Scientist Say Global Cooling is Here

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

I think Senator Dodd is on the right track with what he has been proposing. Basically he is saying that we should separate the idea of global warming from policy debate and look at the issue from an energy independence and clean air/water point of view. There are plenty of reasons for everyone to get on board with energy independce and the reduction of polutants like smog and mercury; he is saying if we proceed to work on solutions for these problems we will have a positive impact on carbon emmisions. He is right.

The problem is that the arguements are framed in these absurd partisan debate. If you are to frame the global warming issue instead as an energy independence agenda then you would get a lot of bi-partisan support.

Fuck our nation is stuck politaclly and econmically in a prisoner’s delima (google “game theory”).

22

[quote]Bambi wrote:
Or you know companies that produce these vital fossil fuels that simultaneously fuck over the environment could put much more of their money into research and development making clean efficient renewable technologies and gradually phasing out fossil fuels that are damaging to our health. it’s not one or the other[/quote]
Actually, the so called “big oil” companies spend huge amounts of money on new energy technology. They’d be stupid not to. Whatever the “next big thing” is in energy production, whoever comes up with it will make TONS of money. Trust me, those companies have no intention of just disappearing when fossil fuels eventually go away (which they will through a natural process of technological innovation).

23

[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
I think Senator Dodd is on the right track with what he has been proposing. Basically he is saying that we should separate the idea of global warming from policy debate and look at the issue from an energy independence and clean air/water point of view. There are plenty of reasons for everyone to get on board with energy independce and the reduction of polutants like smog and mercury; he is saying if we proceed to work on solutions for these problems we will have a positive impact on carbon emmisions. He is right.

The problem is that the arguements are framed in these absurd partisan debate. If you are to frame the global warming issue instead as an energy independence agenda then you would get a lot of bi-partisan support. [/quote]

Really?

Is it your opinion that the Democrats will, on account of this desire for energy independence, end the ban on drilling in ANWR, allow well-offshore drilling on the West and East coasts, see what they can do to economically and without increase in pollution expand coal use rather than seek, as Obama said he would do, to destroy it?

I am not so sure on the Democrat commitment to energy independence. I think Dodd’s plan is more a way to use it as a cover for the real goal of the Democratic Party leaders with regard to energy, which is not energy independence per se. Else they would do the above.

24

It’s best just to ignore the “scientists” when it comes to climate data.

25

[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
I think Senator Dodd is on the right track with what he has been proposing. Basically he is saying that we should separate the idea of global warming from policy debate and look at the issue from an energy independence and clean air/water point of view. There are plenty of reasons for everyone to get on board with energy independce and the reduction of polutants like smog and mercury; he is saying if we proceed to work on solutions for these problems we will have a positive impact on carbon emmisions. He is right.

The problem is that the arguements are framed in these absurd partisan debate. If you are to frame the global warming issue instead as an energy independence agenda then you would get a lot of bi-partisan support.

Fuck our nation is stuck politaclly and econmically in a prisoner’s delima (google “game theory”). [/quote]

This is a good idea.

I think Sen. Dodd should be the first person to become energy independent.

He can start producing his own gas and heating oil and electricity.

I wish him luck.

26

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I am not so sure on the Democrat commitment to energy independence.[/quote]

I think most people are only committed to energy independence superficially.

As soon as it is realized “energy independence” means paying $10/gallon to produce gasoline domestically, for example, rather than paying $3/gallon to have foreigners produce it they will throw all such silly notions out the window.

Though, on second thought most people wouldn’t be able to calculate the real cost of domestic energy production because they will ignore all the taxes and regulations that are required to make it possible.

27

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
I think Senator Dodd is on the right track with what he has been proposing. Basically he is saying that we should separate the idea of global warming from policy debate and look at the issue from an energy independence and clean air/water point of view. There are plenty of reasons for everyone to get on board with energy independce and the reduction of polutants like smog and mercury; he is saying if we proceed to work on solutions for these problems we will have a positive impact on carbon emmisions. He is right.

The problem is that the arguements are framed in these absurd partisan debate. If you are to frame the global warming issue instead as an energy independence agenda then you would get a lot of bi-partisan support.

Fuck our nation is stuck politaclly and econmically in a prisoner’s delima (google “game theory”). [/quote]

This is a good idea.

I think Sen. Dodd should be the first person to become energy independent.

He can start producing his own gas and heating oil and electricity.

I wish him luck.[/quote]

And I’m sure Gore could cut his energy use by a large percentage, prior to demanding that government force be used to result in others doing so.

For example, perhaps he could get the energy consumption of his house down to being equal to only say 10 average homes, rather than the 30 or whatever that it presently is.

28

[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:

[quote]zenontheterrible wrote:
well i think we can all agree on one thing, carbon monoxide is good for the enviroment and its good for you.

now lets all go wrap our mouths around an exhaust pipe and breath deeply.[/quote]

Because, you know, we just burn fossil fuels for the fuck of it. It doesn’t have anything to do with production of goods and maintaining our comfortable modern lifestyle free of many diseases, famine and death.

