Should we spend a trillion dollars on "Global warming" when, in fact, the earth is cooling?

Global warming has stopped!

Recent scientific studies may make 2007 go down in history as the "tipping point" of man-made global warming fears. A progression of peer-reviewed studies have been published which serve to debunk the United Nations on climate change.

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (LINK), noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped.

“The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %),” (LINK)

In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the obvious: global warming has stopped. (LINK) The UK Met Office acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures, but in an apparent attempt to keep stoking man-made climate alarm, the Met Office is now promoting more unproven dire computer model projections of the future. They now claim climate computer models predict “global warming will begin in earnest in 2009” because greenhouse emissions will then overtake natural climate variability.

Southern Hemisphere is COOLING

UN scientist Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007, explained on August 6, 2007 that the Southern Hemisphere is cooling. “In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature has slowly but surely declined in the last few years. The city of Buenos Aires in Argentina received several centimeters of snowfall in early July, and the last time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918! Most of Australia experienced one of its coldest months of June this year. Several other locations in the Southern Hemisphere have experienced lower temperatures in the last few years. Further, the sea surface temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998, according to a recent world-wide analysis of ocean surface temperatures," Dr. Khandekar explained. (LINK)

Meteorologist Joseph Conklin, who launched the skeptical website www.ClimatePolice.com in 2007, recently declared the “global warming movement [is] falling apart.”

“A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the real global warming won’t start until 2009,” Conklin wrote in an August 10, 2007 blog post on his website. (LINK)

Climate models made by unlicensed 'software engineers'

But the credibility of these computer model predictions took a significant hit in June 2007 when Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well," Renwick conceded. (LINK)

Another high-profile UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, recently echoed Renwick’s sentiments about climate models by referring to them as “story lines.”

“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios,” Trenberth wrote in journal Nature’s blog on June 4, 2007. He also admitted that the climate models have major shortcomings because “they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess." (LINK)

IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," declared “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” in an April 10, 2007 article. (LINK)

“All [UN IPCC does] is make ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates,'” Gray noted.

In addtion, meteorologist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, recently compared scientists who promote computer models predicting future climate doom to unlicensed “software engineers."

"I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society," Tennekes wrote on February 28, 2007. (LINK)

Should we spend a trillion dollars on "Global warming" when, in fact, the earth is cooling?

22 Answers

Relevance
  • Bob
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    It isn't cooling. This is the definitive data.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lr...

    Year to year the weather jumps around, but the long term trend is undeniable. Carter's statements that warming has stopped, based on one unusual year, 1998, are laughable.

    None of the reputable "skeptical" scientists make this claim anymore. It's absurd and unscientific.

    • chuck6 years agoReport

      Interesting fact that I learned not long ago. There were more deaths in the fighting during the Civil War in the battle at Shenandoah due to heat than from guns. I guess Global Warming has been going on for a lot longer than we thought. Maybe it was all that gun powder.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    A big mistake the world has made regarding global warming is to give the people you refer to the platform to make decisions they aren't totally qualified to make.

    Meteorologist are responding to the greenhouse gas theory being presented to them and I have a problem with the CO2 trapping heat theory as well. It doesn't mean we don't have a problem, it means the science is missing.

    At the same time, the globe is warming and we need to figure it out. The first error was determining that man made development was insignificant. It is assumed that buildings absorb the sun's rays and hold the heat in the area.

    Surface Temperature Monitoring represented buildings were insignificant to climate change except the tool used for determining that is a thermostat.

    We used the most advanced thermal imaging in the world to validate building and development performance. We did the research with the applicable building professionals.

    Meteorologists are missing critical information before they voice an opinion. Buildings on the surface of the planet are generating extreme heat they aren't designed for and that temperature can get close to boiling temperature.

    Meteorologists need to input into their atmospheric considerations the fact that every building is generating extreme heat. It isn't for the Meteorologist to determine if buildings can do that, this is my area of expertise.

