Leading Global Warming scientist says we are heading for 30 years of cooling!

• jmog

  http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/years-global-cooling-coming-say-leading-scientists/
  
  Basically admits that "a good portion" of our climate is natural cycles, but don't give up the ghost on man-made global warming and basically says that the upcoming "mini-ice age" would have been colder if not for our CO2 emissions and our next "warming trend" after that will be much worse than it should be because of man made CO2.
  
  So much for those melting glaciers by 2050!
• FatHobbit

  

  jmog wrote: the upcoming "mini-ice age" would have been colder if not for our CO2 emissions

  So we would freeze to death without global warming?
  
  
• Writerbuckeye

  

  These guys have absolutely no shame.
  
  None.
  
  And they will BY GOD protect that income source come hell or high water, even when their own data shows them they're wrong.
  
  Amazing.
• believer

  

  ^^^Not amazing. Just typical liberal double-speak. Global warming...climate change...whatever works.
• believer

  

  ^^^That should do it. Make sure you pay your carbon tax first.
• BoatShoes

  Now I considered myself agnostic on this issue...But, nonetheless, I wonder Jmog, I mean, you're an engineer so surely adept in the natural sciences, etc and a reasonable person....you must admit, that there is at least one scientist, as reputable as the author you cite who might believe the opposite conclusion...
  
  Yet, if I were to start a thread citing one of these scientists, one who, say, says polar ice caps are melting faster than we thought because of anthropogenic warming...I take it you would firmly disagree.
  
  Maybe you feel there's an onus to present counter claims to the majority of who "believe in anthropogenic warming" or what have you...but don't you feel you might have, at the very least a slight confirmation bias in regards to science "against" global warming?
• zhon44622

  BoatShoes wrote: Now I considered myself agnostic on this issue...But, nonetheless, I wonder Jmog, I mean, you're an engineer so surely adept in the natural sciences, etc and a reasonable person....you must admit, that there is at least one scientist, as reputable as the author you cite who might believe the opposite conclusion...
  
  Yet, if I were to start a thread citing one of these scientists, one who, say, says polar ice caps are melting faster than we thought because of anthropogenic warming...I take it you would firmly disagree.
  
  Maybe you feel there's an onus to present counter claims to the majority of who "believe in anthropogenic warming" or what have you...but don't you feel you might have, at the very least a slight confirmation bias in regards to science "against" global warming?

  +1, exactly
• fish82

  

  BoatShoes wrote: Now I considered myself agnostic on this issue...But, nonetheless, I wonder Jmog, I mean, you're an engineer so surely adept in the natural sciences, etc and a reasonable person....you must admit, that there is at least one scientist, as reputable as the author you cite who might believe the opposite conclusion...
  
  Yet, if I were to start a thread citing one of these scientists, one who, say, says polar ice caps are melting faster than we thought because of anthropogenic warming...I take it you would firmly disagree.
  
  Maybe you feel there's an onus to present counter claims to the majority of who "believe in anthropogenic warming" or what have you...but don't you feel you might have, at the very least a slight confirmation bias in regards to science "against" global warming?

  As long as you stay clear of the "science is settled," and "consensus" bullshit, that would be fine.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  If those espousing AGW want us to throw tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars at this, then they damn well better have much more conclusive scientific proof than what exists right now.
  
  The onus of proof for this issue is with those claiming the world is warming, not the other way around.
• ts1227

  

  jmog wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/years-global-cooling-coming-say-leading-scientists/
  
  Basically admits that "a good portion" of our climate is natural cycles, but don't give up the ghost on man-made global warming and basically says that the upcoming "mini-ice age" would have been colder if not for our CO2 emissions and our next "warming trend" after that will be much worse than it should be because of man made CO2.
  
  So much for those melting glaciers by 2050!

  This is stating the obvious.
  
  It's always been too early to have a definitive answer on the effects of emissions, but politics get in the way and people just take the proper talking point and run with it. The idea may be unlikely, but cannot be totally dismissed yet. But, most people are just too stupid to keep an open mind to it.
• believer

  

  Writerbuckeye wrote:The onus of proof for this issue is with those claiming the world is warming, not the other way around.

  As usual you beat me to it!
• FatHobbit

  

  believer wrote: ^^^Not amazing. Just typical liberal double-speak. Global warming...climate change...whatever works.

