Saturday, September 5, 2009

In spite of 20 more years of Global Cooling, I hope the dream of warming lives on ! ! !

From The Yid With Lid, who is rapidly becoming one of my favorites....

Scientist Predicts 10-20 Years of Global COOLING

OOPS, Better Buy a new winter coat. At the UN's World Climate Change Conference in Geneva one of the worlds top climate change scientists, predicted that we are facing 10-20 years of global cooling. The Scientist, named Mojib Latif said the cooling would be the result of changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Latif also said that the NAO may be partly the cause of warming during the past 30 years. Do they have SUV's in the North Atlantic Ocean? Do they have McMansions? No? Trucking Companies? Then what new activity can we find to be self-righteous about?

Latif says that he is not a global warming skeptic, and says that after the cooling, the world will start warming again:

World's climate could cool first, warm later
by Fred Pearce, Geneva

Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool. If that's the case, can we get some of our Clunkers back?

"People will say this is global warming disappearing," he told more than 1500 of the world's top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN's World Climate Conference.

"I am not one of the sceptics," insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it." Sorry, Mojib. If you've placed a wager on "cooling", that makes you one of the sceptics. That simple gesture is all that's required to put you on the level of a Holocaust Denier.

Few climate scientists go as far as Latif, an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But more and more agree that the short-term prognosis for climate change is much less certain than once thought.

This is bad timing. You're dang right, it's bad timing. Can you imagine the money being lost by those who were banking on the Goracle's Green Startup companies? The UN's World Meteorological Organization called the conference in order to draft a global plan for providing "climate services" to the world: that is, to deliver climate predictions useful to everyone from farmers worried about the next rainy season to doctors trying to predict malaria epidemics and builders of dams, roads and other infrastructure who need to assess the risk of floods and droughts 30 years hence.

But some of the climate scientists gathered in Geneva to discuss how this might be done admitted that, on such timescales, natural variability is at least as important as the long-term climate changes from global warming. "In many ways we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year," said Vicky Pope from the UK Met Office. Exactly. They don't know jack about either one.

Cold Atlantic

Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. "But how much? The jury is still out," he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a colder phase.


Scientists have proven that if you put a flame near a oil can it will explode, it has proven that if you drop a bowling ball of the top of the empire state building it will go down, not up. Scientists have not proven that man made carbon emissions will effect our climate.

Until they do, it is just plain nonsense to redesign our economy and cause continued hardships in anticipation of a man-made global warming trend 30 years from now. Any push done today is not about global warming, it is about global redistribution of income.
Well said, Mr. Yid.

15 comments:

Cedric Katesby said...

Scientist Predicts 10-20 Years of Global COOLING

The key word here is "scientist".
Singular as opposed to plural.

Why are you getting all a-flutter over one solitary scientist?
What's the point?
Who are you trying to fool?
Yourself?

He doesn't even claim that that global warming isn't happening.
(shrug)

This is the same stunt you pulled with Gerald Dickson et al.
Gerald Dickson doesn't believe that global warming isn't happening. Yet that didn't stop you hi-jacking his paper and twisting his words.

If you really want to know about what's happening with the planet's climate then you can't afford to quote-mine and cherry-pick.

You can't do science that way.
It's intellectually dishonest.
You will only end up re-inforcing your preconceptions.
Confirmation bias is an obstacle to good science.

Scientists have not proven that man made carbon emissions will effect our climate.

Nonsense. This is just silly.

Getting your science from some no-name blog like "Yid with a lid" is a bad idea.
You will learn nothing about science.
Garbage in, garbage out.

You want to know about CO2 and what scientists have or have not demonstrated?
Ask them directly.

Ask any scientific community. They are all good.

mongander said...

1st the earth warmed, then cooled, then got hotter, then it got colder .............or maybe it was the other way around

Cedric Katesby said...

1st the earth warmed, then cooled,... then blah, blah, blah.

P.R.A.T.T. point.
Get new material.

Here's a novel idea.
Look at the information resources provided by NASA on the subject of global warming.
Ok, maybe NASA doesn't know as much as a no-name blog but...take a chance.
:)

Anonymous said...

I love it ... we don't know jack about the next 5 weeks, much less the next 50 years. Manmade global warming is far from confirmed.

Laughable quotes from the NewScientist article ...

"This is bad timing"
"In many ways we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year"

Check the Nasa "Uncertainties" page
http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties

It seems there is still much we don't know. How come we are making global economic decisions before the evidence is in ... are we certain that time has run out?

- Montvillian

TarrantLibertyGuy said...

I recently saw this documentary about 9-11 'truthers'. No matter what evidence was presented to the contrary, the 'truthers' would find fault with their valid points. Once you are in one or the other religion... there's no converting to the other....

Cedric Katesby said...

I love it ... we don't know jack about the next 5 weeks, much less the next 50 years.

Don't confuse the weather with climate.

Check the Nasa "Uncertainties" page
http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties


Excellent. Somebody bothered to check out the NASA web-site.
Hooray.
From the Uncertainties section, NASA states right at the beginning..
This website presents a data-rich view of climate and a discussion of how that data fits together into the scientists' current picture of our changing climate. But there's a great deal that we don't know about the future of Earth's climate and how climate change will affect humans.

This is all well and good. Perfectly reasonable.
Always get your science from science sources.

However, NASA is not saying that "We don't know enough. Let's just wait and see before we make any decisions."
The only way that you can come to such a conclusion is by...selective reading and dishonesty.

Keep reading.
Don't just cherrypick what you want and then feel all smug and self-satisfied.
Selective reading is not your friend.

NASA has a whole lot more to say on the subject of climate change.
It's all right there on the webpage you yourself brought up.
Keep reading.

NASA (together with all the other scientific communities) is very clear on the subject.
They don't just talk about "Uncertainies".
Oh no.
On that very same website they ALSO mention...
Evidence
and
Causes

Just in case there's still any uncertainty about NASA's position, here's a F.A.Q. list from another very helpful NASA website.

"But wait!" I hear you cry.
"I hate NASA. They are all a bunch of lying Commie traitors. They are the ones who cooked up the Moon Landing Hoax! I won't get fooled again."

(sigh)

So NASA's no good? Cause you don't believe that America set foot on the moon?
Wow.
Hmm. That's a tough one.
(scratches head)
Well, if you have some sort of wierd hang up about NASA, then we can move onto any other scientific community on the planet.
They will all say the same thing.
For example...
How about the Royal Meteorological Society?
They're good too.

Cedric Katesby said...

"I recently saw this documentary about 9-11 'truthers'. No matter what evidence was presented to the contrary, the 'truthers' would find fault with their valid points."

Global warming deniers have a great deal in common with the "Truthers".

1)They both avoid mainstream science like the plague.
2)They are both convinced that the scientific community/government is decieving the general public for it's own mysterious ends.
3) They suffer from a dearth of peer-reviewed scientific literature.
4)They both latch onto no-name web-sites that tell them what they want to hear.

TarrantLibertyGuy, on a previous thread on this site, you said....

...but I'm sure he's aware of The Signature Project which features the signatures of over 31,000 scientist who do not agree with the general hypothesis that global climate change is anthropogenic.

In our previous discussion discussion, I asked you to carefully vet this "Petition". Unfortunately, you got caught up with other things and I never heard back from you.

Are you now aware that this "Project" is a rather famous fraud?

Fester said...

Latif says that he is not a global warming skeptic, and says that after the cooling, the world will start warming again:

Lol, I am not a scientist, but I could figure out that after the cooling has ended then things must be warming up again. Isn't that the definition of cooling has ended?

TarrantLibertyGuy said...

Hey Cedric,

At the time, I wrote a le-ee-ngthy reply to you, where I randomly picked out about a dozen of the scientist who signed the petition. I did some on-line research and found most of them were credible names. This was difficult because the list of signers had been reposted dozens of times by pro and con-groups. It took a lot of digging to find papers written, academic posts held, etc.

Unfortunately, I walked away after maybe an hour of writing and one of my kids came in and "X'ed" me out of that page... so I just gave up.

