Here Comes Global Cooling Again
When Rick Santorum openly acknowledges the global warming panic to be a hoax, his voice is a lonely one among mainstream politicians. Statist hoaxers like Gingrich and Romney had better hope primary voters aren’t reading the news:
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Meanwhile, leading climate scientists … told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
Global warming is not a problem; like CO2, it helps the crops grow. As we may soon be reminded, global cooling is less benign.
But at least falling temperatures will reveal hoax participants as the liars and/or fools many instinctively knew them to be. As Nicola Scafetta of Duke University notes:
“If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the [global warming] models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories.”
That is, the entire hoax will collapse no matter how much of our money the government shovels at it, and the liberal media will go back to screeching about the coming ice age, as in the 1970s.
On tips from Wilberforce, Bob Roberts, Gary A, DaddyOD, and G. Fox.
I thought that the reason the Gore-bots changed it to CLIMATE CHANGE is so they could blame ANY change.
So, which lie are we supposed to beleive today???
Yes Stan you are right. Global cooling is actually caused by global warming. /sarc
I have actually seen a “scientist” try to explain this in one of those NatGeo propaganda documentaries, twisting logic and reason into pretzel shape in an attempt to sound high-minded and intellectual about how the cooling of the Earth was caused by the warming of the Earth. Cognitive dissonance ensued and despite my best efforts to tough out the rest of the program (I wanted to see how bad the presentation was) I simply could not stomach any more and changed the channel.
It seems everyone knows but us.
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a
citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more
serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that
made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as
those who made him president…”
The foregoing is attributed to an article published in the Czech Republic…
I wore a jacket to work this morning in Honolulu.
(Of course that doesn’t prove anything – it IS winter, even in the tropics.) However in Texas, the cooling trend feels fairly obvious – the summers are a little above average, but the winters are WAY below – taking the average down.
I blame liberals.
Here I was hoping the heat would keep the moonbats out of Texas. It usually only takes one or two summers before they bleat their way back to whatever moonborg-infested state they came from.
And I HATE that damn heat. Just not as much as I hate commies.
The amazing thing is that, even when faced with this evidence, the ostriches in the MET are still claiming that human CO2 plays a dominant role over that of the sun and everything else.
They have way too much invested in the farce and so they intend to go down with it, apparently.
Yes, Stan, part of the reason for the change from GLOBAL WARMING to CLIMATE CHANGE was because they, too, saw that their fraud was about to be exposed by nature. With temperatures steady or declining, they had to move away from claims of catastrophic warming, which it was clear was not going to occur.
Believe it or not there is an all too large segment of the population that will fall for this obvious ruse.
Drury:
“All this snow is actually caused by global warming! More moisture… etc., etc.”
Yeah, this is going to be a popular retort in the years to come. In fact, it already is.
The important thing to point out REPEATEDLY is “If it is, then why didn’t you predict it? Why did you say there would never be snow in Britain again? This whole thing is about predictions and you got them all wrong. You’re dismissed.”
Drury says: January 30, 2012 at 9:32 am
———————–
They actually have tried to blame the cooling on humans – claiming that particles formed during the combustion process can actually block or reflect sunlight and thus cause cooling. I’m not sure if they’re just waiting to “discover” this later as an explanation for the coming mini ice age and associated calls to reduce fossil fuel use to try to “stop” it, or maybe they realized it was nonsense and would not fly.
RKae says: January 30, 2012 at 11:18 am
———–
Actually there is indeed truth, I suspect, to the claim that a warmer Earth is a wetter Earth and a cooler Earth is a drier Earth as follows:
During warmer times the net evaporation is increased, plus warmer air holds more moisture before becoming saturated.
During cooler times more moisture falls as snow and becomes ice and is temporarily “locked up” in that state, plus there is less evaporation and the air becomes saturated quicker since it is cooler.
During cold times, sea levels fall, life struggles, not only because of the reduced temperature but also reduced availability of water and related reduced food supply issues as well.
By the way, during the height of the global warming hoax, liberals swore up and down that there was nobody claiming we had to worry about global cooling in the 1970s. When confronted with the evidence (cover stories on various magazines) they would come up with the excuse that it wasn’t scientists, just the press. Then when confronted with the fact the articles inside quoted scientists they fell back on the political “consensus” argument, claiming there was none.
well as we all know Global Warming causes Global Cooling so we’ll still have Al Gore and his ilk screaming the worlds going to end.
Im 28 years old and have already seen a cycle of Cooling>Warming>Cooling for the life of me I cant understand how anyone over 30 can be stupid enough to not see that its cyclical and not human caused.
This may be an appropriate time to review that “global cooling” matter from the 70s, since it was largely the result of data – new at the time – that now deserves to be revisited; after decades of research in Antarctica, results from analysis of ice cores began to be published. They showed a stratigraphic history of temperature going back half a million years. That data is still valid, is still available on the NOAA website, and clearly shows five consecutive ice ages when viewed at its full spectrum. Interestingly, when just the most recent portion of the data is graphed there does seem to be a slight upward temperature trend, just as there were four times before…just before earth descended into another glacial period.
So, while we have lately been browbeaten by an assortment of grant-hungry scientists eager to develop massive schemes to counter warming with some frighteningly ambitious applications of aerosols and orbiting machines, how long will it be before we will be urged to burn more fossil fuels in a desperate attempt to stave off the cold?
Bob Roberts:
Why is it we all know NOW that this is the case? Why didn’t a single AGW proponent tell us 15 years ago, “You’re going to see more snow in the coming years”? Why did they tell us “Kids will never be able to make another snowman”? Clearly, they no nothing about cause and effect. They can only chime in after the fact, “Oh, yeah, BTW, this snow that we said would never come again: it’s due to global warming.”
Yes, a warmer world has more moisture, but in a true “global warming” scenario, we’d get it as rain, not snow.
The good news:
All the efforts of the LIBERALS have paid off and the “warming” has been averted.
The bad news is:
Instead of dying of HEAT STROKE, we’ll all FREEZE TO DEATH.
Good one, regressives.
Global warming is the world’s greatest threat. They’re using this hoax to propagandize fear, anger, and change while raising environmental and consumption awareness. They’re pushing for strict government regulations intent on creating a unified, global socialist platform. And despite what the data says…they’re winning.
While it’s true that you can’t fool all the people all the time, obviously, it’s also true that you can fool enough of them to get tons of oppressive, liberty-killing laws and regulations passed, while at the same time, making mountains of money for yourself and your pals. Just ask fat Al.
History will show that global warming was the biggest scam ever perpetrated, and all that it required was a nation of weak, mindless, sheep.
BTW, did you ever ask yourself why, if GW was so real, dangerous, and urgent, why did they have to change it’s name?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ndHwW8psR8
Heard from the gorrie…”My academy is freezing”
If the earth is cooling, go out and drive your SUV around for a while. That should do it, right al?
Ice cores and geographical evidence show that the current cyclic pattern the earth follows started about the same time Antarctica moved over the southern pole disrupting ocean current flows, and causing a permanent frozen land mass. Also some cause and effect could be associated with the opening of the Atlantic ocean. Yes the time pattern for ice ages is well established, and we are long overdue for the end of the current interglacial.
The Daily Mail? That prestigious peer reviewed scientific journal? And David Rose whose scientific qualifications are?
I wonder what the Met actually said? http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/
This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.
Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.
…
Furthermore despite criticism of a paper published by the Met Office he (David Rose)chose not to ask us to respond to his misconceptions. The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun.
It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.