When the Earth refuses to warm

[luckytxn 2,264]

If Gore hadn't invented the internet they may have pulled off this scam as there are so many morons to buy anything spoon fed them. Thanks Gore for inventing this technology so that your scam can be found out. God bless you.

Global warming: Been there, done that. Forward-looking folks are adjusting their fretting machinery now to something called Cycle 25. Button up your overcoats. Ice is on the way.

Global warming, which was mostly a scam invented by researchers looking for government grants, is over. The great warming phenomenon, which was supposed to have sent polar bears to vacation in Miami Beach by now, ended in 1997.

Britain's Met Office, which tracks weather and makes forecasts, and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the source of much global warming research (some of it faked, some of it not), agree, according to the London Daily Mail, that Planet Earth could even be heading for an icy patch “to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the [frozen-over] Thames in the 17th century.” They call this Cycle 25.

The report of the findings in Old Blighty follows an op-ed essay in the Wall Street Journal, signed by 16 eminent scientists, including both physicists and other climate researchers, that the panic promoted over global warming is not now, and never has been, shared by “large numbers of scientists, many very prominent.”

The number of these “heretics” is growing, and “the reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.” The chief among these “stubborn scientific facts” is that the global warming scare was bunk from the beginning, promoted by high priests of the great god Science, not actual scientists in pursuit of secular knowledge. (Think Al Gore.)

“Why is there so much passion about global warming,” these 16 eminent scientists asked, “and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society … refused the seemingly reasonable request by so many of its members to remove the word ‘incontrovertible’ from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question of ‘cui bono?’ Or the modern update, ‘follow the money.’ “

The rising temperatures which led some researchers to panic, like frightened teenage girls fretting over prom dates, actually began to subside when sunspot activity began to subside. According to this new research, sunspot numbers are less than half of those recorded during the cycle peaks when scientific hysteria was at its wildest at the end of the 20th century. The sun is moving now toward a “grand minimum” of sunspot activity, which would threaten cooler summers, colder winters and shorter growing seasons. It’s all part of the natural cycle of something the rest of us call “nature.”

Sunspots appear to be the villains. Since the sun is beyond the control of scientists, this makes their hair hurt and teeth itch. Scientists at the Met Office, which concedes that global warming has subsided, nevertheless argue still that the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide (or cow-made, since bovine flatulence has been cited as contributing to climate change). “Our findings,” says the Met Office, “suggest [that] a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.”

This frustrates cooler heads in the Church of Science. Says Henrik Svensmark, director of Denmark’s sun-climate research: “It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.”

The Met Office, like most of the global-warmist strongholds, relies on computer models for emanations of the penumbras of doom. These models did not foresee the pause in global warming, but the Met insists the models are still valid. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, regarded as one of the most eminent American climate scholars, finds the prediction of a “negligible” impact of sunspot activity on climate difficult to understand.

“The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,” she told the Mail. She thinks it more likely that the rising and falling of the temperature of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans have more influence on climate than man-made carbon dioxide.

“If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015,” says Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, “it will start to become clear that the models are bunk.” Heavy-breathing humans and flatulent cows will be off the hook, and a lot of scam artists will be pushed away from the public trough and on the street looking for work.

[brian_n_phuong 193]

Global warming: Been there, done that. Forward-looking folks are adjusting their fretting machinery now to something called Cycle 25. Button up your overcoats. Ice is on the way.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Link-less article, but HUGE tee-hee to The Global Warming Policy Foundation! That is like 'proving' concealed carry lowers crime rates by quoting 'More guns, less crime.'

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

signed by 16 eminent scientists, including both physicists and other climate researchers,...

Physicists are climate researchers. Interesting. I thought they were physicists. But what do I know?

[slim 1,525]

I saw a little cartoon yesterday that said something to the effect of "what's more probable... the little non-profits and do-gooders are using their donations and limited budgets to convince 90% of the world's scientists that climate change is real or that oil companies are using their insane profits to lobby anyone who will listen for the protection of those profits?"

To a skeptic (which any self-respecting tinfoil-hatter such as myself would be considered) it makes perfect sense that altruistic scientists and volunteers would be all for saving the planet. However, part of being a skeptic also requires me to recognize the fact that those "greeneries" have just as many - if not more - big companies with big lobbyists working on their side.

And then I'm left with that simple question again. "What's more probable?" Only this time it's not about lobbyists... it's about the possibility that our global weather patterns have been influenced by man.

Edited February 16, 2012 by slim

[luckytxn 2,264]

I saw a little cartoon yesterday that said something to the effect of "what's more probable... the little non-profits and do-gooders are using their donations and limited budgets to convince 90% of the world's scientists that climate change is real or that oil companies are using their insane profits to lobby anyone who will listen for the protection of those profits?"