  I think a majority of the people who are running with this are only doing so to continue to get paid. If Al Gore could make a buck off saying there is no threat of global warming I don't doubt he would be yelling that from the roof tops.
  

  fish82 wrote:

  BoatShoes wrote: Now I considered myself agnostic on this issue...But, nonetheless, I wonder Jmog, I mean, you're an engineer so surely adept in the natural sciences, etc and a reasonable person....you must admit, that there is at least one scientist, as reputable as the author you cite who might believe the opposite conclusion...
  
  Yet, if I were to start a thread citing one of these scientists, one who, say, says polar ice caps are melting faster than we thought because of anthropogenic warming...I take it you would firmly disagree.
  
  Maybe you feel there's an onus to present counter claims to the majority of who "believe in anthropogenic warming" or what have you...but don't you feel you might have, at the very least a slight confirmation bias in regards to science "against" global warming?

  As long as you stay clear of the "science is settled," and "consensus" bullshit, that would be fine.

  +1
  

  ts1227 wrote: This is stating the obvious.
  
  It's always been too early to have a definitive answer on the effects of emissions,

  If it's too early to have a definitive answer, why is a carbon tax a very real possibility? (My guess is because if we don't do something RIGHT NOW the world is going to end. And by do something I mean give some politicians a lot of money.)
  

  ts1227 wrote: The idea may be unlikely, but cannot be totally dismissed yet. But, most people are just too stupid to keep an open mind to it.

  Most people are too stupid to keep an open mind to an idea that's unlikely? Shouldn't they question something that's unlikely?
  
  I think that we definitely should be looking at what affect we have on the environment, but when people (some of whom have now been caught fudging their data) start to cry that the sky is falling unless they get a bunch of money and then politicians jump on board I am going to be immediately skeptical.
• HitsRus

  

  What's funny is that so many people want to discount scientific research when it doesn't agree with their politics...but are quick to grasp it when it does.
  This article shows that science is doing what it is supposed to do..that is research that draws conclusions from the facts.
  Copenhagen showed that politicians are doing what they do...that is blather and bullshit as they manipulate the facts to push their own agendas.
  
  What is important, is that one keeps an open mind and let science do its job. If you pick and choose what science you want to believe based on politcal or religious viewpoints, you are going to be wrong every time.
  
  If this latest finding bears out, it may mean we have a little more time in dealing with transitioning away from fossil fuel based energy. I don't think that even the most hard line 'conservative' would disagree that fossil fuels are indeed a limited resource....and that U.S. foriegn policy is largely dictated by a free flowing supply of oil into our country, and a free flowing supply of dollars out.
  Even without AGW, energy independence should be a primary concern, and development of green technology and development of renewable fuels should continue to be a top priority.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  "CenterBHS's GW Data"
  
  6% - actually wanting to improve the planets atmosphere
  94% - government wanting/NEEDING money and control
• jmog

  To answer the question above asked of me.
  
  I'm of the persuasion that the whole "Its been settled, science has a consensus, if you don't believe in AGW its like you believe the world is flat..." and so on is HORRIBLE science since none of it is true.
  
  I'm also of the belief that the AGW research is WAY too funded by politicians and governments. A very well noted government funded scientific research that ended HORRIBLY for mankind was Eugenics. At the turn of the 20th centrury (early 1900s) Eugenics was HUGE here in the US and was funded by the US Government (along with many other governments) it was the "science" of creating a superior human race, in other words accelerating human evolution. Germany "picked up" on this and it ended up being one of the worst human events of all time, the Holocaust.
  
  Now, am I saying that the study of AGW is just as bad? No, of course not, but I'm giving an example of government run research (aka research with an agenda) gone WAY bad.
  
  My personal stance on the issue? Do we have zero affect on the environment/climate? Of course not, but I do believe we have a minimal affect on the temperature cycles of the planet compared to the sun.
  
  I just get a good laugh at the AGW scientists who ignore so much data just to fit their belief system. I'm sorry, but ignoring key information to fit what you believe to be true is NOT science. Science is taking ALL data and trying to come up with the best reason/answer you can.
  
  Nearly all AGW scientists completely ignore the FACT that while the Earth was warming in the last century, so was every planet (that we can measure) in our solar system, by similar temperature increases.
  
