORRECT TEMPERATURE????

[goinbroke2]

Here's a little light reading for you guys....wonder who's making money with "green" and why it's being pushed by those oh so innocent "scientists"???

 

Follow the money going to these so called scientists from big corporations, and those who preach global warming, including the US Govt and the politicians who are destroying America.

It is not a coincidence that many politicians are investors in the so called carbon exchanges. For example, does the name Franklin Raines ring
a bell?

Fannie Mae Chief Executive Officer Franklin Raines, two of his top underlings and select individuals in the "green" movement were
inventing a patented system to trade residential carbon credits.

Patent No. 6904336 was approved by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office on Nov. 7, 2006 -- the day after Democrats took control of Congress.
Former Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., criticized the award at the time, pointing out
that it had "nothing to do with Fannie Mae's charter, nothing to do with making mortgages more affordable."

Among the latest developments, ICE is making a play for acquiring the Chicago Board of Trade.

Who are the major owners of ICE? The major Anglo-Dutch financial entities. According to ICE's 2006 filings with the SEC, as of Sept. 30, 2005,
with percent of ICE shares owned: Morgan Stanley Capital, 11.62%; Goldman Sachs
Group, 11.59%: Total Investments USA Inc., 8.12%; BP Products, 7.59%.

Others include Duke Energy, AEP, Continental Power Exchange, Societe Generale Financial Corp.

If you follow the cash money, you will see each one of the above mentioned companies, contribute big time to the dems political campaigns.

"It wasn't about mortgages. It was about
greenbacks. The patent, which Fannie Mae confirmed it still owns with Cantor Fitzgerald
subsidiary CO2e dot com, gives the mortgage giant a lock on the fledgling carbon trading market, thus also giving it a major financial stake in the
success of cap-and-trade legislation

This is a bombshell, do a search and look up all the cronies involved in the Chicago Carbon Futures Exhcange...it is a world's whos who. Here is more of the piece:

Raines, the other "inventors" are:

* Former Fannie Vice President and Deputy General Counsel G.
Scott Lesmes, who provided legal advice on Fannie Mae's debt and equity offerings;

* Former Fannie Vice President Robert Sahadi, who now runs GreenSpace Investment Financial Services out of his 5,002-square-foot Clarksburg home;

* 2008 Barack Obama fundraiser Kenneth Berlin, an environmental law partner at Skadden Arps;

* Michelle Desiderio, director of the National Green Building Certification program, which trains "green" monitors;

* Former Cantor Fitzgerald employee Elizabeth Arner Cavey, wife of Democratic donor Brian Cavey of the Stanton Park Group, which received
$200,000 last year to lobby on climate change legislation; and

* Jane Bartels, widow of former CO2e dot com CEO Carlton Bartels. Three weeks before Carlton Bartels was killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, he filed for another patent on the software used in 2003 to set up the Chicago Climate Exchange.

The patent, which covers both the "cap" and
"trade" parts of Obama's top domestic energy initiation, gives Fannie Mae proprietary control over an automated trading system that pools and sells
credits for hard-to-quantify residential carbon reduction efforts (such as solar panels and high-efficiency appliances) to companies and utilities that
don't meet emission reduction targets. Depending on where the Environmental Protection Agency sets arbitrary CO2 standards, that could be every company in America.

The patent summary describes how carbon "and other pollutants yet to be determined" would be "combined into a single emissions pool" and traded -- just as Fannie's toxic portfolio of subprime
mortgages were.

"Fannie Mae earns no money on this patent,"
communications director Amy Bonitatibus told the Washington Examiner. "We can't conjecture as to the cap-and-trade legislation."

But passage of the legislation would create an artificial, government-mandated, trillion-dollar carbon trading market that would drive up the price of energy, indirectly making housing more expensive.

If the proprietary emissions trading system functions like other exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange, which makes most of its revenue
on listing and trading fees, its owners could see extremely generous profits, especially with a patent that keeps out competition for two decades.

So Fannie Mae, a quasi-governmental entity whose congressionally mandated mission is to make housing more affordable, has been a
behind-the-scenes participant in a carbon trading scheme that would do just the opposite.

