When will the climate change deniers finally accept the truth?

Question

The latest research shows that there will be no more warming for 10 years. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7376301.stm

On top of this there has also been no discernible warming over the previous 10 years. Despite this we are expected to believe that this 20 year stable period is just a blip and afterwards the warming will continue on its unexorable upward track.

I'm afraid this isnt very credible. We are being asked to make radical changes to our lifestyles on the basis of computer models which are obviously flawed. None of them predicted the 10 year plateau which has just occured for instance.

I perceive that the majority of the public are now deeply sceptical about AGW and the latest revelation of a further 10 year cooling period is likely to be a tipping point for public opinion.

Are those scientists and eco-alarmists that still believe in manmade global warming likely to finally accept the obvious truth?

Answer 1

Flawed modeling by ecofascists alarmists that thrive on creating chaos. For me this whole argument is about political and social controls at a global level, and we need to make sure the debate remains active.

Marxists are a patient lot, we need to be diligent about making sure the idiocy of this does not grow any more.

I do think being "conscientious" is a choice that each individual needs to make as the result of their personal views and pocketbook.. I do not believe government at any level should be involved in the discussion especially when it is about creating mandates related to the emission of a normal atmospheric gas.

As I see this thing, the environmental movement that focused on reducing pollution has been subverted by these ecofascists, and reality needs to sink in to those of us who view the world as a dynamic changing system.

One thing is apparent, pseudoscience has been used to create a new world religion.

There are many skeptics in the science community, and their voices have been stifled as the result of funding sources being dried up when they don't adhere to the dogma. The reason for this funding problem is that descent goes against the intended message that would make it possible to impose economic and social controls by governments.

That IS the battle we need to fight.

Answer 2

Now now, LRG, don't take advantage!  Slim, what can I say?  Your swastika needs adjustment.

So then, O heavenly pot of tea, you've found this small study outside the IPCC and the rest of the mainstream, isn't that right?  And you feel somehow this disproves the mainstream and vindicates the people who avoid it, correct?

You base this conclusion on your mistaken belief that there has "been no discernible warming over the previous 10 years", despite the fact these years are among the warmest of the century, right?

Well let me put your mind at rest.  As long as the glaciers and polar ice is melting, the planet is not cooling.  There will probably always be gadflies who come up with crank ideas to get attention.  Lowell Ponte predicted an ice age in the 1970's and it worked a little bit.  Mainstream science ignored him, the way it will ignore this guy.  If you want to maintain a stable and healthy outlook on the cosmos it will help if you just ignore these type things when they come along, rather than regarding them as life-changing events.

Answer 3

The problem with these aberrant studies that appear to contradict the overwhelming body of scientific evidence is that they are eagerly pounced upon by those who would deny what is obvious.  Like tobacco smoking before it, the issue of global warming has had a huge disinformation campaign waged against it by powerful rich industry.  In fact in a stranger than fiction way the tobacco industry has been responsible for many people's delayed acceptance of Global warming .  The web site http://www.netwhare.com has some interesting links that explain this in more detail.  This site is particularly interesting as it appears to be a community in new Zealand who are doing something positive to take control of the agenda that has been controlled for too long by politicians.  

Just like the smoking debate of previous decades the argument regarding AGW is really all but over.  "Smoking Kills - Human Activity is warming the globe" The few that still claim that smoking is not involved in all morbidity that science tells us it causes, are no different from those who want to see some conspiracy in the campaigns to stop GW.

As The Royal Society say on their web site..."the science is now convincing enough that to take no action on reducing carbon dioxide emissions would be irresponsible and very dangerous."  

I helpful resource in looking at the misrepresentation of the science can be found here:  http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

Answer 4

For me, there is only one practical indicator for all of these issues on global warming - the ice caps in the arctic and the antarctic.. As long as these continue melting, temporary changes in other indicators are immaterial, and could be dangerously misleading.

Answer 5

As you know, computer models will only output the information which it is told to by the person writing the program.

These people rely heavily on these models to support their mis-guided beliefs.

The really amazing thing, is that they will also make claims like "Since these models are now so good at predicting the past, we have full confidence in their ability to predict the future"!!!

Now I have to ask whether I am the only person on this planet that finds that statement to be INSANE? I hope not.

I wish I knew when this insanity is going to end, and what the next 'bandwagon' these people will jump onto.

I also wonder how many will actually admit in 5 or 10 years time to having been so misguided and promoting their insane beliefs which lead to the hard times that they and the rest of the world will be facing because of those radical beliefs.

You have brought up some very good points and some of the truly 'Inconvenient Truths' that these people refuse to accept because they either believe the media, or live in the 'Land of Academia', which has little to do with reality.

I'm just going to have to leave this right now because I have to go sign for my latest check form Exxon.(I wish)

Answer 6

Just one guy with a theory.  They're a dime a dozen.  And note the title of his article:

GLOBAL WARMING: Mother Nature Cools the Greenhouse, but Hotter Times Still Lie Ahead

The real deniers are people who make the incredible claim that there has been no warming for the past ten years.  That's simply absurd.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

discussed in detail, with confirmation, at:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/g...

1998 was just a year when abnormally warm weather combined with global warming to make it a really hot year.  The true path of global warming is the red line in the first website above, which averages out the "noise" in the data due to weather.

Answer 7

A lot of those scientists fail to understand that any type of warming will make ice melt. An erupting volcano, for example, is going to have more carbon-emissions than millions of people driving SUVs. NOT TO MENTION THAT FREAKING HUGE BALL OF SCORCHING HOT FIRE KNOWN AS THE SUN!!!!!!!! DO YOU HAVE TROUBLE SEEING IT UP THERE, ECO-ALARMISTS?!?!?!?!?!

Global warming is happening, but just because I mow my lawn, I am not annihilating the earth, as economists would have me believe. The aforementioned volcanoes, and the naturally-caused forest fires are hardly going to be reasonable for reducing carbon-emissions.

Answer 8

Bob - I have noticed that you only point to GISS as there reference to climate change. If we look at the data from the 4 well respected indicators, HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets 3 of the 4 show a flat line trend for the last 10 years.

GISS is the only indicator out of the four which does not show a flat line on temperature increase but, please keep in mind that GISS takes 1950-1980 as their reference period and not 1960-1990 as the others do. IF we change the reference period of GISS to 1960-1990 GISS also shows a flat line trend since 1998.

GISS

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.c...

UAH

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.c...

RSS

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.c...

HadCRUT

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.c...

Answer 9

Why would they accept it when instead they can profit from it? If they admit it's a hoax they won't be able to pass such things as the Global Carbon Tax or scare people into doing their bidding to "save the planet". The global warming hoax is much to profitable for them to just come out and admit the truth. I'm glad to see someone else sees through the veil though.

Answer 10

believe what you want ,it does not change the truth

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/glo...

Answer 11

Not as long as money is thrown at them.  The ones that spout global warming gets the money.  The ones that say it is more of a natural cycle get no money.  It is like this in most of the scientific fields.  You research what people are willing to spend money on.

Answer 12

how old are you sweetheart? do you ever go outside your house?