Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ‘Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science’

[Freewill]

Pretty day we had and pretty cold for a fourth of July. What's this guy know it is not like he is a rocket scientist or something.

Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":

"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory."

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."

Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ?Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science? | CNS News

 

[Skylar]

Pretty day we had and pretty cold for a fourth of July. What's this guy know it is not like he is a rocket scientist or something.

Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":

"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory."

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."

Yeah, but this guy doesn't seem to understand what global warming is.

Cunningham notes that, while climate alarmists are concerned that the atmosphere currently contains 400 parts per million of CO2, that's only a tenth of the level his spacecraft had to reach before causing concern. In his Apollo craft, an alarm would go off when CO2 reached 4,000 parts per million and, in today's space shuttle, the trigger is 5,000. And, in submarines where crewmen may be on three-month missions, CO2 has to reach 8,000 parts per million before the alarm is activated.

What did the CO2 alarms in today's space shuttle have to do with global warming? Absolutely nothing. The CO2 alarms in the space shuttle measure CO2 levels that are high enough to make breathing difficult. While Global warming has to do with CO2 in our atmosphere keeping in heat by absorbing and re-radiating infrared EM.

That Cunningham would directly compare the two shows us he doesn't really have a clear handle on what global warming is. Which robs his analysis of much of its credibility.

 

[Freewill]

Pretty day we had and pretty cold for a fourth of July. What's this guy know it is not like he is a rocket scientist or something.

Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":

"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory."

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."

Yeah, but this guy doesn't seem to understand what global warming is.

Cunningham notes that, while climate alarmists are concerned that the atmosphere currently contains 400 parts per million of CO2, that's only a tenth of the level his spacecraft had to reach before causing concern. In his Apollo craft, an alarm would go off when CO2 reached 4,000 parts per million and, in today's space shuttle, the trigger is 5,000. And, in submarines where crewmen may be on three-month missions, CO2 has to reach 8,000 parts per million before the alarm is activated.

What did the CO2 alarms in today's space shuttle have to do with global warming? Absolutely nothing. The CO2 alarms in the space shuttle measure CO2 levels that are high enough to make breathing difficult. While Global warming has to do with CO2 in our atmosphere keeping in heat by absorbing and re-radiating infrared EM.

That Cunningham would directly compare the two shows us he doesn't really have a clear handle on what global warming is. Which robs his analysis of much of its credibility.

I am not quite sure I understand what he is trying to say with the CO2 alarm comparisons. But considering him an intelligent man I will say that it is probably me who doesn't understand.

My whole problem with the CO2 concentration is that it lags temperature both up and down. Yeah I know there is an explanation that is convoluted and hard to understand, in my opinion. I have a hard time understanding how temperature can turn down yet CO2 concentrations continue upward. Logic tells me that it is temperature driving the CO2 concentration not the other way around. But that is just by looking at Gore's famous graph.

 

[tinydancer]

I have three problems with global warming alarmism.

#1 No one on this planet to date has ever been able to give me a 30 day weather forecast that was accurate.

And I'm supposed to believe computer models telling me what the climate is going to be in 50 freaking years?

#2 Who the hell thinks that our governments can fix the planet's climate when they can't fix the potholes on our streets and highways let alone the economy?

And we are supposed to trust our governments and the United Nations to "repair" the weather?

Give them quizzillions in tax dollars to watch our elected officials and left wing whacko global warming freaks do a circle jerk with all our cash?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

And drum roll......

ta da!

#3 Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph

 

[Skylar]

Pretty day we had and pretty cold for a fourth of July. What's this guy know it is not like he is a rocket scientist or something.

Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":

"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory."

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."

Yeah, but this guy doesn't seem to understand what global warming is.

Cunningham notes that, while climate alarmists are concerned that the atmosphere currently contains 400 parts per million of CO2, that's only a tenth of the level his spacecraft had to reach before causing concern. In his Apollo craft, an alarm would go off when CO2 reached 4,000 parts per million and, in today's space shuttle, the trigger is 5,000. And, in submarines where crewmen may be on three-month missions, CO2 has to reach 8,000 parts per million before the alarm is activated.

