WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Theo520

Guest
Source: WSJ subscription required
Respost: no subscription
Sept. 4, 2014 7:20 p.m. ET THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
On Sept. 23 the United Nations will host a party for world leaders in New York to pledge urgent action against climate change. Yet leaders from China, India and Germany have already announced that they won’t attend the summit and others are likely to follow, leaving President Obama looking a bit lonely. Could it be that they no longer regard it as an urgent threat that some time later in this century the air may get a bit warmer?
Click to expand...
In effect, this is all that’s left of the global-warming emergency the U.N. declared in its first report on the subject in 1990. The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3).
Click to expand...
Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.
Click to expand...
First the climate-research establishment denied that a pause existed, noting that if there was a pause, it would invalidate their theories. Now they say there is a pause (or “hiatus”), but that it doesn’t after all invalidate their theories.
Click to expand...
Alas, their explanations have made their predicament worse by implying that man-made climate change is so slow and tentative that it can be easily overwhelmed by natural variation in temperature—a possibility that they had previously all but ruled out.
…
Click to expand...
If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.”
Click to expand...
Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statistical calculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada
…
Click to expand...
 
See IPCC AR5 for an updated synthesis of this topic. There has been an enormous literature during the last 5 years on the hiatus…pretending it doesn’t exist isn’t a viable solution.
 
DeniseNY said:
The best comments are those that have to do with the push for more tax dollars based on this “crisis”.

Not only is there the tax revenue issue, lets not forget the personal gains of those who have pushed so-called MMGW on the world:

forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/21/the-greening-of-gores-bank-account/
Click to expand...
Right. I guess it’s now “climate change” that we terrible humans have caused with our evil carbon footprints. I think I learned around 1959 that the earth’s temperature has slowly changed cyclically since the beginning.
 
captainrick said:
Right. I guess it’s now “climate change” that we terrible humans have caused with our evil carbon footprints. I think I learned around 1959 that the earth’s temperature has slowly changed cyclically since the beginning.
Click to expand...
I learned the same thing, it was '74-75 for me.

DGB
 
According to those well-balanced folks over at the National catholic Tattler (aka Fishwrap), global warming is the Church’s greatest pro-life issue.
 
po18guy said:
According to those well-balanced folks over at the National catholic Tattler (aka Fishwrap), global warming is the Church’s greatest pro-life issue.
Click to expand...
Ironic since it doesn’t appear to have killed anybody yet while the body count from “safe, legal abortion” in this country alone is well over 50,000,000.
 
Global warming was rebranded Global Climate Change, then “they” dropped Global. It used to just be called Acid Rain. Next year, I’m sure it will be rebranded again.

It’s all about getting votes, selling “green” products and self-agrandizing gestures (look at me, I’m carbon neutral.)
 
yeah…its not like we’re called to be stewards of God’s creation or anything…use and abuse, shouldn’t that be the Christian mantra?🤷
 
manualman said:
Ironic since it doesn’t appear to have killed anybody yet while the body count from “safe, legal abortion” in this country alone is well over 50,000,000.
Click to expand...
“Pay no attention to that abortionist behind the curtain, as the sky is falling!”
 
If Irish eyes are smiling, then green knees must be jerking.

I have carefully scanned the posts and see no endorsement of global pillaging and plunder. What I do see is healthy skepticism of claims that invariably lead to higher taxes and increased government control.
 
Neofight said:
yeah…its not like we’re called to be stewards of God’s creation or anything…use and abuse, shouldn’t that be the Christian mantra?🤷
Click to expand...
We’re not advocating abuse of the world. The Global Warming scare isn’t about preventing the abuse of the environment, it’s about using public panic to get grant money. There are certainly legitimate concerns about the environment and our impact on it, and I totally support the development of “green” technologies, but I do not support the vilification of standard technologies or the “intellectual exile” that is often foisted on scientists who reject the global warming narrative.

