Loading...
You are here:  Home  >  Deconstructing Headlines  >  Current Article

Using freezing temperatures to claim global warming is a hoax

By   /  July 14, 2015  /  61 Comments

TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get

News that the Sun will impact temperatures in the 2030’s doesn’t disprove global warming climate change created by human pollution…

    Print       Email

A-new-Banksy-piece-near-t-001

News that the Sun will impact temperatures in the 2030’s doesn’t disprove global warming climate change created by human pollution…

Now it looks like we’re in for an ice-age

The Earth is 15 years from a “mini ice-age” that will cause bitterly cold winters during which rivers such as England’s Thames will freeze over, scientists have predicted.

Solar researchers at the University of Northumbria have created a new model of the Sun’s activity which they claim gives “unprecedentedly accurate predictions”.

…there are three things that impact the climate, two of those things have been responsible for catastrophic climate change in the past, the third will do it in the future.

The two things that impact climate on Earth are the heat of the Sun and the tilt of the planet on its axis as it spins around the Sun. The heat of the Sun (best exampled during the mini-ice age in the 17th Century when the Thames famously froze over) and the Milankovitch cycles (its effects are felt over hundreds of thousands of years and impacted carbon in the atmosphere as vast vegetation die offs occurred between Summer and Winter).

The third thing that can change climate is the pollution we as a species have made. What the science tells us is that since the Industrial revolution, the carbon we have pumped into the air has occurred at a speed that solar cycles and Milankovitch cycles could not generate naturally. It would take hundreds of thousands of years to build those levels up, we’ve done it in a couple of hundred years.

That’s incredibly dangerous because these naturally generated climate change moments once they reach tipping point, occur within a decade. That’s going from incredibly hot to incredibly cold in the space of 10 years. That’s what causes mass extinctions, the inability of most life forms to be able to adapt to the speed of change.

To try and claim the latest predictions of a mini ice age because of solar minimisation somehow discredits all the science pointing to global warming, as Cameron Slater and a other climate deniers are trying to claim today, means that these people are either

a) Wilfully ignorant of the science.

b) So culturally welded to the need to disagree with environments they refuse to agree.

c) Paid members of the oil industry.

What is important to point out here is that global warming will lead to an ice age. Global warming creates extremes, the planet dangerously warms, that thaws the gigatonnes of frozen methane on the ocean floor and Siberia which punches the temperature up suddenly, that heat melts all the ice, the release of all that fresh water into the ocean leads to desalination which shuts down the ocean conveyor current which stops the transfer of heat from the equator north which in turn freezes the Northern hemisphere over which plunges the planet into a deep ice age.

All the solar minimisation does is maybe buy the planet some extra time, but if emissions continue to rise, that extra time won’t mean anything.

None of what has been released today alleviates the dangerous climate position we are currently in.

***
Want to support this work? Donate today
***
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
***
    Print       Email

61 Comments

  1. Terry says:

    Avoid the term “global warming”. What we have upon us already is “Climate Change”, and climate change takes a number of different forms.

    It’s interesting that people happily express their belief in science, but when 97% of the world best climate scientists are very definite about change, backed by specific evidence, people start disregarding scientists and fall into denial on account of the sense of threat to their interests.

    I recommend the 2014 book by Naomi Klein “This Changes Everything”,
    also Guy McPherson and Carolyn Baker “Extinction Dialogues” (2014).

    • Andrewo says:

      Be careful when bandying around that 97% figure, because it’s not the case. Read this:

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

      This isn’t a good venue for detailed scientific debate, so I’ll keep it brief:

      There is one heck of a lot of uncertainty in climate science! It is a very complex and chaotic process and our inability to meaningfully model our climate is ample testimony to that fact.

      It’s a very small signal hidden in a lot of noise.

      • Andrew; three points.

        1. The Wall Street Journal is hardly a credible vehicle for science-based information. It is an economics journal, and oriented toward maintaining an open, unfettered capitalist/consumerist society.

