Global Cooling

Crhistopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph has been writing about the 'great Global Warming Scam' for years
It's not a theory supported by either the principal Prof of Meteorology [sp? ie weather] at MIT [Massachusetts Inst of Technology, the foremost institution of scientific study in the world] nor by the editor of The Scientist, who's read most of the research!

Thanks for posting that link, I don't understand a lot of it esp the jargon, but it's good to read proper data for the subject
 
Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
 
Interesting! - if the cyclical movement is followed we're due for an Ice Age :laughing:
:what:

A lot of the research I've read asserts that warming and cooling is entirely to do with sunspot activity. I don't have the science to judge, but I do know there is more than one body of informed opinion on the debate. And that I'd have to drive my car to the shops or the races 100.000 times or so to equal the emissions made by one almost empty jet flying to Ibiza
 
It' s snowed in April before - it will do so again. If you want to follow the debate, have a look at this site:

http://theweatheroutlook.com/twocommunity/forums/6.aspx

I'm a member there and the discussion can get a bit technical but don't just swallow the Daily Mail anti-global warming propaganda without reading some facts.

The world HAS got warmer - the pace of warming has slowed in the last decade - but the rate of warming far outstrips natural climate cycles.
 
People really do need to THINK about which lobby groups are pushing this 'global warming' scenario, and why.

Unfortunately we now have a governing system [adopted in large part from America] whereby lobby groups which are quasi-official - they are licensed by both the Westminster and EU Parliaments - exist purely to influence government policy. Needless to say their own jobs - and the jobs and more importantly the businesses of those who employ them - depend on the adoption of certain policies.

Review of Nigel Lawson's book on 'climate change'

www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/06/ealawson106.xml

From Booker's latest column:

<< Propagandists for global warming were very excited last September when Arctic ice-cover, at 3 million square kilometres, hit a record low. They have been strangely silent, though, about the latest data (see the website)* which shows that, after the northern hemisphere's coldest winter for 26 years, ice-cover is now 14 million sq km, a million more than this time last year.

Meanwhile the latest figures on the "emissions trading scheme", flagship of the EU's battle to halt global warming, show that it cost €28 billion (£22 billion) last year, while CO2 emissions from the EU rose slightly. Since the system costs Britons about £2 billion a year in higher electricity bills, it is consoling to know that the problem it aims to solve seems no longer to exist. >>

* This is the graph in question, which totally contradicts the info and the 'spirit' of the editorial comments on the home page!

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...current.365.jpg
 
To be fair, Headstrong, Lawson's book got a huge piece in the very sympathetic Daily Mail on Saturday.

I don't think you can take a single winter's data in isolation and use it to debunk years of research. No one has suggested a uniform, unremitting rise in temperatures - there will be variations and oscillations - but over what is geologically a very short timeframe, the world has warmed and that can't be denied.

I also think, to be a shade more philosophical, we are seeing a desperste defence of capitalism here as we do on the immigration issue. Capitalism depends not only on the free movement of capital and labour but also on the availability and use of cheap energy. Global warming (and concerns about mass immigration) challenge the core tenets of capitalism and many will therefore stand up and object to what they say.
 
Well sorry, but it can be denied! And IS denied by a lot of well respected scientists and meteorologists. And the data doesn't support it - for example the Northern hemisphere has just had its coldest winter in 10 years. If you take even a cursory glance at the periods of cyclical warming/cooling, it's pretty obvious we are due for a cooling period following a fairly long warming cycle.

Those not falling for the great 'global warming scam' have been pointing our for years that these changes are cyclical. In the Roman period in the UK, in fact right up to the Medieval period, Northern Europe was warm enough to grown and make quantities of wine. This was followed by a mini ice age in the C16th/early C17th

I agree with what you are saying about energy policy considerations being at the mercy of big business lobbies - but the environmental groups and their lobbies and industries are also now very big business indeed. And all the associated quangos and conferences are massive boondoggles for those involved. They form a kind of global counter-economy - and it's just as self-serving.
 
<< Global warming (and concerns about mass immigration) challenge the core tenets of capitalism >>

PS Mass immigration is driven by Capitalism - it pushes down the price of labour.

