I Wonder if we need to burn more coal ?

[annunaki]

And now it's global cooling! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60%
— Mail Online

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...edictions.html

I wonder if the "Carbon Offset" business will go belly up ?

[phrog]

And now it's global cooling! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60%
— Mail Online

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...edictions.html

I wonder if the "Carbon Offset" business will go belly up ?

Thanks for posting.

[JR]

In Context:

[annunaki]

Earth Gains Record Amount of Sea Ice In 2013...
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/...ase-on-record/


New UN report lowers estimates on global warming...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...485712464.html

[Richard in Smithville]

We certainly didn't seem to have the usual summer up here this year. Some days that should have been hot were quite chilly.

[annunaki]

...Al Gore Predicted Arctic Ice Could Disappear...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barb...disappear-2013

[annunaki]

'Global warming' believers are feeling the heat...

'Global warming' believers are feeling the heat...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ling-the-heat/

The computer models, in short, are bunk.

Al Gore’s “consensus” is about to be holed below the water-line – and those still aboard the SS Global Warming are adjusting their positions. Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”

[jdon]

With all due respect, I believe that the opinions of 97% of climate scientists hew closer to the truth http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus than a single blogger who is "a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything."

[TB Roye]

They have to do something to justify their jobs even if it's wrong. How about the earth is just going through one of it's normal cycles?

Tom

[Slik Geek]

"Consensus" in scientific circles is code for "we don't really have scientific data to prove our contention, so we will just decide to subscribe to this particular hypothesis". Honest science doesn't need a "consensus", the data speaks for itself. Scientists who don't ascribe to the popular "consensus" get marginalized so they keep quiet. When the choice is between "feeding your family while maintaining your career" or "stick your neck out in dissent", most choose the comfortable and safe route, counting on time to bring humanity to a more sensible understanding.

The problem is that the models, predictions, and the whole data set these folks promote over time doesn't make the global warming point like they want it to do. If you look carefully, you will notice that these so-called scientists are selective in their evidence.

For example, the global warming (oops, they call it "climate change" now because the particular data they were promoting wasn't always backing up their warming hypothesis)... The "earth is warming" believers always cite the Arctic sea ice extent. Why don't they ever point to the Antarctic sea ice extent? Shhh, don't tell anybody about that! The Antarctic sea ice extent is growing - going the opposite way of the Arctic! That doesn't make the "earth is warming point" so we will ignore that data. Honest scientists always show the entire data.

Aside from that reality, the sea ice extent has only been accurately tracked (by satellites) since 1979. That is far too short of a period of time on a climate change scale. That doesn't stop global warming alarmists because they are generally poor students of history.

In the early 1970s, concern about global cooling (yes, COOLING) after the brutal cold weather worldwide during the 1960s prompted President Nixon to order federal sponsorship of climate studies. Oh the irony that many of the people getting funding today in the U.S., who proclaim concern about global warming, are in fact funded by entities that came about as a result of global cooling concerns!

If you look at most of the prognostications made over the past fifteen years about global warming, you'll find that they claimed 95% to 99.9% confidence in their predictions. (That in itself is a warning indication, how can they substantiate that???). Their accuracy thus far has been rather poor. (Number of hurricanes, temperature trends, sea ice extent, and so on - their predictions for this past decade haven't fared very well). Given their track record, an objective person has to become skeptical of their predictions for the next several decades. Few in the media hold them accountable.

I became interested in this topic about 15 years ago and looked at the raw data myself. At that time, I personally came to the conclusion that most of the alarmist predictions were among the poorest examples of science I had ever witnessed. I've been very pleased with how things have played out in reality. The predictions I made to others have played out very well.

Don't take anybody's word for it. Research the raw data yourself (watch out, there is manipulated and selective data out there - you have to look at the raw data sources). Don't be offended - be informed.

[atgcpaul]

Regardless if global warming is happening or not, I think huge benefits will come from the zealousness of the people who believe it is happening. Maybe it was their plan all along, but how much more aware is everyone that you can't keep doing business as usual regarding the environment and conservation? I think the world population has quadrupled in the last 100 years. It's naive to think we can continue to be self-sustaining without taking measures. Even cells growing in a dish know to stop growing when they touch another cell.

[annunaki]

Oregon Park Hit With Record-Breaking Snowfall...

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs...NEWS/309260314



Earliest since 1986...

[cwsmith]

Personally speaking, I think if you don't want to believe something, there is always someone, somewhere who will give you a story that you will believe or will back up your disbelief as may be the case here.

I'm 69 years old and I can see that the environment and weather patterns are changing and have changed quite significantly in just my lifetime. You don't have to be a scientist or a politician to be observant or to make a claim, you just have to get out and look.

Of course, we do have global changes that occur and repeat in cycles over many, many years or even centuries, and that may be part of the issue that we see today. But, that doesn't take away from the changes to the environment that mankind has produced. We are pumping garbage and airborne pollutants into the environment by millions of tons every year.... are we to be so bold to think that this will not and has not had any impact whatsoever?

The problem is that we don't really know what the impact is going to be in years to come. Are best guess is that we will reach a point where there is no possibility of return. The planet is resiliant, but even then we don't know how much it can handle and still recover. What we can see is that certain regions have been changed to a point where recovery is impossible. The question is how far do you want to take the gamble?

CWS

[Black wallnut]

This thread and others of similar scope border on political. As a society it is important that we discuss the subject and come to some agreements as to how we should proceed. That said BT3Central is simply not the place for these types of discussion.

I am pleased that the number of woodworking threads have increased lately. Lets keep that trend going please.