        2. The article is hidden behind a paywall, so as part of any debate, it is useless.

        3. Your claim that “There is one heck of a lot of uncertainty in climate science!” is not correct. It’s a commonly-asserted claim made by climate change deniers in an attempt to sow seeds of uncertainty, where very little exists. For one thing, you don’t explain what that “uncertainty” refers to. For another, where that “uncertainty” emanates from. The Wall Street Journal does not count.

        • Blake says:

          Thanks Frank for setting andy straight. I enjoy reading your comments. Naomi agrees with most intelligent people in putting the blame of climate change squarely on capitalism and greedy corporations and us and much more.

          What a joke to refer to the Wall St. Journal for much of anything as they are mostly the mouthpiece for these exact criminal corporations that hate to be regulated to lower CO2.

          http://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/18/capitalism_vs_the_climate_naomi_klein

          http://www.democracynow.org/appearances/naomi_klein

        • Andrewo says:

          Well, like I said I don’t want to get into a scientific debate with a non-scientist, but if you care to look around the internet and read widely, rather than just the bits that suit your political narrative you’ll find lots of stuff on past erroneous claims.

          In short whilst a lot of good work has been done in the area, the proof of the uncertainty lies in the history of claims which have proven to be incorrect.

          On top of that there unfortunately a layer of hyperbole from trash media and politicians which continues to undermine the credibility of scientists.

        • iain mclean says:

          Frank;
          “3. Your claim that “There is one heck of a lot of uncertainty in climate science!” is not correct. It’s a commonly-asserted claim made by climate change deniers in an attempt to sow seeds of uncertainty, where very little exists.”

          Andrewo,I am afraid, IS correct and I take issue with the
          term ‘climate change denier.’ It’s about the careful use of
          language,eh?
          No one is disputing climate change is happening(continuous) and there is a huge amount of
          uncertainty!
          I will let the many professors explain in the links below,
          but first lets make clear just what is the difference
          between Empirical scientific method and the Deductive
          method.
          The ‘Global Warming Consensus'(and astrophysics) use
          the Deductive method. Just read to that point to understand what this method means.

          Donald E Scott-Ph.D.
          http://electric-cosmos.org/introduction.htm
          “The selection and publication of only the data that support the accepted theory is expedited by the “peer review system”. If the experts who have accepted a given theory control both the funding of future research and also what gets published, there is little chance for conflicting viewpoints to develop.”

          Now on to ‘Consensus’ and how it really works with the
          attacking and sacking of real scientists who actually have performed Empirical experiments.

          An insider of the UN’s IPCC recent report who was CEO in the writing of chapter 7.
          Also contributor of chapter 4 in previous report.

          Prof. Richard Lindzen;
          http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-of-fear-global-warming-alarmists-intimidate-dissenting-scientists-into-silence/5294
          and a much longer paper that must be read to understand fully what is really going on.
          http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/16330

          Has everyone forgotten ClimateGate and the Emails’ Scandal in 2009 published in MSM-The Telegraph?
          “The British media has acknowledged that the scientists were intent upon manipulating the data on Climate Change as well as excluding the critics:”
          And who really stands to gain with ‘carbon trading’?
          http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-warming-fixing-the-climate-data-around-the-policy/16339

          I am not attacking you,Richard Christie,Martyn and the
          many others that may only get their info from MSM.
          We have already acknowledged that all you get is Truth
          with spin,half truth(by omission)with spin or outright lies
          and propaganda,INCLUDING the UN,IMF,WTO,WHO etc.
          They have been discredited in the eyes of the many and
          It’s time to turn them off and the only place to go is the
          Internet for your OWN research if you know where to look.

          So you can see from the above the science is definitely
          NOT settled.For those that wish to do their own research
          http://globalresearch.ca/search?q=global+warming&x=12&y=9
          From another Professer.
          “Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse
          gas.” “The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.”
          http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467

          Martyn; ‘The Sun is Going to Sleep’
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7whL9jvdL5s

          Cheers.

