2008 - The year global warming was disproved.

[hokie4redskins]

The dangerous susceptibility of leftists has been exposed. It's amazing.......and sad...... how many people will disregard logic and reason and allow themselves to be so bamboozled.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".

Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.

Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume worse than ever by the middle of the next decade).

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.

[HighOnHendrix]

My opinion is that Global Warming is somewhere between an exaggeration and an outright fabrication. I'm very skeptical of any theory which bases the bulk of its reasoning on computer models, especially when said simulations have been proven wrong year after year for the last twenty-plus years.

[Larry]

Really admiring the way that, when 8 of the last 10 years are the hottest year on record, it's anecdotal evidence and completely worthless.

But fail to predict the weather for Fairbanks on New Years, and it's absolute conclusive proof that everybody who disagrees with the poster is a liar.

[FanboyOf91]

I guess I don't have to worry about any major hurricanes next year.

Now, if only someone could tell the insurance agencies about their hurricane insurance rates...

[Burgold]

The dangerous susceptibility of leftists has been exposed. It's amazing.......and sad...... how many people will disregard logic and reason and allow themselves to be so bamboozled.

In other words, what you are saying is that the fundamentals of our environment are strong. Right, Senator?

[HighOnHendrix]

Really admiring the way that, when 8 of the last 10 years are the hottest year on record, it's anecdotal evidence and completely worthless.

But fail to predict the weather for Fairbanks on New Years, and it's absolute conclusive proof that everybody who disagrees with the poster is a liar.

My view is that most people on this issue have jumped to conclusions with little to no data of any worth. The Global Warming crowd cherry-pick their data, the other side as well. Both are extremely well funded also. Based on ice-core research scientists have extrapolated that this is the coolest inter-glacial period in several million years. When dinosaurs roamed the earth, there were no ice caps; climate changes, that's the nature of things. We can debate how quickly it is changing, whether it will get hotter or cooler, and how much impact mankind has on those changes. In the end, we don't know.

[Skins24]

Really admiring the way that, when 8 of the last 10 years are the hottest year on record, it's anecdotal evidence and completely worthless.

Records going back a whooping 100 years! Very accurate no?

[hokie4redskins]

Really admiring the way that, when 8 of the last 10 years are the hottest year on record, it's anecdotal evidence and completely worthless.

But fail to predict the weather for Fairbanks on New Years, and it's absolute conclusive proof that everybody who disagrees with the poster is a liar.

It's funny to see one of the most easily duped posters come clamoring into this thread.

You're talking about recorded history.

:rotflmao:

What about the six BILLION years before that?

Regardless, global warming will go down as one of the biggest scams in history. Keep trying to defend it.

:thumbsup:

[GSF]

There certainly has been a ton of snowfall in the last few weeks, but it doesn't disprove global warming. It doesn't really prove anything except for maybe that the weather seems to be becoming more and more eratic and severe in general. What we do know that the polar ice caps appear to be melting at a significant rate, and we've had record heat most years for the last decade.

Now, I'm not a leftist, and I think the jury is definitely still out on global warming, and how much of it is man made, but to claim that it's disproven b/c we've had a lot of snow for the last few weeks seems a little like sticking your head in the sand to me.

[hokie4redskins]

In other words, what you are saying is that the fundamentals of our environment are strong. Right, Senator?

No, I'm saying leftists are logic-less imbeciles. Does that clarify? My bad.

[HighOnHendrix]

It's funny to see one of the most easily duped posters come clamoring into this thread.

Dunno about the duped part, but I wish I had a dollar for every time I've had to read anecdotal evidence in a post.

[The Sisko]

Really admiring the way that, when 8 of the last 10 years are the hottest year on record, it's anecdotal evidence and completely worthless.

But fail to predict the weather for Fairbanks on New Years, and it's absolute conclusive proof that everybody who disagrees with the poster is a liar.

Beat me to it Lare. But hey, you can't blame them for drawing conclusions based upon one colder than usual winter. Nevermind also that this event comes after a major dropoff in the use of fossil fuels due to the global economic collapse. So in other words, these folks are saying "See, told ya so" after an isolated event that follows a huge change in the major variable implicated in the phenomena in question. Yep, that's the scientific method I learned.

[Teller]

I guess someone could post data about this year's decrease (lol) in CO2 levels.

[Teller]

....or not. :laugh:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/12/climatechange.carbonemissions

(Remember not so long ago when I was "stupid" for talking about decreased solar activity. Damn sun might have something to do with this afterall, no?)

[Skins24]

Beat me to it Lare. But hey, you can't blame them for drawing conclusions based upon one colder than usual winter. Nevermind also that this event comes after a major dropoff in the use of fossil fuels due to the global economic collapse. So in other words, these folks are saying "See, told ya so" after an isolated event that follows a huge change in the major variable implicated in the phenomena in question. Yep, that's the scientific method I learned.

This cool down is over a year and a half old now and corresponds with the sunspot cycle, not any drop off in fossil fuels LOL

And how is saying global warming is a fact based on the last 8 out of 10 years any different? Why couldn't those years just be warmer than normal?

[Larry]

Really admiring the way that, when 8 of the last 10 years are the hottest year on record, it's anecdotal evidence and completely worthless.

