Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Global Warming: the Myth!

Posted 1 year ago on Oct. 14, 2012, 4:06 p.m. EST by howitworks (20) from Tucson, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Global Warming is a Myth!

http://billmoyers.com/segment/james-balog-on-capturing-our-disappearing-glaciers/

And even if you don't believe what you see or read in the Moyers interview with Blalog, the pictures are really cool. Ooops! Maybe I should say they're really hot, instead of dating myself like that.

Don't believe your eyes. It's not happening!!!

And if it is, it's a good thing. Never mind the fast spring runoff, floods and subsequent summer droughts.

129 Comments

129 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by howitworks (20) from Tucson, AZ 1 year ago

And even if you don't believe what you see or read the Moyers interview with Blalog, the pictures are really cool. Ooops! Maybe I should say they're really hot, instead of dating myself like that.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Good program Thx = http://billmoyers.com/segment/james-balog-on-capturing-our-disappearing-glaciers/

Good food for thought - if you can wrap your mind around the scale of what is being presented - couple of things to watch for and remember:

1) There will be a point in the program that will have a representation of the Empire State building on it - to help you see/understand the scale of the landscape you are viewing. In that view/representation - do not fail to extend the height of the Building from it's location on the left of the view - to the opposite ( right side ) of the view - now try to imagine the empty volume represented that used to be filled ( FILLED ) with ice and consider how long that ice had been there ( 100's? - NO - Thousands of years ) - Now google when those glaciers were 1st noted to start receding and the rate ( average ) they were noted to be receding at that point in time. Note when this receding began to increase. If you live in a climate with an actual 4 season's winter spring summer and fall. Do you recall what the arrival of spring was like(?) - the slowly lengthening days - the accompanying rise in temperatures - the piles of snow that had been built up by the seasons plowing - how long those piles of snow seemed to last before melting away - and that is just seasonal. Now try to compare that memory of local winter/spring experience with what you are being shown of a landscape that has been stuffed with solid ice for thousands of years - just quickly vanishing over the period of a couple of years.

2) Now take that same view with the imagined Empire State Building and insert the image of the photographer walking around at the base of the ice - picture a representation of the man standing next to the image of the Empire State Building. Has this exercise helped you capture for a moment - the immense scale of what you are being shown in the other pictures what your are being shown in this short program?

[-] 2 points by poindexter (8) 1 year ago

Seriously, it's sad. We almost had it made. Worldwide cap and trade with concurrent regulations would have put the world in our hands. There was a narrow window to get this done and we failed, whoever leaked the Climategate emails is directly responsible for the fact the movement wasn't able to get this over the finish line. Trillions in wealth transfer down the drain.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

That pesky truth getting in the way again dam it! Just can't have that can we?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Who are the leading scientists on global warming?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

""There has been no change in the scientific community, no change whatsoever," in the consensus that global average temperatures have been steadily climbing since the mid-20th century," said Jerry North, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.

The panel also included: Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academies of Science and chair of the National Research Council; Lord Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society in the U.K.; James J. McCarthy, chairman of the AAAS Board; Alexander Agassiz, professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University; and Philip Sharp; a Nobel laureate and professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."

Thank you.

[-] 0 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

Not this article. This same tabloid article was disproved yesterday.

Although on surface it looks "realistic" There are 2 named scientists, and an assertion that "more scientists" say science is complex..

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

that 97-98 percent of expert scientists (who've published 20 or more scientific peer reviewed climate studies) agree man-made forces contribute to a significant portion in the current rise of the earth's temperature.

and here is a footnote on the skeptical scientist http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/?pagewanted=print

[-] 1 points by howitworks (20) from Tucson, AZ 1 year ago

Don't believe your eyes. Better find an authority to tell you what you see!

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Dude, Im just asking an honest quesiton. And no, Im not really into taking pictures off the internet of anything as proof of anything, global warming or anything else.

[-] 2 points by howitworks (20) from Tucson, AZ 1 year ago

Do you not know the answer to your question? If you do, it's rhetorical. If not, follow the link to the Moyers interview of Blalog. Perhaps you'll find what your looking for. I provided pictures. If you want more, you do the research. When my kids asked me questions that they could access the answers to with a little work, I often told them to look it up. It taught them independence and to think for themselves. But I'm not your dad. I don't have to treat your importunities gently.

