Global warming "impossible"

[AzCat]

The question I have is what makes the United Nations the expert on glaciers or a clearinghouse for scientific announcements??

The fact that they believe they can usher in global socialism in the form of a carbon tax with them in charge of the slush fund.  Of course we're undermining their plans by making the dollar utterly worthless and slipping towards third-world-nation status.  I wonder if they'll slush some of the carbon tax funds our way when we're poor?   

[BullHawkWheel]

havent read this entire thread but the global cooling "studies" were indirectly funded by oil companies.  dont believe the results

[mjrod]

havent read this entire thread but the global cooling "studies" were indirectly funded by oil companies.  dont believe the results

What studies?  LP.

[ksdb]

havent read this entire thread but the global cooling "studies" were indirectly funded by oil companies.  dont believe the results

If we reduced our carbon emissions and stopped global warming, we'd have to burn more carbon to keep warm when the world cools down again. The oil companies win in both scenarios.

[jeffy]

havent read this entire thread but the global cooling "studies" were funded by people that drive vehicles that run on gas, which supports the oil companies.  dont believe the results

[BullHawkWheel]

i get what you are saying, but we really need to move in a more environmental friendly direction and get off of our dependence on oil.  greed is why we are taking this huge risk of destroying our environment.  the consequences of us being wrong is too high to risk, imo.

[AzCat]

i get what you are saying, but we really need to move in a more environmental friendly direction and get off of our dependence on oil. 

But we don't need to do it by destroying the global economy, essentially outlawing transportation, and shuffling all humans out of single-family homes and back into caves.  Nor does it help to jump on the bandwagon of the fraudulent man-made global warming crowd since there will be a massive backlash against the environmental movement when the utter falsity of this comes to light in a few years. There are plenty of good reasons to move in this direction without all of the present nonsense. 

[ksdb]

Hey, if we cut carbon emissions enough, we can kill off the plants that make oxygen. That would be superty-duperty.

[AzCat]

Hey, if we cut carbon emissions enough, we can kill off the plants that make oxygen. That would be superty-duperty.

I have a funny feeling that if one includes humans breathing and cows farting reaching Al Gore's latest "90% reduction" target would require not only shuttering all the factories, closing all the power plants, and permanently parking all the vehicles but would probably also necessitate drastic reductions in human population and food supply.  I think I read this novel ....

[ksdb]

i get what you are saying, but we really need to move in a more environmental friendly direction and get off of our dependence on oil.  greed is why we are taking this huge risk of destroying our environment.  the consequences of us being wrong is too high to risk, imo.

Didn't see a reply to MJ's question. What studies on global cooling were you referencing??

[ksdb]

Latest on Gullobal Warming:

An interesting story on NPR ... interesting how they overlook the most likely explanation for the so-called 'mystery.'

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

link to rest of story

In reply to the highlight part, notice how the scientists blame their bots instead of admitting the simplest explanation: maybe the ocean's aren't warming because there's no global warming.

[steve dave]

My god ksdb, F'ing   

[ksdb]

My god ksdb, F'ing   

We already know that you're the toilet diving champ. Can you comment on the topic without drooling stool water??

[mjrod]

Global Cooling continues..

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.

[Cat Maniac]

We must socialize the world and end the industrial era as we know it today, in order to prevent the terrifying consequences of global weather moderation.

For the children...

[PCR]

Weird how this happened when global temperatures are actually falling this year.  I wonder if the "data" some of you guys are presenting might actually be a bit misleading? 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080326/ts_afp/usclimateantarctic_080326111528

[ksdb]

Weird how this happened when global temperatures are actually falling this year.  I wonder if the "data" some of you guys are presenting might actually be a bit misleading? 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080326/ts_afp/usclimateantarctic_080326111528

Not weird at all. There was a similar 'collapse' in 2002 (in March, which is at the end of summer in the southern hemisphere):

link to: Larsen B Ice Shelf Collapses in Antarctica


A few years later, they reported that these ice shelves disintegrate and reappear frequently throughout history:

link to: Big ice shelf's disappearing act