Al Gore... I want my money back!

[Doc Savage Fan]

Good. That quote was from an NPR interview. Here's what he right before:

Dr. LATIF: Yes. It is misused. I must say this, unfortunately, because these changes we are talking about, these short-term changes, you know, their amplitudes are much smaller than the long-term warming trends. So we are talking about a hold, okay, in the last 10 years. We are not talking about a net cooling to, say, (unintelligible) temperatures, (unintelligible), you know, which we observed 100 years ago or so. Okay, and also what we predicted for the future is basically that this hold may continue for another 10 years or so, okay, but we did not predict a cooling. We basically said that we would stay for some more years on this plateau.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120668812&ft=1&f=1007

That's odd...his paper published in Nature predicts "cooling".
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html
"North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

You might want to google this one too.
"Our work does not allow one to make any inferences about global warming.” - Dr. Latif

 

[GoPackGo]

That's odd...his paper published in Nature predicts "cooling".
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html
"North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

You might want to google this one too.
"Our work does not allow one to make any inferences about global warming.” - Dr. Latif

That is called talking out of both sides of your A$$!!

My BS Detector is off the charts..the scale is broken

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't know whats going on with weather. But I do know what I see with my own eyes . Sunday morning I was out in shop hooking up my browser to internet.

I looked outside and the sky was full of Chemtrails 3or 4 jets . Well I got excited ran(You should see my run LOL) in house woke up wife . Said look at those . She looked and said so what there jet exhaust I said really lets watch them . After an hour she says this is gooffy Jet exhaust don't do that . It was spreading out. In 2 yours a blue sky was turned gray . Thats what I know to be a fact. I watched it. I seen on Utube . This time I seen in real life,

Chemtrails? I think you mean "Contrails (short for "condensation trails") or vapour trails are basically artificial clouds, visible trails of condensed water vapour, made by the exhaust of aircraft engines." Am I missing something here?

 

[Blackjack200]

That's odd...his paper published in Nature predicts "cooling".
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html
"North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

That's exactly what he told NPR. North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures =/= global cooling.

 

[Blackjack200]

My BS Detector is off the charts..the scale is broken

Maybe you need to go on a diet.

 

[sandorski]

Oy vey. Again with the grasping at One dissenting voice(albeit being completely misrepresented...again)as Scientific Fact and completely ignoring the mountains of contrary Data. It is clear who the "Religious" and Agenda Driven ones are here.

Next week the same ones will be claiming something completely different and contradictory is involved.

 

[rudder]

Great world we live in.

Non-scientists figure out climate change is a myth.

Welcome to the information age.

What does it take to qualify one as a scientist? The linked article is not an opinion piece.

Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.

 

[Cstefan]

Temerature studies for the last 1000 years

You think this disproves global warming? There will always be natural warming and cooling cycles but most temperature studies agree that global temps have gone sharply upwards since the industrial age.

My link shows some pretty cool and quite patterned ups and downs. Now if only we could find some truely unaltered data to cross check both graphs....

http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

 

[GoPackGo]

Oy vey. Again with the grasping at One dissenting voice(albeit being completely misrepresented...again)as Scientific Fact and completely ignoring the mountains of contrary Data. It is clear who the "Religious" and Agenda Driven ones are here.

Next week the same ones will be claiming something completely different and contradictory is involved.

Where is the and what data you can trust as raw and unedited and unmanipulated?

It's GONE

 

[sandorski]

Where is the and what data you can trust as raw and unedited and unmanipulated?

It's GONE

Fail

 

[StageLeft]

Only those convinced by their gut that it's a scam in the first place. I hope you guys are correct, since we're not going to get anything done about it.

20 years from now, I hope there isn't mass starvation and endless wars over food and arable land. That's a bleak future to leave to your children.

Here is how I see it:

1. We do something about climate change, whatever we feel we can do, which will lead to increased energy prices. Upside - we could slow the warming caused by fossil fuels. Downside - higher prices.

2. We do nothing. Upside- we postpone any price increases. Downside - possible extinction of the human race.

The possible ramifications of doing nothing far outweigh making it more expensive to sustain our standard of living.

I would say for those of us who don't believe in a magical fairy land once we die the stakes rise considerably.

I find this post very strange. On the one hand you clearly hold in poor regard those who believe in some afterlife/heaven kind of concept and presumably the effort they do to try and secure a position in it and yet seem willing to put in an effort to prevent what also may be fantasy. In any case, the 20 year time frame is certainly fantasy. Certainly you can't believe that we're looking at near term end of humanity and yet haven't quite gone far enough that we cannot reverse it with some reasonable efforts. If we're that close to far gone there is nothing we can do. Or at least will do as there will never be agreement on what to do.

In non spiritual matters everything is ideally a measured risk. Your argument could equally be used to fund a worldwide $10Trillion/year effort in creating an anti-meteroid shield for the earth in case it's hit by some stray rocks.