      • gypsy says:

        Hi AndrewO

        For future reference:

        1. Bjorn Lomborg crucifies the 97% in a piece that is published here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/.
        2. The correct ‘consensus’ figure is around 52% based on a July 2014 survey (paper here http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1)

        Just wanting to help a fellow skeptic.

        • Gypsy, The Lomberg story is from a private blog. I trust you’re not offering thyat as evidence?

          The second website from from the American Met Society, and states in part (p1);

          Research conducted to date with meteorologists
          and other atmospheric scientists has shown that
          they are not unanimous in their views of climate
          change. In a survey of Earth scientists, Doran and
          Zimmerman (2009) found that, while a majority
          of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans
          have contributed to global warming (GW; 64%), this
          was a substantially smaller majority than that found
          among all Earth scientists (82%). Another survey,
          by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83%
          of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-
          induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller
          majority than among experts in related areas, such as
          ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%)

          So 83% of meteorologists are convinced humans
          have contributed to global warming?

          Not a bad figure.

          But further on (p2);

          For example, in Doran and Zimmerman’s survey study, while only
          82% of the total sample indicated they are convinced
          that humans have contributed to global warming,
          89% of active publishers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and 97% of climate experts who publish
          primarily on climate change in the peer-reviewed
          scientific literature indicated they were convinced
          (Doran and Zimmerman 2009; Kendall Zimmerman
          2008).

          There’s your 97%.

          Thanks for the data.

          • gypsy says:

            Frank

            1. It doesn’t matter where I found it. What matters is the content. Lomborg is well regarded, and his argumentation sound. If you dismiss anything posted on a blog, why are you here?
            2. Your misrepresentation of the material is breathtaking. The quotes you have cited relate to 2008 and 2009 surveys. The table at the end of the paper is from a 2011 survey, and the result is that only 52% of the scientists surveyed hold to the view that “mostly” human activity is causing climate change. The 97% was ‘dodgy’ to begin with, now it has evaporated!

            • So, you’re dismissing the data which I gleaned from a source that you provided, Gypsy? So why did you provide your source in the first place?!

              Damned inconvenient when your own source, provided by you, provides data that contradicts your assertions… (Kinda funny, to.)

              And yes, it does matter where you obtain your data from, Gypsy. It’s called credible sourcing and blogsites do not equate to the American Meteorological Society, nor NASA.

              What next, are you going to reference Disneyland?

              • gypsy says:

                You’re deflecting Frank. I’m not dismissing anything, I’m saying it is out of date. The latter, more recent survey is where the 52% comes from. You simply misrepresented the cite, and now you’re trying to cover up.

                As to the Lomborg post, where does it matter where it is published? Lomborg is not Mickey mouse Frank, he is a highly respected Professor.

                • Professor of what?

                  Climate?

                  Geology?

                  Physics?

                  Any of the sciences?

                  Nope – Lomberg was adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School. Not a scientist.Funny how you Deniers always refer to non-scientists to prove your positions?

                  Lomberg was also connected with the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a US non-profit think tank, which refuses to disclose it’s funding sources. Lomberg’s Cdentre was supported by the far-right, anti-science Danish People’s Party (DPP), until it’s funding was cut off and it was forced to move to the US. (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/12/17/205214/lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-conservatives/)

                  There’s your ” highly respected Professor” – he is part of the Right Wing, anti-AGW cabal.

                  So my criticism of your referencing Lomberg and his blog stands.

                  As does my use of your
                  citation, to disprove your
                  assertions. It’s laughable how you’re now trying to wiggle out of taking responsibility for your
                  linking to the American Meteorological Society’s report.

                  Do you honestly think we don’t read what you purport supports your contentions? You can’t just link to any old source; maintain that it proves your arguments; and then backtrack when we read it and realise you’ve engaged in mis-representation. Trying to cherry-pick bits of data, out of context, will quickly be picked up.

                  All you’re doing is showing how Deniers like you mis-use information. You’ll never prove your position that way.