Don't know what importunity is. Look it up!

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I was trying to get to another point, which is that this is such a big issue, but the only name the people know is freaking Al Gore, who is a total hypocrite.

[-] 1 points by howitworks (20) from Tucson, AZ 1 year ago

So the question was rhetorical. What's so 'honest' about that?

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Whats so dishonest about it? Was trying to have an actual conversation on this, but fuck it.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Al Gore is a great visionary, & a good soldier for the 99%.

Watch Current TV. It Rocks.

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Al Gore is a sell out. Helped put us in this position with Clinton and the rest of that Congress.

His role in GIM is the worst thing he ever could have done to be a serious man of the people on global warming.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You have proven yourself to be an anti dem partisan so I'm not surprised you have this inaccurate, extremist opinion of the great work Al Gore has done.

'sok. Just one more thing we disagree on.

Peace. Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Im an anti-establishment. There is no such thing as an anti-dem partisan, thats a moronic saying that you made up some time ago.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"moronic"? Personally attacking me only reflects the weakness of your position.

You can't rely on on civil discourse and facts because your argumenst do not hold up to it.

You resort to the schoolyard bullying tactics of your candidate Romney cause you can't rely on truth and respectful debate.

I didn't make up the term anti dem partisan. it's been a part of the english language for longer than I've been alive.

But if you can't discuss issues in a civil way, just admit your failure, & please refrain from the insults.

Peace, Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The earth goes through a cycle of heating and cooling every 100,000 to 125,000 years. Going from ice ages with sea levels 400 feet lower and ice sheets over a mile thick to the present warming peak we are at now.

Global warming yes, but at a much slower rate than what the climate change proponents believe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg/800px-Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

I see this huge fight back and forth between the global warming group and the other side. What i don't understand is who cares if there is global warming or not? Oil is not an infinite resource...no matter how you slice and dice it. Eventually a resource that isn't infinite will have to be replaced. Why crap all over alternative energy, when, with a 100% certainty, will be the wave of the future. I get the fight over forcing stuff on the market....like trying to pump less efficient energy into an economy...that is always doomed to fail (solar). But exploring and actively researching (private) funds is the only way the human race will be able to continue living in the future. There is absolutely no way around it. So the global warming issue, isn't really an issue...if for instance the nay sayers are right and global warming isn't real....who cares...it doesn't change the need for alternative energy in the future.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Yes, I'm aware of the current research on this stuff....i went to school with a focus in engineering of green design. I'm very much on board with the problems we're facing.

My point is that even if you don't believe in global warming....it still doesn't negate the necessity of alternative energy.

[-] 0 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

this belongs on new tab for related issues.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/thrassmaque-is-correct/

Not that I disagree with the message, how is it directly linked to the 1 percent and the duopoly and globalization: that nobody is dealing with loss of glaciers and global warming, is caused by a duopoly that does not have the long term interest of the planet, but just wants to maintain power through next election cycle, or sell coal to China.

[-] 1 points by howitworks (20) from Tucson, AZ 1 year ago

It's all related to the Wall St Masters of the the Universe. Spin, lies, distraction and obfuscation in defense of profit are the problem. Those who try to hide the truth by narrowing the focus are part of the problem too.

[-] 0 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

So let's broaden it up a bit and title Post "Global Warming is Caused by Wall Street, and is Not a Myth " and the duopoly has no means to deal with one of the greatest issues of our time.

http://www.voterocky.org/climate_change

[-] 0 points by howitworks (20) from Tucson, AZ 1 year ago

We're all in this together but we have to defend against distraction and pretenders who try to undermine us with the rules they invent to inhibit the assualt on the rich enemies of humanity. You title your contributions to our common effort. Let's do that.

[-] -1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

Global warming is nothing more that to try and bring about redistribution of wealth. Climate gate proved them wrong over and over again. The Earth's temp has only risen one degree in the last hundred years. Hope you are reading this Oh Al

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But you are against pollution right?

[-] 0 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

Yes but Global warming is a myth

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

U should talk to Bitsey about that - even she the world class denier has changed her tune.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Whatever. Believe what you want.

But if you believe pollution is bad then you should agree to cut down on pollution. If everyone cut back in some way we can improve the clenliness of the air, water, land/food.

Furthermore everyone should pressure the govt to do the same.

No?

We could all agree on that, right?

[-] 0 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

agree

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Then the science arguments are moot, I could believe in climate change, you don't have to.

As long as we all cut back on pollution.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

So...none of you have ever defrosted a freezer before have you?

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Could U B more LAME ?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

CO ( human contribution ) - oh she cares - for some reason she cares about supporting the use of fossil fuel.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Could you be more oblivious?

Are you in "denial" about the scientific principles exhibited when something/anything frozen thaws out or are you in denial of the fact that this planet has had repeated ice ages followed consistently by warm ages in which the exact same principles are exhibited?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I realize that in your own disturbed mind, such a scenario works because the atmosphere surrounding the planet is roughly the size of my lawn! Of course, the entire human race "craps" somewhere every day and we are miraculously not buried in feces....weird what a little perspective can explain.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

You mean the plants that process the waste/leftovers that come from organic beings into things like carbon dioxide and methane among others??? They're killing the planet!!!!

[-] 0 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

Betsy, the Daily Mail is a substandard news source, like "The Enquirer"

It's a tabloid for the newly literate.

You need to up the complexity of your reading material, before citing it as your authority on global warming.

"The Mail ...was Britain's first daily newspaper aimed at the newly literate "lower-middle class market resulting from mass education, combining a low retail price with plenty of competitions, prizes and promotional gimmicks",[4] and the first British paper to sell a million copies a day.[5]Daily Mail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

The Daily Mail is a conservative, British daily middle-market[2] tabloid newspaper owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust.[3]

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Darling, I haven't been defending Mr Rose OR the Daily Mail. I'm defending what the Met Office's OWN data recordings show. Period.

So let's try to argue using facts and data instead . Agreed?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/the-met-office-responds-to-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/

[-] 0 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/

Great article that delves into this issue and focuses too on consequences of global warming.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I'm sorry. Left leaning political blogs aren't credible sources for me on the climate any more than right leaning political blogs are.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

Well, then please feel free to consult your conservative "daily mail."

Tabloid!!! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

with its "Right Minds" blog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

for all the "news" you'll ever need.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

How about we BOTH stick to the facts-

The temperature measurements done by the Met Office reveal that temperatures have been stagnant or cooled in the past 16 years?

According to this article- http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/the-met-office-responds-to-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/

The Met Office responded to Mr. Rose's questions and here's some things NOT to miss from them:(emphasis with capitals MINE)

"The current period of REDUCED WARMING is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual."

Q.3 “Finally, do these data suggest that factors other than CO2 – such as multi-decadal oceanic cycles – may exert a greater influence on climate than previously realised?”

We have LIMITED observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they MAY ACT to SLOW DOWN OR ACCELERATE the observed warming trend. In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by “external forcings”, such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors COULD ACCOUNT FOR SOME OR ALL OF THE REDUCED WARMING TREND seen over the last decade – BUT this is an area of ongoing research."

Now-if those factors "COULD ACCOUNT for some OR ALL of THE REDUCED WARMING TREND", then surely they COULD also account for SOME or ALL OF the increased warming trend in the past 140 years. RIGHT? Seems like an honest group of scientists without an agenda would openly admit that...but I'm wrong.....surely...

[-] 1 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

No. The response link you provided says met hasn't done a report yet. This is 1 scientists preliminary read. Let them publish a report and have it peer reviewed by climate scientists, 97 percent who agree climate is warming each tear, as does the last sentence summarizing the1 science link you did give the other day.

"To address some of the points in the article published today:

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit."

So it is an Assumption! Not fact.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You say that as if you are correct.

You're not.

"The British newspaper/tabloid The Dail Mail and its writer David Rose are notorious for publishing misleading (at best) climate-related articles, as we have discussed previously here, for example. They have recently struck again, claiming that according to a "quietly released" Met Office report, global warming stopped 16 years ago (a myth which Skeptical Science debunks here and here). This assertion is entirely fabricated, as the Met Office explained by publishing David Rose's inquiry and the Met Office's responses.

"Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here."