What we have here, as always, is climate scientists modifying their predictions. Again, as they always have and always will do, for despite unbelievable arrogance they still don't have a clue how the world actually works, what is causing climate issues on a huge scale, what the climate will be like, and how it's going to affect us. They get an A+ for consistency, though, always dooming and glooming. You never hear about the positives of global warming. Ever, like it's an evil cancer and the world is better if colder.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Chemtrails? I think you mean "Contrails (short for "condensation trails") or vapour trails are basically artificial clouds, visible trails of condensed water vapour, made by the exhaust of aircraft engines." Am I missing something here?

Yes you are . Because thats what my wife said until they didn't do what they have done for the last 50years she has observed them . Instead of dissipating they spread out . Hence the use of word Chemtrails. I have seen contrails my whole life these were not contrails.

 

[Robor]

Yes you are . Because thats what my wife said until they didn't do what they have done for the last 50years she has observed them . Instead of dissipating they spread out . Hence the use of word Chemtrails. I have seen contrails my whole life these were not contrails.

Ok, I'll bite. What were they?

 

[Hacp]

Oy vey. Again with the grasping at One dissenting voice(albeit being completely misrepresented...again)as Scientific Fact and completely ignoring the mountains of contrary Data. It is clear who the "Religious" and Agenda Driven ones are here.

Next week the same ones will be claiming something completely different and contradictory is involved.

You mean the data that scientists grafted onto the charts?

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

I find this post very strange. On the one hand you clearly hold in poor regard those who believe in some afterlife/heaven kind of concept and presumably the effort they do to try and secure a position in it and yet seem willing to put in an effort to prevent what also may be fantasy. In any case, the 20 year time frame is certainly fantasy. Certainly you can't believe that we're looking at near term end of humanity and yet haven't quite gone far enough that we cannot reverse it with some reasonable efforts. If we're that close to far gone there is nothing we can do. Or at least will do as there will never be agreement on what to do.

In non spiritual matters everything is ideally a measured risk. Your argument could equally be used to fund a worldwide $10Trillion/year effort in creating an anti-meteroid shield for the earth in case it's hit by some stray rocks.

What we have here, as always, is climate scientists modifying their predictions. Again, as they always have and always will do, for despite unbelievable arrogance they still don't have a clue how the world actually works, what is causing climate issues on a huge scale, what the climate will be like, and how it's going to affect us. They get an A+ for consistency, though, always dooming and glooming. You never hear about the positives of global warming. Ever, like it's an evil cancer and the world is better if colder.

Excellent, well-written post. :thumbsup:

 

[GoPackGo]

The global warming "scientists" remind me of the wizard in the Wizard of Oz...pay no attention to the real weather or the missing raw data!!!!

 

[Blackjack200]

I find this post very strange. On the one hand you clearly hold in poor regard those who believe in some afterlife/heaven kind of concept and presumably the effort they do to try and secure a position in it and yet seem willing to put in an effort to prevent what also may be fantasy. In any case, the 20 year time frame is certainly fantasy. Certainly you can't believe that we're looking at near term end of humanity and yet haven't quite gone far enough that we cannot reverse it with some reasonable efforts. If we're that close to far gone there is nothing we can do. Or at least will do as there will never be agreement on what to do.

In non spiritual matters everything is ideally a measured risk. Your argument could equally be used to fund a worldwide $10Trillion/year effort in creating an anti-meteroid shield for the earth in case it's hit by some stray rocks.

What we have here, as always, is climate scientists modifying their predictions. Again, as they always have and always will do, for despite unbelievable arrogance they still don't have a clue how the world actually works, what is causing climate issues on a huge scale, what the climate will be like, and how it's going to affect us. They get an A+ for consistency, though, always dooming and glooming. You never hear about the positives of global warming. Ever, like it's an evil cancer and the world is better if colder.

You don't hear because you are not listening. Scientists, despite your cynical assumptions, are interested in learning new things. There are potential positives of global warming. Until recently the scientific community thought that increased CO2 levels would result in increased foliage across the Nort American and European temperate zones, unfortunatly experiments (remember those?) have shown that at the CO2 levels we expect, trees and plants actually don't do so well. That was not the only anticipated benefit of global warming, there are others, but the overwelming scientific consensus is that the harm of substantial warming will far outweigh any benefits.

What we have here, as always, is climate scientists modifying their predictions.

Go ask up to a doctor and ask him what you're precise risk for heart disease is if you smoke. He can't tell you. He can tell you that you that it will substantially increase, but he just doesn't know enough about you other than your risk increases if you smoke.

Now, give him lots of other information about yourself - age, activity level, family history. Go back and see him week after week. The more he knows about you, the more accurately he can tell you what your risk for heart disease is. This is precisely the excersise that scientists are engaged in right now, they are learning about the earth and the climate. The facts about global warming do not change because they learn new things and refine their models.

 

[Blackjack200]

The global warming "scientists" remind me of the wizard in the Wizard of Oz...pay no attention to the real weather or the missing raw data!!!!

The global warming deniers remind me of creationists...pay no attention to the real climate or that we have no data!!!

