[ETWolverine]

Say it ain't so...

But it is.

Scientists pull an about face on global warming


By Lorne Gunter, For The Calgary Herald September 19, 2009



Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn't marry. That might generate the odd headline, no?

Or if Don Cherry claimed suddenly to like European hockey players who wear visors and float around the ice, never bodychecking opponents.
Or Jack Layton insisted that unions are ruining the economy by distorting wages and protecting unproductive workers.

Or Stephen Harper began arguing that it makes good economic sense for Ottawa to own a car company. (Oh, wait, that one happened.) But at least, the Tories-buy-GM aberration made all the papers and newscasts.
When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it's usually newsworthy.

So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute not given more prominence?

Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference--an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change --Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.

But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years.

"How much?" he wondered before the assembled delegates. "The jury is still out."

But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100.

While they deny it now, the facts to the contrary are staring them in the face: None of the alarmist drummers ever predicted anything like a 30-year pause in their apocalyptic scenario.

Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020 or 2030.

In the past year, two other groups of scientists--one in Germany, the second in the United States--have come to the same conclusion: Warming is on hold, likely because of a cooling of the Earth's upper oceans, but it will resume.

But how is that knowable? How can Latif and the others state with certainty that after this long and unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating will resume? They failed to observe the current cooling for years after it had begun, how then can their predictions for the resumption of dangerous warming be trusted?

My point is they cannot. It's true the supercomputer models Latif and other modellers rely on for their dire predictions are becoming more accurate. But getting the future correct is far trickier. Chances are some unforeseen future changes will throw the current predictions out of whack long before the forecast resumption of warming.

Lorne Gunter is a columnist with the Edmonton Journal and National Post.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

So... when does something become a consensus opinion? How many scientists make a "consensus opinion"?

When do we say that the science is undeniable and can no longer be debated? And what if the guys who said it begin debating with their original science that is "undeniable"? Is it then open for debate again?

Because at this point we have THREE scientific groups, including contributors to the IPCC report, who are all saying that we are going through GLOBAL COOLING not global warming.

When can we consider the IPCC report to have been in error?

And if these guys keep getting it wrong time and again when they make claims about global cooling, why are we still even listening to them on the subject?

[speechlesstx]

Gee, it took them long enough. Doesn't this put a damper on Obama's UN speech today? Doubtful, the "consensus opinion" will remain political, not scientific.

[ETWolverine]

I haven't seen Algore in a while...

I wonder if he's having one of his Goregasms over this. After all, if global warming turns out to have been in error, he stands to lose a pretty penny in public appearance and speaking engagement money and residuals from his flop of a documentary. Not to mention all those carbon credits he paid a pretty penny for that will suddenly become worthless.

Elliot

[twinkiedooter]

Gee considering this has been one of the coolest summers Ohio has ever had it would not surprise me that the earth is cooling and not warming. Guess the politicians made enough money out of the warming racket and now they're going to go after the cooling racket instead. So what else is new?

[speechlesstx]

Back to another ice age?

[paraclete]

Back to another ice age?

Thirty years ago they were predicting an ice age, twenty years ago they began predicting warming it all comes from examining statistics on a short term time scale. If you examine ice core samples spanning geological time scales what you find is "short" periods of high temperature followed by long periods of low temperature so the probability is that the scientists predicting warming from carbon dioxide are wrong

here are two pieces of recent analysis that show the conundrum if you focus on locally gathered data.

A 30,000-year Record Of Sea Surface Temperatures Off South Australia

Greenland Ice Core Analysis Shows Drastic Climate Change Near End Of Last Ice Age

So it seems possible we can see cooling in north America and warming elsewhere even all the scenarios might even operate at the same time but remember we are talking short term

[tomder55]

The nanny statist speaks .

Speaking about climate change /global warming /cooling /warming /cooling /warming
/cooling /warming /cooling /... etc Energy Czar Steven Chu (or is he a Secretary ? Hard to tell them apart) said at a Washington conference
"The American public . . . just like your teenage kids, aren't acting in a way that they should act,"..... "The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is."

