So, when Obama says climate change is a fact.....

[Theowl32]

Yes.

Climate Change is the main category. Global Warming is one possible sub-category.

Climate change is happening all the time. Only, if the theory is correct, and it sure looks like it is, climate change happened at a rate much, much slower than today, the one big exception being the meteor impact that killed the dinosaurs. But even that was not a man-made event. We now believe that the sudden change in the RATE of climate change is due to human use of technology, and this belief is bolster by REAMS of empirical data from all corners of the planet.

Our planet is over 70% water, most of it salt water. The story of climate change is inexorably connected to water, lots of it. If warming happens to fast, then too many glaciers (fresh water) melt and cause a thermal reaction underwater with salt water. The additional water plus change in temperature causes the phenomonen we know as EL NINO. It is the sudden addition of so much water that also inexorably results in more precip, at least on certain parts of the planet. This can cause winters that are colder than ever and turn right around and mean summers that are hot as hades, maybe not every year, but are part of a sinus wave of measurement that is continually expanding more than it is contracting.

Is global warming happening? I don't know. None of us know, for there is not enough empiric data to say with 100% certainty, though it sure as hell looks like it.

However, climate change that is decidedly faster than the eons before, this we CAN prove. And the problem with that is that species die out faster than they should, just causing problems all over, including the food-chain.

A sick planet is a lot like a sick person. A person with a bad cold can have chills AND sweats all at once. His mouth can water and be parched dry all at once.

The naysayers don't even realize that these freaky cold winters actually BOLSTER the theory of global warming, for it is the trapped greenhouse gases that cause the temperature rise that causes the glaciers to calve far too fast and in too large a mass, which in turn causes a more and more violent and unpredicactable EL NINO, which in turn gives us a hurricane season AND bitter winters.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

[MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION]

The irony that statboy cannot handle logic. You see, the term CLIMATE CHANGE includes thestatistical data that shows the global COOLING TREND over the last 17 years.

Global warming (man made) arguments cannot make that fit into the narrative.

Hence the change.

Lol at you arguing against statistical logic and delightfully remaining a left wing pawn.

False. Patently false. Show me the raw data.

Here you go stat guy.

C3: Global Cooling: Data/Evidence/Trends

The HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset for 2013 was just published. On review of the released annual temperature averages that the UK experts calculated, the calendar year 2013 global temp was cooler than the 1998 mark.

So, during that 15 years of massive human CO2 emissions, the fearsome "runaway" warming was not so much. In fact, after the spewing of some 450 gigatons of fossil fuel emissions the temperature needle hasn't budged, it's actually lower in 2013.

The UK's findings match what other climate experts have found and are now debating the cause. This 'Pause' (aka 'The Hiatus') in global warming has even been noted in Congressional testimony as a matter of official record.

As a reminder, the 'Pause' described:
"The biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, unbeknownst to anybody at the time, with a subtle weakening of the tropical trade winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean in late 1997...Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled....But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases."

It was noted previously that the continental U.S. has been cooling over the last 16 years, at a rate of minus 3.8°F per century rate. This was not predicted by any U.S. climate scientist, nor by NOAA, nor by NASA and certainly not by the political technocrats at the UN's IPCC.

As the NOAA/NCDC climate record reveals, the breadbasket areas of American have been cooling for a longer period - 17 years. The above images reflect the empirical evidence for the primary U.S. corn growing areas., which is cooling at a minus 4.0°F/century rate.

The other major 3 crop regions all show similar type of cooling rates over the last 17 years ending 2013. (see: soybean temperatures, map; spring wheat temperatures, map; and winter wheat temperatures, map)

If this cooling trend were to continue, it would spell disaster for the world's hungry. Let's hope 'the pause' in global warming does not last much longer since it unfortunately seems to project a cooling regime over the U.S.

Additional regional and global temperature charts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Warming Alarm: Continued Cooling May Jeopardize Climate Science And Green Energy Funding! - Forbes

Global Warming Alarm: Continued Cooling May Jeopardize Climate Science And Green Energy Funding!

The past 17 years of flat global temperatures are creating a big chill for lots of global warming doom-premised industries. Those experiencing cold sweats must certainly include legions of climate scientists who have come to depend upon the many tens of billions of taxpayer bucks for studies that would have little demand without a big crisis for the public to worry about. And that amount pales in comparison with the hundreds of $ billions we spend on generous subsidies, lost tax revenues and inflated consumer costs for otherwise non-competitive “green energy” industries which depend upon those scary climate reports, or the insane economic penalties imposed upon all segments through EPA’s climate-premised regulatory rampage.

Cooler temperatures blow ill-winds for government bureaucrats, crony-capitalist rent- seekers, and other hucksters whose ambitions depend upon hot air. Even Western Europe, the cradle of carbon-caused climate craziness and cap-and-trade corruption, is feeling a cold draft. As Alister Doyle, reporting from Reuters in Oslo, recently observed: “Weak economic growth and the pause in warming is undermining governments’ willingness to make a rapid billion-dollar shift from fossil fuels. Almost 200 governments have agreed to work out a plan by the end of 2015 to combat global warming.”

In April, the Parliament in Strasbourg voted against artificially propping up the price of Emission Trading System carbon permit prices following the collapse of energy demand in connection with the Continent’s economic crisis. While the low price of carbon allowances is great for energy customers, you can be assured that it is viewed very differently by so-called “renewable” energy and carbon credit trading promoters who depend upon higher-than-market fossil fuel prices to stay in business. The Parliament’s veto reflects encouraging recognition that unwarranted, economy-ravaging carbon rationing is a feverish folly.


Gosh…Where Did All of Those Expensive Climate Models Go Wrong?

A scientist who commented in a Climategate email was badly mistaken when he observed: “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.” As it turned out, our policymakers did make those horrendously costly decisions based upon highly speculative model projections, mostly reported by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Still, another researcher probably got it right, anticipating some very troubling consequences: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…” Even Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, “The Population Bomb”, recognizes this peril. Writing in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues more alarmed than usual, he said: “Everyone is scared s***less [fecally void], but they don’t know what to do.”

There is good reason for this cooling climate consternation. As David Whitehouse at the Global Warming Policy Foundation points out: “If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change.” Whitehouse notes that there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997. He goes on to say: “If the standstill (lower temperatures) continues for a few more years, it will mean that no one who has just reached adulthood, or younger, will have witnessed the Earth get warmer during their lifetime.” (Since 1997, atmospheric CO2 has increased from 370 ppm to 390 ppm.)

-------------------------------------

Read the rest.


Now, are any of you going to acknowledge why there has been a concerted effort to change the terminology or not?

Thought not.

Face it, not one conservative I know or have seen on these boards has denied CLIMATE CHANGE. If so, when and who?

Now, with your best explanation, explain why the change in terminology, if indeed MAN MADE global warming is the same as climate change?

I still have not seen any of you attempt to explain why. You seem to think it is no big deal. Again, more ignorance about the power of rhetoric.

Now, go ahead and laugh or deny the stats I have provided. In the mean time, there is a concerted effort to change the terminology.

 

[daws101]

do you know what stating " no net effect" means?

just yes or no?

asked and answered.
dodge!

so you retard do not realize what does it mean to "deny there is no net change"?

or what does it mean to agree with the statement "that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general"?



tell me, English is your eight language so you do not look so .... mentally challenged

you wore this gem out long ago...just admit it's above you pay grade.

 

[westwall]

I'm not wearing pants because I call them knickers?

Knickers and pants are two words that mean the same thing. Global Warming is significantly different from Climate Change. Is it not?

Yes.

Climate Change is the main category. Global Warming is one possible sub-category.

Climate change is happening all the time. Only, if the theory is correct, and it sure looks like it is, climate change happened at a rate much, much slower than today, the one big exception being the meteor impact that killed the dinosaurs. But even that was not a man-made event. We now believe that the sudden change in the RATE of climate change is due to human use of technology, and this belief is bolster by REAMS of empirical data from all corners of the planet.

Our planet is over 70% water, most of it salt water. The story of climate change is inexorably connected to water, lots of it. If warming happens too fast, then too many glaciers (fresh water) melt and cause a thermal reaction underwater with salt water. The additional water plus change in temperature causes the phenomonen we know as EL NINO. It is the sudden addition of so much water that also inexorably results in more precip, at least on certain parts of the planet. This can cause winters that are colder than ever and turn right around and mean summers that are hot as hades, maybe not every year, but are part of a sinus wave of measurement that is continually expanding more than it is contracting.

Is global warming happening? I don't know. None of us know, for there is not enough empiric data to say with 100% certainty, though it sure as hell looks like it.

However, climate change that is decidedly faster than the eons before, this we CAN prove. And the problem with that is that species die out faster than they should, just causing problems all over, including the food-chain.

A sick planet is a lot like a sick person. A person with a bad cold can have chills AND sweats all at once. His mouth can water and be parched dry all at once.

The naysayers don't even realize that these freaky cold winters actually BOLSTER the theory of global warming, for it is the trapped greenhouse gases that cause the temperature rise that causes the glaciers to calve far too fast and in too large a mass, which in turn causes a more and more violent and unpredicactable EL NINO, which in turn gives us a hurricane season AND bitter winters.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

[MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION]

No. Climate is always changing thus the AGW usage is pointless. Once again they abandoned global warming (because it wasn't) and replaced it with "climate change" because that was sufficiently vague and non measurable to continue their fraud.

The globe has been warming for the last 14,000 years. The problem you folks have is you look at the world through the eyes of a human being. Our time on this planet is short. The planet on the other hand works far more slowly. Our entire period of written history falls within a mere eyeblink of the worlds history.

That is the fundamental problem here. You're all arguing about the skin on the grape, and the world is still figuring where the next mountain is going to spring up.

 

[Vox]

let me get this straight... you right wing folks deny that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general since we learned to walk up right ?
so in the million or so years that hominids and then humans have controlled fire there is no measurable effect ?
what about the industrial revolution?
population growth
mass transit, cars and other gas or oil powered vehicles
atomic testing?
pollution?
it's your contention that none of the above listed activities or things is even partiality responsible?

hey, dawsy, we actually AGREE there has been "no net effect on climate or the environment in general"

if you can comrehend what is said as you lack the ability to coherently express the chaos in your brainless cranium

 

[daws101]

The irony that statboy cannot handle logic. You see, the term CLIMATE CHANGE includes thestatistical data that shows the global COOLING TREND over the last 17 years.

Global warming (man made) arguments cannot make that fit into the narrative.

Hence the change.

Lol at you arguing against statistical logic and delightfully remaining a left wing pawn.

False. Patently false. Show me the raw data.

Here you go stat guy.

C3: Global Cooling: Data/Evidence/Trends

The HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset for 2013 was just published. On review of the released annual temperature averages that the UK experts calculated, the calendar year 2013 global temp was cooler than the 1998 mark.

So, during that 15 years of massive human CO2 emissions, the fearsome "runaway" warming was not so much. In fact, after the spewing of some 450 gigatons of fossil fuel emissions the temperature needle hasn't budged, it's actually lower in 2013.

The UK's findings match what other climate experts have found and are now debating the cause. This 'Pause' (aka 'The Hiatus') in global warming has even been noted in Congressional testimony as a matter of official record.

As a reminder, the 'Pause' described:
"The biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, unbeknownst to anybody at the time, with a subtle weakening of the tropical trade winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean in late 1997...Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled....But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases."