In January, Europol announced that up to 90 percent of the volume in the European Union's own carbon-trading market was fraudulent,
costing EU members $5 billion during the previous 18 months. That would be just the tip of the iceberg if the Congress were to make a similar mistake.

But if it does, thanks to Raines and his fellow
"inventors," Fannie Mae will be laughing all the way to the (bailed-out) bank.

Founders of the exchange and investors include Soros, Sen Lugar, Maurice Strong, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, among others. The Chicago Exchange is
intended to dominate the current London Carbon exchange.

The idea is that if governments cap CO2 emissions, then the "market" will take off for the buying and selling of emissions "allowances." This is the whole point of the "cap-and-trade" plan for CO2. If it sounds crazy, it is. But Gore is just one of the most visible parts of the elaborate (and bi-partisan) schemes that have been set in motion under cover of climate change. Gore's personal
financial involvement is blatant, especially through Goldman Sachs—a large shareholder of CCX, and in 2004, the creator of Gore's very own London-based hedge fund, Generation Investment Management.

The founder and chairman of CCX is none other than Dr. Richard Sandor, considered one of the fathers of derivatives and futures. He concocted
weather futures, earthquake futures, Ginnie Mae futures, and others, and has been working overtime in recent years on the new carbon offset
"instruments for transaction." Sandor is a director on the board of London International Financial Futures Exchange (LIFFE), the largest derivatives trading market in London and many other boards.

Getting financing to start up CCX is credited to one Neil Eckert, who at the time was CEO of the firm Brit Insurance, which is in the orbit of Eagle Star Insurance, Ltd., a keystone of the inner core British City of London. The former CEO of Eagle Star Insurance, Clive Coats, now heads up Brit Insurance, and Mr. Eckert has moved on to be CEO of Climate Change Plc, the holding company for CCX and ECX.

Sandor has been hyperactive in lining up participation in these carbon casinos. In March this year, he addressed the annual convention of the
National Farmers Union in Orlando, Florida, praising the progress being made on methods of carbon sequestration, and the benefits of trade in carbon credits. He said that there is vast opportunity for international growth in "market-based climate change mitigation." In Fall 2006, the NFU
launched its Carbon Credit Program.

As for who owns CCX, according to filings it made between Feb. 6, 2007 and March 14, 2007, the three largest beneficial owners are, with their
percent of CCX shares owned: Goldman Sachs Holdings, Inc., 17.87%; Harbinger Capital Master Fund I, 10.4%; Black Rock Investment (i.e. Blackstone Group), 8.95%.

The Board of CCX includes Maurice Strong, and Stuart Eizenstat. Eizenstat, who held posts under President Jimmy Carter and subsequent
Administrations, led the U.S. delegation to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol conference on global warming.

Maurice Strong has made an international career in service of financial rip-offs in the name of the environment. In the 1970s, he became
first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program. In 1992, he was the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNED)—known as the Earth Summit. Out of this, the first World
Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) was created, at Strong's
instigation. Then in 1999, the WBCSD, in cooperation with UNCTAD, set up the International Emissions Trading Association to push for the greenhouse gas (GHG) market.

In 1992, the same year as Strong's conferencing for
"sustainable" business, Richard Sandor co-authored a UN Conference on Trade and Development study, pushing for international trade in emissions.
Already, the U.S. market for trading allowances in sulfur dioxide emissions (among 110 power plants) had been launched, under the Bush Administration's
1990 Clean Air Act (Title Four). Sandor told the Wall Street Journal that year, "Air and water are no longer the free goods that economics once assumed.
They must be redefined as property rights so that they can be efficiently allocated."

 

Sorry it's so long, but I mean really, just look, THERE'S THE GUYS PULLING THE LEVERS BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!

[Langston Hughes]

 

I agree. Therefore we should all stop breathing. You go first......

 

Okay, now you.

[Langston Hughes]

Wow...I've been gone for what, a year now and I come back and....the same shit by the same people.

Some hard left, some hard right, same old fight.

 

 

Welcome back, and it's nice to see that you offer the same ole shit as you did then too.