                  • gypsy says:

                    I’ve just re-read you post and I noticed this:

                    “Funny how you Deniers always refer to non-scientists to prove your positions? ”

                    First of all the survey I cited is ALL scientists, climate scientists and meteorologists. ON the other hand, I haven’t seen a single post from you citing any scientific evidence for your alarmism.

                    Second, Lomborg’s piece wasn’t about the science, it was about the erroneous maths behind the 97%.

                    I’ll take you on anytime on the science Frank, but at the moment the discussion is about the consensus claims. Keep on task.

                    • Richard Christie says:

                      Lomborg “publishes” his “paper”, which is critical of published peer reviewed research, on a political blog. Lomborg steers clear of publishing it in the peer reviewed literature.

                      There are good reasons for this, none of them complimentary to Lomborg.

                      Consequently his opinion is correctly ignored by the scientific community.

                      If Lomborg wants his opinion and analysis to be taken seriously he should submit it for publication and allow the review process to critique it.

                      Until then it remains fodder for the gullible and ideologically blinkered.

                    • Gypsy:

                      July 14, 2015 at 9:16 pm

                      … The table at the end of the paper is from a 2011 survey, and the result is that only 52% of the scientists surveyed hold to the view that “mostly” human activity is causing climate change.

                      That’s because you’re mis-representing (again) what that 97% refers to.

                      That 97% does not relate to “scientists surveyed”.

                      It refers to “97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists
                      agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. ”

                      Reference & citations: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

                      As pr usual, you misrepresent by mis-quoting and cherry-picking.

                      SOP for climate deniers, and that is the reason why, quite simply, you lot are not credible.

                    • gypsy says:

                      Frank you are simply moving the goalposts everytime you post. You have never once qualified your 97% claim to “actively publishing climate scientists” until now. the claim is about a scientific consensus. No qualification. 48% say no according to my cite.

                    • “You have never once qualified your 97% claim to “actively publishing climate scientists” until now. the claim is about a scientific consensus. No qualification. 48% say no according to my cite.”

                      The information regarding “actively publishing climate scientists” is referred to in your own cited reference, “METEOROLOGISTS’ VIEWS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING”.

                    • gypsy says:

                      Lomborg’s paper is published in a number of places. I just quoted one. I would be interested in a critique of the findings, rather than of the host.

                    • Try a scientist then, instead of a right-wing commerce professor.

                    • Richard Christie says:

                      Lomborg’s paper is published in a number of places. I just quoted one. –

                      I beg your pardon, I should have included his publication of the argument on facebook

                      Not a peer reviewed paper.

                      Tell you what, here’s a novel idea, instead of making assertions why don’t you just cite the journal(s) you allude to.

      • Korakys says:

        I am also suspicious of the 97% figure. By now shouldn’t it be 100%? I mean the science is so obvious that anyone remaining who doubts can surely no longer be claimed to be a climatologist.

        You don’t call people who don’t believe in tectonics geologists anymore.

        • gypsy says:

          You raise an interesting point. Now that only 52% (and even that from one survey) support the AGW “consensus”, perhaps science is working the way it should, and the science is moving away from the alarmist pseudo-science to a more measured and realistic approach.

          • Science is not “moving away from the alarmist pseudo-science to a more measured and realistic approach”.

            That kind of denial may suit crank conspiracy websites, but I don’t think it holds much currency anywhere else. Not unless every university, NASA, meteorological group, science foundation, etc, are all “alarmist pseudo-science”?

            Science is not about “moving” to “a more measured and realistic approach”. You’re describing politics. Science deals in facts, and the increase in CO2 levels and gradual increase in temperatures, as industrialisation and agriculture increased, is well known.

            • gypsy says:

              Science does not deal in facts, it deals in observation, speculation, experimentation and refinement. Science is about getting to an explanation of naturally observed phenomena. And I would remind you, 48% of the scientists surveyed in the cite I gave reject the ‘consensus’ you claim, a huge turnaround from just 3 years earlier. The AGW hoax is collapsing.

