Global warming stopped 16 years ago

[Langston Hughes]

How do you explain the warming from 1910 to 1945? Every one skips over this because it happened in the absence of a big rise in CO2.

 

 

[xr7g428]

Look at the data from 1910 to 1945. What caused the warming? It is right there in your chart... and really the hockey stick? LOL!

[goinbroke2]

So quickly we fall back into "their" fight. "We can hold off on drastic things, but we should probably be pushing other countries" This directly assumes WE (man) are the sole cause of the warming or cooling and you got the others to respond to that, in that context. I say the earth is warming,(lh's chart shows this although every other chart I've seen shows 1850 as the low point for the mini-ice age not 1910)

 

Think of this, we freak out because of smog in cities because WE can't breath, right? What about stuff that doesn't effect us? Of course it could be "bad for the planet" but we don't freak out because it's not effecting us directly. Perhaps there are no mosquito's (or an overabundance) because of heptane level's in the atmosphere...but nobody is freaking because it's not effecting us and therefore cannot get public support which is needed to fund these "climate scientists". Perhaps the level of mosquito's has gone from a high of a billion in 1900 to a low of 100,000 in 1950 back to a high of a billion in 2000...did we effect that? If not, what did? Is it natural? Well if we can show that from 1200 to 1300 mosquito's varied from a billion to 3 billion and back again...I'd say it's a natural phenominom that we aren't effecting at all or at the very least, what we're doing isn't something that nature can't fix.

 

We know the earth was warmer, we know the earth was cooler, still nobody will tell us what exact temp they want the earth at (because there is no "perfect" temp it always varies) Are cities full of smog? Hell yes! The same as england was because of coal fires...and yet there was still global cooling going on at that time. People dying in the streets from black lung and all that crap, DIRECTLY RELATED to the smog...but the earth varied up and down like normal.

 

Oh and the charts...LOL! if you scrunch them up just right you can really make them follow your story line.

90% of people killed in ww2 were wearing combat boots. This means wearing combat boots is highly detrimental to your life! LOL!

Edited March 20, 2014 by goinbroke2

[NickF1011]

So quickly we fall back into "their" fight. "We can hold off on drastic things, but we should probably be pushing other countries" This directly assumes WE (man) are the sole cause of the warming or cooling and you got the others to respond to that, in that context. I say the earth is warming,(lh's chart shows this although every other chart I've seen shows 1850 as the low point for the mini-ice age not 1910)

 

Think of this, we freak out because of smog in cities because WE can't breath, right? What about stuff that doesn't effect us? Of course it could be "bad for the planet" but we don't freak out because it's not effecting us directly. Perhaps there are no mosquito's (or an overabundance) because of heptane level's in the atmosphere...but nobody is freaking because it's not effecting us and therefore cannot get public support which is needed to fund these "climate scientists". Perhaps the level of mosquito's has gone from a high of a billion in 1900 to a low of 100,000 in 1950 back to a high of a billion in 2000...did we effect that? If not, what did? Is it natural? Well if we can show that from 1200 to 1300 mosquito's varied from a billion to 3 billion and back again...I'd say it's a natural phenominom that we aren't effecting at all or at the very least, what we're doing isn't something that nature can't fix.

 

We know the earth was warmer, we know the earth was cooler, still nobody will tell us what exact temp they want the earth at (because there is no "perfect" temp it always varies) Are cities full of smog? Hell yes! The same as england was because of coal fires...and yet there was still global cooling going on at that time. People dying in the streets from black lung and all that crap, DIRECTLY RELATED to the smog...but the earth varied up and down like normal.

 

Oh and the charts...LOL! if you scrunch them up just right you can really make them follow your story line.

90% of people killed in ww2 were wearing combat boots. This means wearing combat boots is highly detrimental to your life! LOL!

