A 10 Year Cooling Trend Predicted?

[rushmc 23]

A CYA prediction to keep the hype going?

Say it isnt so
I mean, we want to impliment Al Gores multi trillion dollar world carbon tax dont we???

And we surly have to make sure his multi billion dollar investments make him billions more correct?

http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=4442


Breaking News: Global Warming Now Includes a Natural Cooling Trend of Ten Years. And the Ten Years Before That, Too.
By Jimmie on May 1, 2008 in Oh the Climate, It is A-Changin'

When we last checked in on the actual science of global warming, we found that the planet hasn’t actually been warming over the past ten years and that this past year’s cooling completely wiped out the entire warming trend for the past century. Don’t worry, though. This year’s sure to bring back the warming, right? Errr….no.

Of course, we all know that one year does not a trend make. So how are those predictions looking over, say, the next ten years? Colder, you say? Oh dear. So this guy, who’s been derided as a lunatic and a “denier” was actually right? Like, completely right with his prediction? Gosh.

There’s plenty of “never mind that thermometer” quotes below the the jump. They’re not to be missed.


Surely in the face of this data there must be some stalwart scientists who can stand in the breach until Al Gore flies in on his Jetstream fresh from his 30 bazillion square-foot CO2 factory in the Tennessee hilles. Luckily, there is one!

“Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,” [UK climate scientist Richard] Wood said in an interview. “Without knowing that, you might erroneously think there’s no global warming going on.”

Let me see if I have this right. If over ten years the temperatures go down because the natural climate of the Earth managed somehow, possibly in miraculous fashion, to be strong enough to overcome the depredations of us humans, we should ignore it?

Right. How is that supposed to make sense? This guy is a scientist, is he not? And he just told us that we shold ignore our observations of the natural world and rely on faith that global warming exists no matter what those stupid thermometers tell us for the next ten years? Good gravy!

Here’s a bit more from him.

“Natural variations over the next 10 years might be heading in the cold direction,” Wood said. “If you run the model long enough, eventually global warming will win.”

Well, yes, because at some point the sun will swell up and we’ll end up inside its corona. Indeed, if you start the model far enough back, you’ll see that global cooling rules they day, since our planet now is much cooler than the molten rock it used to be.

But! If you keep the model running, you’ll find that global cooling actually wins in the end because after a little while baking in the sun’s corona, our fair planet will simply orbit a dead star, sans atmosphere or anything else but the cold blackness of space. And you know what noted exobioligist, military tactician, and gleaming-chested Khan Noonien Singh had to say about space, right?

Wood and the rest of his cult family have jumped the shark so often that we’ve had to put an air-traffic controller next to the shark tank. Every new discovery brings a new rationalization from the High Priest or one of his Acolytes explaining why our observations of the world around us do not prove that the world is round the sun revolves around the Earth we are headed toward a global warming apocalypse unless we do exactly what they say. As it happens, what they say usually involves our own privation and restraint and their luxury and several money bins worth of taxpayer cash.

(via Hot Air, who says that global warming hasn’t gone away. It’s just taking a break. Yeah! That’s the ticket!)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aU.evtnk6DPo&refer=home

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

“Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,” [UK climate scientist Richard] Wood said in an interview. “Without knowing that, you might erroneously think there’s no global warming going on.”

Is the learned gentleman saying that global cooling and global warming are mutually exclusive? That even though data showsthat the earth is cooling, the earth is still, actually, warming? So, "cooling" is "warming" and "warming" is "warming?"

Doesn't that sound like something that Bush would say about Iraq? "April recorded the highest number of military deaths in Iraq in 10 months. But, the increased deaths are actually a decline, and should not be viewed as an increase at all. Why, if you don't count the deaths in April, 2008, then the number of death in April, 2008 is zero."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,148]

It's cold and rainy today in Chicago, colder than last week, yet the calendar tells me summer is coming. What an inconsistency. Those people who make calendars are trying to pull a fast one. I bet someone is making a lot of money on calendars. Today's weather is a clear indicator that summer is not coming at all, ever.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

“Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,” [UK climate scientist Richard] Wood said in an interview. “Without knowing that, you might erroneously think there’s no global warming going on.”

Is the learned gentleman saying that global cooling and global warming are mutually exclusive? That even though data showsthat the earth is cooling, the earth is still, actually, warming? So, "cooling" is "warming" and "warming" is "warming?"

Doesn't that sound like something that Bush would say about Iraq? "April recorded the highest number of military deaths in Iraq in 10 months. But, the increased deaths are actually a decline, and should not be viewed as an increase at all. Why, if you don't count the deaths in April, 2008, then the number of death in April, 2008 is zero."