I also don’t accept the zealotry and near-dogmatic adherence of global warming advocates. I have had more than one good friend state that anyone who doesn’t believe in global warming is an idiot, or a conspiracy theorist, or a blind religious fanatic (that was my favorite >_>). The harm of the global warming scare is the same sort of harm associated with the push for “gay marriage”, or the push for “abortion rights,” advocates seek to blind people to rational thought, and denounce the personal right to form our own opinions. They vilify detractors and persecute them for not agreeing with the stated agenda. It is not healthy, it is not moral, and it is not productive.
 
We have gone from 1970’s “The Coming Ice Age” to Chicken Little’s “the sky is warming.” Who (that has watched both events) would not be skeptical?

All of this to divert our attention from the fact that we are entering the ISIS age.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
We’re not advocating abuse of the world. The Global Warming scare isn’t about preventing the abuse of the environment, it’s about using public panic to get grant money. There are certainly legitimate concerns about the environment and our impact on it, and I totally support the development of “green” technologies, but I do not support the vilification of standard technologies or the “intellectual exile” that is often foisted on scientists who reject the global warming narrative.

I also don’t accept the zealotry and near-dogmatic adherence of global warming advocates. I have had more than one good friend state that anyone who doesn’t believe in global warming is an idiot, or a conspiracy theorist, or a blind religious fanatic (that was my favorite >_>). The harm of the global warming scare is the same sort of harm associated with the push for “gay marriage”, or the push for “abortion rights,” advocates seek to blind people to rational thought, and denounce the personal right to form our own opinions. They vilify detractors and persecute them for not agreeing with the stated agenda. It is not healthy, it is not moral, and it is not productive.
Click to expand...
The reason scientists and science communicators get “annoyed” is because to deny anthropogenic global warming is to ignore over a century of where the current science has led up to. It also must necessarily deny the same physics that allows us to use satellites to interpret atmospheric conditions on Earth or other planets, or for that matter, how heat-seeking missiles work. It is the result of thousands and thousands of papers that have accumulated beginning with formulations of planetary energy balance, understanding ice ages, the development of quantum theory, the recognition of how ocean buffer chemistry works, the long-term observations of temperature, CO2, sea levle rise (not just a little over a decade of that data), etc. Ignoring all of this research is usually justified by saying it’s an appeal to authority (not true) or that the gut feeling of the arguer is preferable.

I could recommend good historical references to learn all this, but it seems a waste of time: the current generation of “arguments” against global warming can only be described as pseudoskeptical-- they are based on talking points and zombie ideas (arguments that keep coming to life even after being discredited countless times). This is not an appropriate epistemological framework to be living in. If people want to believe in conspiracy theories (e.g., I work on climate change topics, but I have no idea where this big money is, still waiting for my paycheck) that is fine. If people are scared about solutions because it doesn’t fit into their political views of government control, etc, that is fine. If people want to believe that science advances by us continuing to agree each other that’s fine. But be honest with yourselves and just say that’s what you believe-- don’t try to use these ideas as proxy arguments for why you don’t accept the physical science, or try to dress up technical discussions (like the “hiatus”) to fit within your worldview. It does a disservice to the many scientists and papers that are discussing these things and do not conclude what you think they conclude.
 
The “global warming” cult is now seen to have had as much “science” on its side as the Nazi’s specious attempts to “prove” Jewish racial inferiority. And with similar motivations: eradication of all opposition, fascist control, and raw power. As Joseph Goebbels taught: a lie repeated frequently enough becomes accepted as the truth.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
The “global warming” cult is now seen to have had as much “science” on its side as the Nazi’s specious attempts to “prove” Jewish racial inferiority. And with similar motivations: eradication of all opposition, fascist control, and raw power. As Joseph Goebbels taught: a lie repeated frequently enough becomes accepted as the truth.
Click to expand...
lol…
 
