Recent Global Cooling Controversy

by metatron 236 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  jgnat

  Governments will act when there is sufficient public will. I think I mentioned before that bureaucrats above all want to preserve their budgets, and politicians want to get re-elected. The politician sends a powerful message to the bureaucrat, "do not embarrass me". These powerful forces hamper the progress of mega-projects that span more than four years (one election cycle). The spectre of failure is just too horrible for the bureaucrat or the politician to face.

  When a radical new program captures the public will (i.e. homeland security), taxes typically isn't raised. The budgets of existing programs are quietly scooped to pay for it. Imagine how the career bureaucrat feels about that.

  Global warming is one of those urgent threats, too big and too far in the future, for the public to get too excited about. A radical government response will likely happen, too late, when we are thick in the middle of the crisis.

  
• 

  besty

  @metatron

  That's my point!

  I get your point about headlines - what I don't get is why you need the Daily Fail's breathless - erm - "headline" - to make your point.

  Its a biased and discredited junk journal.
• 

  bohm

  http://www.testosteronepit.com

  why wouldnt you get all your scientific information from a website named after a gay sauna!
• 

  besty

  btw metatron -you started this thread featuring a Daily Fail article on Artic Ice extent in 2013. The article, and by extension you, suggest that because there has been a +60% growth from 2012 to 2013 in Artic Ice cover and because a climate scientist predicted an ice-free Artic by 2013 that therefore there has been a 'prophetic disappointment'. And we are now entering a global cooling period.

  I asked you if you had read the original BBC article, and also asked for your comments on the Guardian rebuttal to the Daily Fail article.

  Waiting on your response.
• 

  mP

  Jeffro:

  However, some governments are doing a lot about it. Germany produces more power from solar energy than Australia does, even though it's a much smaller area, and gets less sunlight throughout the year per area. And Sweden imports rubbish from other countries for use in clean energy production.

  mP:

  Of course there are countries doing things. But the fact you have to goto Europe and cant find anything proves that the Australian government is doing absolutely nothing significant. During WW2 all countries had to change many things such as food rationing because they had a big problem with the war. its been about 10 years and nothing has changed in our lives ? All the big polutting things continue just like before.

  Firstly you failed to mention that Ger after the nuclear accidents has been looking for new energy forms. It also had problems with gas supplies from Russia and so on. In the end solar or wind etc may very well be the best way to source much of their energy rather than having dependencies on others that may be perceived as unreliable and so on.

  How did you forget to mention what i just did ? Did you forget when Russia cut gas supplies ? Germany had to try new things.

  I wonder which conclusion is more feasible.

  The aust gov has done nothing, thats a fact, because theres no problem or they themselves dont believe there is a problem.

  BTW telling us obvious facts like Au has more sun than Ger hardly proves your position. I could waste everyones time and say the sky is blue in my next reply but that doesnt make the remainder of what i type equally true.
• 

  mP

  betsy:

  Human caused global warming/climate change is as much a fact as gravity, evolution and the sun being the centre of the solar system. Any alternative view is anti-science and likely ideology-driven.

  mP:

  Really, here we have a fact, and yet no government is doing anything real to solve this problem ? Why is it gov are so slow to action if its the end of the world ? In ww2 they were much faster because the problem was real.
• 

  mP

  http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

  Table 3. Abstract ratings for each level of endorsement, shown as percentage and total number of papers.

  Position	% of all abstracts	% among abstracts with AGW position (%)	% of all authors	% among authors with AGW position (%)
  Endorse AGW	32.6% (3896)	97.1	34.8% (10 188)	98.4
  No AGW position	66.4% (7930)	—	64.6% (18 930)	—
  Reject AGW	0.7% (78)	1.9	0.4% (124)	1.2
  Uncertain on AGW	0.3% (40)	1.0	0.2% (44)	0.4

  Im curious why 33% of these papers are about GW and 66% are not ? Are 33% of *ALL* scientific papers in the world really about GW ? Seems strange. The counting mechanism seems strange.
• 

  bohm

  mP: "Im curious why 33% of these papers are about GW and 66% are not ? Are 33% of *ALL* scientific papers in the world really about GW ? Seems strange."

  By the power of reading, you can figure that out all by yourself. The first lines of the very link you posted read:

  We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
• 

  mP

  http://thecontributor.com/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-one-pie-chart

  I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See my methodology. - See more at: http://thecontributor.com/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-one-pie-chart#sthash.EhJCyTYt.dpuf

  ???

  I dont know what the W of Science is ? Is this a credible source or is yahoo.com or something in between
• 

  jgnat