 

Smog-causing pollutants are bad for everybody and their regulation should be strongly encouraged, regardless of their impact on global climate. Their impact on things like acid rain and health problems are well documented and should be plenty of incentive on their own to try to reduce them. If it happens to reduce our impact on climate change along the way, super. This falls under the category of "common sense" initiatives that we should be pursuing regardless of the ultimate outcome of climate science.

Edited March 20, 2014 by NickF1011

[FiredMotorCompany]

So quickly we fall back into "their" fight. "We can hold off on drastic things, but we should probably be pushing other countries" This directly assumes WE (man) are the sole cause of the warming or cooling and you got the others to respond to that, in that context. I say the earth is warming,(lh's chart shows this although every other chart I've seen shows 1850 as the low point for the mini-ice age not 1910)

 

Think of this, we freak out because of smog in cities because WE can't breath, right? What about stuff that doesn't effect us? Of course it could be "bad for the planet" but we don't freak out because it's not effecting us directly. Perhaps there are no mosquito's (or an overabundance) because of heptane level's in the atmosphere...but nobody is freaking because it's not effecting us and therefore cannot get public support which is needed to fund these "climate scientists". Perhaps the level of mosquito's has gone from a high of a billion in 1900 to a low of 100,000 in 1950 back to a high of a billion in 2000...did we effect that? If not, what did? Is it natural? Well if we can show that from 1200 to 1300 mosquito's varied from a billion to 3 billion and back again...I'd say it's a natural phenominom that we aren't effecting at all or at the very least, what we're doing isn't something that nature can't fix.

 

We know the earth was warmer, we know the earth was cooler, still nobody will tell us what exact temp they want the earth at (because there is no "perfect" temp it always varies) Are cities full of smog? Hell yes! The same as england was because of coal fires...and yet there was still global cooling going on at that time. People dying in the streets from black lung and all that crap, DIRECTLY RELATED to the smog...but the earth varied up and down like normal.

 

Oh and the charts...LOL! if you scrunch them up just right you can really make them follow your story line.

90% of people killed in ww2 were wearing combat boots. This means wearing combat boots is highly detrimental to your life! LOL!

Regrettably, the insight you offered will be lost on many here.

[goinbroke2]

 

Smog-causing pollutants are bad for everybody and their regulation should be strongly encouraged, regardless of their impact on global climate. Their impact on things like acid rain and health problems are well documented and should be plenty of incentive on their own to try to reduce them. If it happens to reduce our impact on climate change along the way, super. This falls under the category of "common sense" initiatives that we should be pursuing regardless of the ultimate outcome of climate science.

I agree...but you missed my point. Of course acid rain is bad and we should curb industry to stop/slow it. But your line " If it happens to reduce our impact on climate change along the way, super" is exactly the issue. IF, IF, it effects climate change...but does it? THAT is the question nobody can answer. I agree we shouldn't dump our used oil on the ground or throw garbage out the car window (actually that's a pet peeve of mine) but the only way to stop it is through education..not propaganda, education. People in general will not do something if they know it's bad, drinking and driving being an example. Are there people still drinking and driving? yup, but the VAST majority don't anymore. And I stress the word ANYMORE as I used to make huge money picking beer bottles out of the ditches when I was a kid, now there's only coffee cups and burger wrappers. MADD and all the rest? they did their job as educators and now have moved on to propaganda..but I digress...

 

Why don't we dump our oil/paint/etc on the ground out back in the yard anymore? Because of a law? No, because we know it's bad for the enviroment which they proved through open studies which were allowed to be disputed/modified with new evidence. But what would of happened if 30 years ago somebody freaked out and said we need to double the price on products because they're killing the planet? Everybody would of fought back and said F%^& you! Well guess what, the climate freaks are doing the same thing and "we" (the aforementioned "deniers") are saying a collective F%^& YOU!

 

Open, honest scientific studies that can be duplicated/disputed/resubmitted would go a long way compared to a a relative few making claims, then not allowing debate and knowingly (maliciously) falsifying names and reports to further an agenda which is self-serving.

