Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:56 am    Post subject: climate facts to warm to... Reply with quote

Perhaps peter_puck would be so kind as to explain why Jennifer Marohasy is saying global warming ended about a decade ago?

Follow the link to read the rest of the article but it certainly seems to shoot a few holes in the anthropogenic climate change modeling idea...

-Mac

Climate facts to warm to...

Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:28 am    Post subject: Re: climate facts to warm to... Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

If you use the hottest year in recent times as your point of reference, of course it's going to look like the earth is cooling!

Think of it this way. The stock market was higher last year than it was this year. If you compare last year to this year, you'd think that the stock market was going down. Is there anyone here who would actually try to argue that the stock market hasn't undergone a general tread of increasing??
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:47 pm    Post subject: Re: climate facts to warm to... Reply with quote

gc wrote:
If you use the hottest year in recent times as your point of reference, of course it's going to look like the earth is cooling!

Think of it this way. The stock market was higher last year than it was this year. If you compare last year to this year, you'd think that the stock market was going down. Is there anyone here who would actually try to argue that the stock market hasn't undergone a general tread of increasing??

Did you even bother to follow the link and read the rest of the article? If not, allow me to summarize...

According to Jennifer Marohasy, the head of the IPCC acknowledges the climate is more robust than their models indicated and natural feedback cycles appear to have reversed the minor warming trend. NASA's "Aqua" satellite (launched in 2002) is giving data which is destroying the theories which held carbon dioxide to be the culprit in global warming and the meteorological community are reworking their models but they're having a hard time digesting the new data since it basically debunks everything the IPCC have been claiming.

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What, I'm not allowed to point out the flaw in her logic, or the logic of Duffy who is agreeing with her, without addressing the whole article??
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since you haven't made any attempt to refute my argument, I take it you agree with me?
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
What, I'm not allowed to point out the flaw in her logic, or the logic of Duffy who is agreeing with her, without addressing the whole article??

You didn't point out a flaw in logic. You introduced an alternate explanation for a single point; an alternative which ignores the points raised in the rest of the article. (putting on "gc" hat) If that's the best you can do, I take it you are incapable of addressing the other points? (taking off "gc" hat)

gc wrote:
Since you haven't made any attempt to refute my argument, I take it you agree with me?

Of all of your habits, this is the one which I find the most unpleasant. Why must you post such deliberately provocative tripe?

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac,

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying.

I am arguing that the climate, much like the stock market, fluctuates and that these short term fluctuations don't mean much to the overall picture. Saying that it was hotter in 1998 than it is now is like saying "it's warm today, must be global warming" or "the stock market went down yesterday, I'd better sell my stocks".

Do you agree with me or not? If you don't, feel free to refute my argument...
Mike McB





Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 78
Reputation: 27.3Reputation: 27.3Reputation: 27.3
votes: 2
Location: Toronto, Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Mac,

Saying that it was hotter in 1998 than it is now is like saying "it's warm today, must be global warming" or "the stock market went down yesterday, I'd better sell my stocks".

Do you agree with me or not? If you don't, feel free to refute my argument...


Wasn't 1934 the warmest year on record? And if that is true then we shouldn't we have seen constant warming since that year?
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Mac,

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying.

I am arguing that the climate, much like the stock market, fluctuates and that these short term fluctuations don't mean much to the overall picture. Saying that it was hotter in 1998 than it is now is like saying "it's warm today, must be global warming" or "the stock market went down yesterday, I'd better sell my stocks".

Do you agree with me or not? If you don't, feel free to refute my argument...

I understood your analogy perfectly but what I don't understand is why you believe this is disputing a logical point? It's completely aside from the information presented by the article. If I remember correctly, you've objected to people labeling this kind of argument as being a strawman fallacy but that's essentially what it is.

If you want me to destroy your strawman for you, it's pretty easy to do so. The fallacy of the stock market analogy is the presumption that temperature is subject to inflation and/or economic growth like money is. Such is not the case. See? One dead strawman.

The salient points of the article are the Aqua satellite data is destroying the climate models which have been predicting global warming and the head of the IPCC is admitting the dire predictions which they're still making are flawed yet the MSM are absolutely silent about it...

Feel free to refute the facts as they were presented logically.

-Mac
palomino_pony





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 539
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Lower Mainland, BC

PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think gc got the memo- "global warming" is so 90's. This term has been replaced by "climate change", this way the same arguments can be made for both warming and cooling trends.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

palomino_pony wrote:
This term has been replaced by "climate change", this way the same arguments can be made for both warming and cooling trends.

Actually, it was changed to "climate change" to make it sound less important of an issue. Remember Frank Luntz?
palomino_pony





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 539
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Lower Mainland, BC

PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
palomino_pony wrote:
This term has been replaced by "climate change", this way the same arguments can be made for both warming and cooling trends.

Actually, it was changed to "climate change" to make it sound less important of an issue. Remember Frank Luntz?


With the winter of 2007-2008, the term "global warming" has become a tough sell. Using the term "climate change", environmental crusaders argue both sides of the coin.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Actually, it was changed to "climate change" to make it sound less important of an issue. Remember Frank Luntz?

A bit of revisionist history, gc? Why would the UN embrace an expression like "climate change" if it minimized an issue which they consider to be so important? How shall I prove thee wrong, gc? Let me count the ways...

Let's see... the IPCC (the CC would be "Climate Change" in case you weren't paying attention, gc) is an UN led initiative. For some reason, they keep dropping the UN off the front. Could it be because the UN is seen as a corrupt bureaucracy laden with a socialist agenda? Likewise, the precursor to the Kyoto Protocol was called the UN Framework Conference on Climate Change, adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, often has it's acronym shortened from the UNFCCC to the FCCC...

(puts on gc hat)Since you haven't made any attempt to refute facts of the article, I take it you agree with me?(takes off gc hat)

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

palomino_pony wrote:
Using the term "climate change", environmental crusaders argue both sides of the coin.

Maybe, but Frank Luntz was using the term "climate change" long before the 2007-2008 winter...
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why is anyone still bothering with this? You cannot convince the true believers that they are wrong, and there is no point in trying. You are dealing with a full on cult here, a new religion.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 5

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


climate facts to warm to...

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB