To the Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here

[olger]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara...ooling-is-here/

It's gonna be a great day.

[Igakusei]

There's some good discussion and links to be found here:

http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/reo35/the_discussion_of_climate_change_is_so_poisoned/

Also, an interview with a climate change scientist that I found interesting:

http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n2lfn/iama_biogeochemist_and_climate_change_scientist/

[Tom Wetmore]

Ger, I thought you didn't have much regard for lawyers...

Not much science required to become a lawyer.

[olger]

Ok, so you're mistaken.

work hard,

`oG

[olger]

As to CAGW, it's been said that a theory that explains everything, explains nothing. In the case of human-induced climate change, we have a theory (actually, it's only a hypothesis) that explains everything about the future climate, and that future is bad.

So, if tornado or hurricane frequency or intensity increases (or decreases)... if global temperatures increase (or decrease) by a smidgen... if ice melts at the North Pole (or expands at the South Pole)... if a drought persists in the Midwest (or the Mississippi River floods)... if a roof leaks in Cincinnati... take cover under a solar panel that would save us from inconvenient climate fluctuations.

We're assured that there's a crisis to be managed and dependable federal politicians and bureaucrats are the ones to manage it. The Environmental Protection Agency is faithfully moving ahead with laws to squelch the climate-changing belch from industries bent on the destruction of mankind--power plants and car makers. Trust EPA regulators. They're from the government and they're here to help.

Just don't get caught in a remote foreign embassy during an important election, don't join a tea party, and don't use the telephone booth at the Daily Planet to make a sensitive call.

Rejoice always,

`G

[olger]

OLGER

thank you for posting this article---this was very interesting

dgrimm60

You are welcome !

`G

(I knew the Forbes article would offend the Darwinist operatives).

[Gordon1]

Ok, so you're mistaken.

Maybe you meant church lawyers?

[olger]

Not a'tall.

back to work,

`G

[Planey]

The author of this scholarly article is one Peter Ferrsra.

His by-line states:

Quote:

I am Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute...

Now about the afore-mentioned Heartland institute:

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank based in Chicago... In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public-health reforms. More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism." The Institute has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics, and has been reported to promote public school curricula challenging the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.

So I am sure that was a highly impartial summary of the current scientific understanding of this topic...

Graeme

[Bravus]

Report keeps confusing weather with climate: a very basic error. Global average temperatures (climate) are at record high levels.

[CoAspen]

Ahhhh...are you into balloon popping??

[Bravus]

For the lurkers and the readers with ears to hear:

Quote:

Human emissions of CO2 are only 4 to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes.

Yes, but natural emissions are balanced with natural consumption (plants take it in at the same rate that plants and animals emit it) so that there is no net increase. Human contributions are not, so that they account for almost all of the *increase*. This is just a dishonest attempt at misdirection.

Quote:

Much was made of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 exceeding 400 parts per million. But if you asked the daffy NBC correspondent who hysterically reported on that what portion of the atmosphere 400 parts per million is, she transparently wouldn’t be able to tell you. One percent of the atmosphere would be 10,000 parts per million.

Pre-industrially it was 280 ppm, so that is a 43% increase. The amount of salt in our bodies is quite small too, but a 43% increase will give us very nasty high blood pressure and all sorts of other nasty health effects. The *change* is important as much as the actual magnitude: 280 ppm was sufficient for a balanced 'energy budget' for earth, 400 ppm will make it significantly hotter.

Quote:

The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 deep in the geologic past were much, much greater than today, yet life survived, and we have no record of any of the catastrophes the hysterics have claimed. Maybe that is because the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. That means there is a natural limit to how much increased CO2 can effectively warm the planet, which would be well before any of the supposed climate catastrophes the warming hysterics have tried to use to shut down capitalist prosperity.

