Tuesday, March 25, 2008

You can come home Greenpeace: Global Warming is a myth too!


If Geert Wilders produced the hoax of the year, what can we say about global warming, hoax of the century?
Haven't they been reading the papers? Or at least the blogs?
Haven't they seen the latest evidence?
That the planet is actually getting colder!
Anyway, as La Nina gives New Zealand a pleasant summer, at least the protesters were able to enjoy a fine day out!

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Notice they now say almost exclusively 'climate change' not 'Global Warming'. They know it is cooling but the MSM and the average joe thinks climate change = global warming.

POONAM SETHI said...

The latest news about climate change is so alarming (the right wing would say alarmist) as to make many people want to plant their aching heads in the sand. Some scientists using advanced computer models now argue that if we want to stop the Earth from warming, the amount of carbon we should be emitting is ... none. None? As in, zero? As in, shutting down the global industrial economy? After all, global energy demand is expected to accelerate until at least 2020. Yet attempts even to slow the rate of increase of carbon emissions have paralyzed world politics for more than a decade.

Anonymous said...

The models are useless, they predicted warming seas but a recent study has shown the seas have cooled slightly.

DenMT said...

Haha. It doesn't take particularly robust analytical powers to see through this bit of disingenuous tripe that is currently getting peddled all over the blogosphere.

As the nice lady points out in the interview the earth is cooler ONLY IF WE TAKE 1998 AS THE REFERENCE.

Imagine I'm a merchant banker. I get a payrise every year, however I receive a one-off bonus for exceptional performance in 1998 meaning that my income for that year exceeds any single subsequent year. A colleague asks me about my income this year. Do I reply:

A: "I'm terribly depressed. My income is decreasing."
B: "Still on the up! Haven't matched my bonus from 1998 yet though..."

Being a journalist as you are, FFM, which part of the article is the 'latest evidence' you refer to? What, outside of supposition, factually refutes observed warming trends?

It gets so old watching the skeptical fringes go into a lather over these types of pronouncements. 'Evidence!' 'Facts!' 'The Green Commie Control Agenda Exposed!' etcetera ad nauseum... Good for a laugh though.

DenMT

Clunking Fist said...

So put DenMT on the list for "I told you so" when finally the "settled science" catches up with the reality of the lack of warming.

DenMT: Output of CO2 increases year on year. It adds to CO2 already in the atmosphere. Thus the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases year on year. So why don’t temperatures go up year on year?

Clunking Fist said...

also on that list "anon" x1000

Anonymous said...

also on that list "anon" x1000

What do you mean?

DenMT said...

Clunking Fist: Your question assumes that there is no observable warming going on.

It is an extreme (and unsupported) position that no warming is happening (or more bizarrely that 'the world is cooling'). All major global proxy records show a gradual increase. My simple example above was meant to make the point (somewhat crudely I admit) that an aberrantly high year does not mean that subsequent years trend downwards UNLESS THAT YEAR IS SPECIFICALLY TAKEN AS THE FRAME OF REFERENCE. It is in my opinion egregiously bad science to claim 'global cooling' on this basis. It's on a par with correlating global averages for 1997 and 1998 and claiming catastrophic temperature rise has already started.

I submit to you that as all global average proxies show, temperature continues to trend upwards year on year. I haven't seen one credible source who believes that the current cycle of warming is 'over' - several skeptical commentators of excellent repute have posited alternative theories for the current warming, however none have overtaken the IPCC consensus opinion for my money.

There is a difference between fervently wanting something to be a hoax, and it actually being one.

DenMT

Clunking Fist said...

Hi anon. Not you: the other anons who still "believe" in global warming.

Clunking Fist said...

DenMT says "All major global proxy records show a gradual increase."

Would that be those land-based measuring stations, LOL?

Even if this isn't a hoax (or as I would contend, an error leapt upon and perpetuated by groupthink) what can we do except cease to produce CO2?
Even then our efforts would be in vain if a couple of volcanoes erupted, some forests caught fire, the earth’s orbit sent us nearer the sun, sun spot activity increased, etc.
So, if man-made CO2 is just one minor ingredient amongst many, why bother?
Aha, the precautionary approach. Well, let us return to cave man days just in case the earth’s temperature increases.

(Just imagine warming: instead of jetting off to Rarotonga, Rarotonga would come to you!)

PS I don't work for an oil company.

JaaJoe said...

Have any of you guys hear what the New Jersey Nets are doing to in the fight against global warming? Not only are there games now carbon-neutral, but they traded Jason Kidd to the Dallas Maveriks for the a “better environment” also. Julianne Waldron explained to the media that Kidd was giving off to much Carbon dioxide. “Jason Kidd always hustles when he is on the basketball court, and we all admire that greatly. But all of that running up and down the court, pushing the team out on fastbreaks, expending extra energy just to make a few extra points and possibly win a game, caused all of the players to breathe a great deal more heavily and thereby expel extra amounts of carbon dioxide into the air, and we all know that is bad for the environment. We made the difficult decision to trade Kidd in order to save the planet.” Check out this article I found on it Environmental Activism is the Key to the Current Success of the New Jersey Nets