Ahh, I ahh sooooo, um, dammit, now you have sooooooo confused me

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

``Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,'

Another thing. Doesn't this echo EXACTLY what "the deniers" have been saying all along? That natural events could be a primary cause to climate change?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

``Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,'

Another thing. Doesn't this echo EXACTLY what "the deniers" have been saying all along? That natural events could be a primary cause to climate change?

But it makes us feel so much more important (and powerful) if we are the cause ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

``Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,'

Another thing. Doesn't this echo EXACTLY what "the deniers" have been saying all along? That natural events could be a primary cause to climate change?

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. Climate change is due natural events we have no control over.

I guess that statement makes just to much sense for the Global Warming (The Sky is falling Crowd) dillweeds to understand.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Channman 2]

Quote

Quote

``Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,'

Another thing. Doesn't this echo EXACTLY what "the deniers" have been saying all along? That natural events could be a primary cause to climate change?

This could only mean that there is a possiblity that a new Ice Age could be around the corner.

Hear anything about this in the rumor mill? Keep me informed so I can plan for the next EARTH is Doomed post.

[lawrocket 3]

You know. I keep looking into this. From the bbc a month ago; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7329799.stm

Quote

La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.

El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.

It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.

Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.

This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.

So 1998 - the warmest year on record, was global warming. Or was it El Nino? The only reason we're cooler now is because of La Nina.

Stuff just ain't jiving. Was it global warming or El Nino? Is it global cooling or La Nina?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[BikerBabe 0]

In the end...does it really matter?

Does it TRULY matter?

What will it take to cause people to treat the earth better? If there was unequivocal evidence that humanity was indeed ruining this planet, would you change then? Or would we continue to argue?

What sort of evidence would you need, deniers, to decide to change? Give me examples here, because all I ever see is the same "it's not real and here's why". So look at it from the other side. What, for YOU, would MAKE it real? If one day you woke up and took two steps, then passed out from lack of oxygen? You turned on your faucet and nothing came out? You drove your car to the gas station and it was closed...they were all closed for lack of supply?

What would it take? And would it be too late?

Then I ask you, tell me the harm in changing NOW. Tell me. What is the harm in changing NOW?

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

In the end...does it really matter?

Does it TRULY matter?

What will it take to cause people to treat the earth better? If there was unequivocal evidence that humanity was indeed ruining this planet, would you change then? Or would we continue to argue?

What sort of evidence would you need, deniers, to decide to change? Give me examples here, because all I ever see is the same "it's not real and here's why". So look at it from the other side. What, for YOU, would MAKE it real? If one day you woke up and took two steps, then passed out from lack of oxygen? You turned on your faucet and nothing came out? You drove your car to the gas station and it was closed...they were all closed for lack of supply?

What would it take? And would it be too late?

Then I ask you, tell me the harm in changing NOW. Tell me. What is the harm in changing NOW?

What is wrong is where you are starting from. You automaticly assuming that we are destroying the planet. If one really cares to look at it, all this green stuff and green house gas crap has nothing to ddo with the planet.

In the end, YOU want to force what you believe on the rest of us.

As for harm of "changing"? The implications of the change you advocate is a huge list. And nearly non of them are good.

But lets say you are correct in some fashion. Then common sense would beg for change. But, people will only do that if the information being put forth is truthful. Saddly, this is not the case.

Eddited to add: We are already seeing the effects of the kind of change you advocate. Those being gas prices and food shortages. If you really care to look

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>Those being gas prices and food shortages. If you really care to look

So you think gas price increases are due to environmentalism, and not the fact that we're running out of oil (which geologists have been warning us about for the last 50 years?)

Let's add up the things you blame on environmentalism:

food prices
fuel prices
hysteria

Anything else? How about bad breath? I hear people's breath would be minty fresh if not for those damn environmentalists.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Those being gas prices and food shortages. If you really care to look

So you think gas price increases are due to environmentalism, and not the fact that we're running out of oil (which geologists have been warning us about for the last 50 years?)

Let's add up the things you blame on environmentalism:

food prices
fuel prices
hysteria

Anything else? How about bad breath? I hear people's breath would be minty fresh if not for those damn environmentalists.

Well, you started out with a post I was going to reply to but, since you end with this bull shit what the hell would be the point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

since you end with this bull shit what the hell would be the point

I'm not so proud.

BV - Has Congress been forced to pass any legislation requiring mint to be grown fully organic and pesticide free? (thus raising the cost of mint farming to a rididulous point and putting most of the small groups out of business).

2nd possibility is that the enviromentalists, on another wacky rampage have required dinner mint manufacturers to be mint friendly, and now require 83% of their product to be made from recycled "pre-moistened" public restroom paper towels.


