Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,509
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Toothache
    Newest Member
    Toothache
    Joined

Wait a minute....Golbal warming has ended. At least for the past 15 years.

Hambone

By Hambone,
in Climate Change

Recommended Posts

iceicebyebye

iceicebyebye

Posted
Posted

Fair enough. Though as you are probably aware, the cold spell that has hit the UK has affected far more than one city on a given day...it has been one of the greatest early season cold waves on record, and it is looking like this December could be the coldest in a long time. Not that any of this refutes climate change...but it certainly flies in the face of those who were saying the mild period from 1997-2007 was due to global warming and Britain would rarely see snow in the future.

This lesson can in turn be applied to the hype over the Arctic...as it becomes more clear that natural processes play a huge role in climate cycles for given regions, perhaps one should consider this when looking at climate changes in the Arctic.

didn't realize the arctic temp anomalies and declining sea ice were hype. Thanks for the heads up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hambone

Hambone

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The raging capitalists in the banking industry, assisted by the deregulating, government-so-small-it-can-only-fit-in-the-bedroom, all-taxes-are-evil, Republican governing coalition of the last 30 years have already accomplished this.

How's the current wealth redistributor working out for us Karl Marx? Here's a hint, he just stated that his "compromise" on maintaining tax rate reductions will "probably result in a quicker recovery and greater job growth for our economy".

I don't know you, I assume (always dangerous) that you're young and a product of our liberal education system. For educational purposes only, Winston Churchill made a great observation that remains true today..."Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kevin Druff

Kevin Druff

Posted
Posted

How's the current wealth redistributor working out for us Karl Marx? Here's a hint, he just stated that his "compromise" on maintaining tax rate reductions will "probably result in a quicker recovery and greater job growth for our economy".

I don't know you, I assume (always dangerous) that you're young and a product of our liberal education system. For educational purposes only, Winston Churchill made a great observation that remains true today..."Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."

I'm not as young as I wish I were, but, I'd be willing to wager I'm what you consider young. Guilty as charged on the second count. And, I am quite familiar with Winston Churchill's quotation, thank you. I have studied extensively western history.

The current wealth redistribution is not working out very well for most, I'm sure you would agree. However, what most fail to realize is that the wealth is not being redistributed by Democrats, from the hard-working, salt-of-the-earth folk in the middle of this country to the effete, Harvard educated, French speaking, Volvo driving, liberals of the east and west coast.

The wealth is being redistributed from those of all stripes on the bottom of the ladder to those of all political persuasions on the top of the ladder. This is being accomplished through tax policy where taxation rates for the wealthiest are at their lowest levels since passage of the 17th Amendment. This is being accomplished through the printing of money by the Federal Reserve leading to asset inflation in the markets while wages continue to deflate in the face of increased globalization. It is being accomplished through deregulation of banks and other entities allowing them to push paper around and call it "value creation" in an effort to charge more and higher fees.

I feel for those who fail to see that the political future of this country is not the tired and angry left-right divide that has split this country since the Vietnam war and the cultural shocks of the 1960s. The future of politics in this country is the divide between those who have and those who do not. The future divide in this country is between the corporations on one side and the workers and small businesses on the other.

A Marxist I am not. A Rawlsian (look it up, you'll learn something) liberal? Perhaps.

I prefer to think of myself as a pragmatist who wants nothing more than to see our country regain its standing as a city upon the hill. We don't shine that light anymore as we can't stand atop the hill. We can't stand because the backbone of our country disintegrated as jobs moved overseas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tacoman25

tacoman25

Posted
Posted

didn't realize the arctic temp anomalies and declining sea ice were hype. Thanks for the heads up.

You haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth? Or the projections a few years ago of an "ice-free" summertime Arctic by 2013?

My point: it may be worthwhile to consider the variability and natural cycles of regions before assigning it all to AGW and buying the doomsday scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
iceicebyebye

iceicebyebye

Posted
Posted

Cheers to Monboit and The Guardian for taking out the rubbish publised in the Mail on Sunday

Rose Debunked

A good read for sure, and a few gems sure to excite the status quo crew:

Rose:

"Climate science orthodoxy, as promulgated by bodies such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on
(IPCC) and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), says that temperatures have risen and will continue to rise in step with increasing CO
2
in the atmosphere"

I challenge Rose to find a single occasion on which these bodies have said that temperatures will rise "in step" with CO
2
. As Professor Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research tells me: "One should not be misled by seizing on an individual value or year and citing trends for that, because natural variability such as from El Niño creates ups and downs all the time."

Does Rose expect warming to proceed along a straight line?

Rose:

"Actually, with the exception of 1998 – a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong El Niño effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) – the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for 10, but for the past 15 years."

All the datasets, including the Met Office/CRU figures show that the current decade is the warmest in the instrumental record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BethesdaWX

BethesdaWX

Posted
Posted

Cheers to Monboit and The Guardian for taking out the rubbish publised in the Mail on Sunday

Rose Debunked

A good read for sure, and a few gems sure to excite the status quo crew:

Rose:

"Climate science orthodoxy, as promulgated by bodies such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on
(IPCC) and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), says that temperatures have risen and will continue to rise in step with increasing CO
2
in the atmosphere"

I challenge Rose to find a single occasion on which these bodies have said that temperatures will rise "in step" with CO
2
. As Professor Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research tells me: "One should not be misled by seizing on an individual value or year and citing trends for that, because natural variability such as from El Niño creates ups and downs all the time."

Does Rose expect warming to proceed along a straight line?

Rose:

"Actually, with the exception of 1998 – a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong El Niño effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) – the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for 10, but for the past 15 years."

All the datasets, including the Met Office/CRU figures show that the current decade is the warmest in the instrumental record.

Your Old Username dude?......

Either way,

So what? I can argue an alternative to this, not to mention taking things out of context with Faulty Science is the whole basis of the hit & run methods by the AGWers.

How do you know what ke meant by "step by step"? In the means, not only do IPCC maps adjust to get the relation, but is he talking iin a decadal scale, multi century scale, Millenia? 100% out of context.

After nonsensical adjustements, extrapolations, & "fill in the gap" methods, of course we're warmest this decade. That doesn't dispute the Flatlining we've seen, soon to be cooling. That doesn't dispute the fact that the Warming is Largly Naturally caused.

Human WP emitted in all total GHG emissions in relation to the atmosphere is only 0.28% of the GHG effect. We simply cannot control the climate. Its doing its own thing, and theres nothing we can do about it.

Warmists are loosing the battle for a reason.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tacoman25

tacoman25

Posted
Posted

Cheers to Monboit and The Guardian for taking out the rubbish publised in the Mail on Sunday

Rose Debunked

A good read for sure, and a few gems sure to excite the status quo crew:

Rose:

"Climate science orthodoxy, as promulgated by bodies such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on
(IPCC) and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), says that temperatures have risen and will continue to rise in step with increasing CO
2
in the atmosphere"

I challenge Rose to find a single occasion on which these bodies have said that temperatures will rise "in step" with CO
2
. As Professor Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research tells me: "One should not be misled by seizing on an individual value or year and citing trends for that, because natural variability such as from El Niño creates ups and downs all the time."

Does Rose expect warming to proceed along a straight line?

Rose:

"Actually, with the exception of 1998 – a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong El Niño effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) – the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for 10, but for the past 15 years."

All the datasets, including the Met Office/CRU figures show that the current decade is the warmest in the instrumental record.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the 2000s weren't warmer than the 1990s. But when the cooling effects of Pinatubo are factored in, the 2000s were only .1C warmer than the 1990s...easily below the .15C-.25C of warming/decade that should occur according to the IPCC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skierinvermont

skierinvermont

Posted
Posted

I don't think anyone is arguing that the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s. But when the cooling effects of Pinatubo are factored in, the 2000s were only .1C warmer than the 1990s...easily below the .15C-.25C of warming/decade that should occur according to the IPCC.

Bingo.. that's why the 90s vs 2000s comparisons drive me crazy. There's other ways of doing trends but they pick that one because it shows the most warming because they get to include cold years from the early 90s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...