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

[olger]

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.

Two words come to mind.

Dumb and..

Dumb

We should respect our temporary home,

G

[olger]

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

Who is doing this atrocity that you speak of?

WHO??

g

[olger]

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.

Kevin, "destroyers of the earth" is referring to violence and iniquity, not to supposed transgressors of the Green (pagan) Movement.

rejoice always,

G

[olger]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

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

What is "Loving the world" (aka John 3:16)??

1) Loving all the people -- who are the incarnation of the imago dei.

2) Loving bauxite, oysters, elm trees, grass and limestone.

Which?

`oG

[CoAspen]

If we are going to truly love all people, then would we not care about their immediatge future or long term future? Would that not transalate into the "world" they live in?

[Bravus]

Loving the millions of people who will starve if climate change continues unabated?

[phkrause]

If we are going to truly love all people, then would we not care about their immediatge future or long term future? Would that not transalate into the "world" they live in?

Excellent points

[phkrause]

Loving the millions of people who will starve if climate change continues unabated?

[BobRyan]

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

It's gonna be a great day.

Still - it's climate change either way - hotter or colder.

In my book - severe weather is "climate change" as well.

[olger]

Loving the millions of people who will starve if climate change continues unabated?

Emotive alarmism, David.

That will be all Jeeves,

G

[Bravus]

Reality, Gerry.

[Neil D]

I wonder how climate change will affect bees....since bee populations are declining, according to bee journals....obviously, there is a problem....but I now have 11 colonies at this time...4 month ago, I had 6....Can I say that there is a problem to all this 'alarmist' calls???

obviously, this is a metaphore to climate change....

[JoeMo]

The following statements are from http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/18/senate-gop-criticizes-past-global-warming-claims-ahead-of-hearing/

“The entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years.” former Vice President Al Gore predicted in December 13, 2008.

“Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002,” Curry stated in June of this year, adding that, “This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provide a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 year ‘pause.’”

“When compared to NOAA’s data on sea level rise from 2005-2012, the 1.1 — 1.3 mm/year rate is below the rate from 1954-2003, indicating that the rate of sea level rise continues to decline,” reads the report."

Lomborg writes: “Historical analysis of wildfires around the world shows that since 1950 their numbers have decreased globally by 15%… The world has not seen a general increase in drought. A study published in Nature in November shows globally that ‘there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.’”

"The report also quotes remarks from Roger Pielke, Jr., environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder: “The U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century—the last Category 3 or stronger storm was Wilma, more than seven years ago… While it’s hardly mentioned in the media, the U.S. is currently in an extended and intense hurricane ‘drought.’”

I'm not saying the article is right or wrong - just pointing out how some don't see the empirical evidence as backing up the predictions and theories sufficiently to justify spending trillions of dollars and disrupting society over a theoretical event that doesn't seem to be proving out.

[olger]

True Joe,

Here's a great image that Dr. Roy Spencer referenced recently:

[olger]

[img

[olger]

[olger]

Dr. Roy Spencer testified July 18 before the Senate Subcommittee on Environment and Public Works in a hearing on global warming.

“The lack of statistically significant warming in the last 15 years,” Spencer told the committee via his written testimony,

“… is sometimes glossed over with the claim that the global temperature record has a number of examples of no warming (or even cooling) over fifteen year periods. But this claim is disingenuous, because the IPCC-presumed radiative forcing of the climate system from increasing CO2 has been at its supposed maximum value only in the last 15 years. In other words, when the climate ‘stove’ has been turned up the most (the last 15 years) is also when you least expect a lack of warming.

“It is time for scientists to entertain the possibility that there is something wrong with the assumptions built into their climate models. The fact that all of the models have been peer reviewed does not mean that any of them have been deemed to have any skill for predicting future temperatures. In the parlance of the Daubert standard for rules of scientific evidence, the models have not been successfully field tested for predicting climate change, and so far their error rate should preclude their use for predicting future climate change.”

Criticizing claims that recent global warming has made severe weather events more frequent or more intense, Spencer testified,

“The most indefensible claim regarding climate change from an observational point of view is that severe weather has increased. Meteorologists like me have long known that public perception of weather is skewed by short memories and increasing media sensationalizing of weather disasters.

“There is little or no observational evidence that severe weather of any type has worsened over the last 30, 50, or 100 years, irrespective of whether any such changes could be blamed on human activities, anyway. Long-term measurements of droughts, floods, strong tornadoes, hurricanes, severe thunderstorms etc. all show no obvious trends, but do show large variability from one decade to the next, or even one year to the next. While the 2003 heat wave in France and the 2010 heat wave in Russia were exceptional, so were the heat waves of the 1930s in the U.S., which cannot be blamed on our greenhouse gas emissions.”

