Sunday, September 26, 2010

Global Cooling?

The Bilderbergers think so!

Yep, that’s right. Global Cooling.

Which means one of two things.

Either it was a printing error.

Or the global elite is perfectly well aware that global cooling represents a far more serious and imminent threat to the world than global warming, but is so far unwilling to admit it except behind closed doors.

Let me explain briefly why this is a bombshell waiting to explode...

11 comments:

allen (in Michigan) said...

What's "dodgy" is global climate anything. I think Delingpole's being a bit ironic with his call for a “Global Warming” Nuremberg and not nearly forceful enough about the immature state of global climate science but reference to Nazis is just some good, clean fun and warnings about the immature state of global climate science not nearly as much fun.

Anonymous said...

Once again, an editorial in The Telegraph does not equal science. But GW deniers never cared about science in the first place. They're quite certain that the environment responds to popular opinion and political pressure.

Still though, the Earth is round, and it orbits the sun. You could vote against it and win the election. But it wouldn't change the facts.

MikeAT said...

No Darren, the oxygen thieves and snake oil salesmen (excuse, salespersons…need to be politically correct) out there need something else to call a crisis and we’ve run this one so now it’s time to go back to global cooling….remember how that was all the rage in the mid 70s.

Now one thing I did find interesting was this point made by Dr Courtney in his long post at the bottom:

Human activities do affect local climates (e.g. it is warmer in each city than its surrounding countryside, but there is no evidence – none, zilch, not any – that Man’s use of natural resources has had any affect on global climate.

One question not answered or even asked by ABC/.NBC/CBS/CNN/MSLSD/NY BIRDLINER/WASH PUKE is if an average temperature in a city is higher than 20/30/40 years ago how do you account for the fact in a larger city you have a lot more concrete and steel retaining heat…this has nothing to with burning oil or coal but it will raise the average temperature. How do you account for this factor…I won’t hold my breath waiting for the question to be asked....

Anonymous said...

Since data continues to show global warming isn't happening, the scaremongers are using the new term "climate change". Of course, the climate is always changing. Therefore, the scaremongers are always right.

Their "solution" is always the same: More government, higher taxes and costs, power shifted to unelected, unaccountable international commissions, lower economic growth.

Strongly challenge anyone who claims people are the cause of the changing climate (and that we must therefore live poorly).

Anonymous said...

well of the two, global cooling would be worse, being that we are closing in on seven billion humans and stretching opur cropland.

But cooling ain't happening. The planet is getting warmer apace in keeping with the law of conservation of energy. that is, if you increase a major heat trapping gas in the atmosphere by a third in a century, you will increase the temperature of the planet.

Not a steady state rise, the earth has marvelous buffering systems, but over time these are being overwhelmed. The law of conservation of energy will be obeyed in the end.

Or one could just watch the artic as it is turning to mush.

Richard

allen (in Michigan) said...

Richard, would it matter to you if you were proven wrong? I doubt but here you are:

The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time).

That's from Wikipedia so feel free to dismiss it but it's good enough for all practical purposes.

First, the Earth isn't an isolated system.

The energy input is from the sun so right off the bat your claims about "heat trapping gases" are knocked into a cocked hat, whatever that means. The sun determines heat input so an inability to forecast the sun's output equals an inability to forecast global temperatures.

I could go on but there's really no point. The main attraction of global warming as a political position is that it provides a rationale for the self-assumed superior to impose their views on their inferiors. No amount of argument's going to dissuade you from the assumption that you're terrible smart and morally superior.

mazenko said...

Hottest day "ever" in Los Angeles. Last four of five were the hottest years in recorded history.

Darren said...

I thought local weather didn't equal climate....

MikeAT said...

Mazenko

Last two days in Houston we've had highs in mid 80s, lows in the 60s and 50s...in south Texas.

I saw the guys in LA suffering...waaaaaa. Try 110 with 90% plus humidity.

My point is this won't last in either city and it's not proof of global cooling or global warming or climate change or climate disruption or whatever the hell they will call the hoax next week.

Anonymous said...

Allen, I'd love to be proven wrong. I don't look forward to the consequences of climate change. It ain't gonna be pretty, as we are already seeing.

Of course the earth isn't an isolated system. That's the problem. It is retaining more heat because of the increased carbon dioxide. That heat will be conserved.

You can't conserve heat without warming the planet.

Richard

allen (in Michigan) said...

Sorry Richard, you're assuming that there's a causal relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature.

No such relationship has been demonstrated and there have been points in time when global temperatures were higher with lower levels of carbon dioxide as well as the reverse. The strongest relationship that's been demonstrated by the evidence is that global warming increases the level of carbon dioxide although even that isn't a one-to-one relationship.

And you wouldn't love to be proven wrong. If you were you wouldn't assert the unproven assumption that a tiny rise in atmospheric CO2 will result in significant global warming. We are talking about an atmospheric constituent that's measured in parts per million so your underlying assertion is that CO2 is the razor global temperatures are balanced on. That would come under the heading of "extraordinary claims" and you know what they require.