Rose's factually challenged article was predictably reproduced uncritically by the usual climate denial blogs and referenced by Fox News, perhaps in an attempt to distract from this year's record-breaking Arctic sea ice minimum. However, virtually every point made in the article was factually incorrect, as Rose would have known if he were a Skeptical Science reader, because we recently pre-bunked his piece"

And now for the rest of the story, click the link,

http://www.skepticalscience.com/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Weird-not ONE person on the staff of Skeptical Science is an actual professional, atmospheric scientist! And yet you seem to embrace what they said without hesitation.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/23/skeptical-science-conspiracy-theorist-john-cook-runs-another-survey-trying-to-prove-that-false-97-of-climate-scientists-believe-in-global-warming-meme/

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

That might work, but it has nothing to do with the article posted.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

Inaction means humanity’s self-destruction. We must pay any price or bear any burden to stop catastrophic climate change.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/

An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts: How We Know Inaction Is the Gravest Threat Humanity Faces

But I read and consider your article from "UK's National Enqurier"?

[-] 3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Google " 2012 hadcrut4 " and read any article you like.

Odd though....you won't find the MSM talking about it anywhere...weird.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Um....your second link says just the opposite of what you THINK it does.

"In the private sector, doing what we see above would cost you your job, or at worst (if it were stock data monitored by the SEC) land you in jail for securities fraud. But hey, this is climate science. No worries."

They are talking about how the scientists (like the one in the video you linked to) manipulate the data (so thanks for a perfect example of how they do it all the time) to make it look like it's warmer than it really is.

The ACTUAL measurements-not the models, not the predictions, not the reports-make it clear that there has been NO statistical increase in temperature in the past 16 years.

[-] 0 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

I don't agree with your reading. "new data showing warmer years since, further undermining a sceptic view of stalled global warming." Skeptic Setback? ‘New’ CRU data says world has warmed since 1998

You might be prejudiced. You might work in big oil.

Reread. Re view. See below.

HadCRUT4

Update: HadCRUT4 has been updated to version HadCRUT.4.1.1.0. Monthly updates are now available.

HadCRUT4 is a gridded dataset of global historical surface temperature anomalies relative to a 1961-1990 reference period. Data are available for each month since January 1850, on a 5 degree grid. The dataset is a collaborative product of the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

HadCRUT4 has been updated to version 4.1.1.0. Release notes for this version are available here. Previous versions of the HadCRUT4 dataset are available here. Brief description of the data

The gridded data are a blend of the CRUTEM4 land-surface air temperature dataset and the HadSST3 sea-surface temperature (SST) dataset. The dataset is presented as an ensemble of 100 dataset realisations that sample the distribution of uncertainty in the global temperature record given current understanding of non-climatic factors affecting near-surface temperature observations. This ensemble approach allows characterisation of spatially and temporally correlated uncertainty structure in the gridded data, for example arising from uncertainties in methods used to account for changes in SST measurement practices, homogenisation of land station records and the potential impacts of urbanisation.

The HadCRUT4 data are neither interpolated nor variance adjusted.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

Unfortunately, humanity, through energy generation, changing land use and other processes, has produced a substantial increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, and it is feared that this continuing change will lead to a major shift in global climate.

people can read the data for themselves Betsy, we don't need to take your word or your paid 1 percent rulers to tell us what the data says.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Um...the title of the page you linked to is:

"CRU’s new CRUTem4, hiding the decline yet again"

Then there are quotes from other sources ripping on how stupid CRU continues to look.

Then the entire article goes on to explain how the CRU continues to ADJUST their reports up when it warms but not DOWN when it cools so each progressive report they release makes it more and more obvious that they are IDIOTS.

In other words, the scientific community is ONTO their repeated attempts to HIDE THE DECLINING temperatures by manipulating data.

But thanks for the link.

[-] -1 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

well, you were the one who said to google it.

Why did you suggest I google it if you hold in low regard?

[-] 3 points by BetsyRoss (-235) 3 hours ago

Google " 2012 hadcrut4 " and read any article you like.

Odd though....you won't find the MSM talking about it anywhere...weird.

So Betsy nothing to support all her claims.

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Please for the love of all that is holy, try READING instead of skimming and assuming.

Can you see the difference between the three following????

HadCRUT4 and CRUTem4 and CRU

Please verify that you can see it before we continue...

[-] 0 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

Yes.

Anything else.

Oh yeah, why do you suggest I do not see a difference in HadCRUT4 and CRUTem4 and CRU?

What is your point exactly.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/download.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/crutem4_a_detailed_look.html "Summary

The CRUTEM4 update set out to reduce a known bias in the dataset, identified in multiple studies, by improving land coverage. While coverage is still far short of complete it has improved significantly. The effects on the temperature record are minimal before 1990, but have resulted in a significant increase in the trend over the past 15 years. This corresponds well to the period over which the Arctic has shown rapid warming."

