Why is the IPCC now saying the planet may cool for the next ten year due to natural climate fluctuations?

Question

Are they now beginning to waffle?

Billions and billions of dollars are now invested in the scam.

Truth is irrelavent now. Propenents of Agw theory , regardless of their agendas will say or do anything to keep the lie afloat.

Answer 1

You could also cite this article:

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/NASA_Cl...

"Says NASA: "Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, ‘These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.'" "

First the Alarmists vehemently deny any of the effects of El Nino or La Nina - Now they claim that La Nina is causing ocean cooling.  They still won't believe that man is NOT responsible for climate/weather  but it sure blows their CO2 theories away!

Answer 2

You seem to ask and answer the question???  

I must have missed the IPCC report that says that.  I have seen discussion of other papers suggesting this cool period idea.  I'm very skeptical, as the signs I consider important continue to point the other way.  Could you add the link to the IPCC document(s) please?

edit

Oh.  So you're not sure if what you said is true, and you have no source.  Of course.

edit

You should keep in mind birdog, you presented no sources, so it doesn't make sense to berate people for not taking your sources to be gospel.  If you're talking about the report in this link, it's a joke, and has nothing to do with the IPCC.

Hitler and the n**i's were Right wingers, so unless you consider Al Gore and all the environmentalists to be Right Wingers, they couldn't possibly be n**i's.  Name calling isn't going to result in society catering to crackpot nonsense, so forget about it.

edit

Junk science is  not a source, it's a bulletin board.

Answer 3

When have tree huggers of any nationality done anything that turned out the way they expected. You can pretty much guarantee that anything connected to the U.N. will get something wrong ten times before getting it somewhat right the eleventh time when it is too late to make a positive impact.

Answer 4

Yeah I thought so.  I don't think the activists could keep up this AGW campaign indefinately.  The UN should go back to feeding the hungry and stop sanctioning wars and try preventing them instead.

Answer 5

I SUPPOSE IF THEY TOLD YOU THE COW JUMPED OVER THE MOON, YOU'D BELIEVE THAT TOO.  THERE IS'NT GOING TO BE A ICE AGE.

Answer 6

It's not the IPCC.  It's a few guys with a new model that predicts global warming will cause changes to ocean currents bringing cold deep ocean water to the surface, and cooling things off for a short time.  The title of the paper is:

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

I find it flabbergasting that "skeptics" are now eager to embrace climate models, and the idea that global warming is real, and will make massive changes to the environment.  All of which are fundamental to this paper.

But this is just a few guys with a new model, which is probably wrong anyway.  And it's just a temporary thing, in any event.

The virtue of the IPCC is that they consider all models, and support the ones that have been proven by data and by other scientists.

Answer 7

Here's the problem with trusting junk sites like junkscience: they get even the most basic facts wrong.

1. The IPCC hasn't said anything of the kind. Nor could they. The IPCC is a huge beaurocratic organization that takes months and years to say anything useful. The drawback is, the IPCC is slow. The advantage is, when they finally do say something, it's the most thoroughly vetted and completely reliable thing you'll ever see. No, the IPCC didn't say anything about this at all.

2. Who did say something was: five scientists in Germany.

3. They didn't say that the planet may cool for the next ten years.

4. What they did say was that Europe and North America may cool for the next ten years, and global temperatures may remain static.

5. What they also said was that this is a temporary fluctuation that will reverse.

Maybe they're right and maybe not. But either way, five scientists in Germany is not yet a scientific consensus. The IPCC is five thousand scientists, and it is a consensus.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v45...

Answer 8

Wow.  It's not embracing the models, it's saying "Gee, we were right all along.  Who'd have thought the world ISN'T warming unnaturally?"

Yes, the next 10 to 15 years, the world will cool.  Nature goes through a cycle naturally.  

Spring is over 2 weeks behind in most places, and here it's supposed to snow tonight.  Ha, knew it all along.

Answer 9

You are misinformed.  The IPCC is a collaborative group effort involving 1000's of scientists from the around the world.  What you are referring too is a single report from two scientists (they don't work for the IPCC) in Germany.  There's a big difference.

And if you are interested in what the report actually says, it does NOT say global warming is false (in fact, the two scientists specifically state that it's real).

Answer 10

Link?

Sounds like you are saying that scientists' models might be accurate, and successfully predict not only the underlying warming trend, but also some of the weather cycles that sometimes maks it for a few years as well.

That's great news, thanks!

Buying some time from the worst damage would also give us time to prepare for the warmer phase of those weather cycles, when drought, crop failures, etc. are most likely to hit us.

----

Junk Science?  Really?  You're kidding, right?

You think former tobacco lobbyist Steve Milloy is a reliable source?  LOL!

"The apparently defunct Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) was founded primarily by Philip Morris in 1993, and faded into oblivion after September 1998, possibly due to damage caused by the negative exposure in a 1998 New York Times article. TASSC as 'Coalition' may have dropped its public profile, but the Advancement of Sound Science Center (not Coalition) is still operating out of Steve Milloy's home in Potomac, MD and continues to spend around $300,000 a year, with Milloy enjoying a salary of $165,888 in 2000."

"TASSC is mentioned by name in the now infamous 'tobacco papers' as a group organized to help with the 'scientific' message that second hand smoke is harmless. The purpose of TASSC, as described in a memo from APCO's Tom Hockaday and Neal Cohen, was to "link the tobacco issue with other more 'politically correct' products"--in other words, to make the case that efforts to regulate tobacco were based on the same 'junk science'. (http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q3/... Though the coalition is no more, Steve Milloy continues to operate The Advancement of Sound Science Center from his home address in Potomc, MD."

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfact...

At Fox News, a Pundit for Hire

http://www.freepress.net/news/print.php?...

"Objective viewers long ago realized that Fox News has a political agenda. But, when a pundit promotes this agenda while on the take from corporations that benefit from it, then Fox News has gone one disturbing step further"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Mill...

Part I

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11...

Part II

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11...

Open Letter to Steven Milloy

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/01...

Edit -

"It is beyond ridiculous for you to criticize my sources."

Why?  I'm just pointing out that the guy's a paid PR advocate, with links to specific reported examples of unethical behavior.  

You support your wild claims with nothing but unwarranted "n**i and "Hitler" references.  

In 3 minutes on JunkScience I ran across this gem:

"JunkScience.com has... garnered numerous awards, including being named:

- A "leading debunker" of global warming by Rolling Stone magazine"

So I looked it up.  Here Steve Milloy himself says the opposite:

"Rolling Stone knocked the six of us as the 'leading debunkers' of global warming"

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/mill...

Some "award".

You defending this sort of source is "beyond ridiculous."  

You can post this sort of unsupported junk from paid industry advocates all day, and it will be no less laughable each time.