Evidently they really believe this.

The EPA is in full court press in alliance with the the Parent Teacher Organization on a 6000 school blitz to teach students about climate change and energy efficiency.
09/17/2009: EPA Launches Fall Tour to Help Americans Fight Climate Change and Save Money
If the parents are acting like a bunch a teenagers perhaps the teanagers ,indoctrinated sufficiently enough ,will be the adults.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson basically said the whole thing will be painless .

My response is Chu has no clue... and neither does Jackson My guess is that painless is a relative term. The Treasury Dept in a Friday afternoon news dump released a report that admits that Waxman-Markey will cost $300 billion annually .
Breaking News: Treasury Admits Global Warming Cap-and-Trade Costs Could Hit $300 Billion Annually | CEI


Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
(C.S. Lewis)

[inthebox]

I wonder if China and India are going to give Obama a "cool" reception over global warming ;)


G&P

[speechlesstx]

My response is Chu has no clue....

Yep, Chu has no clue. He didn't know oil had something to do with the Energy Dept, which failed its own energy savings audit and which is on a 6000 school propaganda tour.

[ETWolverine]

Wait a minute, everyone. Don't worry. The Anointed One, the Great Messiah himself has spoken. We're saved!! According to a speech he gave yesterday, the use of fossil fuels in the USA over the past 8 months is the lowest it's been in decades... and it's all due to HIS policies.

Never mind that we're in a recession, wherein fewer goods are being produced and less fuel is therefore being used by industry. It's all HIS doing.

Well, yeah, if you consider the fact that the recession is proceeding longer than it should have is due to his policies, then yes, it is all his doing.

Elliot

[excon]

Hello Elliot:

I don't know whether throwing trash into the air causes warming, cooling or monkeys to rain down upon you. But I DO know it can't be good. You?? I think you think we should continue to do it. It's good for business, you know.

Wouldn't that kind of be like a death panel? You know, YOUR side deciding that we should die because YOUR side thinks poisoning our only atmosphere is just fine and dandy? I think it IS. Yup, you got DEATH PANELS going on.

excon

[tomder55]

Pertinent to the situation in California where the spiggot was shut off from the farmers was Chu's comments that he was looking at a day when agriculture in California dies.
http://tag.admeld.com/ad/iframe/51/reutersus/728x90/ros?t=1253714841189&url=http%3A//www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE5135OY20090205

The most quick way to ensure that self fulfilling prophesy would be to cut them off from their water supply .

[ETWolverine]

Hello Elliot:

I dunno whether throwing trash into the air causes warming, cooling or monkeys to rain down upon you. But I DO know it can't be good. You??? I think you think we should continue to do it. It's good for business, you know.

Wouldn't that kinda be like a death panel?? You know, YOUR side deciding that we should die because YOUR side thinks poisoning our only atmosphere is just fine and dandy?? I think it IS. Yup, you got DEATH PANELS going on.

excon

I'm glad you posted this.

You see, there's about as much proof for global warming and global cooling as there is for monkeys raining down on us.

I haven't seen any monkeys.

I haven't seen any global warming or global cooling either.

And I have absolutely NO IDEA what "throwing garbage" into the air has.

Neither do you. Any claim to the contrary is just a guess.

I do know that CARBON, which has been named a pollutant, is one of the more beneficial and necessary elements for life.

I do know that METHANE, which has been named a pollutant, is one of the more beneficial and necessary elements for life.

And I know that calling things that are necessary and beneficial to life "pollutants" is a dumb thing to do. And ACTIVELY trying to eliminate those things is downright suicidal.

NONE of that precludes the idea of being as clean as possible when producing new goods or just going about our lives. But the argument that not doing so is going to destroy the world is ridiculous. And THAT is the point.

Elliot

[excon]

And I know that calling things that are necessary and beneficial to life "pollutants" is a dumb thing to do. And ACTIVELY trying to eliminate those things is downright suicidal.

Hello again, El:

Of course, someone who thinks that "pollutants", don't "pollute", but instead are "beneficial to life", would believe that eliminating them would be suicide...