              [‘Gypsy’ – please expect an email from me shortly. – ScarletMod]

              • You really are at pains to misrepresent the data from that chart, aren’t you?

                The chart itself shows 78% of Climate Scientists maintaining that “GW is mostly human”. Another 10% claim human and natural. Only 1% state GW is not happening.

                Considering that only 4% – of the total – are shown to state that “GW is not happening”, I think you’re shovelling bovine excrement uphill.

                • gypsy says:

                  Not that long ago you were arguing it was 97%, so progress at last! Now lease go back and read the chart at the foot of the report. 52% of scientists surveyed hold the view that climate change is primarily induced by mans activities. Not 97%. Not 78%.

              • gypsy says:

                Got it, thanks. Just replied.

          • Korakys says:

            This always happens when I bring this up, the crazies think I’m actually agreeing with them, but I’m not.

            The progression:

            “The planet is not getting hotter”.
            *10 years later…
            “Ok it is, but it’s the sun that’s doing it”.
            *10 years later…
            “Ok, it’s people doing it, but it’s too costly to stop”.
            *10 years later…
            “Well petrol is still more reliable…”
            *10 years later…
            “I never denied that the planet was warming”.

            Einstein though quantum mechanics was bullshit; today if a “physicist” denies it’s real they will be laughed out of the lecture theatre.

  2. Plus, let’s not forget that pumping millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere will still increase ocean acidification, impacting on life in the seas, and ultimately, the food chain.

    There is more to this than simple temperatures going up or down.

    By the way, in the media rush for sensational headlines (and climate change deniers) to push Prof Valentina Zharkova’s findings, I can’t find any evidence that her study and conclusions have been peer-reviewed.

    I could write a thesis that the Dark Side of the Moon is inhabited by multi-coloured jelly-babies – but until it was peer-reviewed, my assertions would be just mine alone.

    Just something for folks to bear in mind.

    • Andre says:

      This event will relate to 8 PPM of Carbon. This events consequences in heat will be a fraction of a degree reduction. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/13/3679662/global-warming-speed-up-not-ice-age/ http://t.co/tcIR3iwINi

    • J S Bark J S Bark says:

      Frank, it smells to me of classic neolib logic.

      When attacked by specifics, their natural response is to shoot the messenger and come up with a whole bunch of statements, none of which are ever supported by scientific rationality.

      Phrases such as “everyone knows this person has a political agenda…”
      “97% of scientists proves nothing..” “there are lots of other factors involved…” and “This isn’t a good venue for detailed scientific debate, so I’ll keep it brief…”

      There is only room for measured scientific debate in this matter.

      Opinions do not count…

  3. Andrewo says:

    From a purely political perspective one aspect I find fascinating: The obvious root cause of all our environmental problems, including this one, is the population explosion of humans. Any attempts to clean up industries will be quickly undermined by the growing number of people on the planet.

    So assuming a political party is genuine and rational in their desire to ‘save the planet’ why don’t Greens have a strong stance on contraception and family planning?

    Maybe someone from the Greens can explain this.

    • Andrew – valid point about the population increase of humans. As numbers increase, there is more demands on food, fresh water, land, and resources. In turn, there is more consumption and pollution.

      This is fairly obvious, High School stuff.

      In fact, it was something well canvassed in the 1960s/70s, whether by scientists (Paul Ehrlich, ‘https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb’), or in popular culture (‘Soylent Green’, ‘Silent Running’, etc.)

      However, population control control was never followed up, with the Right-wing, religious, concept of the Right of the Individual to breed as they wish.

      The result is a current population of 7.2 billion – estimated to reach 9 billion by 2050. If that happens, the Earth of the mid-21st century will be unrecognisable to us.

    • Dennis Dorney says:

      So when you lose the argument, Andrewo, you change the parameters. Typical!, but I dont see how your new position helps your original argument. Surely, it makes things worse.