Of course, I didn't actually see the signature come across my own desk, etc. However, I did, just randomly picking out names, found several published climatologist from reasonable academic backgrounds to have signed the petition. This tells me that they have done their homework, other than the paper that was distributed with the petition, and came to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming cannot be proven.

And honestly, the information in the video, was disturbing to me about the background of Seitz and crew. So, thanks, I won't use the Petition in the future. However, like I said, the random people I found were credible earth scientists so I assume they did their homework ahead of time... but I won't use the petition anymore.

I decided to not write another rebuttal since you're committed to your religion and most everyone else is committed to theirs. I'm a bit of an agnostic. I'm not going to commit to the "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change" religion until I can't be convinced otherwise. I'll refrain from commenting here since every side has made a blood oath to their religion.... Like the 9-11 Truthers.

I'm curious - and won't comment further - what explanation the Global Warmers have with regards to man-made climate change to explain similar climate changes on Mars or causes of similar Global Ice Ages and Thaws in pre-human eras....

Maybe it's because I was scared as a kid about "The Coming Ice Age" in the '70's that I have my doubts. Earth Science 'Chicken Littles' assist in causing skepticism.

Cedric Katesby said...

I walked away after maybe an hour of writing and one of my kids came in and "X'ed" me out of that page... so I just gave up.

Fair enough.

However, I did, just randomly picking out names, found several published climatologists...

Then you were very, very, VERY LUCKY.
Out of 31,000 "scientists", there are only 40 names that are climatologists.
Here's a couple of pie-charts that break down the numbers and place the signatories into catagories.
(a third of the page down)


However, like I said, the random people I found were credible earth scientists so I assume they did their homework ahead of time...

Why do you assume that they have "done their homework" yet you are unwilling to give the same benefit of the doubt to NASA, the NAS, the APS, the British Antarctic Survey and every other scientific community on the planet?
Selective treatment much?

I'll refrain from commenting here since every side has made a blood oath to their religion.... Like the 9-11 Truthers.

Nonsense.
You are a victim of the "Oregon Petition" fraud.
That wasn't caused by religious faith.
That was caused by your failure to figure out how science is done in the real world.

(NO!, I'm NOT saying you're stupid!! Ok?)

I'm saying that Seitz and crew know exactly how to manipulate the general public like yourself.
They played people like a fiddle.
A professional fraudster ALWAYS has the advantage.
Seitz practiced his craft fooling the public for decades. Sow indecision, question the science and...smile.
I have seen the "Oregon Petition" being used on hundreds of blogs.
It has spread like a cancer.

Ask yourself this: If all 31,000 signatories were super-duper mega scientists...would you then go back to using the Oregon Petition in an argument?
If your answer is "Yes", then you are still wide open to being flim-flammed.

Yet even as you admit that you were flim-flammed, you don't seem to be very upset by it.
I find that astounding.
If somebody pulls the wool over my eyes then I get really pissed off.
It motivates me to try and do something about it.
I hate to be lied to.
I try to genuinely figure out what was wrong in my fact-checking so that I won't get fooled again.

You just seem to be willing to shrug your shoulders and let the disinformation campaign continue to sell you another bunch of shoddy goods.

Why aren't you angry?
Do you like being lied to?
What would it take to motivate you to investigate the other memes that frauds like Seitz and crew peddle?
How much do you know about their organisation and funding?
How much do you know about the history of what else they have done?
They didn't just throw together a fake petition and leave it at that.
There's a much bigger campaign out there...and it's all been carefully recorded by historians.
Please investigate further.

...to explain similar climate changes on Mars or causes of similar Global Ice Ages and Thaws in pre-human eras....
These are denialist P.R.A.T.T. points. Five minutes of googling will give you the answers.
Scientists following the scientific process have gone through this all before.
Climate change on Mars.

If you are curious about
similar Global Ice Ages and Thaws in pre-human eras then you are not alone. Yet that doesn't mean that scientists are unsure if man-made gases are critically affecting the climate above and beyond natural variation.

Maybe it's because I was scared as a kid about "The Coming Ice Age" in the '70's that I have my doubts.
Or...you've been fed another P.R.A.T.T point.

