# Apparently Global Warming is Offically Over now.



## Cryozombie (Nov 17, 2012)

Or so this article purports.  I posted this in another thread but no one responded to it... 

Is this information accurate and reliable?  A cover up? Tabloid sensationalism? Junk science?  Hoax? Deniers? or what? 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html


----------



## Big Don (Nov 17, 2012)

Gee, lets see if cyro is immediatly attacked the way billi was when he linked a really similar article last week...


----------



## granfire (Nov 17, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Or so this article purports.  I posted this in another thread but no one responded to it...
> 
> Is this information accurate and reliable?  A cover up? Tabloid sensationalism? Junk science?  Hoax? Deniers? or what?
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html





Big Don said:


> Gee, lets see if cyro is immediatly attacked the way billi was when he linked a really similar article last week...




:lol:

Did billie write it?

It's from the daily mail and it's getting to be winter there....


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 17, 2012)

The proof that the article isn't accurate is pretty clear, if one is interested in the facts.  Also, what is with using sources like the dailymail and brieghtbart?  At least support stories by them with something released by a source not as questionable.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 17, 2012)

The Daily Fail is the voice for the Right Wing here, it supports the Tories, nuff said. it's also a tabloid that isn't shy when it comes to misleading people and being economical with the truth. Btw have a look at the sidebar stories.
The Met Office which is quoted in the Fail's report as saying global warming is over say this is incorrect.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 17, 2012)

From the horse's mouth as it were, the official Met. Office http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 17, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Also, what is with using sources like the dailymail and brieghtbart?  At least support stories by them with something released by a source not as questionable.



Well, to be fair, I don't know anything about Dailymail, and I didn't post it as fact, I posted it and asked about it's accuracy.  Considering that, why the **** would I post something supporting the story by someone less questionable.  

Next time I decide to ask a question, I'll ****ing balance it out by asking Janeane Garofalo if it's ok to post, alright?


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 17, 2012)

Well, you could if you wanted but that might be over-reacting just a bit .

The Daily Mail is indeed a source not to be treated with a great deal of respect, sad to say; a bit like that Pajamarama site Mr. Cihak is so fond of linking, it is packed to the gunnels with those whose political accreditation is more important than their love of reason and investigation - we (those few here that are UK resident) have noted this every time someone (including me ) has used it as a linked source.  Maybe we should put a banner ad on MT so people know :lol:.

As to the topic in question, given that climatological anomalies can be over in the extent of a human life-time or can persist for millennia, I would say it's a little early to tell if the current temperature ramp has petered out or not.

P.S.  Cap'n Bob, I think you need a better spurl cheaker on the site - any linguistic software that doesn't understand words like "gunnels" needs a kick up the backside .


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 17, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Well, to be fair, I don't know anything about Dailymail, and I didn't post it as fact, I posted it and asked about it's accuracy.  Considering that, why the **** would I post something supporting the story by someone less questionable.
> 
> Next time I decide to ask a question, I'll ****ing balance it out by asking Janeane Garofalo if it's ok to post, alright?



Naw, that's not neccesary.  All you had to do was read the comments or sidebars on the page you yourself linked then check the source site for the story you posted. Pretty easy, huh? ...especially since a link was given more than a few times.  Dailymail is fairly well known as a partisan hack site not much interested in truth, but all you had to do to know that was read a few other stories. Also pretty easy.  You posted a crap story and you can use curse words as much as you like, but it doesn't change that fact...it also makes you look like you aren't intelligent enough to use words other than curse words, which is a shame because I think you really are a smart guy.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 17, 2012)

I didn't investigate the link.  I didn't go on to read other stories.  Someone posted that to me, and I posted that here asking for clarification as to how trustworthy the info was, and in typical fashion, since I questioned the almighty power of the Liberal Agenda instead of a "No, John, thats not a reputable site,and the science is bad here is why" I got a response from you that was basically "OMG are you stupid or something?  Look at that partisan drivel you spouted off, next time try backing it up with facts."

So, in response to that, yeah, you get the same ol big **** You very much for your help... and I don't really care if you think that makes me look unintelligent, since it seems that anyone who even asks a question that challenges your beliefs is treated like they are a moron anyhow for asking.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 17, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Gee, lets see if cyro is immediatly attacked the way billi was when he linked a really similar article last week...



Yep.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 17, 2012)

Is this really how you want things to develop, gentlemen?  I would hope not, given that one of the things that I like so much about this site is that most of our members IQ's are larger than their shoe-size - a blessing that not many places around the Net can boast of.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 17, 2012)

So you post it here when you could have just read the dang article yourself and answer all your own questions  Then you want to get pissy with me and curse at me because I point it out to you.  Your a precious thing.  LOL


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 17, 2012)

No... I read the article, I Didnt go on to read read the comments or sidebars on the page on the site, which is what you said I should have done: Now, you are changing your story to simply reading the article?  

And NO, you did not "Point it out to me"



> what is with using sources like the dailymail and brieghtbart?  At least  support stories by them with something released by a source not as  questionable.



THAT was you attacking me for posting something from a source you disapprove of, plain and simple.


----------



## granfire (Nov 17, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> THAT was you attacking me for posting something from a source you disapprove of, plain and simple.



Sorry.
Just because you are not billie does not mean the source is now more credible. :angel:


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 17, 2012)

granfire said:


> Sorry.
> Just because you are not billie does not mean the source is now more credible. :angel:



You know what?  Show me where I said "Look at this credible story from this obviously Republican Foriegn Newspaper"

Oh wait you CAN'T because what I said was:



> Is this information accurate and reliable?  A cover up? Tabloid sensationalism? Junk science?  Hoax? Deniers? or what?


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 17, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Is this really how you want things to develop, gentlemen?  I would hope not, given that one of the things that I like so much about this site is that most of our members IQ's are larger than their shoe-size - a blessing that not many places around the Net can boast of.



Apparently yes.  All someone would have needed to do to respond was tell  me ""No, John, thats not a reputable site,and the science is bad"  rather than "Omg You are another Billi posting from that site"  "cant  you back your statements up with real facts" "blah blah blah we are too  elitist to actually treat a question with a little respect but demand  you give it to us and mind your tongue."

So yeah.  Apparently, that is the direction it is going to develop.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 17, 2012)

I don't think it needs to if people would stop poking each other with sticks for a moment or two.  A couple of softer words and we could get on with talking about climate change rather than, to use an appropriate American expression, yanking each others chains {note to self, I hope that phrase means what I think it does rather than something far ruder }.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 17, 2012)

LOL I think it means what you think it means


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 18, 2012)

Well actually I did post that it's not a reputable source and I posted the links to the organisation that was supposedly saying that global warming was over.

The main problem with the Daily Fail at the moment is concerns over the way it treats underage children, we have a monumental scandal going on at the moment about the sexual abuse of children by certain celebrities that has been going on for donkey's years but has just been uncovered.this newpaper while supposedly condemning it is known for actually showing photos of underage children in a sexual manner. This is one of the more pithier criticisms of the Fail.

http://www.dailyshame.co.uk/2012/11/satire/police-swoop-to-arrest-daily-mail-the-paedophiles-friend/ 

this a little more contained. http://www.anorak.co.uk/338571/news...-open-letter-to-the-daily-mail-reporter.html/

http://blog.dave.org.uk/tag/daily-mail


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 18, 2012)

Yes, Tez, and I thanked you for that.  You were not one of the two people being puckering *******s because I asked the question, so thank you again.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 18, 2012)

No worries. The argument over global warming is a legitimate one but at the moment the concern over the sexual abuse of children is more important I think. It seems we have had a 'celebrity' peadophile ring, mostly based in the BBC for a considerable time, it seems too that major political figures as well as 'stars' are caught up in this. The police have over 300 cases concerning just one 'celebrity, a couple of others have been arrested and are on police bail. It's a huge story and the concern with the Fail is that while reporting on it they are also promoting the sexualisation of underage children. I dont want to downplay your thread and concerns over global warming but how we view children is perhaps more important, because it won't matter about the climate if we damage our children so much they cannot function properly as adults.


----------



## granfire (Nov 18, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> You know what?  Show me where I said "Look at this credible story from this obviously Republican Foriegn Newspaper"
> 
> Oh wait you CAN'T because what I said was:



Keep your shorts on.
Certain papers just are on that level. Even if they manage to get a few good articles out now and then, they get lost in the swamp.

We got a notorious paper like that in Germany. 'Man put girlfriend through the meat grinder. BILD spoke with the meat loaf' 
Now and then they have a good article....but the filth you have to wade through to find them? ungodly.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 18, 2012)

Wake me when there's a consensus among on scientists on global warming, reflected by peer-reviewed research. Oh wait...there is! I'll ignore the newspaper articles for now, then.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 18, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Wake me when there's a consensus among on scientists on global warming, reflected by peer-reviewed research. Oh wait...there is! I'll ignore the newspaper articles for now, then.


You understand there was a consensus for centuries that the planet was flat and/or the center of the universe. How did that science work out?


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 18, 2012)

Well, the first one is a myth - don't know why it persists as even in Biblical times it was known/theorised that the earth was a sphere.  

The second was something promulgated by the Church and it took the bravery of some intelligent thinkers to challenge the clergy and eventually overthrow that Man-is-the-centre-of-Creation tradition.

Now it is true that Science is a process - it is the best way of explaining our perceptions of how things are with the observations that we have now.  That is why it evolves.  Why it works is that the core rationale is that any claims must be subject to testing and be capable of accurate predictions (which is where the present climate models fall down as they cannot help but be rough approximations).