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/apocXVII/presentations/14.2_CRUTEM4_HadCRUT4_Jones.pdf

scientists have to continually update and refine their methods, and incorporated new data into their schema, and tests their hypothesis.

This is all elementary, What is your point in all this, if you have one.

[-] 0 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Were they right wing political blogs? Did I post them as the main support for an argument without any other sources that agreed? I try to NEVER do that. So I'd appreciate it if you'd point that out when I do it.

Of course, you seem to enjoy/prefer to get your evidence from left leaning sources-but that's ok right?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

How do you know? What proof do you have? Al Gore and others are making a FREAKING fortune these days with his "green technology" etc.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

If you can "buy" scientists by paying them to lie, what makes them care whose dollars they get paid with? If they are for sale, then the left's money is just as good as anyone else's my friend.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Thank you for posting yet another one of your endless rants based upon the rantings of political activists rather than actual scientists. You have a habit of doing this when you run out of answers and/or insults.

How do you know...what proof do you have that progressives have never paid scientists to lie?

[-] -1 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

we are still waiting to see your scientists Betsy

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Shouldn't someone have told Mother Earth?

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

3000 monitoring stations on Mother Earth confirmed it. Hadcrut 4.

From the linked article-

"But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert."

‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.'

‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing."

Do you get that? The Climate Models have YET to be able to spit out predictions that have had the NATURAL VARIABILITY of this planet taken into consideration, because the LEADING SCIENTISTS ADMIT that THEY do not YET understand exactly WHAT all those variables are and HOW they affect the climate.

No accurate understanding of the variables=no accurate predictions.

So simple it is impossible to ignore...but I'm the "crazy" one that has to keep pointing it out???

[-] -1 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

First of all, your "linked article" is a piece of crap.

Above you say you discredit Hadcrut 4, and now you are saying it is [-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-235) 5 hours ago

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

October 13th, 2012 Global warming stopped 16 years ago. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

you are making stuff up. The text reads " Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia," but you write "But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert."

http://intermexfreemarket.blogspot.com/2012/10/global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago.html

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Good grief. You either have a reading comprehension problem or some other problem. SCROLL down (or actually read the damn article completely) it's under the photo of the nuclear reactors. I copied and pasted everything IN QUOTES from the actual article itself.

NOW apologize.

Second, the person writing the article is most likely a REPORTER-that's what reporters are supposed to DO-REPORT. The "Met Office" is who released the data last week.

HadCRUT4 is a DATABASE, NOT a climate model. I discredited the CRU-the organization that has been MANIPULATING the data obtained from HadCRUT4.

If you have some kind of learning/reading/communication disorder then I apologize. Just admit it and I'll adjust my responses to reflect that. But if you don't, you need to sit down and actually LEARN some of this stuff because you clearly just follow what you want to believe and not ALL of the information.

[-] 0 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

Oh yea. Well thank . You very much for your concerns, but

I can read just find. and have a Masters in Library Science, and read science journals, and literature, and discern between credible sources and the freaking DailyMail tabloids.

So make your point. Because I can't read your mind, as you are not clearly saying very much of importance.

So make your point

[-] 0 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

Brilliant Betsy. You must mean the photo with the caption that reads

:"Damage: Global warming has been caused in part by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels." This image shows smoke billowing out of a power station" so your source's author is also a moron.

Your power station is a nuclear reactor. They emit steam, not smoke!!!

You need to read your sources with more skepticism.

Additionally, there are 738 comments to the said piece of brilliant jouranlism (which lacks any footnotes or documentation)

Here are JUST a couple of COMMENTS

16 years is not a significant period. The temperature has still risen by nearly 1 degree since the industrial revolution.