chris_colose said:
The reason scientists and science communicators get “annoyed” is because to deny anthropogenic global warming is to ignore over a century of where the current science has led up to. It also must necessarily deny the same physics that allows us to use satellites to interpret atmospheric conditions on Earth or other planets, or for that matter, how heat-seeking missiles work. It is the result of thousands and thousands of papers that have accumulated beginning with formulations of planetary energy balance, understanding ice ages, the development of quantum theory, the recognition of how ocean buffer chemistry works, the long-term observations of temperature, CO2, sea levle rise (not just a little over a decade of that data), etc. Ignoring all of this research is usually justified by saying it’s an appeal to authority (not true) or that the gut feeling of the arguer is preferable.
Click to expand...
The entire point of this article was about how all of that observation hasn’t panned out how it was predicted to. We’re not denying the science, only the conclusions.
I could recommend good historical references to learn all this, but it seems a waste of time: the current generation of “arguments” against global warming can only be described as pseudoskeptical-- they are based on talking points and zombie ideas (arguments that keep coming to life even after being discredited countless times). This is not an appropriate epistemological framework to be living in. If people want to believe in conspiracy theories (e.g., I work on climate change topics, but I have no idea where this big money is, still waiting for my paycheck) that is fine. If people are scared about solutions because it doesn’t fit into their political views of government control, etc, that is fine. If people want to believe that science advances by us continuing to agree each other that’s fine. But be honest with yourselves and just say that’s what you believe-- don’t try to use these ideas as proxy arguments for why you don’t accept the physical science, or try to dress up technical discussions (like the “hiatus”) to fit within your worldview. It does a disservice to the many scientists and papers that are discussing these things and do not conclude what you think they conclude.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with politics, and I have no fear of green technologies. This is about whether or not the fear and regulations associated with the whole notion of global warming are warranted or appropriate. I am a firm believer in science when it is appropriately applied. I personally do not believe that the presented evidence supports the conclusions that have been drawn by those in favor of global warming. I am perfectly willing to append that opinion should further evidence warrant it, but as it stands I’ve seen nothing that does. To further qualify this, I have studied evidence from both sides, and have watched presentations which gave arguments and evidence from both sides in a fair and unbiased way. One of my wife’s professors once did a presentation that was nothing but gathered data, no conclusions or opinions given. In the end of all of that, I have arrived at the informed opinion which I have previously stated. Namely: Man-made global warming is not the severe threat that it has been made to appear. We should continue to try to find less damaging methods of energy generation and transportation, but not because the world’s going to end if we don’t. We should do so because it is our call to be good stewards, and finding ways to do less damage is always good.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
We’re not advocating abuse of the world. The Global Warming scare isn’t about preventing the abuse of the environment, it’s about using public panic to get grant money. There are certainly legitimate concerns about the environment and our impact on it, and I totally support the development of “green” technologies, but I do not support the vilification of standard technologies or the “intellectual exile” that is often foisted on scientists who reject the global warming narrative.

I also don’t accept the zealotry and near-dogmatic adherence of global warming advocates. I have had more than one good friend state that anyone who doesn’t believe in global warming is an idiot, or a conspiracy theorist, or a blind religious fanatic (that was my favorite >_>). The harm of the global warming scare is the same sort of harm associated with the push for “gay marriage”, or the push for “abortion rights,” advocates seek to blind people to rational thought, and denounce the personal right to form our own opinions. They vilify detractors and persecute them for not agreeing with the stated agenda. It is not healthy, it is not moral, and it is not productive.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you & you said it much better than I could. ^5
 
chris_colose said:
lol…
Click to expand...
Look into GW a little deeper. population control is always a foundational aspect of it. Man is the enemy. And, western, uber-capitalist progressive man is nearly always exempt. Or simply buys credits.

You are not going to pass any feel-good GW legislation without giving up power over your life (you are already born, so think: end-of-life) to unseen government authorities. Can’t happen? Won’t happen?

Holland. Belgium.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top