What did the CO2 alarms in today's space shuttle have to do with global warming? Absolutely nothing. The CO2 alarms in the space shuttle measure CO2 levels that are high enough to make breathing difficult. While Global warming has to do with CO2 in our atmosphere keeping in heat by absorbing and re-radiating infrared EM.

That Cunningham would directly compare the two shows us he doesn't really have a clear handle on what global warming is. Which robs his analysis of much of its credibility.

I am not quite sure I understand what he is trying to say with the CO2 alarm comparisons. But considering him an intelligent man I will say that it is probably me who doesn't understand.

The CO2 alarms in the shuttle and submarines are when CO2 levels are getting to high to safely breath.

That's not global warming. Cunningham is obtusely unclear on what global warming is and what the relevance of higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere have to do with it. As global warming has absolutely nothing to do with CO2 levels rising to a point where they are difficult to breath.

While CO2 alarms in submarines have no other purpose.


My whole problem with the CO2 concentration is that it lags temperature both up and down. Yeah I know there is an explanation that is convoluted and hard to understand, in my opinion. I have a hard time understanding how temperature can turn down yet CO2 concentrations continue upward. Logic tells me that it is temperature driving the CO2 concentration not the other way around. But that is just by looking at Gore's famous graph.

We can actually measure the amount of infrared radiation being emitted by the CO2 in our atmosphere. The frequency of that emission is specific to a particular gas, so we can determine which atmospheric gasses are emitting what radiation, if any.

And CO2 absorbs infrared radiation at a much, much higher rate than oxygen or nitrogen. Worse, the quantity of infrared being emitted by CO2 is increasing as its concentrations in our atmosphere increase. These aren't future events or predictions. These are measurements being taken right now.

That's the mechanism for global warming. And its not a grand coincidence that CO2 levels have skyrocketed by 23% or so in only 75 years. The exact 75 years that we've been pumping enormous quantities of extra CO2 into the atmosphere on an industrial scale. An increase that far and that fast is absolutely unprecedented in 800,000 years of ice core records.

We are mostly likely the cause.

 

[Skylar]

#1 No one on this planet to date has ever been able to give me a 30 day weather forecast that was accurate.

Our trendline for global mean temperatures is upward. Not over a day, or 30 days, or even a single year. But over a generation. Its not unreasonable to conclude that this trendline will continue. Especially when it is. When we observe the oceans, the trendline of increasing temperatures is 135 years long. With the greatest increases in, you guessed it, the last 75 years.

We can measure an increase in CO2 emissions of infrared radiation in our atmosphere over what it was 20 and 30 years ago. More thermal energy is being reradiated back to our planet's surface that would have otherwise been radiated out into space. So you have a measurable mechanism for this upward trendline.

And finally, the quantity of CO2 continues to increase. We've never seen an increase in global CO2 levels occur this fast, this high. Not in our history. Not in the entire 800,000 year ice core record. And this massive increase of CO2 in our atmosphere mirrors our industrial emission of CO2 into our atmosphere.

Its not unreasonable to conclude they are related. The coincidence that a sudden and unprecidented spike in global CO2 levels would just happen to occur for the first time in 800,000 years during the period we pump massive amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere...

......is ridiculously unlikely.

#2 Who the hell thinks that our governments can fix the planet's climate when they can't fix the potholes on our streets and highways let alone the economy?

Many atmospheric emissions are within the power of the people to regulate. And with effort, we can and have reduced CO2 emissions in many industries. The idea that it can't be done, and can't be done through government is contradicted by these reductions.

And we are supposed to trust our governments and the United Nations to "repair" the weather?

We're attempting to limit our CO2 emissions. And let the climate 'repair' itself. The long term carbon cycle cloisters far more carbon every year than we produce. And does a remarkable job of balancing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and slowing the rate of climate change. The sudden and dramatic imbalance and skyrocketing CO2 levels is very, very recent phenomenon. In the last 75 years or so.

#3 Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.