    • James says:

      why don’t Greens have a strong stance on contraception and family planning?

      Women’s Policy – Valuing Women

    • CLEANGREEN says:

      Spoken like a true “agenda 21” pundit ANDREWO.

      When you me and all others not connected to the global elite are harvested and placed in internment camps and “reservations ? under “agenda 21” your dreams will all come true.

      These regions of human control will then be sprayed with mysterious diseases the Elitists are now using on sections of our public to reduce those populations, that they and you profess constantly as the “Final Solution” Sound familiar?

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11/19/what-is-agenda-21-after-watching-this-you-may-not-want-to-know/

      This is clearly the master plan of “Human depopulation”

      Her is just one response from a irate blogger who has learned unlike you ANDREO.

      “I don’t think the idiots promoting AGENDA 21 realise how many of
      us will start shooting when the land and gun grabs start. I for one,
      will not give up either one without being killed (which is what they want).
      They are all about getting rid of 90% of the population (just listen to that
      idiot bill gates). This whole one-world-govt. thing stinks to high heaven
      and a lot of people are going to die needlessly because of the greed
      of the so called elite. I think maybe we should target the elite now
      and start taking them out. OLD PROVERB: DO UNTO OTHERS BEFORE
      THEY DO UNTO YOU.”

    • Robert Atack says:

      I think in the 80s the US (army CIA?) was going to release a report that talked about global population being a problem for the USA, but the Vatican squashed it ?

  4. wild katipo says:

    Well…when I was doing a science and technology diploma….our chemistry lecturer stressed….” according to who you believe ” …as he worked his way through the issue of atmospheric chemistry…

    Well…I reckon the Earth has natural cycles…witness of grapes being grown in England in the middle ages (medieval period ) and that there was an element of bogusticity with a fair few scientists methodology regarding climate change – however !!!

    That said…somethings definitely amiss – and it appears we are definitely screwing up out planet.

    Now the thing is I believe what the Bible’s book of Revelations says about things – and one of those interesting things in that book is concerning how the sea’s of the Earth will turn blood red and the fish and wildlife will die off….

    Now think about that for a minute….

    If you have a situation whereby vast tracts of of one part of the ocean are having their ‘conveyor belt ‘s ‘ tampered with….

    Your going to get Algal Blooms …toxicity …one big old toxic lake …along with Franks desalinity…and one symptom of Algal blooms is often a red cloudy soupy mix….

    Now you couple that with the death of thousands upon thousands of tonnes of marine wildlife and add their putrefaction ( and blood ) to that soupy mix – your going to have a problem that rapidly compounds on itself…

    Your talking everything from whales to shrimp to vegetation to mollusc’s… tonnes of the stuff…

    Then you’ve got the collapse at the very least of the worlds fishing fleets and a collapse of relying on the sea’s harvest…

    And what do you end up with ?

    ‘ That the seas will turn blood red and the fish and its wildlife will die ‘

    And that kind of explains in very real time and with total plausibility just what the book of Revelations was trying to say to people living 2000 years after it was written.

    Perhaps its time to look a little further into free energy and the writings of guys like Nikolai Tessler and his ilk to see why we were denied by the oil barons access to that critical information…

    What say ye ?

    • Richard Christie says:

      What say ye ?

      Relying on a 2000 year old magic book for scientific predictions is as silly as going to blog opinions or the Daily Mail articles.

      • *snort!*

        At least I hope my blogposts are based on firm data, not commandments from burning bushes…

        • Richard Christie says:

          Frank, your blog posts are, without exception, excellent.

          And yet I would not for a moment rely upon them for scientific information, 🙂 .

          I would always first endeavor to check the citations you invariably supply, particularly if or when you might claim something that challenges a well known consensus of scientific opinion.

          • I would always first endeavor to check the citations you invariably supply, particularly if or when you might claim something that challenges a well known consensus of scientific opinion.