 

I say fords are best, I get 20 others here to "peer review" my findings and I publish a report saying fords are best. If anybody wants to know my resources or data or even how I came to the conclusion I call them deniers/ridicule them. (even though I have 1000's of shares in ford stock and will make $$$ if ford shares go up because of my report) The more claims show that another brand had a better price or reliability etc, I falsify my findings or remove certain criteria to support my claim.

Or in al gores case, I profess how great fords are, get a healthy return in my portfolio and yet buy three or four new mercedes/bugatti's etc.

 

Sorry, but it's got scam written all over it and the more we see, the more we see the charletens for what they really are. (grants in general for east anglia university went from a few hundred thou before the mmgw scam to several million per year after...coincidence..I think not)

[goinbroke2]

Regrettably, the insight you offered will be lost on many here.

Yeah I know but I have a natural "helping" nature so I keep trying.

[NickF1011]

Open, honest scientific studies that can be duplicated/disputed/resubmitted would go a long way compared to a a relative few making claims, then not allowing debate and knowingly (maliciously) falsifying names and reports to further an agenda which is self-serving.

 

There is plenty of open, honest scientific study about climate change. Basically, the consensus is that we're probably having an effect on things, but we don't know what it is yet, what its real impacts will be, and we don't know if anything we do will make it stop. Beyond that, you're talking politics, not science. Clinging to the (albeit powerful) fringe who use it for political reasons or opposing it solely for political reasons doesn't help anybody though. It should continue to be studied as there is still much to be learned. To say the verdict is conclusively in one way or the other is not science.

[xr7g428]

The thing is that we really don't know exactly what impact humans are having on the environment. There are two sides to the ledger. A nuclear war would be very bad for humans but a great benefit to the cock roaches. Warmer weather may be bad for Polar Bears, but very good for Grizzly Bears.

[NickF1011]

The thing is that we really don't know exactly what impact humans are having on the environment. There are two sides to the ledger. A nuclear war would be very bad for humans but a great benefit to the cock roaches. Warmer weather may be bad for Polar Bears, but very good for Grizzly Bears.

 

I think the safest bet is to try to limit our impacts on the environment wherever practically possible, whether it be CO2 emissions, deforestation, water and ground pollution, etc. Whether it does any permanent damage or not I think we'll be better off erring on the side of caution in most cases. We only have one planet to mess up (for now).

[goinbroke2]

 

There is plenty of open, honest scientific study about climate change. Basically, the consensus is that we're probably having an effect on things, but we don't know what it is yet, what its real impacts will be, and we don't know if anything we do will make it stop. Beyond that, you're talking politics, not science. Clinging to the (albeit powerful) fringe who use it for political reasons or opposing it solely for political reasons doesn't help anybody though. It should continue to be studied as there is still much to be learned. To say the verdict is conclusively in one way or the other is not science.

I agree with everything you said, with the exception of " we're probably having an effect on things" to which I'm not convinced. Or for more clarity, the only "probably's" I see are from people with agenda's who use it to justify everything else they say as it's all based on that. However, say we don't know if we're having an effect, what the impacts are or could be, or if we are impacting it, if there is anything we can do about it. It should be continued to be studied as there is much to be learned and the verdict is not conclusive in any way, shape or form....and I agree 100%. When everyone knows the world is flat, you don't jump up and down demanding everbody immediately switch their thinking. You must PROVE it. It is not up to the people to prove it's flat, they know it's flat, you have to prove it round. That said, scientists have to be open to admit their proof that the earth is flat might have holes in it and must be willing for others to challenge their claims. Conversly, the ones claiming the earth is round will have to be willing to admit they too might of made mistakes or drawn wrong conclusions. Once somebody actually proves the earth is round, then education, not laws will change the populations minds and then everyone will agree the earth is round. Not because of a law passed or the bleating from an individual. (or individuals)

 

Scientist: we think this.

another scientist: prove it.

scientist: here ya go

another scientist: your wrong here and here.

scientist: crap..I'll get back to you.