But fail to predict the weather for Fairbanks on New Years, and it's absolute conclusive proof that everybody who disagrees with the poster is a liar.

Records going back a whooping 100 years! Very accurate no?

It's funny to see one of the most easily duped posters come clamoring into this thread.

You're talking about recorded history.

:rotflmao:

What about the six BILLION years before that?

Regardless, global warming will go down as one of the biggest scams in history. Keep trying to defend it.

:thumbsup:

Yeah, like that.

[HighOnHendrix]

Beat me to it Lare. But hey, you can't blame them for drawing conclusions based upon one colder than usual winter. Nevermind also that this event comes after a major dropoff in the use of fossil fuels due to the global economic collapse. So in other words, these folks are saying "See, told ya so" after an isolated event that follows a huge change in the major variable implicated in the phenomena in question. Yep, that's the scientific method I learned.

Actually, last winter was colder as well. I have seen no numbers to support your statement that there has been a drop-off in fossil fuels; even if the West DID drop off, China surely made up for it in spades. I would contest that there was a huge change or that it is a major variable, btw. The earth is a pretty big place and the number of variables are literally in the thousands - which is why the computer simulations NEVER come out right. Better off reading Farmers' Almanac.

[Burgold]

No, I'm saying leftists are logic-less imbeciles. Does that clarify? My bad.

Hmmm... 95% of the scientists who seriously study this agree that global warming is real. 97% of the studies demonstrates that global warming is real. Yet the left are the people ignoring logic and are imbeciles?

There is almost zero doubt that the polution and crap that we put into the environment has had a negative impact on us. Whether you want to measure that in terms of cancer, asthma, climate change etc. Why we have people who want to champion toxins and pollution and things which at the minimum are carcinogins is amazing to me.

[HighOnHendrix]

(Remember not so long ago when I was "stupid" for talking about decreased solar activity. Damn sun might have something to do with this afterall, no?)

Just one of the plethora of events which impact climate.

[Burgold]

except it really could be d) all of the above.

Certainly, the sun has an impact.

CO2 has an impact.

Pollution has an impact.

Polar melting has an impact (in dropping temperatures)

Why would anyone exclude any of the factors. The evironment we live in as a very intricate puzzle with tons of inter-relating factors. What I think is fair is to argue the degree to which "global warming" is harming us, but I don't think it's a wise argument to argue that putting hundreds of thousands of tons of poison into the atmosphere is having no negative effect.

[GSF]

Well 10 years seems to be more of a trend then 4 weeks, but what do I know. I guess they're both a blip on the radar compared to the millions of years the Earth has been around.

As to the CO2 levels in the athmospere, the vary due to ocean temps and sun spot activity, but there is plenty of scientific evidence that they have steadily risen over the last 50 years.

Like I said before, I think we're still learning about global warming, and how much is man made. I don't think we have any concrete answers yet, but there is a lot of evidence that we are having some level of negative impact on our athmoshere. That can't be a good thing. It seems almost comical to me that hard core right wingers like the OP in this thread are convinced that any data showing we are negatively impacting our athmosphere and possibly climate is a total scam. Talk about being in denial...

[Teller]

except it really could be d) all of the above.

Certainly, the sun has an impact.

CO2 has an impact.

Pollution has an impact.

Polar melting has an impact (in dropping temperatures)

Why would anyone exclude any of the factors. The evironment we live in as a very intricate puzzle with tons of inter-relating factors. What I think is fair is to argue the degree to which "global warming" is harming us, but I don't think it's a wise argument to argue that putting hundreds of thousands of tons of poison into the atmosphere is having no negative effect.

IIRC, the UN has said it would cost us $11 trillion dollars to 'correct' all of our emissions sources that they allege are the cause of global warming. (Course, that doesn't account for China, or anyone else for that matter.)

Are you confident enough, right now, to throw that $11 trill at the problem, and know that it will unequivocally be the solution?

[techboy]

Hmmm... 95% of the scientists who seriously study this agree that global warming is real. 97% of the studies demonstrates that global warming is real.

98% of all statistics cited are made up.

[Johnny Punani]

Beat me to it Lare. But hey, you can't blame them for drawing conclusions based upon one colder than usual winter. Nevermind also that this event comes after a major dropoff in the use of fossil fuels due to the global economic collapse. So in other words, these folks are saying "See, told ya so" after an isolated event that follows a huge change in the major variable implicated in the phenomena in question. Yep, that's the scientific method I learned.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

From this post you wouldn't know "the scientific method" if it crapped on your head...

[GSF]

IIRC, the UN has said it would cost us $11 trillion dollars to 'correct' all of our emissions sources that they allege are the cause of global warming. (Course, that doesn't account for China, or anyone else for that matter.)

Are you confident enough, right now, to throw that $11 trill at the problem, and know that it will unequivocally be the solution?

I don't think too many are suggesting throwing 11 trillion at the problem. We definitely should continue research though and try to do whatever we can. What seems proposterous is to just write the whole problem off as a scam as the OP does. Are you confortable with taking that chance?

You're right about China. My understanding is they are by far the worst polluters in the world.