It was noted previously that the continental U.S. has been cooling over the last 16 years, at a rate of minus 3.8°F per century rate. This was not predicted by any U.S. climate scientist, nor by NOAA, nor by NASA and certainly not by the political technocrats at the UN's IPCC.

As the NOAA/NCDC climate record reveals, the breadbasket areas of American have been cooling for a longer period - 17 years. The above images reflect the empirical evidence for the primary U.S. corn growing areas., which is cooling at a minus 4.0°F/century rate.

The other major 3 crop regions all show similar type of cooling rates over the last 17 years ending 2013. (see: soybean temperatures, map; spring wheat temperatures, map; and winter wheat temperatures, map)

If this cooling trend were to continue, it would spell disaster for the world's hungry. Let's hope 'the pause' in global warming does not last much longer since it unfortunately seems to project a cooling regime over the U.S.

Additional regional and global temperature charts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Warming Alarm: Continued Cooling May Jeopardize Climate Science And Green Energy Funding! - Forbes

Global Warming Alarm: Continued Cooling May Jeopardize Climate Science And Green Energy Funding!

The past 17 years of flat global temperatures are creating a big chill for lots of global warming doom-premised industries. Those experiencing cold sweats must certainly include legions of climate scientists who have come to depend upon the many tens of billions of taxpayer bucks for studies that would have little demand without a big crisis for the public to worry about. And that amount pales in comparison with the hundreds of $ billions we spend on generous subsidies, lost tax revenues and inflated consumer costs for otherwise non-competitive “green energy” industries which depend upon those scary climate reports, or the insane economic penalties imposed upon all segments through EPA’s climate-premised regulatory rampage.

Cooler temperatures blow ill-winds for government bureaucrats, crony-capitalist rent- seekers, and other hucksters whose ambitions depend upon hot air. Even Western Europe, the cradle of carbon-caused climate craziness and cap-and-trade corruption, is feeling a cold draft. As Alister Doyle, reporting from Reuters in Oslo, recently observed: “Weak economic growth and the pause in warming is undermining governments’ willingness to make a rapid billion-dollar shift from fossil fuels. Almost 200 governments have agreed to work out a plan by the end of 2015 to combat global warming.”

In April, the Parliament in Strasbourg voted against artificially propping up the price of Emission Trading System carbon permit prices following the collapse of energy demand in connection with the Continent’s economic crisis. While the low price of carbon allowances is great for energy customers, you can be assured that it is viewed very differently by so-called “renewable” energy and carbon credit trading promoters who depend upon higher-than-market fossil fuel prices to stay in business. The Parliament’s veto reflects encouraging recognition that unwarranted, economy-ravaging carbon rationing is a feverish folly.


Gosh…Where Did All of Those Expensive Climate Models Go Wrong?

A scientist who commented in a Climategate email was badly mistaken when he observed: “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.” As it turned out, our policymakers did make those horrendously costly decisions based upon highly speculative model projections, mostly reported by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Still, another researcher probably got it right, anticipating some very troubling consequences: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…” Even Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, “The Population Bomb”, recognizes this peril. Writing in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues more alarmed than usual, he said: “Everyone is scared s***less [fecally void], but they don’t know what to do.”

There is good reason for this cooling climate consternation. As David Whitehouse at the Global Warming Policy Foundation points out: “If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change.” Whitehouse notes that there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997. He goes on to say: “If the standstill (lower temperatures) continues for a few more years, it will mean that no one who has just reached adulthood, or younger, will have witnessed the Earth get warmer during their lifetime.” (Since 1997, atmospheric CO2 has increased from 370 ppm to 390 ppm.)

-------------------------------------

Read the rest.


Now, are any of you going to acknowledge why there has been a concerted effort to change the terminology or not?

Thought not.

Face it, not one conservative I know or have seen on these boards has denied CLIMATE CHANGE. If so, when and who?

Now, with your best explanation, explain why the change in terminology, if indeed MAN MADE global warming is the same as climate change?

I still have not seen any of you attempt to explain why. You seem to think it is no big deal. Again, more ignorance about the power of rhetoric.

Now, go ahead and laugh or deny the stats I have provided. In the mean time, there is a concerted effort to change the terminology.

gotta call bullshit on this "source"
it's bias and not scientific.
also the "editors,"writers" names or experience and qualification ,degrees are no where to be found..
this is a conspiracy site.

 

[westwall]

Yes.

Climate Change is the main category. Global Warming is one possible sub-category.

Climate change is happening all the time. Only, if the theory is correct, and it sure looks like it is, climate change happened at a rate much, much slower than today, the one big exception being the meteor impact that killed the dinosaurs. But even that was not a man-made event. We now believe that the sudden change in the RATE of climate change is due to human use of technology, and this belief is bolster by REAMS of empirical data from all corners of the planet.

Our planet is over 70% water, most of it salt water. The story of climate change is inexorably connected to water, lots of it. If warming happens to fast, then too many glaciers (fresh water) melt and cause a thermal reaction underwater with salt water. The additional water plus change in temperature causes the phenomonen we know as EL NINO. It is the sudden addition of so much water that also inexorably results in more precip, at least on certain parts of the planet. This can cause winters that are colder than ever and turn right around and mean summers that are hot as hades, maybe not every year, but are part of a sinus wave of measurement that is continually expanding more than it is contracting.

Is global warming happening? I don't know. None of us know, for there is not enough empiric data to say with 100% certainty, though it sure as hell looks like it.

However, climate change that is decidedly faster than the eons before, this we CAN prove. And the problem with that is that species die out faster than they should, just causing problems all over, including the food-chain.

A sick planet is a lot like a sick person. A person with a bad cold can have chills AND sweats all at once. His mouth can water and be parched dry all at once.