TarrantLibertyGuy said...

Ugh... Cedric. I'm not all a-flutter.

I'm saying that when I was a kid people were freaking about one thing, and was widely reported as 'the real deal', when in fact it was a total crock. I'm not saying you're a crock, your feelings, hopes, fears, knowledge, assesments, ideology or anything else about you or anyone else is a crock.

However, I will say that, generally, I try to stay above the fray and not be a condescending prick.

Although, you may not be one or intend to come off as one, my feeling is that your are one. And my feeling, right or wrong, is what I'm feeling.

I do believe this... If there is Global Warming or Climate Change or anything else that is man-made that changes the weather, government regulations and/or CO2 Markets overseen by Al Gore's Generation Investment Management, aren't the route to change things. The reason we don't have sooty, coal smoke and whale oil lamps polluting our skies and oceans today - like in the past - is because of more efficient energy generation methods fueled by innovative private sector companies and individuals.

So, I'm out out out. Quadruple out... primarily because talking to you is frustrating. Not because of 'bothersome facts', but rather, I feel talked down to by you. I'm a reasonable, open-minded, rational person who feels like my reasonable and open nature is being crapped on by you.

Again, just my feelings - and right or wrong - they're there... Take that and use that feedback as your try to craft an argument to convert more "undecideds" out there. Your ass-holish tone, if anything, pushes me (and likely others) away from your viewpoint.

Cedric Katesby said...

I'm a reasonable, open-minded, rational person...

What's reasonable about repeatedly portraying me and NASA as religious fanatics?

What's so open-minded about tuning out the global scientific community just so you can focus on isolated contrarians?

If you're rational, then why are you not angry at Seitz and crew?
They're the ones that did a number on you and millions of others.
I'm just the guy that pointed it out.
Don't shoot the messenger.

Take that and use that feedback as your try to craft an argument to convert more "undecideds" out there.

You're not "undecided".
You're "indecision" is already effectively a decision.

By being "Undecided", you are playing the game that Seitz and crew want you to play.
Reality is not 'on hold'.
Reality is not waiting for you to make up your mind in your own sweet time.
You are on the clock.
We all are.

All that Seitz and crew need from you is...delay, confusion, indecision and hesitation.

That's how they won for decades against the Surgeon-General vs Big Tobacco.
That's how they are winning now against NASA etc. vs the Fossil Fuel Industry.
Same sleazy people, same sleazy tactics, same disasterous results.

Why do you steadfastly refuse upon pain of death to consider NASA and the entire global scientific community to be a credible source of scientific information? Why are you convinced that they haven't "done their homework"?

I just don't get it.

I'm saying that when I was a kid people were freaking about one thing, and was widely reported as 'the real deal', when in fact it was a total crock.

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
This is rubbish from start to finish.
This is a classic denialist P.R.A.T.T. point.
One that you will, of course, refuse to do any independent research on.

Scientists were not "freaking out" about an Ice Age in the 70's.
The scientific community never took it seriously.

Oddly enough, our host Allen has been researching this very same P.R.A.T.T point for over a year and a half.
I look forward to finding out his conclusions.

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

Hi folks. I found out why Cedric hangs out here at this "obscure, no-name blog":
"A religious zealot who sees his creed being attacked is unlikely simply to hope that the attack will be ignored. He'll want to fight back. If he does, he'll take aim not merely at the adversary's statements, but also at the adversary himself. First, he's usually unwilling to grapple with the adversary's arguments; to grant them the respect required to analyze them and address their weak points would itself be sinful. Second, is it not obligatory for a true believer to chastise the heretic, give him an incentive to recant, and show others of little faith what awaits them should they fall from grace?"

Cedric Katesby said...

Peter Sinclair has finally gotten around to making a video on Mojib Latif.
It's up to his usual excellent standards.
In it, Dr Latif explains his position very, very, very clearly.
He spells it out.
He triple underlines it and uses the hi-lighter pen.
Yet he knows what will happen when the anti-science brigade gets onto it.
He knows they will start quote-mining him but...at least he tries to set the record straight.