CONFIRMED: Global Warming 'Ended 15 Years Ago'

Originally posted by RPeternell
I feel global warning was the calm before the storm. History has it that we enter ice ages quite frequently, so its possible that an ice age is on its way.

Feelings are not as important as long-term scientific studies based on observational evidence, computational simulations and understanding of physics.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

So, does that mean that the glaciers have been growing since 1997 instead of disappearing and nobody noticed?

no it means there is a differance between climate change and global warming don't confuse the two ....

Originally posted by Floydshayvious
Man made or not - it doesnt give us a free ticket to not care about what we could be, adversely, adding to - like it's some go ahead to continue with all the status quos because all the human impact data isnt real or accurate. I dont know what to believe about climate change - I just know it IS changing, and I personally dont want to add to that problem in ANY degree. A man made global warming hoax is not a get out of jail free card.

Nor is it a green light to pass extensive life-altering business clobbering regulations and global taxes to combat the supposed co2 problem. Co2 feeds plants.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by R3KR
So now we are going to try and fix the planet because some people think its natural cycles are broken ? Seems like normal human behavior to me.

Extinction is a natural cycle
Are you in favor of that cycle also, or will you be trying to save your arse by any means necessary?

When an extinction comes, there is nothing anyone can do. Give it another 25 years, people will be saying the opposite.

Originally posted by R3KR

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by R3KR
So now we are going to try and fix the planet because some people think its natural cycles are broken ? Seems like normal human behavior to me.

Extinction is a natural cycle
Are you in favor of that cycle also, or will you be trying to save your arse by any means necessary?

When an extinction comes, there is nothing anyone can do. Give it another 25 years, people will be saying the opposite.

Well, cease funding bombs and start investing in science and new technology and you might just be able to do something to save your species from extinction.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by Mimir

 

Look around at how BP killed the Gulf and the Coast Guard protected them.

I'm going to stay out of the whole Global Warming argument here; I have my own thoughts on this and I tend to agree with you that people are going to think what they want to think no matter what.

But I have to chime in on this. I live very near the gulf, my family owns property on the gulf, I spend a lot of time there. You say it has been "killed?" What does that mean? There's still a zillion fish, jellyfish, seaweed of all types, crabs, shrimp, oysters, etc. etc. We catch fish every day, of all kinds. Sting rays, anemones, sea cucumbers, and so forth still abound in the bays. Matter of fact, I had a stingray nail me in the foot not too long ago when I stepped too close to him. Hurt like hell and I'll have a scar there for life, I think...serves me right for not paying attention.
But my question is, what about the Gulf is dead? What should I look for?

I take the OP is quite fine with the way humans have been treating the Earth. Should we stop looking for renewable energy sources? Have you seen how much we've changed the planet in just the last two hundred years? Out of the billions of years the Earth has existed it might soon be seeing some of its most drastic changes because of us.

Originally posted by jimbo999
Sorry what?? Glaciers have been receding for decades! There is plenty of photographic evidence of this. It doesn't matter one iota if you take your pics in the summer OR winter - the results are the same - rapidly receding glaciers world-wide. Period.

Glaciers have been receding since the zenith of the little ice age in, what was it, around 1300 AD?

That was before industrialization. Period.

Not knocking Climate Change Theory here. Just pointing out that receding glaciers can't be used to prove it.

Harte

reply to post by mbkennel


So we have come full circle.

In the early 1970's I was taught in College that we were headed for an Ice Age and that all tree's would be dead by now. The Salmon were supposed to be gone. Oil reserves were supposed to be gone by now. Half the planet was supposed to starve to death.

Where did that come from? The same people more or less.

It has proven to be a generous money making scheme as scaring people always is. They always assume that we will not progress. It's always based on hysteria with a few quietly spreading the information while finding ways to line their pockets.