 

Every scientist works that way except "climate" scientist" who are pro mmgw.

They are more;

scientist: we think this

other scientist: prove it.

scientist: AAAHHH!!! Your a denier, you don't know what your talking about, these are my findings, I don't have to give them to you my friends already peer reviewed it.

other scientist: but there is a fatal flaw right here.

scientist: you have to leave now, we've stripped you of your title and anybody else that believes like you will be stripped as well. You stupid,ignorant and hate the earth, your paid off by oil companies and your mother dresses you funny.

other scientist: ummm...yeah whatever dude.

scientist:I've got 3000 other scientist to sign off so I'm right, your wrong, believe now or else.

other scientist: umm, dude...2700 of these signitures are from political scientists, the science of speech and a few from science fiction writers...another 250 aren't even scientists they're housewives who....

scientist: AAAHHH BE GONE DEMON!!! YOUR QUESTIONING THE CHURCH OF GLOBAL WARMING!!!

 

 

So, yeah, I'm a little bit "in denial". LOL!

Edited March 21, 2014 by goinbroke2

[NickF1011]

I agree with everything you said, with the exception of " we're probably having an effect on things" to which I'm not convinced. Or for more clarity, the only "probably's" I see are from people with agenda's who use it to justify everything else they say as it's all based on that. However, say we don't know if we're having an effect, what the impacts are or could be, or if we are impacting it, if there is anything we can do about it. It should be continued to be studied as there is much to be learned and the verdict is not conclusive in any way, shape or form....and I agree 100%. When everyone knows the world is flat, you don't jump up and down demanding everbody immediately switch their thinking. You must PROVE it. It is not up to the people to prove it's flat, they know it's flat, you have to prove it round. That said, scientists have to be open to admit their proof that the earth is flat might have holes in it and must be willing for others to challenge their claims. Conversly, the ones claiming the earth is round will have to be willing to admit they too might of made mistakes or drawn wrong conclusions. Once somebody actually proves the earth is round, then education, not laws will change the populations minds and then everyone will agree the earth is round. Not because of a law passed or the bleating from an individual. (or individuals)

 

Scientist: we think this.

another scientist: prove it.

scientist: here ya go

another scientist: your wrong here and here.

scientist: crap..I'll get back to you.

 

Every scientist works that way except "climate" scientist" who are pro mmgw.

They are more;

scientist: we think this

other scientist: prove it.

scientist: AAAHHH!!! Your a denier, you don't know what your talking about, these are my findings, I don't have to give them to you my friends already peer reviewed it.

other scientist: but there is a fatal flaw right here.

scientist: you have to leave now, we've stripped you of your title and anybody else that believes like you will be stripped as well. You stupid,ignorant and hate the earth, your paid off by oil companies and your mother dresses you funny.

other scientist: ummm...yeah whatever dude.

scientist:I've got 3000 other scientist to sign off so I'm right, your wrong, believe now or else.

other scientist: umm, dude...2700 of these signitures are from political scientists, the science of speech and a few from science fiction writers...another 250 aren't even scientists they're housewives who....

scientist: AAAHHH BE GONE DEMON!!! YOUR QUESTIONING THE CHURCH OF GLOBAL WARMING!!!

 

 

So, yeah, I'm a little bit "in denial". LOL!

 

Most of the people waving their arms the most frantically aren't scientists at all. They are paid politicians distorting the words and data provided to them by scientists to suit their agenda. The problem is, without big coffers to conduct research, the research never happens. In all branches of science, not just climatology, this can lead to investors more or less paying for the results they want to see. There is a lot of corruption and ulterior motives in this instance, no doubt, but underneath it all there's still some legitimate science going on. Hopefully some day we'll be able to dig through all the political hub bub and see what's really happening to our planet. It would be a shame if we missed something that was actually correct just because it was dismissed as bias.

Edited March 21, 2014 by NickF1011