Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Wanted: More Greenhouse Gases

arroba Email

Global average temperature in the past 12 months plummeted precipitously erasing all the global warming in the previous century.

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Well now, this proves I do make mistakes. My mistake was thinking it would take longer than this for me to be proven right.

Frost, I hope you know that pretending to give irrational, uniformed, or ridiculous support to an idea, though an oft-used tactic on forums like these, isn't the same as refuting it. Maybe I'm wrong here, but things like "co2 that you cant even see coming out of the tail pipe of a car" and "a green house is surrounded by clear glass or plastic- not co2" are hard incomprehensible in any other light. For the tactic to be successful, you need to refrain from taking your irrational hyperbole too far, in which regard you have failed. Phinehas
If you want serious examination of the flaws underlying climate data see: Climate Audit. It is amazing the range of errors that they have identified. A very substantial portion of "global warming" appears to be caused by physical biases in how the data is taken - i.e., changing to asphalt parking lots around weather stations. Another major component is systematic biasing of the records to "correct" the data. e.g., by 3 deg C. See: The Adjusters visit Peru. DLH
This move on my part to save the planet has surely had its effect, reduced our CO2 footprint and undone the damage cause by our/my wastefulness.
I'm afraid not, since your fancy bulbs were made in an inefficient, polluting factory in China (by prison labor, no doubt). ;) russ
If an alternative explanation--solar activity--is responsible for climate change, might we find that there's been cooling on Venus and Mars? How would one check that? russ
Hey you guys, I'm terribly sorry but I am responsible for this radical cooling. You see, last fall I replaced all of the incandescent lightbulbs in my house with compact flourescents. This move on my part to save the planet has surely had its effect, reduced our CO2 footprint and undone the damage cause by our/my wastefulness. BTW, wanna buy a lightbulb? bFast
This is very cool. This blog is documenting the systematic flawed gathering and interpretation of climate data by GISS. http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-51/ Data is flawed when surface stations are moved to warmer places, like an asphalt parking lot. This causes a spike in temperatures. Then GISS applies "homogeneity" adjustments to the data which creates even more of a spike. Then GISS takes the data and throws it in with thousands of other flawed data points and it creates a fake warming trend that superficially appears to be supported by lots of data. You would think nobody would have the resources to examine each data point but enter the blogosphere. These guys are examining each surface station and catching flaw after flaw that is biased toward warming. Jehu
You see to be a raving socialist- which is what government control and limits of the energy usage and markets amounts to (when the evidence for the threat is skimp at best) one has to be an excellent salesmen- or even better a master crook. Most people are totally misinformed on this issue - why? Duh, the media loves it for two reasons- 1. It boosts their ratings through the "if it bleeds it reads" rule of journalism combined with the paradoxically esoteric "anything is ok to report on even if its not true as long as people will watch it" rule. 2. All of the jobs that are positively effected by the hysteria- they include- All of the students and teachers at universities looking for something to do- all of the people who want grants for research on the climate (and the people who want to do research on other things that they can get if they attach it to global warming) - all of the people who want to develop new energy sources - of course non-capitalistically- that is at the expense of the American tax payer (could be good- could be bad but limiting our use of the fuel is absurd because we could give grants away for new technology development without harmfully controlling industrial emissions that aren’t doing any harm) -- Also, all of the people who don’t believe in God use this as a cause and a religion- All of the politicians that use it as a wedge issue and a cause to get them elected. Also, all of the dumb people who get brainwashed by the groups above. So it is very understandable why global warming has so much popularity. I however was never one to join a college fraternity or anything like that because I don’t like other people telling me what to think or do or relying on others for the truth - but apparently many are more prone. Note that nothing above involves in the slightest way the search for truth- which is always the most important thing. This is why we talk about all of this on an ID web blog because Darwinism is to origins science exactly what global warming is to climatology except more people (Christians) fall for the global warming stuff because it is easier to manipulate it in a politically friendly way- making it a “moral issue.” DE is logically not and much harder to sell due to its metaphysical hopelessness. After all the global warming crowed is selling us hope. In fact social Darwinism is anything but what the left wing want it to be. Isn’t it amazing how leftists will support anything they can just strictly to kill God so they can justify state rule? Yet, they wont take their championed philosophical point of view to its full logical extensions. No, socialism/Marxism is a religion that is supported by anything that will support it- and nothing else. The real cure for global warming is getting back to teaching and living by the value and virtue of being truthful. Frost122585
Davescott, "If the non-warming trend of the last 10 years is debatable then so is the warming trend of the 20 years before that. It’s all the same data so questioning its integrity in the last 10 years necessarily requires questioning it for the last 30 years."
The debate is over the sources of the data in the last 10 years. The leftists have theirs and the skeptics thave theirs. If their is debate over the data of years before that time then you are right- but to my knowledge I havent seen such a debate over sources dating back over 10 years- Perhaps the reason is that there werent as many differnt groups collecting the data.