[JoeMo]

Thanks for the great illustrative data Olger. To quote a famous person:

"Forsooth!"

[olger]

Amenth!

[Tom Wetmore]

The following statements are from http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/18/senate-gop-criticizes-past-global-warming-claims-ahead-of-hearing/

“The entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years.” former Vice President Al Gore predicted in December 13, 2008.

“Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002,” Curry stated in June of this year, adding that, “This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provide a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 year ‘pause.’”

“When compared to NOAA’s data on sea level rise from 2005-2012, the 1.1 — 1.3 mm/year rate is below the rate from 1954-2003, indicating that the rate of sea level rise continues to decline,” reads the report."

Lomborg writes: “Historical analysis of wildfires around the world shows that since 1950 their numbers have decreased globally by 15%… The world has not seen a general increase in drought. A study published in Nature in November shows globally that ‘there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.’”

"The report also quotes remarks from Roger Pielke, Jr., environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder: “The U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century—the last Category 3 or stronger storm was Wilma, more than seven years ago… While it’s hardly mentioned in the media, the U.S. is currently in an extended and intense hurricane ‘drought.’”

I'm not saying the article is right or wrong - just pointing out how some don't see the empirical evidence as backing up the predictions and theories sufficiently to justify spending trillions of dollars and disrupting society over a theoretical event that doesn't seem to be proving out.

Before all you forsoothing naysayers get all giddy with the mindless, "We can keep ransacking the planet without regard to the future" nonsense, take a look at this -

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/201...3.html?cmp=fbtl

[JoeMo]

Tom,

That was a very interesting slide show and story. I'm no expert on the climate or weather modelling, but when the experts can't even agree and there is so much conflicting empirical evidence out there, I like to keep an open mind.

Here in Denver (and much of the high plains and southwest), temperatures are running about 10 degrees cooler than last summer at this time, and the monsoon flow is so strong that the drought has been seriously mitigated over the past month.

I'm not saying "earth first - we'll mine the other planets later. I'm just saying that there is not enough emperical evidence supporting the "global warming" forecasts to totally disrupt society and the economy to mitigate it (assuming we could stop climate change). There are more economically effective and socially benign measures to slow down humanity's rape of the planet than curtailing all fossil fuel-fired energy production. Plus, it has to be a planet-wide effort. Having just western industrialized nations curtail carbon production won't even begin to offset the increased carbon production by India and China alone. Of course, a planet-wide effort would probably require enforcement by a one-world government; and good SDA's eschew that idea.

It's fair to present both sides of the story, don't you think?

[Igakusei]

Tom,

That was a very interesting slide show and story. I'm no expert on the climate or weather modelling, but when the experts can't even agree and there is so much conflicting empirical evidence out there, I like to keep an open mind.

Here in Denver (and much of the high plains and southwest), temperatures are running about 10 degrees cooler than last summer at this time, and the monsoon flow is so strong that the drought has been seriously mitigated over the past month.

I'm not saying "earth first - we'll mine the other planets later. I'm just saying that there is not enough emperical evidence supporting the "global warming" forecasts to totally disrupt society and the economy to mitigate it (assuming we could stop climate change). There are more economically effective and socially benign measures to slow down humanity's rape of the planet than curtailing all fossil fuel-fired energy production. Plus, it has to be a planet-wide effort. Having just western industrialized nations curtail carbon production won't even begin to offset the increased carbon production by India and China alone. Of course, a planet-wide effort would probably require enforcement by a one-world government; and good SDA's eschew that idea.

It's fair to present both sides of the story, don't you think?

I'm far from an expert on the economic side of things, but I don't think anyone is asking Western countries to cripple themselves economically. Any movement towards sustainability is better than none, even if India and China will still be responsible for most of the World's carbon footprint. I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I've read that one of the biggest reasons we're focusing on Western countries instead of India and China right now is because Western countries do have the capability to make substantial steps towards long-term sustainability without crippling their economies and starving their poorer citizens, whereas for the moment India and China do not. I feel like you're operating between two extremes, here.

[CoAspen]

Good science or.........?

And know for the other view of his 'science' . Of course if 'science' agrees with ones own beliefs systems its good, but not if doesn't.

[nuff sed]

Hoorah... Now I know why I bought that sled the other day in a Florida Thrift Shop!!!! Nuff Sed

[olger]

:)