That's the assessment of a grand total of one climatologist: A professor Anastasios Tsonis out of the University of Milwaukee. You'll need to give us a reason to ignore the hundreds of climatologists that disagree with Dr. Tsonis. Along with the overwhelming consensus among earth scientists that global warming is real and caused by human activity. As high as 97% among climatologists that are actively publishing.

Now why are they all wrong. And only Tsonis, out of Milwakee, right? Beyond that you seem to prefer Tsonis' narrative. Especially when Tsonis has made verifiably false statements about the last 15 years being a cooling trend.

The NOAA has a very different account of the climate:

NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years


WASHINGTON -- A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.

Jan. 21, 2010

How could the warmest decade on record define a 'cooling trend'?

 

[Avorysuds]

My issue with warmers is they have yet to date get a single projection even mildly correct. In fact, they are always incredibly far off yet claim science is on their side, despite science being the thing that proves them wrong.

It's like the small minded redneck that offered 10k to prove "climate change" is not happening. The debate is not about temperatures going up and down, that's a duh... It's about what is causing the fluctuations and he can't prove it's due to man kind.

 

[Lakhota]

Pretty day we had and pretty cold for a fourth of July. What's this guy know it is not like he is a rocket scientist or something.

Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":

"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory."

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."

Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ?Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science? | CNS News

He must be the Joan Rivers of astronauts.

 

[Avorysuds]

#1 No one on this planet to date has ever been able to give me a 30 day weather forecast that was accurate.

Our trendline for global mean temperatures is upward. Not over a day, or 30 days, or even a single year. But over a generation. Its not unreasonable to conclude that this trendline will continue. Especially when it is. When we observe the oceans, the trendline of increasing temperatures is 135 years long. With the greatest increases in, you guessed it, the last 75 years.

We can measure an increase in CO2 emissions of infrared radiation in our atmosphere over what it was 20 and 30 years ago. More thermal energy is being reradiated back to our planet's surface that would have otherwise been radiated out into space. So you have a measurable mechanism for this upward trendline.

And finally, the quantity of CO2 continues to increase. We've never seen an increase in global CO2 levels occur this fast, this high. Not in our history. Not in the entire 800,000 year ice core record. And this massive increase of CO2 in our atmosphere mirrors our industrial emission of CO2 into our atmosphere.

Its not unreasonable to conclude they are related. The coincidence that a sudden and unprecidented spike in global CO2 levels would just happen to occur for the first time in 800,000 years during the period we pump massive amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere...

......is ridiculously unlikely.

#2 Who the hell thinks that our governments can fix the planet's climate when they can't fix the potholes on our streets and highways let alone the economy?

Many atmospheric emissions are within the power of the people to regulate. And with effort, we can and have reduced CO2 emissions in many industries. The idea that it can't be done, and can't be done through government is contradicted by these reductions.



We're attempting to limit our CO2 emissions. And let the climate 'repair' itself. The long term carbon cycle cloisters far more carbon every year than we produce. And does a remarkable job of balancing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and slowing the rate of climate change. The sudden and dramatic imbalance and skyrocketing CO2 levels is very, very recent phenomenon. In the last 75 years or so.

#3 Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.

That's the assessment of a grand total of one climatologist: A professor Anastasios Tsonis out of the University of Milwaukee. You'll need to give us a reason to ignore the hundreds of climatologists that disagree with Dr. Tsonis. Along with the overwhelming consensus among earth scientists that global warming is real and caused by human activity. As high as 97% among climatologists that are actively publishing.

Now why are they all wrong. And only Tsonis, out of Milwakee, right? Beyond that you seem to prefer Tsonis' narrative. Especially when Tsonis has made verifiably false statements about the last 15 years being a cooling trend.

The NOAA has a very different account of the climate:

NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years


WASHINGTON -- A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.

Jan. 21, 2010

How could the warmest decade on record define a 'cooling trend'?

Yet over 75 years all "trends" have remained the same, not increased despite the fact that man made co2 is literally thousands of times more today than it was 75 years ago. Again, science proves warmers wrong.

Then of course I always find it funny when ignorant people take temperature readings from 100+ years ago then compare them to the ones we take from mother fucking space.

Shocking how the weather all of a sudden fluctuates so dramatically when you take random by few readings done but hand and written on paper from over 100 years ago and compare them to the thousands of readings we take everyday using technology that didn't even exist not to long ago. Put simply, it's not a controlled "study" and thus prolly the main reason all of these scientist have not yet once been able to meet a single benchmark they set. It's not science.

 

[Avorysuds]

Pretty day we had and pretty cold for a fourth of July. What's this guy know it is not like he is a rocket scientist or something.

Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":

"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory."

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."

Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ?Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science? | CNS News

He must be the Joan Rivers of astronauts.

I love seeing Liberals pick on Doctors and scientist they don't agree with... It's hypocritical, ironic and predictable.

 

[Freewill]

I have three problems with global warming alarmism.

#1 No one on this planet to date has ever been able to give me a 30 day weather forecast that was accurate.

And I'm supposed to believe computer models telling me what the climate is going to be in 50 freaking years?

#2 Who the hell thinks that our governments can fix the planet's climate when they can't fix the potholes on our streets and highways let alone the economy?

And we are supposed to trust our governments and the United Nations to "repair" the weather?

Give them quizzillions in tax dollars to watch our elected officials and left wing whacko global warming freaks do a circle jerk with all our cash?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

And drum roll......

ta da!

#3 Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph

I think that the GW thing is just another liberal ploy to tear down that which is good. How better to show America it isn't so great then to destroy its economy? Never mind China laughing at us through their smog.

 

[Freewill]

How many of you believe in God? If you believe in God, please shut up about science because you don't know about science.

All major scientific advances were made by those of faith. the big bang theory was first introduced by a Catholic priest. I suggest it is you that does not understand religion.

BTW, everyone believes in a god. it is just a matter of if they are god or God is God.

 

[Freewill]

Pretty day we had and pretty cold for a fourth of July. What's this guy know it is not like he is a rocket scientist or something.

Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":

"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory."

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."

Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ?Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science? | CNS News

He must be the Joan Rivers of astronauts.

And Obama is the RuPaul of presidents.

 

[Freewill]

My issue with warmers is they have yet to date get a single projection even mildly correct. In fact, they are always incredibly far off yet claim science is on their side, despite science being the thing that proves them wrong.

It's like the small minded redneck that offered 10k to prove "climate change" is not happening. The debate is not about temperatures going up and down, that's a duh... It's about what is causing the fluctuations and he can't prove it's due to man kind.

My problem is that they say we are going to die if the temperature isn't right. Well ask one what is the right temperature. they can't tell you.

 

[Rozman]

Ha Ha...Take that Libs...

 

[percysunshine]

How many of you believe in God? If you believe in God, please shut up about science because you don't know about science.

How many of you believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming? If you believe in AGW, please shut up about science because you don't know about science.


See how seamless that was.

.

 

[Avorysuds]

How many of you believe in God? If you believe in God, please shut up about science because you don't know about science.

Thank you for this moment simpleton.

You know how there is the question of "prove God exists" and then they say "Prove God doesn't exists." That's the same issue with GW nutters, you ask them to prove man made global warming is real, they fail and then ask that you prove it doesn't exists.

And no I don't believe in god.

 

[KNB]

The planet loses an area of rainforest the size of Costa Rica each year while the entire human race simultaneously pumps CO2 into the atmosphere 24hrs/day. China's pollution can be seen from space and there is a field of plastic trash in the Pacific ocean the size of the continental United States.

If you think that this can't have an effect on the environment then you are not a scientist.

 

[Skylar]

Yet over 75 years all "trends" have remained the same, not increased despite the fact that man made co2 is literally thousands of times more today than it was 75 years ago. Again, science proves warmers wrong.

Global mean temperatures have trended upward over the last 75 years and continue to trend upward. We can point instruments up at our atmosphere (or down in the case of the SABER instrument on the TIMED satellite) and measure increased rates of infrared radiation specifically from CO2.

Some of that infrared is reradiated back to the earth's surface that would have otherwise been radiated into space. Infrared radiation is one of the primary mechanisms of thermal transference. So we have a verifiable mechanism of heat transference increasing in its emissions of thermal energy back to the earth's surface....

....and an upward trend of global temperature means while more thermal energy is being emitted back to the earth's surface. Its like pouring water in a glass: you're gonna get more water in the glass.

via IR, and a measurable increase i

 

[healthmyths]

#1 No one on this planet to date has ever been able to give me a 30 day weather forecast that was accurate.

Our trendline for global mean temperatures is upward. Not over a day, or 30 days, or even a single year. But over a generation. Its not unreasonable to conclude that this trendline will continue. Especially when it is. When we observe the oceans, the trendline of increasing temperatures is 135 years long. With the greatest increases in, you guessed it, the last 75 years.

We can measure an increase in CO2 emissions of infrared radiation in our atmosphere over what it was 20 and 30 years ago. More thermal energy is being reradiated back to our planet's surface that would have otherwise been radiated out into space. So you have a measurable mechanism for this upward trendline.

And finally, the quantity of CO2 continues to increase. We've never seen an increase in global CO2 levels occur this fast, this high. Not in our history. Not in the entire 800,000 year ice core record. And this massive increase of CO2 in our atmosphere mirrors our industrial emission of CO2 into our atmosphere.

Its not unreasonable to conclude they are related. The coincidence that a sudden and unprecidented spike in global CO2 levels would just happen to occur for the first time in 800,000 years during the period we pump massive amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere...

......is ridiculously unlikely.

#2 Who the hell thinks that our governments can fix the planet's climate when they can't fix the potholes on our streets and highways let alone the economy?

Many atmospheric emissions are within the power of the people to regulate. And with effort, we can and have reduced CO2 emissions in many industries. The idea that it can't be done, and can't be done through government is contradicted by these reductions.



We're attempting to limit our CO2 emissions. And let the climate 'repair' itself. The long term carbon cycle cloisters far more carbon every year than we produce. And does a remarkable job of balancing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and slowing the rate of climate change. The sudden and dramatic imbalance and skyrocketing CO2 levels is very, very recent phenomenon. In the last 75 years or so.

#3 Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.

That's the assessment of a grand total of one climatologist: A professor Anastasios Tsonis out of the University of Milwaukee. You'll need to give us a reason to ignore the hundreds of climatologists that disagree with Dr. Tsonis. Along with the overwhelming consensus among earth scientists that global warming is real and caused by human activity. As high as 97% among climatologists that are actively publishing.

Now why are they all wrong. And only Tsonis, out of Milwakee, right? Beyond that you seem to prefer Tsonis' narrative. Especially when Tsonis has made verifiably false statements about the last 15 years being a cooling trend.

The NOAA has a very different account of the climate:

NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years


WASHINGTON -- A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.

Jan. 21, 2010

How could the warmest decade on record define a 'cooling trend'?

Key phrase."warmest decade on record".
Where does oil come from?
In the leading theory, dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps, mixing with mud and sand. Over time, more sediment piles on top and the resulting heat and pressure transforms the organic layer into a dark and waxy substance known as kerogen.

Key words "riverbeds or swamps"...
Were there swamps in the Arctic circle where there are nearly 2 billion barrels of oil?

If so, outside of "tectonic plate shifting", or cold temperatures doesn't mean tundra plant life, explanations was the Arctic circle warmer at one time?
The Arctic wasn’t always frozen tundra. About 3.6 million years ago, the far north was blanketed in boreal forests, and summers were 8 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today, geologists report May 9 in Science.
Researchers pieced together that picture from sediments buried beneath Lake El’gygytgyn (pronounced EL-gih-git-gin), about 100 kilometers north of the Arctic Circle in northeastern Russia (SN: 11/20/10, p. 13). The sediments preserve the most complete history of Arctic climate on land over the last 3.6 million years. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/arctic-was-once-warmer-covered-trees

Was that caused by "global warming" OR maybe all these forests were performing net carbon sequestration.
In the past few decades, the world's forests have absorbed as much as 30% (2 petagrams of carbon per year; Pg C year−1) of annual global anthropogenic CO2 emissions1 — about the same amount as the oceans. Two-thirds of forests are managed.
Carbon sequestration: Managing forests in uncertain times : Nature News & Comment