  • Tony, Bristol, UK, 14/10/2012 0:56 Click to rate Rating 45

Report abuse

True science does not tamper with facts in order to reach a conclusion that those paying them want reached. - null, United States ----------------------------------------------------- Yet you still continue to believe this discredited conclusion the Mail has been trying to push for months. This is NOT a Met Office report it comes from the author of the article David Rose who clearly has his own agenda. Real records show a steady rising trend in temperatures.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29Ksnj5Qw Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

bangs head on desk

Why is it that instead of arguing AGAINST the data being used, and what it shows, you'd rather attack Mr Rose? Fine. I don't know him personally nor do I have a horse in his race. I want to know why no one-none of your "experts" are talking about the FACTS revealed by the Met Office data ITSELF?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/the-met-office-responds-to-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Instead of pundits, you should read from the folks who do it for a living.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

You should also understand that it has a history well beyond the corporate interpretations

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm/.

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

Here's a graph from your "folks who do it for a living"....showing the exact same thing-no increase for 16 years. You'll note the GRAY shaded area of the chart is the "range" in which 95% of the climate models predictions fall. And it's a WIDE area scientifically speaking.

I don't use corporate interpretations....I read scientific studies and charts and can add and subtract.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You forgot to actually read anything.

"Short term (15 years or less) trends in global temperature are not usefully predictable as a function of current forcings. This means you can’t use such short periods to ‘prove’ that global warming has or hasn’t stopped, or that we are really cooling despite this being the warmest decade in centuries. The AR4 model simulations were an ‘ensemble of opportunity’ and vary substantially among themselves with the forcings imposed, the magnitude of the internal variability and of course, the sensitivity. Thus while they do span a large range of possible situations, the average of these simulations is not ‘truth’. The model simulations use observed forcings up until 2000 (or 2003 in a couple of cases) and use a business-as-usual scenario subsequently (A1B). The models are not tuned to temperature trends pre-2000. Differences between the temperature anomaly products is related to: different selections of input data, different methods for assessing urban heating effects, and (most important) different methodologies for estimating temperatures in data-poor regions like the Arctic. GISTEMP assumes that the Arctic is warming as fast as the stations around the Arctic, while HadCRUT3v and NCDC assume the Arctic is warming as fast as the global mean. The former assumption is more in line with the sea ice results and independent measures from buoys and the reanalysis products. Model-data comparisons are best when the metric being compared is calculated the same way in both the models and data. In the comparisons here, that isn’t quite true (mainly related to spatial coverage), and so this adds a little extra structural uncertainty to any conclusions one might draw."

Then you forgot to look at the rest of the charts and information.

All of which show continued heating.

Silly, silly, silly.

You should have told Mother Nature, but she's not listening.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Thank you for proving that climate models are highly unreliable and that even the "average of these simulations is not truth" because of the assumptions they are still forced to make.

The chart showed where "reality" falls within the predictions made by models. (Hence the whole "updates to model-data comparisons" thing in the title. )

[-] 1 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

"Overall, given the latest set of data points, we can conclude (once again) that global warming continues."

Finally, some agreement, an actual source.

I am relieved to know you did not attend the Mitt Romney school of "we can make this shit up" as we go along.

Now, I know you will not consider the below, due to it's possible being penned by a left-leaning blog, that humans may be causing the rise in temperature.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/02/11/202334/how-do-we-really-know-humans-are-causing-global-warming/

So, as you appear to cite actual scientists I will give you this lead http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

that 97-98 percent of expert scientists (who've published 20 or more articles on the subject) agree man-made forces contribute to a significant portion in the current rise of the earth's temperature.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

"Overall, given the latest set of data points, we can conclude (once again) that global warming continues."

Where is this quote from?

I like your statement above "......that humans may be causing the rise in temperature".

I also didn't attend the Al Gore school of-"we can say something definitive without any evidence and then adjust any future evidence to fit the shit we made up before" as we go along.

See, that's my point-there's a hell of a lot of range between both extremes, and while "97-98 percent of expert scientists agree that man-made forces contribute to a significant portion of the current rise of the earth's temperatures" there isn't a CONSENSUS AT ALL about the DEGREE of man influence on it or that it absolutely would NOT have warmed at all, OR to the degree that is has without man's influence.

Those experts also used to pretty much AGREE that "temps have never risen this far, this fast"-but then other experts started discovering EVIDENCE that indeed it HAS happened before and when humans were not capable of causing or affecting it.

Don't you think that NEW evidence should matter at least as much as (but in reality MORE than) old "predictions" using flawed science and machines?

I DO.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

The last sentence of Your articlele by scientists.