It makes both the immigrant and esp the indigenous poor of the country they arrive in poorer - not to mention draining the economies of the immigrants' home countries of talent and manpower
 
Slight aberation to global warming trends.

Last Sunday went to watch a game of cricket, a friendly, between Lancashire u19's and Southport in Southport.

The match was subject to some heavy showers of hail. It was, however, interesting to see umpires deciding wether to bring the players off. Had it been raining and the umps sensed they were getting wet, they would have been off like a shot.

Eventually there was an interruption to play when a bowler suggested he couldn't see the batter he was aiming at so making appeals irrelevant. The umpire must have seen logic in that arguament and so the first break in play .....

I can see a new ECB rule appearing very shortly.

MR2
 
The problem with the "it's all cyclical" theory, Headstrong, is that it doesn't explain the RATE of increase in temperature from 1970-2000. Far faster and stronger than anything previously recorded.

We've had a couple of cold months and this April isn't as nice as last April. Fair enough but show me a sustained period of cooling - say 2-5 years - and I'll take some notice. Presumably, IF we have a hot July and August, you'll be a Global Warming believer again :)

As for immigration, my comment relates to the fact that the capitalist system relies on us living and consuming the way we do. If concern about the planet makes us consume less, capitalism is the loser and those in business who benefit directly from our consumption will also lose out.
 
Stodge, I was into ecological sustainability in the early 1970s, long before it became fashionable.
I think I do enough research to know what I'm talking about, and I've been following the argument a very long time

I'm on another mailing list with about 1000 members, most of them in the US with quite a few in Canada. They have had the coldest winter there for many years - and it ain't over yet. Weather patterns are changing form country to country - but that doesn't mean the earth on an ever-rising curve until it vanishes in an over'warmed' puff of smoke.

'Global Warming' is the new religion AND the new politics - and as usual in both those thorny areas, so much quickly becomes invested in personal [and business] terms by 'true believers', they end up only seeing one side of the equation, and ignoring evidence which doesn't suit their beliefs.

I remember the huge Aids scare - panic in fact - of the 1980s, when we were all going to die from having sex. The media was full of it, science was certain, and everyone in London was prophesying doom... I said it was bollox at the time, and so it turned to to be. And don't start me off on BSE/CJD...
 
Are you seriously boasting about being right about the very worst predictions of the AIDS epidemic not coming true?
 
I wasn't 'boasting' about anything, what an extraordinarily foolish question! I was comparing the media panic then - similarly based on inaccurate reading of the scientific data - to what is going on now. The doom-mongering was predicated on the notion that AIDS would spread inevitably into the heterosexual population and decimate mankind - which certainly hasn't happened in the Western world. [There are particular reasons why is has so spread in Africa, but that's another story]

This is one of the best documentaries I've seen on 'Global Warming' in terms of examining the evidence, and makes a pretty thorough job of explaining how the supposed scientific evidence on which the theory is based is plain wrong. Al Gore's famous graph was drawn from an inaccurate reading of the data, now corrected and widely available; and in any case he misread the graph to say it demonstrated the exact opposite of what it did in fact demonstate in respect of the relationship between warming and carbon dioxide levels.

Imo the film pretty comprehensively demolishes the GW pushers' scientific argument; and it certainly refutes your assertion that the entire scientific world swallows the GW theory - it certainly does not. A whole raft of distinguished academics in the field speak out here.

The video is very long - about and hour and a half. The second half is less compelling as it goes into what the film-maker imagines to be the political reasons for this scam; it's not a scenario I subscribe to! - but interestingly, Stodge, he has come to completely the reverse conclusion to yours: namely that it's the 'Global Warming' scenario which is driven by sinister capitalist forces, esp the big banking and industrial interests aiming to create a supra-national economy:

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?d...454241&hl=en-CA

Any number of videos on the subject on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY&feature=related
 
Extraordinarily foolish? Do you ever read what you write back to yourself before you post?