We should just like, respect the earth more, man. Who needs all these technologies and stuff, man. Now lets all go wrap our mouths around the bong and inhale deeply.[/quote]

  1. it was a joke. chill out.

  2. i don’t smoke pot.

29

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:

[quote]zenontheterrible wrote:
well i think we can all agree on one thing, carbon monoxide is good for the enviroment and its good for you.

now lets all go wrap our mouths around an exhaust pipe and breath deeply.[/quote]

Because, you know, we just burn fossil fuels for the fuck of it. It doesn’t have anything to do with production of goods and maintaining our comfortable modern lifestyle free of many diseases, famine and death.

We should just like, respect the earth more, man. Who needs all these technologies and stuff, man. Now lets all go wrap our mouths around the bong and inhale deeply.[/quote]

Hey man, leave the bong out of this.[/quote]

duuuuuude, a car sized bong? I’m so in.

30

Thousands gather to protest global warming.

31

13,000 years ago the last time all the planets lined up (Galactic Alignement, which is going to happen in 2012) there was an almost over night drastic change in the weather and a mini ice ice began that lasted a very long time.

We could be moving into another one of those.

32

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Yes, no doubt they are lying that this climate scientist is saying this. Good catch.[/quote]

Indeed.

[quote]John Timmer at arstechnica.com* wrote:
A substantially similar story, with precisely the same attributions, later appeared on the Fox News site.

There was small problem here, though: Mojib Latif is still alive, and was easy to get a hold of. When contacted, he pointed out that large portions of the report were inaccurate. A prominent climate blogger contacted both Latif and the NSIDC; he quotes Latif as saying, I don’t know what to do. They just make these things up. Referring to “facts” attributed to it by the article, The NSIDC’s director said, This is completely false. NSIDC has never made such a statement and we were never contacted by anyone from the Daily Mail. [/quote]

*Why is the news media comfortable with lying about science? | Ars Technica

33

Hmmm… from the NSIDC website (funnily enough, I checked there instead of relying on a climate blogger, and let me guess, an AGW-believer climate blogger?) I promptly found confirmation of the sea ice statement, which is the one of the two things quoted in the article from the NSIDC.

The sea cycles matter was not a quote, but a reporter’s summary of what the NSIDC seemed to be saying. It didn’t take long to find the NSIDC webpage where this conclusion could have been drawn, and which does in fact say warming in North America and Europe in the last 30 years (which is the principal part used to prove warming for this century) is due to these oceanic cycles.

So either the director of the NSIDC doesn’t know what he is talking about, or your blogger is the liar.

Oh geez, how could it be that a blogger could be full of it? We know’s its “Faux News” that is full of it! They say double-plus wrongthink things we don’t like to hear so they are bad bad bad!!!

34

Your quote “no doubt they are lying that this climate scientist is saying this” is pretty clearly in reference to Professor Mojib Latif. The Fox News article is entitled “30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming, Leading Scientist Says”. And Latif is pretty clearly not saying that the average temperature of the Earth is likely to go down significantly over the next decade, let alone the next thirty years. In fact, when asked directly, he specifically denies saying what the Fox News article title attributes to him. Latif’s forecast shows decadal average global temperatures remaining relatively stable through 2015 (i.e. for the next five years, not thirty) and then (possibly) rising rapidly after that.

The Fox News article also contains this quote: “Oranges are freezing and millions of tropical fish are dying in Florida, and it could be just the beginning of a decades-long deep freeze, says Professor Mojib Latif, one of the world’s leading climate modelers.” And this one: “America is caught in an icy grip that one of the U.N.'s top global warming proponents says could mark the beginning of a mini ice age.” And yet, apparently, Professor Latif has never said anything of the sort. At least, I cannot find a source for him saying anything about an imminent ice age except for the Daily Mail article that has now been quoted by Fox News and a variety of other secondary sources. I have found interviews with the man subsequent to the Mail article in which he states unequivocally that no ice age is to be expected in our immediate future.

This is not simply the Daily Mail or Fox News “spinning” or summarizing Latif’s position for a lay audience. These articles attribute positions to Latif that are opposite to those he actually espouses.

The mischaracterization of the NSIDC statement has been removed from the Fox News article (see the note at the bottom of the article in the OP’s link - An earlier version of this article erroneously reported that the NSIDC reports concluded that the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles). The Daily Mail article on which the Fox News article was based still includes the mischaracterization, but the original attribution to the NSIDC has been changed to the rather more vague “some scientists”.

So, yeah, I’m still sticking with “Yes, the Fox article is lying when they say that this scientist is saying this.”

35

Did the Daily Mail provide those quotes first?

If so then Fox erred in not verifying them.