The naysayers don't even realize that these freaky cold winters actually BOLSTER the theory of global warming, for it is the trapped greenhouse gases that cause the temperature rise that causes the glaciers to calve far too fast and in too large a mass, which in turn causes a more and more violent and unpredicactable EL NINO, which in turn gives us a hurricane season AND bitter winters.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

[MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION]

The irony that statboy cannot handle logic. You see, the term CLIMATE CHANGE includes thestatistical data that shows the global COOLING TREND over the last 17 years.

Global warming (man made) arguments cannot make that fit into the narrative.

Hence the change.

Lol at you arguing against statistical logic and delightfully remaining a left wing pawn.

False. Patently false. Show me the raw data.

Show us yours first. All you have is computer models. They have been proven useless.

 

[Theowl32]

False. Patently false. Show me the raw data.

Here you go stat guy.

C3: Global Cooling: Data/Evidence/Trends

The HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset for 2013 was just published. On review of the released annual temperature averages that the UK experts calculated, the calendar year 2013 global temp was cooler than the 1998 mark.

So, during that 15 years of massive human CO2 emissions, the fearsome "runaway" warming was not so much. In fact, after the spewing of some 450 gigatons of fossil fuel emissions the temperature needle hasn't budged, it's actually lower in 2013.

The UK's findings match what other climate experts have found and are now debating the cause. This 'Pause' (aka 'The Hiatus') in global warming has even been noted in Congressional testimony as a matter of official record.

As a reminder, the 'Pause' described:
"The biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, unbeknownst to anybody at the time, with a subtle weakening of the tropical trade winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean in late 1997...Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled....But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases."

It was noted previously that the continental U.S. has been cooling over the last 16 years, at a rate of minus 3.8°F per century rate. This was not predicted by any U.S. climate scientist, nor by NOAA, nor by NASA and certainly not by the political technocrats at the UN's IPCC.

As the NOAA/NCDC climate record reveals, the breadbasket areas of American have been cooling for a longer period - 17 years. The above images reflect the empirical evidence for the primary U.S. corn growing areas., which is cooling at a minus 4.0°F/century rate.

The other major 3 crop regions all show similar type of cooling rates over the last 17 years ending 2013. (see: soybean temperatures, map; spring wheat temperatures, map; and winter wheat temperatures, map)

If this cooling trend were to continue, it would spell disaster for the world's hungry. Let's hope 'the pause' in global warming does not last much longer since it unfortunately seems to project a cooling regime over the U.S.

Additional regional and global temperature charts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Warming Alarm: Continued Cooling May Jeopardize Climate Science And Green Energy Funding! - Forbes

Global Warming Alarm: Continued Cooling May Jeopardize Climate Science And Green Energy Funding!

The past 17 years of flat global temperatures are creating a big chill for lots of global warming doom-premised industries. Those experiencing cold sweats must certainly include legions of climate scientists who have come to depend upon the many tens of billions of taxpayer bucks for studies that would have little demand without a big crisis for the public to worry about. And that amount pales in comparison with the hundreds of $ billions we spend on generous subsidies, lost tax revenues and inflated consumer costs for otherwise non-competitive “green energy” industries which depend upon those scary climate reports, or the insane economic penalties imposed upon all segments through EPA’s climate-premised regulatory rampage.

Cooler temperatures blow ill-winds for government bureaucrats, crony-capitalist rent- seekers, and other hucksters whose ambitions depend upon hot air. Even Western Europe, the cradle of carbon-caused climate craziness and cap-and-trade corruption, is feeling a cold draft. As Alister Doyle, reporting from Reuters in Oslo, recently observed: “Weak economic growth and the pause in warming is undermining governments’ willingness to make a rapid billion-dollar shift from fossil fuels. Almost 200 governments have agreed to work out a plan by the end of 2015 to combat global warming.”

In April, the Parliament in Strasbourg voted against artificially propping up the price of Emission Trading System carbon permit prices following the collapse of energy demand in connection with the Continent’s economic crisis. While the low price of carbon allowances is great for energy customers, you can be assured that it is viewed very differently by so-called “renewable” energy and carbon credit trading promoters who depend upon higher-than-market fossil fuel prices to stay in business. The Parliament’s veto reflects encouraging recognition that unwarranted, economy-ravaging carbon rationing is a feverish folly.


Gosh…Where Did All of Those Expensive Climate Models Go Wrong?

A scientist who commented in a Climategate email was badly mistaken when he observed: “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.” As it turned out, our policymakers did make those horrendously costly decisions based upon highly speculative model projections, mostly reported by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Still, another researcher probably got it right, anticipating some very troubling consequences: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…” Even Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, “The Population Bomb”, recognizes this peril. Writing in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues more alarmed than usual, he said: “Everyone is scared s***less [fecally void], but they don’t know what to do.”

There is good reason for this cooling climate consternation. As David Whitehouse at the Global Warming Policy Foundation points out: “If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change.” Whitehouse notes that there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997. He goes on to say: “If the standstill (lower temperatures) continues for a few more years, it will mean that no one who has just reached adulthood, or younger, will have witnessed the Earth get warmer during their lifetime.” (Since 1997, atmospheric CO2 has increased from 370 ppm to 390 ppm.)

-------------------------------------

Read the rest.


Now, are any of you going to acknowledge why there has been a concerted effort to change the terminology or not?

Thought not.

Face it, not one conservative I know or have seen on these boards has denied CLIMATE CHANGE. If so, when and who?

Now, with your best explanation, explain why the change in terminology, if indeed MAN MADE global warming is the same as climate change?

I still have not seen any of you attempt to explain why. You seem to think it is no big deal. Again, more ignorance about the power of rhetoric.

Now, go ahead and laugh or deny the stats I have provided. In the mean time, there is a concerted effort to change the terminology.

gotta call bullshit on this "source"
it's bias and not scientific.

Right of course you would.

Mean time there is a concerted effort to change the terminology.

Why?

 

[westwall]

False. Patently false. Show me the raw data.

Here you go stat guy.

C3: Global Cooling: Data/Evidence/Trends

The HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset for 2013 was just published. On review of the released annual temperature averages that the UK experts calculated, the calendar year 2013 global temp was cooler than the 1998 mark.

So, during that 15 years of massive human CO2 emissions, the fearsome "runaway" warming was not so much. In fact, after the spewing of some 450 gigatons of fossil fuel emissions the temperature needle hasn't budged, it's actually lower in 2013.

The UK's findings match what other climate experts have found and are now debating the cause. This 'Pause' (aka 'The Hiatus') in global warming has even been noted in Congressional testimony as a matter of official record.

As a reminder, the 'Pause' described:
"The biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, unbeknownst to anybody at the time, with a subtle weakening of the tropical trade winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean in late 1997...Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled....But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases."

It was noted previously that the continental U.S. has been cooling over the last 16 years, at a rate of minus 3.8°F per century rate. This was not predicted by any U.S. climate scientist, nor by NOAA, nor by NASA and certainly not by the political technocrats at the UN's IPCC.

As the NOAA/NCDC climate record reveals, the breadbasket areas of American have been cooling for a longer period - 17 years. The above images reflect the empirical evidence for the primary U.S. corn growing areas., which is cooling at a minus 4.0°F/century rate.

The other major 3 crop regions all show similar type of cooling rates over the last 17 years ending 2013. (see: soybean temperatures, map; spring wheat temperatures, map; and winter wheat temperatures, map)

If this cooling trend were to continue, it would spell disaster for the world's hungry. Let's hope 'the pause' in global warming does not last much longer since it unfortunately seems to project a cooling regime over the U.S.

Additional regional and global temperature charts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Warming Alarm: Continued Cooling May Jeopardize Climate Science And Green Energy Funding! - Forbes

Global Warming Alarm: Continued Cooling May Jeopardize Climate Science And Green Energy Funding!

The past 17 years of flat global temperatures are creating a big chill for lots of global warming doom-premised industries. Those experiencing cold sweats must certainly include legions of climate scientists who have come to depend upon the many tens of billions of taxpayer bucks for studies that would have little demand without a big crisis for the public to worry about. And that amount pales in comparison with the hundreds of $ billions we spend on generous subsidies, lost tax revenues and inflated consumer costs for otherwise non-competitive “green energy” industries which depend upon those scary climate reports, or the insane economic penalties imposed upon all segments through EPA’s climate-premised regulatory rampage.

Cooler temperatures blow ill-winds for government bureaucrats, crony-capitalist rent- seekers, and other hucksters whose ambitions depend upon hot air. Even Western Europe, the cradle of carbon-caused climate craziness and cap-and-trade corruption, is feeling a cold draft. As Alister Doyle, reporting from Reuters in Oslo, recently observed: “Weak economic growth and the pause in warming is undermining governments’ willingness to make a rapid billion-dollar shift from fossil fuels. Almost 200 governments have agreed to work out a plan by the end of 2015 to combat global warming.”

In April, the Parliament in Strasbourg voted against artificially propping up the price of Emission Trading System carbon permit prices following the collapse of energy demand in connection with the Continent’s economic crisis. While the low price of carbon allowances is great for energy customers, you can be assured that it is viewed very differently by so-called “renewable” energy and carbon credit trading promoters who depend upon higher-than-market fossil fuel prices to stay in business. The Parliament’s veto reflects encouraging recognition that unwarranted, economy-ravaging carbon rationing is a feverish folly.


Gosh…Where Did All of Those Expensive Climate Models Go Wrong?

A scientist who commented in a Climategate email was badly mistaken when he observed: “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.” As it turned out, our policymakers did make those horrendously costly decisions based upon highly speculative model projections, mostly reported by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Still, another researcher probably got it right, anticipating some very troubling consequences: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…” Even Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, “The Population Bomb”, recognizes this peril. Writing in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues more alarmed than usual, he said: “Everyone is scared s***less [fecally void], but they don’t know what to do.”

There is good reason for this cooling climate consternation. As David Whitehouse at the Global Warming Policy Foundation points out: “If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change.” Whitehouse notes that there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997. He goes on to say: “If the standstill (lower temperatures) continues for a few more years, it will mean that no one who has just reached adulthood, or younger, will have witnessed the Earth get warmer during their lifetime.” (Since 1997, atmospheric CO2 has increased from 370 ppm to 390 ppm.)

-------------------------------------

Read the rest.


Now, are any of you going to acknowledge why there has been a concerted effort to change the terminology or not?

Thought not.

Face it, not one conservative I know or have seen on these boards has denied CLIMATE CHANGE. If so, when and who?

Now, with your best explanation, explain why the change in terminology, if indeed MAN MADE global warming is the same as climate change?

I still have not seen any of you attempt to explain why. You seem to think it is no big deal. Again, more ignorance about the power of rhetoric.

Now, go ahead and laugh or deny the stats I have provided. In the mean time, there is a concerted effort to change the terminology.

gotta call bullshit on this "source"
it's bias and not scientific.

It's more legit than skeptical science. These are actual peer reviewed papers that have not been "pal" reviewed.

 

[daws101]

let me get this straight... you right wing folks deny that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general since we learned to walk up right ?
so in the million or so years that hominids and then humans have controlled fire there is no measurable effect ?
what about the industrial revolution?
population growth
mass transit, cars and other gas or oil powered vehicles
atomic testing?
pollution?
it's your contention that none of the above listed activities or things is even partiality responsible?

hey, dawsy, we actually AGREE there has been "no net effect on climate or the environment in general"

if you can comrehend what is said as you lack the ability to coherently express the chaos in your brainless cranium

that's comprehend ...if you can't spell it . don't use it..

 

[Vox]

asked and answered.
dodge!

so you retard do not realize what does it mean to "deny there is no net change"?

or what does it mean to agree with the statement "that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general"?



tell me, English is your eight language so you do not look so .... mentally challenged

you wore this gem out long ago...just admit it's above you pay grade.

so you agree that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general ?

 

[Theowl32]

let me get this straight... you right wing folks deny that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general since we learned to walk up right ?
so in the million or so years that hominids and then humans have controlled fire there is no measurable effect ?
what about the industrial revolution?
population growth
mass transit, cars and other gas or oil powered vehicles
atomic testing?
pollution?
it's your contention that none of the above listed activities or things is even partiality responsible?

hey, dawsy, we actually AGREE there has been "no net effect on climate or the environment in general"

if you can comrehend what is said as you lack the ability to coherently express the chaos in your brainless cranium

that's comprehend ...if you can't spell it . don't use it..

Well, go ahead.

Explain why the even the democrats have changed the terminology from MAN MADE global warming, to climate change.

Not a big deal eh? Nothing to the power of rhetoric?

Be specific as to why.

 

[daws101]

Here you go stat guy.

C3: Global Cooling: Data/Evidence/Trends

The HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset for 2013 was just published. On review of the released annual temperature averages that the UK experts calculated, the calendar year 2013 global temp was cooler than the 1998 mark.

So, during that 15 years of massive human CO2 emissions, the fearsome "runaway" warming was not so much. In fact, after the spewing of some 450 gigatons of fossil fuel emissions the temperature needle hasn't budged, it's actually lower in 2013.

The UK's findings match what other climate experts have found and are now debating the cause. This 'Pause' (aka 'The Hiatus') in global warming has even been noted in Congressional testimony as a matter of official record.

As a reminder, the 'Pause' described:
"The biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, unbeknownst to anybody at the time, with a subtle weakening of the tropical trade winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean in late 1997...Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled....But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases."

It was noted previously that the continental U.S. has been cooling over the last 16 years, at a rate of minus 3.8°F per century rate. This was not predicted by any U.S. climate scientist, nor by NOAA, nor by NASA and certainly not by the political technocrats at the UN's IPCC.

As the NOAA/NCDC climate record reveals, the breadbasket areas of American have been cooling for a longer period - 17 years. The above images reflect the empirical evidence for the primary U.S. corn growing areas., which is cooling at a minus 4.0°F/century rate.

The other major 3 crop regions all show similar type of cooling rates over the last 17 years ending 2013. (see: soybean temperatures, map; spring wheat temperatures, map; and winter wheat temperatures, map)

If this cooling trend were to continue, it would spell disaster for the world's hungry. Let's hope 'the pause' in global warming does not last much longer since it unfortunately seems to project a cooling regime over the U.S.

Additional regional and global temperature charts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Warming Alarm: Continued Cooling May Jeopardize Climate Science And Green Energy Funding! - Forbes

Global Warming Alarm: Continued Cooling May Jeopardize Climate Science And Green Energy Funding!

The past 17 years of flat global temperatures are creating a big chill for lots of global warming doom-premised industries. Those experiencing cold sweats must certainly include legions of climate scientists who have come to depend upon the many tens of billions of taxpayer bucks for studies that would have little demand without a big crisis for the public to worry about. And that amount pales in comparison with the hundreds of $ billions we spend on generous subsidies, lost tax revenues and inflated consumer costs for otherwise non-competitive “green energy” industries which depend upon those scary climate reports, or the insane economic penalties imposed upon all segments through EPA’s climate-premised regulatory rampage.

Cooler temperatures blow ill-winds for government bureaucrats, crony-capitalist rent- seekers, and other hucksters whose ambitions depend upon hot air. Even Western Europe, the cradle of carbon-caused climate craziness and cap-and-trade corruption, is feeling a cold draft. As Alister Doyle, reporting from Reuters in Oslo, recently observed: “Weak economic growth and the pause in warming is undermining governments’ willingness to make a rapid billion-dollar shift from fossil fuels. Almost 200 governments have agreed to work out a plan by the end of 2015 to combat global warming.”

In April, the Parliament in Strasbourg voted against artificially propping up the price of Emission Trading System carbon permit prices following the collapse of energy demand in connection with the Continent’s economic crisis. While the low price of carbon allowances is great for energy customers, you can be assured that it is viewed very differently by so-called “renewable” energy and carbon credit trading promoters who depend upon higher-than-market fossil fuel prices to stay in business. The Parliament’s veto reflects encouraging recognition that unwarranted, economy-ravaging carbon rationing is a feverish folly.


Gosh…Where Did All of Those Expensive Climate Models Go Wrong?

A scientist who commented in a Climategate email was badly mistaken when he observed: “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.” As it turned out, our policymakers did make those horrendously costly decisions based upon highly speculative model projections, mostly reported by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Still, another researcher probably got it right, anticipating some very troubling consequences: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…” Even Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, “The Population Bomb”, recognizes this peril. Writing in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues more alarmed than usual, he said: “Everyone is scared s***less [fecally void], but they don’t know what to do.”

There is good reason for this cooling climate consternation. As David Whitehouse at the Global Warming Policy Foundation points out: “If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change.” Whitehouse notes that there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997. He goes on to say: “If the standstill (lower temperatures) continues for a few more years, it will mean that no one who has just reached adulthood, or younger, will have witnessed the Earth get warmer during their lifetime.” (Since 1997, atmospheric CO2 has increased from 370 ppm to 390 ppm.)

-------------------------------------

Read the rest.


Now, are any of you going to acknowledge why there has been a concerted effort to change the terminology or not?

Thought not.

Face it, not one conservative I know or have seen on these boards has denied CLIMATE CHANGE. If so, when and who?

Now, with your best explanation, explain why the change in terminology, if indeed MAN MADE global warming is the same as climate change?

I still have not seen any of you attempt to explain why. You seem to think it is no big deal. Again, more ignorance about the power of rhetoric.

Now, go ahead and laugh or deny the stats I have provided. In the mean time, there is a concerted effort to change the terminology.

gotta call bullshit on this "source"
it's bias and not scientific.

Right of course you would.

Mean time there is a concerted effort to change the terminology.

Why?

of course I would what ? point out that your source is a steaming pile?
of course i would.
and of course, when I pointed out that it has zero credibility you,of course side stepped as of course, you have no answer.

 

[daws101]

Here you go stat guy.

C3: Global Cooling: Data/Evidence/Trends

The HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset for 2013 was just published. On review of the released annual temperature averages that the UK experts calculated, the calendar year 2013 global temp was cooler than the 1998 mark.

So, during that 15 years of massive human CO2 emissions, the fearsome "runaway" warming was not so much. In fact, after the spewing of some 450 gigatons of fossil fuel emissions the temperature needle hasn't budged, it's actually lower in 2013.

The UK's findings match what other climate experts have found and are now debating the cause. This 'Pause' (aka 'The Hiatus') in global warming has even been noted in Congressional testimony as a matter of official record.

As a reminder, the 'Pause' described:
"The biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, unbeknownst to anybody at the time, with a subtle weakening of the tropical trade winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean in late 1997...Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled....But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases."

It was noted previously that the continental U.S. has been cooling over the last 16 years, at a rate of minus 3.8°F per century rate. This was not predicted by any U.S. climate scientist, nor by NOAA, nor by NASA and certainly not by the political technocrats at the UN's IPCC.

As the NOAA/NCDC climate record reveals, the breadbasket areas of American have been cooling for a longer period - 17 years. The above images reflect the empirical evidence for the primary U.S. corn growing areas., which is cooling at a minus 4.0°F/century rate.

The other major 3 crop regions all show similar type of cooling rates over the last 17 years ending 2013. (see: soybean temperatures, map; spring wheat temperatures, map; and winter wheat temperatures, map)

If this cooling trend were to continue, it would spell disaster for the world's hungry. Let's hope 'the pause' in global warming does not last much longer since it unfortunately seems to project a cooling regime over the U.S.

Additional regional and global temperature charts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Warming Alarm: Continued Cooling May Jeopardize Climate Science And Green Energy Funding! - Forbes

Global Warming Alarm: Continued Cooling May Jeopardize Climate Science And Green Energy Funding!

The past 17 years of flat global temperatures are creating a big chill for lots of global warming doom-premised industries. Those experiencing cold sweats must certainly include legions of climate scientists who have come to depend upon the many tens of billions of taxpayer bucks for studies that would have little demand without a big crisis for the public to worry about. And that amount pales in comparison with the hundreds of $ billions we spend on generous subsidies, lost tax revenues and inflated consumer costs for otherwise non-competitive “green energy” industries which depend upon those scary climate reports, or the insane economic penalties imposed upon all segments through EPA’s climate-premised regulatory rampage.

Cooler temperatures blow ill-winds for government bureaucrats, crony-capitalist rent- seekers, and other hucksters whose ambitions depend upon hot air. Even Western Europe, the cradle of carbon-caused climate craziness and cap-and-trade corruption, is feeling a cold draft. As Alister Doyle, reporting from Reuters in Oslo, recently observed: “Weak economic growth and the pause in warming is undermining governments’ willingness to make a rapid billion-dollar shift from fossil fuels. Almost 200 governments have agreed to work out a plan by the end of 2015 to combat global warming.”

In April, the Parliament in Strasbourg voted against artificially propping up the price of Emission Trading System carbon permit prices following the collapse of energy demand in connection with the Continent’s economic crisis. While the low price of carbon allowances is great for energy customers, you can be assured that it is viewed very differently by so-called “renewable” energy and carbon credit trading promoters who depend upon higher-than-market fossil fuel prices to stay in business. The Parliament’s veto reflects encouraging recognition that unwarranted, economy-ravaging carbon rationing is a feverish folly.


Gosh…Where Did All of Those Expensive Climate Models Go Wrong?

A scientist who commented in a Climategate email was badly mistaken when he observed: “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.” As it turned out, our policymakers did make those horrendously costly decisions based upon highly speculative model projections, mostly reported by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Still, another researcher probably got it right, anticipating some very troubling consequences: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…” Even Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, “The Population Bomb”, recognizes this peril. Writing in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues more alarmed than usual, he said: “Everyone is scared s***less [fecally void], but they don’t know what to do.”

There is good reason for this cooling climate consternation. As David Whitehouse at the Global Warming Policy Foundation points out: “If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change.” Whitehouse notes that there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997. He goes on to say: “If the standstill (lower temperatures) continues for a few more years, it will mean that no one who has just reached adulthood, or younger, will have witnessed the Earth get warmer during their lifetime.” (Since 1997, atmospheric CO2 has increased from 370 ppm to 390 ppm.)

-------------------------------------

Read the rest.


Now, are any of you going to acknowledge why there has been a concerted effort to change the terminology or not?

Thought not.

Face it, not one conservative I know or have seen on these boards has denied CLIMATE CHANGE. If so, when and who?

Now, with your best explanation, explain why the change in terminology, if indeed MAN MADE global warming is the same as climate change?

I still have not seen any of you attempt to explain why. You seem to think it is no big deal. Again, more ignorance about the power of rhetoric.

Now, go ahead and laugh or deny the stats I have provided. In the mean time, there is a concerted effort to change the terminology.

gotta call bullshit on this "source"
it's bias and not scientific.

It's more legit than skeptical science. These are actual peer reviewed papers that have not been "pal" reviewed.

written by who and peer reviewed by who?
without that info it's trash..
you'll understand that your word on it's veracity carries no weight.

 

[daws101]

so you retard do not realize what does it mean to "deny there is no net change"?

or what does it mean to agree with the statement "that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general"?



tell me, English is your eight language so you do not look so .... mentally challenged

you wore this gem out long ago...just admit it's above you pay grade.

so you agree that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general ?

you wore this gem out long ago...just admit it's above your pay grade.