I'd do a search but.....well.....you know. I'm pretty sure the 2nd is true, not so much the 1st one

In the meantime, I'll just assume that the radical mint envirofreaks have done just that.

Growing mint WAS a victimless crime

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[AWL71 0]

Im all for treating Mother Earth correctly. I think we should all recycle, be energy efficient as possible, encourage alternative fuel technology, and so forth. We should do these things because they are the right thing to do. Not because of so called "Global Warming."

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Those being gas prices and food shortages. If you really care to look

So you think gas price increases are due to environmentalism, and not the fact that we're running out of oil (which geologists have been warning us about for the last 50 years?)

Let's add up the things you blame on environmentalism:

food prices
fuel prices
hysteria

Anything else? How about bad breath? I hear people's breath would be minty fresh if not for those damn environmentalists.

But just for the hell of it.

billvon, when and where was oil first discovered and produced? (this directly deals with your 50's worth of predictions) And there is plenty of oil

We are currently burning food for enviornmental reasons.

Burning food, subsidizing ethanol and a weak dollar are working to rasie prices

We do not have nuclear plants being built thank to enviros

How many different gas formulas are there in the US today.

How many refineries are currently running in the US?

How many have been built in the last 30 years?

Which countries are drilling for oil closer to our shores than we are allowed to?

What are the two countries that the US buys the vast majority of oil from?

One of these countries has an oil we dont buy because it has been demonized as "dirty" just like the enviro's are trying to do with coal

CO2 induced global warming arguments are starting to die fast (because it is not being proven as true) So now we will await the next doom coming to destroy us.

The article I posted on this thread used the same shamful tactic you used in a thread earlier this year to try and stop debate before it is allowed to conclude. Why? cause the hype can not be defended. It can't hold up under its own merits.

This is about money. Exampled by Gores proposed multi trillion dollor world carbon tax and Obams world proverty bill he just introduced.





It is getting more simple all the time

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Im all for treating Mother Earth correctly. I think we should all recycle, be energy efficient as possible, encourage alternative fuel technology, and so forth. We should do these things because they are the right thing to do. Not because of so called "Global Warming."

pffft - you just don't get it.

It's not 'what' you do, it's how 'guilty' you feel about it while you do it. Actions don't matter, you have to drink the cool-aid and preach the word. Amen.

get with the program

I mean, you can't just be efficient about energy because in the long run you'll save more money. That would be stupid. Anybody who does it for those reasons deserves the extra taxes they will eventually get. Those savings belong to the PEOPLE

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

Growing mint WAS a victimless crime

I had no idea!!??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

cause the cause

"Bootstrap's bootstraps"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

cause the cause

"Bootstrap's bootstraps"

ok ok

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

Im all for treating Mother Earth correctly. I think we should all recycle, be energy efficient as possible, encourage alternative fuel technology, and so forth. We should do these things because they are the right thing to do. Not because of so called "Global Warming."

pffft - you just don't get it.

It's not 'what' you do, it's how 'guilty' you feel about it while you do it. Actions don't matter, you have to drink the cool-aid and preach the word. Amen.

get with the program

I mean, you can't just be efficient about energy because in the long run you'll save more money. That would be stupid. Anybody who does it for those reasons deserves the extra taxes they will eventually get. Those savings belong to the PEOPLE

\

My apologies. I momentarily forgot the "Global Waming" movement was devoid of all common sense. Power to the PEOPLE!

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[billvon 3,116]

>billvon, when and where was oil first discovered and produced?

Oil was first used back in the days of Herodotus. It was first drilled in the US around 1860.

>And there is plenty of oil.

Then no problem. Good to hear you'll finally stop with the "ANWR is our only oil and we MUST drill it!"

>We do not have nuclear plants being built thank to enviros

Google "Lee Nuclear Plant."

>How many different gas formulas are there in the US today.

Dozens.

>How many refineries are currently running in the US?

About 150.

>How many have been built in the last 30 years?

None.

>Which countries are drilling for oil closer to our shores than we are
>allowed to?

Most countries that drill for oil off their coasts are drilling closer than we are.

>What are the two counties that the US buys the vast majority of oil
>from?

Canada and Saudi Arabia.

>One of these countries has an oil we dont buy because it has been
>demonized as "dirty" just like the enviro's are trying to do with coal

So a country we import most of our oil from, we don't import much oil from? Even for you that's a little opaque.

>CO2 induced global warming arguments are starting to die fast
>(because it is not being proven as true . . .)