            Indeed, Richard. I wouldn’t expect any different. *thumbs up*

  5. Richard Christie says:

    Typically, the Daily Telegraph article doesn’t even cite the source article so you cannot check its accuracy.

    People who get their climate science from newspapers have poor methodology, they are open to manipulation.

    Always go to the scientific community.

    For example: http://www.climate.nasa.org

    Always go with the scientific consensus

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTJQPyTVtNA

  6. Kevin says:

    No, it doesn’t prove global warming is wrong. But it also works the other way too. Just because there is a storm doesn’t mean global warming is proven.

    I see this like the debate on whether or not cigarettes cause cancer. Of course you still get a few quacks who say smoking doesn’t cause cancer but they’re dismissed as just that, quacks. Has the debate on global warming reached that stage yet? With 3% of climate scientists disagreeing with global warming I have to say no, unless you can point and say why each one of them is wrong.

    • Richard Christie says:

      But it also works the other way too. Just because there is a storm doesn’t mean global warming is proven.

      More strawman argument.

      Who the hell has ever claimed that?

      Name them.

    • CLEANGREEN says:

      Shit only 3% of paid oil industry paid Scientists say Climate change is a hoax?

      That’s not definitive, every thing we do goes on a consensus of “the majority” and is not held hostage by a fraction of those paid objectors?

      This is how democracy works Kevin if you need to know.

  7. Jamie says:

    I know, I got it, let’s key all the deniers cars…

    https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/01/17/where-my-climate-deniers-at/

    That will fix all the global warming, or cooling, or changing climates or whatever ya’ll wanna call it.

    How come all them scientists can’t invent, produce and market a superior alternative to fossil fuel???

    How come another tax on the working man is the best ya’ll got???

    Those are fair and reasonable questions

  8. Robert Atack says:

    I know its big numbers, but hear goes again
    The last time the environment hit 400 ppm CO2 (CO2 hangs around for at least 1,000 years) it took 10,000 years to get the CO2 from about 280 ppm to 400 ppm. After that something like 96% of sea life and 74% of land life went extinct, it supposedly took forests ecosystems 10 million years to start forests.
    I’m not even going to enter the who is responsible argument, BUT since about 1850 ish?? we’ve seen CO2 rise to 400ppm regardless of who is to blame – 400 ppm CO2 = mass extinction, adding to the ‘predicament’ is the ongoing release of CH4 from not only the Arctic region, but even off the coast of Gisborne, and Antarctica, we are soon going to be awash in CH4, this is guaranteed to plunge the planet into it’s biggest extinction event, well actually we know this has been going on for several 100 years, just ‘we’ (not blaming anyone) seam to have perfected the sending things extinct, what with several 100 going per day?
    Everything we read in the MSM is just wishful bullshit, they haven’t a clue, and to tell the truth most of the 97% are afraid to really ‘go there’
    Humans can’t tell a bad story without adding a little hope, and most people listening only hear that bit.

    • Mike says:

      How many new “Earths” are out there in the multiverse, ready and waiting to be occupied by our reincarnated selves? None on here can give me an answer.
      Maybe it’s long past time for Earth to have a well deserved rest from us destructive ‘parasites’ Because maybe in the grand scheme that’s all we are.
      We already know that sooner or later their will be a new ice age, why do we think we can change things?

      Don’t worry there will be food for all once America and allies finish sorting out the population of the middle east.

  9. Tuan Nguyen says:

    Cycles of global warming and ice ages have been going on well before human arrived on the planet with extreme swings wider than any of the climate model predictions, driven by the solar cycles. All in the ice cores records. There is sweet FA that human can do to influence the outcomes of climate changes on the planet.

    • Richard Christie says:

      This part of Nguyen’s comment is correct:
      Cycles of global warming and ice ages have been going on well before human arrived

      This part mixes partial scientific fact with climatescience denier canards:
      with extreme swings wider than any of the climate model predictions, driven by the solar cycles.