  That's a pretty significant bit of data to be ignored.
• FatHobbit

  

  jmog wrote: I'm also of the belief that the AGW research is WAY too funded by politicians and governments.

  I do think funding can have an impact on what researchers find, but if we are researching climate change who else is going to fund it besides the government? I can't really think of a way to make money from climate change, so I'm not sure why a private business would bother with it.
• jmog

  FatHobbit wrote:

  jmog wrote: I'm also of the belief that the AGW research is WAY too funded by politicians and governments.

  I do think funding can have an impact on what researchers find, but if we are researching climate change who else is going to fund it besides the government? I can't really think of a way to make money from climate change, so I'm not sure why a private business would bother with it.

  Ask Al Gore how much he's made on climate change. Ask the owners of the company that will sell the carbon credits for Cap and Trade if they'll turn a profit. Ask the federal government if they will get much more revenue from Cap and Trade.
  
  There is definitely money to be made out there on this stuff, and money is coming from the government and they plan on "turning a profit" whether the science is legit or not.
• FatHobbit

  

  jmog wrote:

  FatHobbit wrote:

  jmog wrote: I'm also of the belief that the AGW research is WAY too funded by politicians and governments.

  I do think funding can have an impact on what researchers find, but if we are researching climate change who else is going to fund it besides the government? I can't really think of a way to make money from climate change, so I'm not sure why a private business would bother with it.

  Ask Al Gore how much he's made on climate change. Ask the owners of the company that will sell the carbon credits for Cap and Trade if they'll turn a profit. Ask the federal government if they will get much more revenue from Cap and Trade.
  
  There is definitely money to be made out there on this stuff, and money is coming from the government and they plan on "turning a profit" whether the science is legit or not.

  I agree there's money to be made by manipulating climate change. But I don't trust any of them. If we want unbiased research, who is going to pay for it?
• cbus4life

  More sledding!!
• jmog

  FatHobbit wrote:
  
  I agree there's money to be made by manipulating climate change. But I don't trust any of them. If we want unbiased research, who is going to pay for it?

  Now there is the question.
  
  If its funded by private companies then the AGW activists will claim its industrially biased. If its funded by the governenment as it is now, then well, we call already see its biased.
  
  Unfortunately "pure science" and research doesn't exist like it used to.
  
  Galileo didn't get huge amounts of money for his astronomical research.
  Newton didn't get huge amounts of money for coming up with the gravitational laws.
  Einstein didn't come up with the Theory of Relativity for profit.
  
  They all did research for just the fact that they wanted to understand how the world/universe worked.
  
  Today, I'd say that 99% of all scientific research is based around the all mighty dollar, in one form or another.
• cbus4life

  jmog wrote:

  FatHobbit wrote:
  
  I agree there's money to be made by manipulating climate change. But I don't trust any of them. If we want unbiased research, who is going to pay for it?

  Now there is the question.
  
  If its funded by private companies then the AGW activists will claim its industrially biased. If its funded by the governenment as it is now, then well, we call already see its biased.
  
  Unfortunately "pure science" and research doesn't exist like it used to.
  
  Galileo didn't get huge amounts of money for his astronomical research.
  Newton didn't get huge amounts of money for coming up with the gravitational laws.
  Einstein didn't come up with the Theory of Relativity for profit.
  
  They all did research for just the fact that they wanted to understand how the world/universe worked.
  
  Today, I'd say that 99% of all scientific research is based around the all mighty dollar, in one form or another.

  I think that is quite the exaggeration, though i won't deny that lots of research is based around money. 99% is ridiculous, from my experience, though.
• jmog

  I did exaggerate, probably due to my "disgust" in the way science is really done today...as a scientist myself.
• cbus4life

  Fair enough.
• QuakerOats

  My open mind, plus known facts, causes me to believe and know that the earth has been warming and cooling for MILLIONS OF YEARS. To think we are having an impact on those cycles or could do anything about changing those cycles is ludicrous and arrogant.
  
  Good day.
• jmog

  QuakerOats wrote: My open mind, plus known facts, causes me to believe and know that the earth has been warming and cooling for MILLIONS OF YEARS. To think we are having an impact on those cycles or could do anything about changing those cycles is ludicrous and arrogant.
  
  Good day.

  I agree with everything but the millions of years, but that is a WHOLE other topic/thread .