Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

B.O. says Globe is warming, latest report says NOT.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • B.O. says Globe is warming, latest report says NOT.

    President Obama: ‘I am a firm believer that climate change is real’ .....

    The president did not shy away from the question, saying, “I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions.”

    “You know, as you know, Mark, we can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change. What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago. We do know that the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than was predicted even five years ago. We do know that there have been extraordinarily — there have been an extraordinarily large number of severe weather events here in North America, but also around the globe.”

    “And I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions. And as a consequence, I think we’ve got an obligation to future generations to do something about it.” .....
    http://www.examiner.com/article/pres...change-is-real

    Or is it ?

    Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

    • The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
    • This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

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


    Gotta love it
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
    “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

  • #2
    Technically, there has been no statistically significant global warming over the last 16 years. There's been no global warming at all since at least the fall of 2000...



    Although, Maobama did pretty well halt sea level rise...
    Tonight, after 54 hard-fought contests, our primary season has finally come to an end.
    I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that...
    This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...


    --The Anointed One, June 2008

    Lo and behold! Obama halted sea level rise!



    I'm kind of shocked that Dear Leader Generalissimo Chairman Maobama hasn't tried to take credit for this Moses-like miracle. The rise of the oceans literally did begin to slow on His command...

    Last edited by The Doctor; 16 Nov 12, 07:44.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #3
      An interesting video clip in this;
      Scientist Shoots Holes In Obama’s Latest Statements On Climate Change

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/scientist-shoots-holes-in-obamas-latest-statements-on-climate-change/
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
      “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

      Comment


      • #4
        Sounds like a case of WMD's in Iraq?

        I hope that doesn't cost use as many lives and $.
        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
          Sounds like a case of WMD's in Iraq?

          I hope that doesn't cost use as many lives and $.
          The Envirvomarxists' proposed solution to the mythical problem of AGW will cost US taxpayers and energy consumers about $40 trillion, 20 to 40 times as much as Iraq.

          While this mental [email protected]**ation won't cost the lives of as many Americans as Iraq did, it will probably cost the lives of millions of people in the Third World.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
            President Obama: ‘I am a firm believer that climate change is real’ .....

            The president did not shy away from the question, saying, “I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions.”

            “You know, as you know, Mark, we can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change. What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago. We do know that the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than was predicted even five years ago. We do know that there have been extraordinarily — there have been an extraordinarily large number of severe weather events here in North America, but also around the globe.”

            “And I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions. And as a consequence, I think we’ve got an obligation to future generations to do something about it.” .....
            http://www.examiner.com/article/pres...change-is-real

            Or is it ?

            Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

            • The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
            • This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

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


            Gotta love it
            You were doing fine up until the words "Barack Obama says...".

            PLEASE do not bring up this same tired old discussion again.

            Flaw in the report: it refers to "aggregate global temperatures", which means it ignores regional changes entirely so long as mean temperastures remain the same overall. So the Arctic turns into a desert and the desert turns into an Ice Age, but that good old "aggregate" stays the same.

            Whoop-diddly-doo...


            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              You were doing fine up until the words "Barack Obama says...".

              PLEASE do not bring up this same tired old discussion again.


              1) You are not the official censor of ACG, don't tell me what I can or cannot discuss. No one says you have to participate (hint). Note also that while I may disagree with your positions on some topics, I've never told you to shut up and not present your views.

              2) So long as hypocrites try to advance a political and regressive agenda of the psuedoscience of AGW/ACC that will negatively impact our lives and freedom, I will bring up this subject and speak out against it. Just as one example, any effort to impose a 'carbon footprint tax' should be counter-balanced with an 'oxygen footprint credit'.

              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Flaw in the report: it refers to "aggregate global temperatures", which means it ignores regional changes entirely so long as mean temperastures remain the same overall. So the Arctic turns into a desert and the desert turns into an Ice Age, but that good old "aggregate" stays the same.

              Whoop-diddly-doo...



              But the proponents of AGW/ACC speak of 'Mother Earth has a temperature', i.e. they also invoke the aggregate, using mis-interpretation of regional to support their positions.

              Were the planet to regress to the 18th century methods of agriculture, industry, and economics they advocate, this system would at best only sustain about one-sixth the current human population. If these advocates were to match their actions and lifestyle to their words, they should morally and ethically remove themselves from the cycle, be the first of the 5 out of 6 to perish. Don't see it happening, either on part of Maobama or this sorry excuse of human flesh;
              http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fran...-is/:rolleyes:
              Last edited by G David Bock; 18 Nov 12, 14:49.
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
              “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                President Obama: ‘I am a firm believer that climate change is real’ .....

                The president did not shy away from the question, saying, “I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions.”

                “You know, as you know, Mark, we can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change. What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago. We do know that the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than was predicted even five years ago. We do know that there have been extraordinarily — there have been an extraordinarily large number of severe weather events here in North America, but also around the globe.”

                “And I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions. And as a consequence, I think we’ve got an obligation to future generations to do something about it.” .....
                http://www.examiner.com/article/pres...change-is-real

                Or is it ?

                Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

                • The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
                • This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
                http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html


                Gotta love it
                There are many UK newspapers, both left and right leaning, that I would not trust to report the whole truth. The Daily Mail is one of them.

                If you actually want to know what the Met Office currently thinks will happen in part of the world, you can download the relevant country's file here.
                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                Comment


                • #9
                  In my post above, I call Anthropogenic (human caused) Global Warming (AGW)/Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) pseudoscience. This charge is based upon the fact the key argument of its proponents is that the main cause is rising Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere. CO2 being a "greenhouse gas" so the claim goes, it's increase in amount means more heat is retained in the atmosphere 'as a whole', translating into a general rise in global temperature average(aggregate).

                  The challenge is that CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere that it's hard to see on a math or common sense basis how this claim can be sustained. The AGW/ACC proponents claim that increasing from current levels of about 350 ppm (parts per million) to 400 ppm is the cause of "Global Warming"/"Climate Change". Let's put these numbers in perspective.

                  By volume, dry air is @ 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% other gases, the largest percent of the "other gases" being argon. In ppm, nitrogen would be about 780,000; oxygen 210,000;, argon @ 9,300 (10,000 ppm equal one percent of the million parts of the atmosphere) and CO2 would be between 350 to 400 (depending on which source you consult). For generic reference here's one option;
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

                  To better visualize this, image the following DIY "experiment" Get a million pennies and arrange them in a uniform stack. At fifty pennies per roll, as they come from the bank, this would be a cube approximately one yard in size. Heat the cubic yard of pennies to 68 degrees F. Remove 350 pennies, seven rolls ~ a handful, from the stack and heat them to 70 degrees F. Reinsert your heated pennies into the cubic yard and thoroughly mix them about and notice how that extra 2 degrees was transferred to the other 999,650 pennies.

                  Yeah right, didn't happen, did it.

                  Guess we need that extra roll of fifty pennies to hit the magic 400 ppm number, so let's heat those eight rolls of pennies to 70 degrees F and remix with the cubic yard and notice that still, the million pennies haven't increased in temperature to 70 degrees F. In fact barely increased a measurable amount from 68 degrees F they were to start with.

                  An easier experiment would be to take a cubic yard of water at 68 degrees F., remove a cup of water to represent our 350-400 ppm of CO2, heat that cup to 70 degrees F. and pour and stir it back into the cubic yard of 68 degree water and notice how the whole cubic yard of water increased to 70 degrees F.

                  Didn't seem to happen did it?! Yet this is what the AGW/ACC proponents claim is the danger of increasing CO2 levels.

                  Now if this were really what could happen, the better, easier, and less costly solution would be to increase the amount of plants on the planet, rather than try to regulate, reduce, and tax CO2 ("carbon emissions"). I've a first hand example in my backyard this past summer where the volume of plant life in terms of trees, bushes, flowers, and garden was about twice or more that of my neighbors on either side whose backyards are mostly lawn/trimmed grass. My plants were likely cycling about 2-3 times the amount of CO2 and returning 2-3 times as much O2 - oxygen to the atmosphere as their property was.

                  But the gorebots of AGW/ACC ain't talking about oxygen credits to counter-balance their pseudoscience claims of "carbon footprints", making clear theirs is science by consensus of propaganda, rather than fact or logic, for purpose of political change and control rather than "saving the planet".
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                  “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Terms such as Envirvomarxists, [email protected]**, Gorebots and Obamarxist etc etc should be kept out of the science forum, and kept in the politics section thank you.
                    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                      Terms such as Envirvomarxists, [email protected]**, Gorebots and Obamarxist etc etc should be kept out of the science forum, and kept in the politics section thank you.

                      correct Nick but when dealing with some people...
                      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                      you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                        Terms such as Envirvomarxists, [email protected]**, Gorebots and Obamarxist etc etc should be kept out of the science forum, and kept in the politics section thank you.
                        Your opinion and I'll strongly disagree. If you have another term for the deluded and/or intentionally misleading proponents of AGW/ACC, toss it out and I'll consider it.

                        Until then, I'm calling a spade a spade!
                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                        “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                          Your opinion and I'll strongly disagree. If you have another term for the deluded and/or intentionally misleading proponents of AGW/ACC, toss it out and I'll consider it.

                          Until then, I'm calling a spade a spade!
                          Idiots would be all-inclusive. Although "scientifically illiterate" would be the most polite way to describe the non-scientist believers in the IPCC's AGW fiction.

                          Now, in order to describe people like Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Susan Solomon, etc., I'm hard-pressed to come up with a term other than Enviromarxists. This at least allows for the possibility that they are blinded by ideology and not just engaged in scientific fraud.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                            Terms such as Envirvomarxists, [email protected]**, Gorebots and Obamarxist etc etc should be kept out of the science forum, and kept in the politics section thank you.
                            I agree Nick. Deprecating terms such as the above take away from fostering an environment where divergent views can be expressed freely and collegially.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Gorque View Post
                              I agree Nick. Deprecating terms such as the above take away from fostering an environment where divergent views can be expressed freely and collegially.
                              That gate has been swinging both ways, lads.
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                              “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X