I remember the huge Aids scare - panic in fact - of the 1980s, when we were all going to die from having sex. The media was full of it, science was certain, and everyone in London was prophesying doom... I said it was bollox at the time, and so it turned to to be.
Click to expand...

25 million dead since '81, 33 million more infected, and you're sitting there patting yourself on the back about being right.
 
Originally posted by Headstrong@Apr 13 2008, 11:02 PM
I remember the huge Aids scare - panic in fact - of the 1980s, when we were all going to die from having sex. The media was full of it, science was certain, and everyone in London was prophesying doom... I said it was bollox at the time, and so it turned to to be. And don't start me off on BSE/CJD...
Click to expand...
If you're not boasting and don't want to be interpretated as such, then do not include this bit.

Regarding the topic at hand - your arguments seem to be a bit strange.

On one hand, you debunk the global warming theory as being entirely due to cyclical weather patterns over an insignificant period of time to be statistically significant.

You then produce proof of the "global cooling" side by referencing the fact that Canada has had its coldest winter for years and that the Northern Hemisphere has had its coldest winter for 26 years.

Surely you can't have it both ways?

Stodge is also right: although the magnitude of the temperature increase cannot be said to be statistically significant, the rate of change can be considered to be significant - and can't be easily explained by the cyclical variation theory.
 
Originally posted by Gareth Flynn@Apr 15 2008, 03:38 PM
Extraordinarily foolish? Do you ever read what you write back to yourself before you post?

I remember the huge Aids scare - panic in fact - of the 1980s, when we were all going to die from having sex. The media was full of it, science was certain, and everyone in London was prophesying doom... I said it was bollox at the time, and so it turned to to be.
Click to expand...

25 million dead since '81, 33 million more infected, and you're sitting there patting yourself on the back about being right.
Click to expand...
Foolish because you keep missing the point entirely, which is that the panic in the papers was about Aids in the THIS COUNTRY not int he Third World, which is indeed a tragedy.

It really is pointless trying to have a rational discussion on such terms

<< I think you'll find it hasn't affected the folk who frequent the Red Lion in Lambourn, which is all that is important, Gar. >>

F*cking pathectic :rolleyes:

People can draw whatever mad and elaborate conclusions they like from the research - it doesn't change the SCIENCE. but thinking about what the research means is hard work - making personal jibes is cheap and easy. I'm outta here
 
From the website of the Terrence Higgins Trust:

Early Government media campaigns were successful in raising public awareness about HIV. The measures taken by UK governments in the 1980s, including needle exchanges, condom education and harm reduction programmes, alongside strong efforts by the UK’s gay communities made sure that the UK had far lower rates of HIV than some of our European neighbours.
Click to expand...

Thank God for the "panic".
 
I think there's a gap in comprehension between "the media" and "The Daily Mail" here. "The media created panic" is generally better undestood to be "The Daily Mail front page was rampant bollocks as usual". I hate getting involved in arguments where someone cites their view v that of "the media" as if it's relevant. If I'm arguing with person A about an issue, then the point is that it's my view against their view. The media doesn't have a view, it has papers to sell. It's also true that the government doesn't have a view, it merely has a mandate to get re-elected. I'm actually more annoyed about this in terms with an argument about whether a jockey had or hadn't stopped a horse recently when the person involved went on a massive rant about the media, like it had any relevance!

I know that Headstrong's er....robust style gets under the skins of some of the posters and I understand why, but it's unbecoming to make jokes about her in front of her back as it were. By all means tell her she's talking rubbish, but the "Red Lion" gag was indeed pathetic, mostly because of the third person context.

On another note, big issues like this need to be debated here as many of us are curious but a tad sceptical about what we're led to believe. There is talk of conspiracy and propaganda which is all well and good, but the only way to demonstrate your argument isn't to throw up counter-propaganda. I'm impressed with Stodge as someone who is genuinely interested in the facts of the matter without political agenda. Headstrong clearly has strong opinions and could produce a decent debate, but my problem is she's starting her argument off with the assertion that it's all a scam. That may be true, but surely scientific debate should be just that and bringing it down to the level of political debate (which tends to be of the playground variety) makes for much less satisfying reading.
 
Back
Top