"[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-262) 2 days ago http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/ Here's a graph from your "folks who do it for a living"....showing the exact same thing-no increase for 16 years. You'll note the GRAY shaded area of the chart is the "range" in which 95% of the climate models predictions fall. And it's a WIDE area scientifically speaking. I don't use corporate interpretations....I read scientific studies and charts and can add and subtract."

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

That's all you got from that site?

That's a damn shame really.

You do realize there's a lot more to it and new info is found every single day, all of it supporting a continuation of the warming.

http://www.whoi.edu/main/news-releases?tid=3622&cid=152829

It's not just about the atmosphere.

We are poisoning the entire planet.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

No, that's all I got from the QUOTE you chose from the site. Because that's what that quote says.

Funny thing, there seems to be so much "new" information found every single day that shines light on what might be causing the warming that IS NOT man/human related but no one wants to talk about those discoveries. Why not? Isn't science about learning based on ALL of the evidence and not just the stuff you agree with?

[-] 0 points by howitworks (20) from Tucson, AZ 1 year ago

A picture is worth a thousand words. Anything can be written. But seeing is believing.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Again, have you ever defrosted a freezer? Same damn thing happens! Once you see it, you'll believe it happens when things thaw out.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Can you explain to me what I should expect to happen in that process?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

You mean.....the unknown......like what the planet WILL DO in the future that is so completely different than it has done in the past???

Look at you calling experimental exploration "futile"! Good for you!

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Again - Could U B more LAME ?

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Could you be more oblivious?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Why argue about the science.? We all pollution is bad. Let's just all agree to cut back on our own pollution. Everyone.

And then everyone can pressure our govt to cut back pollution as well.

And no one has to argue about the science.

Agtreed?

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Pollution is bad. The government should cut back pollution.

Now tell the people why you believe that C02 is pollution. Agreed?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

No thanks! That sounds like science argument.

We should all agree that because pollution is bad we must ALL cut back. And we should all pressure govts to cut back as well.

Simple no argument required. Believe whatever science you want!

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Your the one poo pooing mans addition to global warming and fighting against making changes like stop using fossil fuel - so it would seem to me that U R oblivious.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Nope. Nada. I have never said that man kind is not contributing to global warming and I have clarified that time and time again. I have also NO PROBLEM with changes made in fossil fuel burning, and IF and WHEN a viable alternative is discovered I'll be all for it. Either you are oblivious to my repeated statements of my position on those two things or you are ignoring them completely.

I'm poo pooing the arrogance and stupidity of trying to formulate a successful PLAN to control this planet's temperature when we don't even YET understand how this planet works and how it MIGHT react if we meddle MORE with it. That scientists have just "discovered in the past two decades" how much of a role Earth's own natural variability plays in it's climate is FRIGHTENING to me when I was taught those obvious principles in science classes in Jr High 30 years ago!

But I witnessed them for myself at a much younger age, every time my mother defrosted the freezer.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I will not chase down your comments over this past year - but yes - U R in your own way another mittens - all year long you have been putting down the claims of global warming - AND mans contribution to it - Now - Like mittens you have changed your story/tack. BTW there are many viable alternatives to fossil fuel available right now - And - Yet Again - you go into your denial routine - Only this time you are starting to drop your denial of global warming.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Really? You won't chase them down? Why not? Is it because you know if you do then you'd have to admit what a liar you are about my "denial routine"???

Now...tell us all what happens when you defrost a freezer or another frozen item? In science terms please...

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

WTF are you comparing a defrosting freezer - an electrical appliance - to global warming - ummm did you witness some good storms in your freezer while it was defrosting? Go away lame one.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Now maybe you've never defrosted a freezer like most folks round here do...but we UNPLUG that appliance, open the door to the ATMOSPHERE somewhere and let her melt. That thur meltin' occurs in a predictable and observable fashion based upon the laws of what y'all edermacted folks call physics. I guess ya could rig up sumthin to sim u late storms an such to see how they'd affect my freezer...but they tend to operate under the same durn laws as the rest of it...

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

These many observations of your - watching a freezer thaw - did you record changes in the atmospheric content of CO2 ? Was it equal in each instance? what effect did vulcanism or tectonic activity play on your observations?

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Why it's like you're suddenly catching on-to how a myriad of other things are at play in the melting/thawing process taking place on a really big scale! I mean....it's almost like you don't believe that JUST C02 levels drive our climate! It's like....you already KNOW that there were MANY other things at work to make Arctic Ice and glaciers grow and retreat long before humans could spew tons of CO2 into the air!