Leave aside the fact that olger, who posted this, doesn't believe that there was even any life on earth 65 million years ago, when the CO2 concentration is believed to have been higher. There were certainly not 7 billion human beings in those times, needing to be fed. There were none. There were not houses to be knocked down by extreme weather events, and so on. No-one is claiming global warming is a problem for all living things: some would definitely prosper in a warmer world. But many would become extinct, and human beings would die in huge numbers. The claim that climate science has the *goal* of destroying capitalism deserves the title 'hysteria' much more than the simple stating of the facts about climate.

[Kevin H]

Well, since I don't find the Bible predicting global cooling but having several texts for the last days having the scorching sun, I'll only worry about what the Bible tells me will happen.

[Neil D]

Well, since I don't find the Bible predicting global cooling but having several texts for the last days having the scorching sun, I'll only worry about what the Bible tells me will happen.

I'll not worry at all, if the bible is the one physical source that tells me the future.....

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

Well, since I don't find the Bible predicting global cooling but having several texts for the last days having the scorching sun, I'll only worry about what the Bible tells me will happen.

I'll not worry at all, if the bible is the one physical source that tells me the future.....

Amen!!!

[JoeMo]

Quote:

Well, since I don't find the Bible predicting global cooling but having several texts for the last days having the scorching sun, I'll only worry about what the Bible tells me will happen.

I get a lot of funny looks when the people from GreenPeace ask if "I want to have a chat about global warming". I respond that "global warming has been predicted by the prophet; so it's inevitable - resistance is futile".

[olger]

Leave aside the fact that olger, who posted this, doesn't believe that there was even any life on earth 65 million years ago, when the CO2 concentration is believed to have been higher.

Actually you don't have to leave it aside, I'm very vocal about believing the Biblical account of Creation.

As to socialist animus for capitalism, that's not even debatable.

The real question then, is there a link between the turbid aspirations of CAGW zealots and socialism/multiculturalism/globalists. Heh. Yes there is.

I have here in my isocyanate stained fingers, a copy of the Earth Charter, generously highlighted with environment-killing solvent-based yellow highlighter ink.

onward and upward, brethren!

G

[cricket]

Why would anyone be happy to contribute to the destruction of something they believe their God to have created?

[Igakusei]

I know a guy who has a habit of constantly littering. He'll pull a stick of gum out of his pocket and just drop the wrapper on the ground. I asked him about it once, and his reply was basically that the faster the Earth goes to pot, the sooner Jesus will have to come.

Ugh.

[phkrause]

I know a guy who has a habit of constantly littering. He'll pull a stick of gum out of his pocket and just drop the wrapper on the ground. I asked him about it once, and his reply was basically that the faster the Earth goes to pot, the sooner Jesus will have to come.

Ugh.

I agree, that's unreal thinking.

[Tom Wetmore]

But apparently not uncommon...

[Kevin H]

I know a guy who has a habit of constantly littering. He'll pull a stick of gum out of his pocket and just drop the wrapper on the ground. I asked him about it once, and his reply was basically that the faster the Earth goes to pot, the sooner Jesus will have to come.

Ugh.

Except that he forgets that when Jesus comes he is going to destroy the destroyers of the earth, thus contributing to this is preparing us for our destruction when Jesus comes.

Remember, Jesus is NOT waiting for the world to go to pot, nor is he waiting global warming, not even for for Sunday Laws. To the Hebrews the exile had the exact same meaning to them that Sunday Laws have for us. However the exile has since come and gone.

What Jesus is waiting for is for the gospel to be spread and for us to love the world as he has loved it.

[Neil D]

Why would anyone be happy to contribute to the destruction of something they believe their God to have created?

One good amen deserves another-

Amen....

[phkrause]

But apparently not uncommon...

Oh I agree. When living in Lancaster, MA, than Deltona, FL, not yet here in Worcester, MA, I used to take a bag with me on walks, and pickup garbage that people threw out there car windows, etc., but had never ever heard anyone say that. It just amazies me, but I guess it shouldn't.

[Tom Wetmore]

What Jesus is waiting for is for the gospel to be spread and for us to love the world as he has loved it.