[Langston Hughes]

Go ahead and laugh your ass off. You posted material from DeSmogBlog, a PR site funded by businesses and entrepreneurs with a financial interest in "green" technologies to address climate change. Hypocritical much?

 

I posted a guest post by James Powell, the author of that study on the blog. Totally different than posting the Heartland institutes fellow Taylor's disingenuous interpretation of a study, which is what you did. Do you have a valid criticism of his work?

 

The IPCC AR5 SOD report states in Chapter 11, Section 3.6.2.2 (emphasis added):

 

In case you haven't been paying attention, I don't agree with Cook.

 

You don't agree with Cook on what? Did you read Cook? So you don't agree that there are more academic papers supporting the idea of human forcing than not? And how did you determine that he's incorrect?

 

 

So you like smacking shit meat.......interesting....

 

Does your mom count? (You went there, so ya get it right back.)

 

So this is the "super huge thing" that your holding up as why you can't believe in human forcing?

 

In summary, possible future reductions in solar irradiance would act to cool global mean surface air temperature but such cooling is unlikely to exceed –0.1°C by 2050 (medium confidence). A return to conditions similar to the Maunder Minimum is considered very unlikely in the near term but, were it to occur, would produce a decrease in global temperatures much smaller than the warming expected from increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, current understanding of the impacts of solar activity on regional climate remains low.

 

 

No wonder why you didn't just quote it outright. That's totally damning shit right there.

[goinbroke2]

So far this week they're 7 for 7......Saturday is supposed to be +5 and sunny, actually it's -15 and snowing! These idiots are more wrong than right around here and the one "scientist" who does the most squawking is a hard core "man is a cancer on the earth". He used to have a kids science program on the radio but was shut down due to his bizzarre claims. He's the first one to scream (yes literally scream on the talk news radio) that "he's a scientist, you aren't, he knows there's mmgw and you will believe him because he's a scientist and your not..did I mention I'M A SCIENTIST AND YOUR NOT??) Every debate starts out as a discussion and he escalates it by talking over people and using big words to impress himself. He would never say a car is full of gas, he'd say the pollution emitting automobile is engorged with petrolium distillates. By doing this he intimidates 90% of people he is talking at and as soon as they leave the air he dismisses them and what they've said with a smarmy comeback.He's a meterologist now and almost consistently wrong but keeps changing his "guess" until the day of, kinda like other climate nazi's. In three day it will be -10, in two days it will be -5, tomorrow it will be 0 and sunny, todays gauranteed high is +3! (if they're more than 3-4 degrees off, people can call in and they give away the pot that builds up when they're right. ($25 added each day their right) The high today was +3 as predicted by our own peter zerouwski so the money will be carried over to tomorrow....

 

Your right Langston...same old shit from me too. I just spent 6 weeks in baffin island on a pre-exercise to prepare for the guys heading north for a Winter Ex called North Bound Trooper. I can tell you from talks with the local inuit rangers that there are a HELL of a lot more polar bears now than 10-20 years ago (so much they've lost 9 dogs already this year) and it's a game to them for the media, they say whatever the media wants them to as long as they caugh up "presents". Sit in your warm fuzzy armchair and monday morning quarterback this climate crap all you want, it's not just "scientists" who are heading north for proof, now it's people without a "cause" and they're finding different results. Well I guess some climate nazi's are finding changes too, like the ship of "climate scientists" stuck in the ice pack on the south pole that's supposed to not be there! LOL Oh my gosh you can't make this stuff up, it's hilarious!!

 

I can see it now "....at southpole...stop...massive melting..stop..no ice left..stop...all animals suffering..stop..crap we're stuck in 15ft of ice...stop...send help..stop...the help got stuck too..stop....don't tell the media...stop...ahh damn it...stop" LOL!!!!

 

Oh, and all our new outboard engines on the zodiac boats that go up north now must be 4 stroke. We'll see how that works out as they've been trying that with the snowmobiles but had to go back to 2 stroke because the 4 strokes won't start in -55 weather. So yes we're continually adapting to be "green" but of course as a "cancer on the earth" nothing is good enough is it?