      This part is just woefully ignorant:
      There is sweet FA that human can do to influence the outcomes of climate changes on the planet

      http://www.climate.nasa.gov

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

    • Tuan – human beings also degraded the Ozone layers by mis-using CFCs and releasing them into the atmosphere. Look it up.

      It was a precursor to how human industrial and agricultural activity can – and does – impact on the environment.

      The increase in CO2 levels is not natural. It is not caused by solar cycles. It was caused by us, burning fossil fuels and increasing agricultural activity and methane release.

      Your claim that “There is sweet FA that human can do to influence the outcomes of climate changes on the planet” is what the fossil fuel industry is peddling.

      Much like the tobacco industry last century.

  10. Roy says:

    What does it matter whether the consensus is 97%, 52%? If there is even a 1% chance that the world would become uninhabitable we should do something.

    The only losers would be those who profit from it, and tbh I don’t particularly worry about whether someone doesn’t get their fourth private jet this year.

    I can hear them now: “See, we told you so, the climate wasn’t changing. We made the world completely clean, safe and sustainable for nothing!”

    • CLEANGREEN says:

      1000% Roy as enlightened.

      There will always be deniers and has been all through our history but that failed to stop all past human tragedy and wars.

  11. richarquis says:

    “…The release of all that fresh water into the ocean leads to desalination which shuts down the ocean conveyor current which stops the transfer of heat from the equator north which in turn freezes the Northern hemisphere over which plunges the planet into a deep ice age.”

    Yes, The NORTHERN HEMISPHERE. As a responsible PM for NZ, way down in the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE, John Key is doing us all proud by refusing to kowtow to all the hippies. And even if it does happen to us, whether it’s a blazing sun, or brilliant white snow encasing the entire earth – Those are both Brighter Futures!

  12. Kate Kate says:

    We have created the Permian Mass Extinction event, (The Great Dying). Please read EVERYTHING on the Robert Scribbler site. This event we have triggered may already be comparable to or even exceed both the speed and intensity of Permian Mass Extinction.

    A massive El Nino event is ramping up into a monster which will destroy ocean life. Massive hot ‘blobs’ are appearing and moving in the oceans, a ‘ridiculously resilient ridge’ is holding drought patterns in place, the list of horrors goes on and on. Read about it on the Robert Scribbler site.
    The Clathrate Gun has been fired, scientists Jason Box said ” We are fucked”, if even a small amount of methane is released from the huge stores trapped in the thawing Arctic. It IS releasing huge plumes of methane.

    Huge shit is hitting the fan and I am amazed how unbelievably ignorant the public are, it is all happening right now. 50 positive feedback loops are reinforcing warming, including the massive fires in Canada and Alaska. We are in the process of causing our own extinction. We ARE at runaway global warming now. Not in the far off distance either within the next few decades. Near Term Human Extinction! Look up scientist Paul Beckwith for the facts. And the Methane Emergency group site. These are the scientists freaking out not nut jobs. (Sorry I can put links on later).

    Also good old Guy Mcpherson has a great saying. (Look up his massive climate change essay).

    “In the face of extinction, only love remains”.

    And “Passionately pursue a life of excellence”.

    What IS hysterical is the total ignorance of the facts out there, everything is on the table right now, and the human race is flying over the cliff, can’t put the brakes on now it’s too late we are flying into oblivion.

    • Quicksilver says:

      Based on survival rates for all species, past and present, I accept the outlook for humankind was unlikely to the “brighter future” that certain people have promised. With the feat of sending the New Horizons probe on its voyage of discovery as but a small example of what our cerebral cortex + opposable thumb evolutionary advantage could deliver, it’s a shame to think of what may have been possible. But instead, we fell prey to our base instincts. And maybe that is the fate of all life forms, “intelligent” or not.

  13. […] The Daily Blog: Using freezing temperatures to claim global warming is a hoax […]

  14. […] The Daily Blog: Using freezing temperatures to claim global warming is a hoax […]

You might also like...

What do the Banks need to do in New Zealand before regulation?

Read More →