Ah yes. "There's only one problem with global warming - it ended in 1998!" People are starting to realize that such statements are wrong. Every single time. They're starting to listen to climate scientists instead of overweight conservative talk show hosts. They're starting to see the results of climate change, and thus are starting to ignore the people who say "it's not happening! And even if it is, it's not our fault!"

>cause the cause can not be defended. It can't hold up under its own
>merits.

On Weds night I spent some time talking to a Scripps Institute oceanographer. You'll forgive me if I place more stock in what he says than in what people who prefer politics to science say.

>This is about money. Exampled by Gores proposed multi trillion dollor
>world carbon tax and Obams world proverty bill he just introduced.

Ah. Well, by that angle, it is indeed "exampled' by money. The oil companies billion dollar subsidies, for example.

Here's a good article on the subject:

===========================


Dumb as We Wanna Be

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: April 30, 2008

It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away. Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer’s travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.

When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit.

No, no, no, we’ll just get the money by taxing Big Oil, says Mrs. Clinton. Even if you could do that, what a terrible way to spend precious tax dollars — burning it up on the way to the beach rather than on innovation?

The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

But here’s what’s scary: our problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage — gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars — and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage — new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.

Are you sitting down?

Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

These credits are critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again — which often happens — investments in wind and solar would still be profitable. That’s how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve scale, so it can compete without subsidies.

The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.

“It’s a disaster,” says Michael Polsky, founder of Invenergy, one of the biggest wind-power developers in America. “Wind is a very capital-intensive industry, and financial institutions are not ready to take ‘Congressional risk.’ They say if you don’t get the [production tax credit] we will not lend you the money to buy more turbines and build projects.”

It is also alarming, says Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, that the U.S. has reached a point “where the priorities of Congress could become so distorted by politics” that it would turn its back on the next great global industry — clean power — “but that’s exactly what is happening.” If the wind and solar credits expire, said Resch, the impact in just 2009 would be more than 100,000 jobs either lost or not created in these industries, and $20 billion worth of investments that won’t be made.

While all the presidential candidates were railing about lost manufacturing jobs in Ohio, no one noticed that America’s premier solar company, First Solar, from Toledo, Ohio, was opening its newest factory in the former East Germany — 540 high-paying engineering jobs — because Germany has created a booming solar market and America has not.

In 1997, said Resch, America was the leader in solar energy technology, with 40 percent of global solar production. “Last year, we were less than 8 percent, and even most of that was manufacturing for overseas markets.”

The McCain-Clinton proposal is a reminder to me that the biggest energy crisis we have in our country today is the energy to be serious — the energy to do big things in a sustained, focused and intelligent way. We are in the midst of a national political brownout.

[shropshire 0]

There's no money or political capital to be made from Global Unwarming

Hey but we're just nutter deniers, what do we know?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

Quote

In the end...does it really matter?

Does it TRULY matter?

What will it take to cause people to treat the earth better? If there was unequivocal evidence that humanity was indeed ruining this planet, would you change then? Or would we continue to argue?

What sort of evidence would you need, deniers, to decide to change? Give me examples here, because all I ever see is the same "it's not real and here's why". So look at it from the other side. What, for YOU, would MAKE it real? If one day you woke up and took two steps, then passed out from lack of oxygen? You turned on your faucet and nothing came out? You drove your car to the gas station and it was closed...they were all closed for lack of supply?

What would it take? And would it be too late?

Then I ask you, tell me the harm in changing NOW. Tell me. What is the harm in changing NOW?

What is wrong is where you are starting from. You automaticly assuming that we are destroying the planet. If one really cares to look at it, all this green stuff and green house gas crap has nothing to ddo with the planet.

In the end, YOU want to force what you believe on the rest of us.

As for harm of "changing"? The implications of the change you advocate is a huge list. And nearly non of them are good.

But lets say you are correct in some fashion. Then common sense would beg for change. But, people will only do that if the information being put forth is truthful. Saddly, this is not the case.

Eddited to add: We are already seeing the effects of the kind of change you advocate. Those being gas prices and food shortages. If you really care to look

I asked for what sort of proof you would need.

Please answer my question.

Is there ANYTHING that will EVER be "truthful" in your eyes? what if it is completely counter to your current world view? Is there ANY evidence you would accept...or would you continue to call it a lie?

If so, please, tell me. Tell us. I am not talking about what is out there now. I'm talking about what, in YOUR mind, will prove to YOU that we do, indeed, need to change.

Me, i don't need proof. I believe we should be good custodians of our planet no matter what. Cutting down forests, polluting our air and water, etc...that's not being a good custodian. Honestly, it's not an argument based on consequences. it's an argument based on the means. So I say again...does it really matter if it's humanity or not?

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!