[TomServo92]

 

So this is the "super huge thing" that your holding up as why you can't believe in human forcing?

 

 

No wonder why you didn't just quote it outright. That's totally damning shit right there.

 

I believe Cook was flawed in his process of determining consensus. 74% of the papers he examined were considered to be "implied endorsement" of climate change simply by the fact they were examining or studying climate change. That means they were included in his 97% even if they presented alternative theories other than human forcing. The actual number of explicit endorsements (e.g. those that clearly stated the human forcing as the cause) is 23%. Understand the problem here?

 

First let me state that I believe in the solar activity theory LONG before this report came out. I see it as confirmation since it is now being considered, which I believe is the right direction. IPCC still gets it wrong overall though IMO.

 

If you read the whole report, it contradicts itself due to each chapter being written by different groups. That leads me to believe there is some disagreement among IPCC members as to what is really going on in our climate. On top of that, the IPCC and the climate change alarmists went into panic spin mode when the excerpt I posted was made public. It was an admission that man might not be the sole culprit that AR4 indicated and didn't fit the narrative. Last, AR5 walks back many of the dire predictions of AR4 which leads me to believe that the "science" is in flux and a true understanding hasn't been achieved yet. Given the contradictions between AR4 and AR5 plus the internal contradictions of AR5, it don't believe there is a case for immediate action given the massive costs involved.

 

BTW, my mom passed away in 1997 of a long-term, devastating illness. I jabbed at you, not your loved ones. Thanks for that.

 

One last question: Why have all the climate models been wrong, some by tremendous amounts?

Edited January 25, 2014 by TomServo92

[goinbroke2]

 

One last question: Why have all the climate models been wrong, some by tremendous amounts?

LOL!!!!! No, no, no! Your supposed to believe over and over, regardless of how wrong they are, you must believe their religion!!

 

Welcome to the church of global warming all over again. LOL!

[NickF1011]

 

One last question: Why have all the climate models been wrong, some by tremendous amounts?

And some by not much at all. Something as long-trending as climate needs a pretty significant sample length to predict overall trends. But hey, since they were wrong, no problem! Full speed ahead on CO2 emissions for all!

[TomServo92]

And some by not much at all. Something as long-trending as climate needs a pretty significant sample length to predict overall trends. But hey, since they were wrong, no problem! Full speed ahead on CO2 emissions for all!

Don't be ridiculous. The point is with the models all being wrong we need to re-examine the whole theory before we proceed with spending billions on it.

[akirby]

Don't be ridiculous. The point is with the models all being wrong we need to re-examine the whole theory before we proceed with spending billions on it.

 

Why do people act like we're NOT already limiting emissions including CO2? We are and we should continue with reasonable measures since there is a chance it's having an impact. What we should not do is spend billions and billions trying to fix a problem that may not exist and even if it does exist we may not be able to change.

 

It's like having a model that predicts the superbowl winner where it's only right 10% of the time, then asking people to bet millions of dollars on the game based on that model that's shown to be inaccurate.

 

Reduce emissions in a reasonable manner, stop deforestation, increase reforestation and let's see what happens the next 10-20 years.

 

I'm with Tom - it seems FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more likely that the sun is responsible for any significant changes in global temperature. Consider the difference in avg temperature between a suburb of Atlanta and Norhtern Tennessee - just a few hundred miles and a few degrees of latitude apart. The only difference is a tiny change in the angle of the sun yet it makes a huge difference (compared to the change predicted by mmgw) in avg temps.

[goinbroke2]

Couple..(three?) years ago one of the scientists who was a "denier" said according to the sun flares or lack thereof, we'd be in a cooling phase for the next 50 years. It was a big long "solar winds and magnetic fields" thing. That was the same year europe had such a cold winter and some were saying it was here now, but in reality it's a cooling trend that will take a decade to get noticed probably. Point is, nothing is fast/quick in relation to the planets climate. The ocean's warm after 500-900 years which cause more evaporation which in turn causes more clouds which cause cooling and 5-900 years later the ocean cools enough to slow evaporation...wash, rinse, repeat...like it has....long before man....(or suv's)

 

As far as what you said Akirby "It's like having a model that predicts the superbowl winner where it's only right 10% of the time, then asking people to bet millions of dollars on the game based on that model that's shown to be inaccurate."