I actually hold the belief - its really just an intuition - that co2 is a green house gas and is causing a very slight warming- but that it is so trivial that it doesn’t matter at all- I think I read a paper on it by Patrick J. Michaels who sits on the board of the IPCC. He said that it would take like 400 years for any real change to occur- and he thinks- as do I- that we will have better fuels and energy technology by that time. One thing he reported that i found amazingly obscene but yet perfectly predictable and not the least bit surprising was that the computer models- which i always figured were full of bs and lies- were in fact full of bs and lies- He said that they project global warming using a co2 level that is 3 times as much as it actually is "just to be sure" !!! That’s our good old united nations- that God they are looking out for us so cautiously. Frost122585
Yeah I know guys - but to be a real skeptic we need to be skeptical of skepticism- they could get it right by accident- and it did warm at some point "a little" while the man made co2 was increasing- Also for the record and as I stated above- I am one of the biggest global warming skepticism in the world- in fact id like it to be true cause i like warm whether and dont care about fossil fuels -- accept their price that is. Frost122585
Frost If the non-warming trend of the last 10 years is debatable then so is the warming trend of the 20 years before that. It's all the same data so questioning its integrity in the last 10 years necessarily requires questioning it for the last 30 years. DaveScot
I think we need to be careful here… just because one year on record contradicts the trend doesn’t mean that the trend is wrong.
Yea wanna buy into my Club Med? bFast
I think we need to be careful here... just because one year on record contradicts the trend doesn’t mean that the trend is wrong. The fact that warming has been static for 10 years is debatable. I will be very interested to see how the communist scientific community receives this news. They will certainly reject it even if it is true because they are just liars- but if this data does hold up it needs to be shoved in the faces of all those environmental psychos - the ones that demand control over everyone else’s life just so they can feel good and powerful and win- and make a living in the process. I for one do not believe that man contributed co2 is causing any significant warming because only 3/10 of the world has land on it and only a small part of that is inhabited- inside that is the small part of land that is producing co2 - co2 that you cant even see coming out of the tail pipe of a car. People speak all about how co2 produces a dramatic greenhouse effect. There is a major problem with the green house analogy- a green house is surrounded by clear glass or plastic- not co2- so how much co2 would it take to equal the effect that the much more dense glass or plastic has. A lot more than we could produce. It would be interesting to hear Dr. Carter's take on the findings mentioned in the article above- as he is one of the main objectionists to the validity of the global warming poltical religion and its prophacies. Frost122585
Sheut, I live north of the 60th parallel. I was planning to set up a Club Med up here to profit off global warming. Now what am I s'posed to do with my 40 acres? bFast
My mistake was thinking it would take longer than this for me to be proven right. And the best part is, we don't have to wait 50 years for it to be known that the "scientific consensus" manmade global warming hysteria was junk pseudoscience promoted by people with an ideological agenda. Those who opposed the scientific consensus turned out not to be flat-earthers, but rational people willing to look at the evidence objectively. In the same way, those who look at the evidence concerning design in the universe and living systems objectively, and come to a conclusion at odds with the "scientific consensus" of blind-watchmaker Darwinism, will eventually be vindicated not as flat-earthers, but debunkers of junk pseudoscience. GilDodgen
Jehu In a limited sense it did erase the warming as the fall this year was as much as the rise over the last 100 years. In a general sense it didn't erase it as this one year isn't enough to drag down the average temp of the 100 years that went before. It does however serve to show the global warming alarmists were full of hot air. There hasn't been any warming at all for the past 10 years and, to add insult to injury, the average global temperature plummeted faster than anyone has seen before. In the meantime CO2 level in the atmosphere has kept right on rising as fast or faster than ever before. The facts don't fit the CO2 boogeyman story now and never have. It was all driven by a leftist agenda to stop burning fossil fuels - nothing more and nothing less. The public at large was gulled. I was pretty confident that the cold would return like it always does and with it would come the realization they'd been had. This was just 20 years of gulling. The Darwinian nonsense is going down harder as there's been 150 years of gulling and no cold harsh reality on the horizon to expose it for what it is. But make no mistake, the Darwinian story is the same as the global warming story, a leftist agenda shielding itself with appeals to scientific authority. It's actually worse as the Darwin worshippers drape themselves in the United States Constitution for a shield too and that pisses me off even more than the abuse of science. DaveScot
Next? Will the materialist media tell us all about this? Will the $$$ sucking bean brained 'scientists' that black balled anthropological global warming critics apologize? Will the general public's BS detectors finally go off in recognizing the same dreck in the whole "consensus science" of Darwinian evo's vast schlock? Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of "As the Stomach Turns"! Borne
I now have about as much confidence in the scientific community, it's consensus inanities and political manipulations as I do in TV evangelists in pink tights. Borne
I should point out that there has been a correction about erasing the temperature increases of the last 100 years from the article's source. See here: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/ It is still significant however. Jehu
We still need Al Gore though. He just has to switch blame to pollution particulates in the air, which block sunlight and cause global cooling. Obviously Trillions of dollars must still be extorted from industry to control these pollutants. Hey, it's still a crisis, right? Likely even worse than global warming. Better make that Quadrillions. dacook
And I would like to congratulate the Scientific Consensus on losing its virginity today. Jehu

Leave a Reply