Let's not forget Obama and his ties to everyone in on the Chicago Carbon Exchange. They must be crushed their multibillion dollar scheme could not get past even a Democrat ruled Congress. The two billion Gore was to make overnight was supposed to pale next to what those folks would make and does anyone believe Obama would not have been generously rewarded if Cap and Trade had actually passed? Imagine how bad things would be right now with energy prices likely being twice what they are now. It would not be global warming causing starvation, it would be intentional by those making billions almost overnight.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by mbkennel

 

So we have come full circle.

In the early 1970's I was taught in College that we were headed for an Ice Age and that all tree's would be dead by now. The Salmon were supposed to be gone. Oil reserves were supposed to be gone by now. Half the planet was supposed to starve to death.

Where did that come from? The same people more or less.

It has proven to be a generous money making scheme as scaring people always is. They always assume that we will not progress. It's always based on hysteria with a few quietly spreading the information while finding ways to line their pockets.

Let's not forget Obama and his ties to everyone in on the Chicago Carbon Exchange. They must be crushed their multibillion dollar scheme could not get past even a Democrat ruled Congress. The two billion Gore was to make overnight was supposed to pale next to what those folks would make and does anyone believe Obama would not have been generously rewarded if Cap and Trade had actually passed? Imagine how bad things would be right now with energy prices likely being twice what they are now. It would not be global warming causing starvation, it would be intentional by those making billions almost overnight.

Amen.

The great thing about the internet and time is that 5 or 6 years from now we will go back to this threads and laugh at the AGW as the doomsday scenario ....the same happened with john Tittor in 2004-2005 and now we can safely say it was all a well written lie.

In the mean time all we have to do is go out and enjoy the weather!

Originally posted by theBigToe

Originally posted by R3KR

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by R3KR
So now we are going to try and fix the planet because some people think its natural cycles are broken ? Seems like normal human behavior to me.

Extinction is a natural cycle
Are you in favor of that cycle also, or will you be trying to save your arse by any means necessary?

When an extinction comes, there is nothing anyone can do. Give it another 25 years, people will be saying the opposite.

Well, cease funding bombs and start investing in science and new technology and you might just be able to do something to save your species from extinction.

Its yours too.
Agreed about the bombs, they dont do anything except create holes.
We should invest in technology always... but throwing 1 billion to a joke of a company for campaign contributions is not good.

Hooray! Al gore saved us!

/sarcasm off

Well ain't this quite the shocker. Turns out the global warming crowd were conspiracy theorists! (Points @ the left)

reply to post by TrueAmerican


The whole thing has been about money and control anyway and less about hard science. Gore did achieve that, unfortunately. Our factory's got regulated out of business, which cost thousands, upon thousands of people their jobs. Now, we have more Americans on the street, homeless than ever before. While those involved get to line their pockets, Al Gore and his friends with $$$ from the fees they charge companies for the Clean Air Credits program.

It's all about the money and control = power.

Originally posted by Tsurugi

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by Mimir

 

Look around at how BP killed the Gulf and the Coast Guard protected them.

I'm going to stay out of the whole Global Warming argument here; I have my own thoughts on this and I tend to agree with you that people are going to think what they want to think no matter what.

But I have to chime in on this. I live very near the gulf, my family owns property on the gulf, I spend a lot of time there. You say it has been "killed?" What does that mean? There's still a zillion fish, jellyfish, seaweed of all types, crabs, shrimp, oysters, etc. etc. We catch fish every day, of all kinds. Sting rays, anemones, sea cucumbers, and so forth still abound in the bays. Matter of fact, I had a stingray nail me in the foot not too long ago when I stepped too close to him. Hurt like hell and I'll have a scar there for life, I think...serves me right for not paying attention.
But my question is, what about the Gulf is dead? What should I look for?

Well, that is a bit of speculation -- but I figure, if it is KILLED it will be at the base of the food chain and WE WON'T know about it because the scientists can't study it; there's no funding and no access. The very toxic chemicals used by BP to break up oil spills only makes it less visible -- instead of oily junk on the beach, you get a water soluble slurry. We aren't allowed to KNOW what's in this stuff, because corporate trade secrets trump public health and welfare.