----------



## arnisador (Nov 18, 2012)

Big Don said:


> You understand there was a consensus for centuries that the planet was flat and/or the center of the universe. How did that science work out?



Eh...a consensus among on scientists, reflected by peer-reviewed research. 

And the belief that there was a widespread belief in a flat earth is counterfactual. It's part of the Christopher Columbus myth.


----------



## billc (Nov 18, 2012)

From the article...



> Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who  is the head of the climate science department at America&#8217;s prestigious Georgia  Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer  models used to predict future warming were &#8216;deeply flawed&#8217;.
> 
> Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his  colleagues did not understand the impact of &#8216;natural variability&#8217; &#8211; factors such  as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the  sun.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 18, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Eh...a consensus among on scientists, reflected by peer-reviewed research.
> 
> And the belief that there was a widespread belief in a flat earth is counterfactual. *It's part of the Christopher Columbus myth.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> The one that says he found America?


----------



## granfire (Nov 19, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> The one that says he found America?



LOL, that was marketing PR.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 19, 2012)

Big Don said:


> You understand there was a consensus for centuries that the planet was flat and/or the center of the universe. How did that science work out?



Well it was not really a consensus for centuries. the Greeks were fairly certain around the 6th century BC, that the earth was Spherical. You can blame Pythagoras for that but Herodotus, Plato and Aristotle all said the same thing later. 

More on that


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 19, 2012)

I haven&#8217;t commented here because the title

Apparently Global Warming is Officially Over now.

First gave me this reaction :lfao:

For the record, not poking anyone with a stick and not yanking anyone&#8217;s chain

You cannot turn something like Global warming on or off like flipping a light switch. It is something that, once it gets going it will continue for a while, eventually slow down and then you end up in a cycle of global cooling., but it does not come to a screeching halt.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 19, 2012)

I just had to post these because I think they are really a good way to show exactly how global warming doen't work when you are talking about it ending

Good example of what this suggests has happened with Global warming and showing exactly how it doesn't work  can be seen at 6:50


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 19, 2012)

Sorry, I am having trouble posting links again so I had to make this one another post

Possibly a better example of what is being suggested and what Global Warming, or cooling for that matter, doesnt do might be this one starts at 7:07 ends at 8:15


----------



## K-man (Nov 19, 2012)

> The World Bank has warned the planet is on track to warm by four degrees Celsius this century - causing increasingly extreme heat waves, lower crop yields and rising sea levels - unless significant action is taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.In a major report released ahead of the year-end United Nations climate summit in Qatar, the bank says changes associated with four degrees of warming would have dramatic and devastating effects on all parts of the world, including Australia, but that the poor would be most vulnerable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i don't think there is any argument among reputable scientists that global warming is occurring. The debate is over the cause, natural or man-made and what can be done, if anything, to reduce it.   :asian:


----------



## arnisador (Nov 19, 2012)

K-man said:


> i don't think there is any argument among reputable scientists that global warming is occurring. The debate is over the cause, natural or man-made



There's consensus that there's anthropogenic global climate change--though there are certainly other processes at work also.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 20, 2012)

Some ways the Globe gets warmer

Large Volcanic Eruptions
Sun Spots
Earth Axis Shift
Earth Orbit change
Increase in Carbon dioxide emissions 
Massive amounts of Deforestation, 
Increase in usage of chemical fertilizers 

Problems

Rise in sea levels worldwide 
Weather pattern changes
Larger more dangerous storms
Massive crop failures
Widespread extinction of species
Disappearance of coral reefs
Warm weather disease move further north
Population issues do to shrinking landmass above water

Bottom-line here is that it really does not matter whose fault it is, it is happening. What matter is can "WE" do anything about it and/or can we or our cultures (global) survive it if we cannot do anything about it

But lets not forget global warming does not mean the entire surface of the globe gets warmer, the mean temperature raises but it does not get warmer on every single square mile of the earth. Some places get warmer, some do not change and others get colder. But overall more get warmer than cooler.

Or we can continue to discuss whose fault it is and I will see you all at my beach front home Valdosta Georgiawell maybe not me and you but our kids and or grand-kids


----------



## teekin (Dec 9, 2012)

Big Don said:


> You understand there was a consensus for centuries that the planet was flat and/or the center of the universe. How did that science work out?



BD, There is Science and then there is Propoganda. Now science is based on theories. Theories are tested by running experiments ( or not) and collecting Data. Once the data is collected it must be analysed. or Interpreted if you are heavily invested in a particular outcome. The King and Church strongly urged scientists to interpretted any findings of such experiments to Support the church and rulers policies of that day. Or face the rack. No pressure.  So, lets not confuse science and propoganda.  

( I'm sorry, I just couldn't help myself. I am a slave to my passions. :s58:


----------