 

[rudder]

:awe: This guy was being used as proof those against AGW are right. Now that he's come out and stated pretty much the exact opposite I wonder how many 'deniers' will dismiss him?

Do you care to update your OP, rudder?

Yes lets discount his own data and that of the other researchers in the article and go ahead and let obama sign the cap and trade bill into law. I won't mind the new electrical bills I will be getting to pay some 3rd world nation not to cut down some trees they were never going to cut down in the first place.

 

[Craig234]

Yes lets discount his own data and that of the other researchers in the article and go ahead and let obama sign the cap and trade bill into law. I won't mind the new electrical bills I will be getting to pay some 3rd world nation not to cut down some trees they were never going to cut down in the first place.

Lets see if you have a clue. How much rainforest is being lost? You can express your answer by day, month, year; you can say for the last yea, the last 10, or another time frame. You have no idea do you?

 

[Craig234]

The global warming "scientists" remind me of the wizard in the Wizard of Oz...pay no attention to the real weather or the missing raw data!!!!

One of our nation's biggest problem is about 25% of its citizens being idiots. You have no idea what the science is.

 

[Blackjack200]

Yes lets discount his own data and that of the other researchers in the article and go ahead and let obama sign the cap and trade bill into law. I won't mind the new electrical bills I will be getting to pay some 3rd world nation not to cut down some trees they were never going to cut down in the first place.

Translation: Now that my 'scientific' argument has been pulled out from under me like a rug, I'll kick and scream and cry about how I don't want to do anything.

We know.

 

[ayabe]

I find this post very strange. On the one hand you clearly hold in poor regard those who believe in some afterlife/heaven kind of concept and presumably the effort they do to try and secure a position in it and yet seem willing to put in an effort to prevent what also may be fantasy.

Nope.

My point is that what matters most is life here on Earth and the future environment we leave to future generations. To deny that there is some component of religion tied to some of the serial deniers is a complete fallacy, one of the most outspoken critics of MMGW, Inhofe constantly invokes the creator and our powerlessness to destroy what He/it has created. This isn't an isolated opinion in the anti crowd.

In any case, the 20 year time frame is certainly fantasy. Certainly you can't believe that we're looking at near term end of humanity and yet haven't quite gone far enough that we cannot reverse it with some reasonable efforts. If we're that close to far gone there is nothing we can do. Or at least will do as there will never be agreement on what to do.

In your opinion, which is ignoring larger issues with the food needs for the world population. Crop yields are not growing exponentially as they have for the past 50 years - in fact they've slowed to a trickle - and with a rising population + the possible loss of a significant portion of our current farm land could indeed lead to a food crises in the very near future.

In non spiritual matters everything is ideally a measured risk. Your argument could equally be used to fund a worldwide $10Trillion/year effort in creating an anti-meteroid shield for the earth in case it's hit by some stray rocks.

The possibility of that occurring in our lifetime is extremely small and is not a valid comparison whatsoever. Perhaps if we were building a gigantic asteriod in space knowing full well that it would come crashing down on our heads.

What we have here is a purposeful, well funded campaign against science and an attempt by those with an extremely limited understanding of the issue to draw conclusions to fit their agenda - protecting the status quo.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Ok, I'll bite. What were they?

I don't know that. What I do know is they were not contrails like I have ever seen

 

[Hacp]

Nope.

My point is that what matters most is life here on Earth and the future environment we leave to future generations. To deny that there is some component of religion tied to some of the serial deniers is a complete fallacy, one of the most outspoken critics of MMGW, Inhofe constantly invokes the creator and our powerlessness to destroy what He/it has created. This isn't an isolated opinion in the anti crowd.




In your opinion, which is ignoring larger issues with the food needs for the world population. Crop yields are not growing exponentially as they have for the past 50 years - in fact they've slowed to a trickle - and with a rising population + the possible loss of a significant portion of our current farm land could indeed lead to a food crises in the very near future.



The possibility of that occurring in our lifetime is extremely small and is not a valid comparison whatsoever. Perhaps if we were building a gigantic asteriod in space knowing full well that it would come crashing down on our heads.

What we have here is a purposeful, well funded campaign against science and an attempt by those with an extremely limited understanding of the issue to draw conclusions to fit their agenda - protecting the status quo.

AGW is not science. Its as much science as political science or economics. They build incomplete models and when the data doesn't fit the models, they graft the data to make it fit the models.

Plus, real scientists tend to provide raw data so others can confirm their calculations and reproduce their results. These climatologists hide or destroy raw data, then publish graphs with no guidance on how they achieved their results. They're sort of like that Hwang guy from Korea. He published "groundbreaking" papers on stem cells but didn't reveal his methods. Everyone believed him because he had a PH.D and because he was famous but it turned out he was a fraud. Not science.

Also, who's to say we can't engineer our way out of a potential mess if it turns out that some form of global warming does occur? There are some healthy proposals like sending a giant spacecraft mirror to block sunlight or shooting dust particles into the outer atmosphere to cool down the earth.