Fortunately for the world, only the tin hat crowd is drinking THAT koolaid. I'm glad you posted too.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Excon,

Do you seriously think that methane and carbon are pollutants?

No wonder you are stuck on global warming. You've fallen for their schtick.

Not surprising... most people with a public-school science education think the same thing as you do. But I thought you knew better. My mistake...

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Get this, in the UK you could get your pay docked if you exceed your carbon ration...

Launch of first UK employee carbon ration scheme
Source: Envido
Sep. 16, 2009

The UK’s first employee carbon ration scheme to reduce individual carbon emissions is launched, reports Envido.

WSP has launched the UK’s first employee carbon rationing scheme that is aimed to monitor employees’ personal carbon emissions, including home energy bills, petrol purchases and holiday flights. People who emit more than their ration of carbon emissions are having their pay docked in a trial that could lead to carbon emission rationing schemes being reintroduced via the workplace.

After the trial demonstrated the effectiveness of fining people for exceeding their personal carbon emissions target, employees are required to submit quarterly carbon emission reports detailing their carbon consumption. Workers who take a long-haul flight are likely to be fined for exceeding their annual carbon ration scheme unless they take drastic action in other areas, such as switching off the central heating or cutting out almost all car journeys.

Those who exceed their carbon ration scheme pay a fine for every kilogram of carbon they emit over the limit. The money is deducted from their pay and the level of the fine is printed on payslips. Those who consume less than their carbon ration scheme are rewarded at the same rate per kilogram. The maximum that an employee can earn or be fined has been capped at £100, but is likely to rise once staff has grown accustomed to the idea.

The idea of personal quotas for carbon emissions through carbon ration schemes is being advocated by the Institute for Public Policy Research. Employees would be given a number of free “carbon credits”, to buy gas and electricity for their homes, fuel for cars and plane tickets for holidays. Those who did not use all their carbon credits could sell the excess to those who exceeded their carbon emission quota.

In UK the carbon ration schemes target of this year is 5.5 tonnes of carbon, which is one tonne above the national average for home energy and personal transport. The US carbon ration schemes target is likely to be double the UK target, to reflect greater carbon emissions per person.

You have got to be kidding me.

[inthebox]

Hello again, El:

Of course, someone who thinks that "pollutants", don't "pollute", but instead are "beneficial to life", would believe that eliminating them would be suicide....

Fortunately for the world, only the tin hat crowd is drinkin THAT koolaid. I'm glad you posted too.

excon

Photosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know how CO2, required for photosynthesis, is a "pollutant." Please explain EX.



G&P

[excon]

I don't know how CO2, required for photosynthesis, is a "pollutant." Please explain EX.

Hello in:

CO2 is like water. In small amounts it's good. But, too much of it, we drown.

Too much CO2 will cause the oceans to rise a few feet thereby killing about a jillion people and pissing off a whole lot more. Tropical birds'll like it, though.

excon

[ETWolverine]

How, pray tell, does CO2 cause oceans to rise, oh great font of wisdom that is Excon?

And if this process DOES occur, will it occur so quickly that it will cause a tsunami that will kill "about a jillion people" like in the really bad disaster movies? Or is it more likely to happen slowly over several decades, giving people time to move to other places that are safer, dryer, and generally more comfortable?

"Too much" CO2 causes more plants (mostly sea algae) to grow and photosynthesis to increase, which then converts the CO2 into oxygen, thus maintaining the equilibrium of the planet. There is no such thing as "too much CO2".

Or do you think that there's such a thing as too much O2 and too many plants too?

>snicker<

Elliot

[excon]

How, pray tell, does CO2 cause oceans to rise, oh great font of wisdom that is Excon?

Hello again, El:

It's like this. We liberals have a secret book. It tells us that perfection could not happen all by itself. It says that perfection needs an exconvict to have deigned it to be so... and then it is. Guess what?

excon

PS> I heard you guys got a similar book...

PPS> So, what do you have against NY City? Wouldn't you rather STOP the oceans from rising instead of having to move NY CITY? Dude!