The media bought BP's story -- they acted like Stenographers. The "spill" was a gusher over 10 times what BP was saying it was. We still don't know if it's actually plugged. There are unplugged disaster wells all over Africa and places in Latin America that don't have to be fixed because there is nobody who can force the oil companies to fix them.

>> WE will not see the oil rising to the surface for about 10 years given it's specific gravity (it's nearly neutral buoyancy) -- if you believe some of the chemists I was reading. What I do expect is this summer or the next, we will get the "mother of all red tides" -- and because it is so massive an area of oxygen depletion, there won't be enough ecosystem left in the Gulf for it to recover.

Well, history will prove this "speculation" right or wrong -- but we won't find out from USA inc. or BP. That's why people go to conspiracy websites because we have to GUESS what was meant by the lie we just heard on the TV.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Unfortunatey the Daily Mail "story" is the biggest non sequitur story of all time. Basically, it's an out and out lie.

The research to which they refer actually says the complete opposite of what the Mail imply.

I mentioned this in my blog today

weatherearthnews.blogspot.com...

However, some people will always believe what that want to beleive, even when it's a lie

Edit: this has no bearing on whether AGW is true, but shows that you should NEVER believe the tabloid media. They are to the truth what a starving lion in pen full of sedated lambs is to vegetarianism.

Originally posted by WaitingFever
From my experience, in my country, on the last 10 years, we have been on a climate which is very strange. We had Summers where a lot of forest fires appeared (a huge amount of them were on purpose), and we had Summers when it almost seemed like Autumn.

Another thing people apparently ignore is the change in the way things happen.

Some years ago (maybe at the beginning of the 1990s) I read an article in a newspaper in which a Portuguese scientist that was studying the weather in Portugal and desertification in general said that one of the changes he was noticing more and more was that the weather was getting more extreme.

And he also said that another sign he noticed was that the rain had changed; even if we have the same amount of rain in an year, it falls less frequently and harder, so it has a stronger effect on the ground and helps the desertification of the areas that are already in danger (all those near a desert, like the south of Portugal).

Originally posted by Gixxer
no it means there is a differance between climate change and global warming don't confuse the two ....

If the climate is getting warmer, could you please explain that difference to me/us? Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
In the early 1970's I was taught in College that we were headed for an Ice Age and that all tree's would be dead by now. The Salmon were supposed to be gone. Oil reserves were supposed to be gone by now. Half the planet was supposed to starve to death.

I wasn't taught anything like that (and I never heard anything like that either), so I guess that only happened in some countries.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Blaine91555
In the early 1970's I was taught in College that we were headed for an Ice Age and that all tree's would be dead by now. The Salmon were supposed to be gone. Oil reserves were supposed to be gone by now. Half the planet was supposed to starve to death.

I wasn't taught anything like that (and I never heard anything like that either), so I guess that only happened in some countries.

I wouldn't doubt it being different in different places. My dad has an old biology book from when he was in college that talks about "global cooling." (he went to college at the University of Miami in Florida)
I'll see if I can dig it up and scan the relevant pages.

reply to post by Tsurugi


Well clearly the "journalist" (aka fiction writer) at the Daily Mail fell for all the global catastrophist theories in the 70s - which, oddly, are still being circulated by some of the same people today (like Nigel Calder) even though there is more evidence the Moon is really a giant marshmallow. And inhabited by 20ft tall sentient snails.

Fact is, as per the Met Research referenced in the Daily Mail story posted by the OP (how on earth did he get any stars of flags for it????) even though models predict a decline in solar activity, this will not be sufficent to counter current global warming caused by a variety of human activities.

The only reason it was so cold in some places during the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum was because parts of the world were already much colder than today - because it was the height of the Little Ice Age! We're not comparing like with like.

I'm not certain this MetO research is entirely correct, but I certainly don't have any evidence to refute it. I do however competely refute the story posted by the OP. It's utter codswallop.