I'm so proud! You are finally willing to admit that such NATURAL VARIABLES can and DO cause ice/things to melt/thaw FASTER because THEY impact our climate~!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Killing cold snaps in Europe and Asia - record setting season of out of season tornadoes in the USA - out of season floods in Australia. What have you not been paying any attention?

BTW Drought in The USA worst since the 30's dust bowl.

I know I know have these things ever happened before in the history of the world - in a word (?) - YES - have these things been grouped together like in the last century and picking up speed in incidence and repeats(?) - not during recorded history. BTW - which shows nasty increases after the major industrialization of the world.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

"have these things been grouped together like in the last century and picking up speed in incidence and repeats(?) - not during recorded history. BTW - which shows nasty increases after the major industrialization of the world."

Proof please-and from an unbiased credentialed source with data sources. And then you can show me how you know they are worse now when there was no one around to "record" the past to compare it to.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

What temperature stabilization are you talking about - we just had a record setting summer for heat. BTW - global warming will not just produce heat and drought - but it will also produce unstable weather - like dynamic storms and sudden shifts in temperature - like killing cold snaps.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Lets see...heat, drought, unstable weather, dynamic storms, sudden shifts in temperature, killing cold snaps.

Have any...or ALL...of these things happened in the past prior to AGW or are they "new" conditions observed only since 1880?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You are damn right that there are many factors that play in the make-up of weather and climate. One factor that we are looking at is the flooding/disruption of factors by the introduction of massive amounts of CO.

[-] 1 points by equibble (34) from East Point, GA 1 year ago

"the temperature has stabilized even while CO2 increases" Apparently, Betsy, your weather report is for some other planet. "You wanna know the weather? Stick your head out the window!" JTJ's the man!

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

And why the temperature has stabilized even while CO2 increases. Right?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Do you understand what the word "thaw" means?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Do you understand the difference between a house-hold freezer and the completeness of the world?

When you watched your freezer defrost - what did you note about the effects on ocean currents?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Yes skippy. I do. The laws of thermodynamics tend to be fairly universal iff'n ya understand them. Now tell me how the real, actual ocean currents affect the climate/air/temperature of the very real, actual planet on which my freezer defrosts...(you do understand that my freeze EXISTS within the completeness of the world....don't you?)

Don't get your undies in a bunch...REAL scientists have yet to be able to completely understand it themselves so I don't really expect YOU to be able to.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

So basically you are saying that you watched what happens to frozen water as the temperature rises. Ummmm some how - I don't see you relating that to what the effects of global warming are - what was your pattern of storms - were there wild fires? What happened to the various lifeforms in existence as your freezer thawed - did they do well or better in the polar regions or more closer to the equator?.

[-] 0 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-global-warming-a-myth

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. 31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence".

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

While polls of scientists actively working in the filed of climate science indicate strong general agreement that the earth is warming and human activity is a significant factor, the internet is buzzing with blog posts that say 31,000 scientists say there is "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause "catastrophic" heating of the atmosphere.

This claim originates from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has an online petition (petitionproject.org) that states: We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Ok. I'll type slowly.

The globe warms. The globe cools. It always has, it always will.

Does man have something to do with the current warming. Yes. How much?-that's the question.

I'm not disagreeing with ANY scientists.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Your freezer existed outside ( inside of a fairly controlled environment - the house ) of the parameters of the great out of doors. Did you note any oddities in the jet-stream of your freezer?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Ah....I should have been more specific-apparently you only know of the freezers that people keep indoors with their fridges. (Which are now mostly "frost free". )

My childhood reference is to a huge, old, coffin sized freezer most folks I knew kept outside or in a garage iff'n they didn't have any kind of drain which would allow INSIDE defrosting to occur without resulting in disaster.

Now-tell me about the thermodynamic process that occurs when something thaws/melts etc. THEN we'll talk about how much FASTER things melt/thaw when they are impacted by wind, and ocean currents and storms etc. You seem to believe that the ice contained in our glaciers and icebergs is behaving in some strange, abnormal fashion and so lets stick to the basics first.

Or are you ready to admit that the ice melting OUTDOORS is behaving exactly as it should according to the laws of thermodynamics as well as the NATURAL effects of wind erosion, sun exposure, ocean currents, tectonic plate shift etc?