 

It's more like DEMANDING people spend/bet millions of dollars. And they wonder why there is backlash? If you even question, not the prediction, but HOW they got the prediction of the superbowl winner, your a "denier" or other mentally challenged person. How DARE you question the great predictor! Do you want to ruin football? All bow down to the great predictor!

 

(sound familiar?)

[akirby]

It's also interesting that you have folks who throw out these theories that cannot be proved or disproved within a reasonable amount of time because it's far too complicated to model or physically test on a large enough scale and then anyone who questions it is immediately labeled a "DENIER".

 

This is nothing more than researchers finding a new source of funding and the environmentalists seeing this as a way to force the changes they want to see using alarmist tactics and fuzzy science.

[FiredMotorCompany]

It's also interesting that you have folks who throw out these theories that cannot be proved or disproved within a reasonable amount of time because it's far too complicated to model or physically test on a large enough scale and then anyone who questions it is immediately labeled a "DENIER".

 

This is nothing more than researchers finding a new source of funding and the environmentalists seeing this as a way to force the changes they want to see using alarmist tactics and fuzzy science.

Huzzah!

[Langston Hughes]

It's nice to see that Our lady of Climate denial is filling the pews again. it doesn't strike me as weird that those who believe in less regulation mostly, except Nick, also believe that we should not set any governmental regulations to control greenhouse gases. It's too bad when ideologies interferes with making some needy changes.

 

Like i said, before my feelings on government don't limit my ability to believe in things which isn't true for most of the conservatives here.

[FiredMotorCompany]

It's nice to see that Our lady of Climate denial is filling the pews again. it doesn't strike me as weird that those who believe in less regulation mostly, except Nick, also believe that we should not set any governmental regulations to control greenhouse gases. It's too bad when ideologies interferes with making some needy changes.

 

Like i said, before my feelings on government don't limit my ability to believe in things which isn't true for most of the conservatives here.

First off, I'm glad to see "it doesn't strike you as weird......"

 

Secondly, punctuation can be your friend.

 

It's not like we are speaking live on camera. Sometimes we should review our comments before posting. I know I frequently catch errors in my posts and correct them. I may miss some, but as a rule, I think I can communicate a complete thought in a sentence.

Edited January 29, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[akirby]

It's nice to see that Our lady of Climate denial is filling the pews again. it doesn't strike me as weird that those who believe in less regulation mostly, except Nick, also believe that we should not set any governmental regulations to control greenhouse gases. It's too bad when ideologies interferes with making some needy changes.

 

Nobody is saying we don't need to control greenhouse gases. We ARE controlling emissions already. Nobody is saying we should repeal emissions regulations or do nothing. But we also don't need to panic and spend billions on drastic measures.

[TomServo92]

Nobody is saying we don't need to control greenhouse gases. We ARE controlling emissions already. Nobody is saying we should repeal emissions regulations or do nothing. But we also don't need to panic and spend billions on drastic measures.

Bingo!

[Langston Hughes]

First off, I'm glad to see "it doesn't strike you as weird......"

 

Secondly, punctuation can be your friend.

 

It's not like we are speaking live on camera. Sometimes we should review our comments before posting. I know I frequently catch errors in my posts and correct them. I may miss some, but as a rule, I think I can communicate a complete thought in a sentence.

 

I care very little if it's grammatically correct. It's not like i'm writing these for work or school.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

I care very little if it's grammatically correct. It's not like i'm writing these for work or school.

It matters only if your efforts are self fulfilling or intended to exchance intelligent thought for a discussion.

 

Go on with your babbling self.

[Langston Hughes]

 

Nobody is saying we don't need to control greenhouse gases. We ARE controlling emissions already. Nobody is saying we should repeal emissions regulations or do nothing. But we also don't need to panic and spend billions on drastic measures.

 

I'm not saying panic, but denial is not going to make the changes or push energy solutions.