 

[daws101]

hey, dawsy, we actually AGREE there has been "no net effect on climate or the environment in general"

if you can comrehend what is said as you lack the ability to coherently express the chaos in your brainless cranium

that's comprehend ...if you can't spell it . don't use it..

Well, go ahead.

Explain why the even the democrats have changed the terminology from MAN MADE global warming, to climate change.

Not a big deal eh? Nothing to the power of rhetoric?

Be specific as to why.

attempting to change the subject again
but to answer... "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" is a commonly quoted part of a dialogue in William Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet, in which Juliet argues that the names of things do not matter, only what things are"

so you won't have to think too hard:
the names of things do not matter, only what things are"

 

[Vox]

you wore this gem out long ago...just admit it's above you pay grade.

so you agree that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general ?

you wore this gem out long ago...just admit it's above your pay grade.

so you agree that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general

reminding you - that is your own statement, dowsy

 

[Theowl32]

that's comprehend ...if you can't spell it . don't use it..

Well, go ahead.

Explain why the even the democrats have changed the terminology from MAN MADE global warming, to climate change.

Not a big deal eh? Nothing to the power of rhetoric?

Be specific as to why.

attempting to change the subject again
but to answer... "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" is a commonly quoted part of a dialogue in William Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet, in which Juliet argues that the names of things do not matter, only what things are"

so you won't have to think too hard:
the names of things do not matter, only what things are"

In actuality I put it right back on subject of the original topic.

Man made global warming only means one thing, while climate change includes various possibilities.

You trying to convince me they are the same is beyond ridiculous. You saying there is nothing to the renaming or there is nothing to the power of rhetoric clearly demonstrates your pure ignorance.

You have no answer, other than saying they are the same, when they are not the same.

 

[Theowl32]

gotta call bullshit on this "source"
it's bias and not scientific.

Right of course you would.

Mean time there is a concerted effort to change the terminology.

Why?

of course I would what ? point out that your source is a steaming pile?
of course i would.
and of course, when I pointed out that it has zero credibility you,of course side stepped as of course, you have no answer.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream.

In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity - the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels - would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.

Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.

For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it's good news that probably won't last.

International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years "at least" to break the long-term warming trend.

But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.

Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.

"But it does not mean global warming is a delusion."

The fact is temperatures between 2000 and 2010 are still almost 1C above their level in the first decade of the 20th century.

"The mismatch might mean that for some unexplained reason there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-2010.

"Or it might mean that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period."

The magazine explores a range of possible explanations including higher emissions of sulphur dioxide, the little understood impact of clouds and the circulation of heat into the deep ocean.

But it also points to an increasing body of research that suggests it may be that climate is responding to higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before.

"This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy," the article says.

There are now a number of studies that predict future temperature rises as a result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions at well below the IPCC best estimate of about 3C over the century.

The upcoming IPCC report is expected to lift the maximum possible temperature increase to 6C.

The Research Council of Norway says in a non-peer-reviewed paper that the best estimate concludes there is a 90 per cent probability that doubling CO2 emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2C to 2.9C, the most likely figure being 1.9C.

Another study based on the way the climate behaved about 20,000 years ago has given a best guess of 2.3C.

Other forecasts, accepted for publication, have reanalysed work cited by the IPCC but taken account of more recent temperature data and given a figure of between 1C and 3C.

The Economist says understanding which estimate is true is vital to getting the best response.

"If as conventional wisdom has it, global temperatures could rise by 3C or more in response to a doubling of emissions, then the correct response would be the one to which most of the world pays lip service; rein in the warming and the greenhouse gases causing it," the article says.

"If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2 degrees Celsius in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6 degrees Celsius is trivial) the calculation might change," it says.

"Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge.

"There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you don't live in an earthquake zone."

According to The Economist, "given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified." On face value, Hansen agrees the slowdown in global temperature rises can be seen as "good news".

But he is not ready to recalculate the Faustian bargain that weighs the future cost to humanity of continued carbon dioxide emissions.

Hansen argues that the impact of human carbon dioxide emissions has been masked by the sharp increase in coal use, primarily in China and India.

Increased particulate and nitrogen pollution has worked in the opposite direction of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Another paper published in Geophysical Research Letters on research from the University of Colorado Boulder found small volcanoes, not more coal power stations in China, were responsible for the slowdown in global warming.

But this did not mean that climate change was not a problem.

"Emissions from volcanic gases go up and down, helping to cool or heat the planet, while greenhouse gases from human activity just continue to go up," author Ryan Neely says.

Hansen's bottom line is that increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a "doubling down" of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes.

"The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be," he says.

 

[daws101]

so you agree that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general ?

you wore this gem out long ago...just admit it's above your pay grade.

so you agree that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general

reminding you - that is your own statement, dowsy

asked and answered

 

[daws101]

Well, go ahead.

Explain why the even the democrats have changed the terminology from MAN MADE global warming, to climate change.

Not a big deal eh? Nothing to the power of rhetoric?

Be specific as to why.

attempting to change the subject again
but to answer... "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" is a commonly quoted part of a dialogue in William Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet, in which Juliet argues that the names of things do not matter, only what things are"

so you won't have to think too hard:
the names of things do not matter, only what things are"

In actuality I put it right back on subject of the original topic.

Man made global warming only means one thing, while climate change includes various possibilities.

You trying to convince me they are the same is beyond ridiculous. You saying there is nothing to the renaming or there is nothing to the power of rhetoric clearly demonstrates your pure ignorance.

You have no answer, other than saying they are the same, when they are not the same.

you have a rich fantasy life..
the actual point of this thread was /is to bash the president and to a lesser degree AL gore.
I am not trying to convince you of anything, why would I waste my time as you have already convinced yourself...