To a skeptic (which any self-respecting tinfoil-hatter such as myself would be considered) it makes perfect sense that altruistic scientists and volunteers would be all for saving the planet. However, part of being a skeptic also requires me to recognize the fact that those "greeneries" have just as many - if not more - big companies with big lobbyists working on their side.

And then I'm left with that simple question again. "What's more probable?" Only this time it's not about lobbyists... it's about the possibility that our global weather patterns have been influenced by man.

OMG. They got you.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

But cooling is also warming, and his film came out just in time to warn us of the increasing number and power of hurricanes and internatioanl committees were able to have MEETINGS in time to prevent any further severe hurricanes since then. Thank you AlGore

And the glacier melting, I am still scared. The said that 50,000,000,000 tons would melt by this time and, true, they were off by 50,000,000,000 tons but if you really analyze it they were only off by the "5" which is actually another "0" but still, only ONE DIGIT off is pretty scary. So I gess they are correct whenthey say that they were only a little off and we should still be scared and send money. They need to find someplace where at least one ton of ice has melted and that costs big bucks!

I wonder if we will see an AlGore sequel to "Inconvenient Truth" it would be kind of weird for a film to get an Oscar, AlGore to get a Nobel Prize and NOT have a follow on film. Pretty weird, huh? I mean even "Transformers" is up to three films now and that is also just a CGI film like Inconvenient Truth.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I saw a little cartoon yesterday that said something to the effect of "what's more probable... the little non-profits and do-gooders are using their donations and limited budgets to convince 90% of the world's scientists that climate change is real or that oil companies are using their insane profits to lobby anyone who will listen for the protection of those profits?"

To a skeptic (which any self-respecting tinfoil-hatter such as myself would be considered) it makes perfect sense that altruistic scientists and volunteers would be all for saving the planet. However, part of being a skeptic also requires me to recognize the fact that those "greeneries" have just as many - if not more - big companies with big lobbyists working on their side.

And then I'm left with that simple question again. "What's more probable?" Only this time it's not about lobbyists... it's about the possibility that our global weather patterns have been influenced by man.

Or that the small non-profits and scientists are looking for way to get rich without producing anything or by selling "nothing" like carbon credits and take money from people who earned it by producing something people want to buy and give it to people who do nothing.

That never happens, does it?

Physicists are climate researchers. Interesting. I thought they were physicists. But what do I know?

Our son is a physicist. Physicists are very well educated in statistics, among other things.

[웃 910]

The saddest part about you guys that think you are smarter than professional scientists with more knowledge in .00001% of their brains than all of your brains put together is.....nm....not going to finish that thought.

Our son is a physicist. Physicists are very well educated in statistics, among other things.

And let me guess, dad has convinced him that it is a big conspiracy and hoax.

Edited February 16, 2012 by ☠

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The saddest part about you guys that think you are smarter than professional scientists with more knowledge in .00001% of their brains than all of your brains put together is.....nm....not going to finish that thought.

And let me guess, dad has convinced him that it is a big conspiracy and hoax.

It's already been proven to be a big conspiracy/hoax here in recent weeks.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/351316-more-on-the-himalayas-they-are-not-contributing-to-sea-level-rise/page__view__findpost__p__5149116__fromsearch__1

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/351167-climate-change-be-damned-scientists-stunned-that-himalayas-have-lost-no-ice-in-10-years/page__view__findpost__p__5146988__fromsearch__1

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Our son is a physicist. Physicists are very well educated in statistics, among other things.

Yes, so?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's already been proven to be a big conspiracy/hoax here in recent weeks.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/351316-more-on-the-himalayas-they-are-not-contributing-to-sea-level-rise/page__view__findpost__p__5149116__fromsearch__1

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/351167-climate-change-be-damned-scientists-stunned-that-himalayas-have-lost-no-ice-in-10-years/page__view__findpost__p__5146988__fromsearch__1

proven

There's a significant difference between proving something and convincing yourself of something. The two links there may well have achieved the latter for you (which they didn't need to in the first place) but they certainly don't even come close to proving any such thing.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

And let me guess, dad has convinced him that it is a big conspiracy and hoax.

why would I need to do that? He does not get money for lying about it.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Yes, so?

so it answers the question, which was asked, as to why a physicist may have an opinion or sign a petition on the subject of global warming. They recognize flawed data right away.

why do you suppose no major hurricanes have hit the US since AlGore said they would?

Edited February 16, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[Obama 2012 1,714]

proven

There's a significant difference between proving something and convincing yourself of something. The two links there may well have achieved the latter for you (which they didn't need to in the first place) but they certainly don't even come close to proving any such thing.

I see, how silly of me.

How dare i get confused on the fact that scientists claim one thing tooth and nail and then get proven wrong when they actually step out of the lab to verify it. Then go on to extend themselves on that by saying they don't really have a way to actually accurately measure glaciers, etc. like they've been saying for years.

Damn, I guess admitting being wrong is not the same as proving it wrong. Doh.