As for the oceanic cycles and Arctic ice, while the NSIDC may have thrown a fit over their website information being used publicly in a way that could support an anti-AGW view, their website actually does reasonably support Fox’s original story, though it would have been more precise to have characterized it as saying that these sea cycles contribute importantly to temperature; in the first 70 years of the past century these cycles alternated between warming and cooling effects; and since the 70s have " higher than normal temperatures in much of the United States and northern Eurasia."

As for your conclusion, you seem to be unaware that to “lie” a person has to know or have reason to believe that his statement is false.

If the Daily Mail was the source, and Fox merely re-reported it and perhaps checked the NSIDC webpage, that does not constitute a lie.

It seems to me you’re really not interested in the scientific facts but rather just in attacking a news organization you don’t like. You seem to have no interest that the sea ice actually is increasing as stated and now we know that the rather slight temperature increase since the 70s that oceanic cycles apparently must be credited with at least part of that, thus weakening the AGW claims. As the NSIDC says, this has caused since the 70s “higher than normal temperatures in much of the United States and northern Eurasia.”

For me, it is processes and facts like these that are interesting and worth talking about, and are what is important.

36

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Did the Daily Mail provide those quotes first?

If so then Fox erred in not verifying them.

As for your conclusion, you seem to be unaware that to “lie” a person has to know or have reason to believe that his statement is false.

If the Daily Mail was the source, and Fox merely re-reported it and perhaps checked the NSIDC webpage, that does not constitute a lie.
[/quote]

This is one of the top journalism organizations in the world we’re talking about, not some random blogger with no following. Forgive me if I hold them to a slightly higher standard. Fox corrected the part of the article that made an erroneous claim about NSIDC, but they have not corrected the sections that make erroneous claims about Latif’s predictions, nor have they taken down the article entirely.

If the NY Times had an article saying that McCain agreed with his supporters that Obama was a Muslim and probably not eligible for the presidency (when of course, McCain made it clear that the exact opposite is true) how long could they leave that article online and uncorrected before you accused them of willingly engaging in a falsehood? For me, it would be about twenty-four hours.

[quote]
It seems to me you’re really not interested in the scientific facts but rather just in attacking a news organization you don’t like. You seem to have no interest that the sea ice actually is increasing as stated and now we know that the rather slight temperature increase since the 70s that oceanic cycles apparently must be credited with at least part of that, thus weakening the AGW claims. As the NSIDC says, this has caused since the 70s “higher than normal temperatures in much of the United States and northern Eurasia.”

For me, it is processes and facts like these that are interesting and worth talking about, and are what is important. [/quote]

This thread was entirely focused on a news article that made bogus claims and mischaracterized the arguments of the people it was quoting. In the context of this thread, my focusing on those errors seems appropriate. I picked on your post only because I found it ironic that your sarcastic response turned out to be nearer the mark than you expected.

Regarding sea ice and ocean cycles - I am not a climatologist, so I do not feel at all qualified to interpret the data. The sea ice is decreasing at the north pole and increasing slightly in the south. Articles on the NASA and NSIDC websites suggest that these data do not contradict AGW models. I’m sure you can find other scientists to disagree.

The earth’s climate is complicated and I don’t expect it to respond linearly to any given stimulus. But I would be quite surprised if it eventually turns out that increasing atmospheric carbon does not have a significant and measurable effect on the earth’s average surface temperature. And that’s pretty much the sum total of my position on AGW.

37

Well, your interest is in criticizing a news organization based on claims of a blogger, and even if the blogger is correct (which I don’t know) then it is a matter of one news organization assuming accurate and re-reporting a story another news organization broke but was wrong on, and this sort of thing is pretty common and to me not interesting. Interesting would be Dan Rather and his fake-but-accurate documents that clearly were produced by a proportional-font printer yet claimed to be typed in the 1970’s and the entire basis for his story: not assuming that quotes given in another paper were accurate. But if it’s interesting to you, okay.

As for predictions of 30 years in the future, I consider none of them to be worth the words breathed or the ink used, so I really don’t care about that.

As for the sea ice data, that IS interesting and is quite contrary to what the AGW-cheerleading media is constantly saying, and it IS what the NSIDC site says: it has been thickening relative to a few years ago.

As for their findings of sea cycles adding a warming effect since 1970, that is important also and the AGW models have NOT been subtracting that out.

Those are the parts that are interesting to me.

Yes, you’re right that it’s ironic that of the many times that a person here immediately throws anything out because Fox reported it – that being their entire method for determining truth, namely “who reported it” and apparently finding other news organizations credible but Fox sure to be wrong, without having data to back this up – that there may have been a misquote of that scientist here, copied from another paper. I say may have been because the only evidence at hand for me is your statement that a blogger says that the scientist denied it and you say you haven’t found it, but unless that is your field it does seem unlikely that you’d be familiar with everything this scientist has said.

38

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
LOL, Global warming leads to global cooling! What about the Polar Bears? !!!

V[/quote]

the polar bears’ll be vacationing in Miami … just you wait!![/quote]
I wonder if they are good eatin’? If so maybe we could send polar bear beef to Haiti.