    How many buildings in North America or the world? Millions and millions of buildings as well as their development generating massive atmospheric heat. That would change hydrological cycles and what happens to that heat when it rises into the atmosphere? Generating constant heat changes the equation, they couldn't see it.

    Let's keep the economic angle on the environment simple.

    1. The environment isn't about tree hugging, it allows you to breathe or drink water.

    2. If we don't look after the environment that sustains all life, we die

    3. We are already spending a trillion dollars, why not do it and not impact the planet that will let your children breathe?

    In regards to the earth cooling? Do an experiment and make an eco friendly environment room in your home. Have fish, aquariums, plants, pets, icebergs and people. The temperature in your room is 68 degrees F. Then we bring in big 200 degree heaters and the room will warm.

    The big heat dumps we are doing throughout the world is changing weather world wide. Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatgain.ht... and see a small example of buildings generating heat when they are designed to fluctuate with atmospheric temperature.

    Go to http://www.thermoguy.com and scroll down to the picture of the fetus. Click on the link and see the study on polluted newborns with a toxicity ratio of 100%.

    How do babies that have never taken a breath get banned pesticides inside them?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    What an ignorant load of crap.

    1998 was an anomalously hot year due to El Nino. If you draw a line between 1998 and Present, you can make it look like the planet is cooling. That's not a scientific test, to say the least.

    If you do a statistical analysis and examine the current warming trend, the planet obviously continues to warm.

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1998.jp...

    Bob Carter is either stupid or a liar.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Lol. So, Bob Carter thinks the warming stopped in 1998 does he? Then I think I'd like him to explain this:

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1998.jp...

    That's the trend for the past nine years calculated using both the HADCRU3 and GISTEMP data sets.

    Sting.

    Edit: Also, here's the trend calculated from the MSU satellite data since 1979:

    http://data.co2science.org/tmp/071110091324.gif

    Ouch.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    No, no need trillion dollars, only 1 dollar every time u fill your gas. If everyone is concerned about global warming, take action. Plant some trees in front of the house, save fuel, use public transportation and here I can save fuel using this product. Check this website www.saveandwealthy.myffi.biz Besides saving fuel, it can reduce emissions. My friend even checked the CO carbonmonoxide, after using it, very low,only 0.068%. GO SAVE THE WORLD from POLLUTION

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Tomcat
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Absolutely not, these delusional mindless automatons spouting rhetoric such as post peer reviewed literature, should be held criminally accountable for the damage they are causing to the infrastructure of civilization. There is not one single class anyone could take anywhere in the world where a reasonable fundamental understanding of climate is taught. Until climatologists actually predict something right, they cannot be trusted.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Global warming has not stopped--it is getting worse. That is proven scientific fact.

    The fact that some crackpots post BS like this on the web doesn't make it valid--nor does it mean there is any "debate." There isn't. And tripe like this stuff you've been gullible enough to swollow isn't going to make anyone take those kooks seriously.

    As for your question-no one is suggesting we "spend a trillion dollars to stop global warrming." That kind of bull is jst propaganda from the special interests--mostly the oil commpanies. the reality is that oil, coal, etc. are obsolete. Modern technology is cleaner, cheaper--and investment in wind, solar, etc. is already creating thousands of jobs and helping people save money on energy.

    But try to tell the "skeptics" that. They simply are so ignorant they don't get it: fossil fuels are on the way out. That may happen a little faster because of efforts to stop global warming. But its going to happen either way.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Ben O
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Actually one trillion dollars a year is pretty close to the what the Stern Report is asking for which is the most often quoted paper on the subject.

    Some politicians like the sound of that because it involves raising taxes a lot.

    Imagine what that amount of money could do for real problems like global poverty or preventable disease.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Global warming is a huge problem. It can not cooled down overnight. A lot of years must be down to cure the sickening Mother Earth.

    Thanks for asking. Have a great day!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    "Most of Australia experienced one of its coldest months of June this year."

    This statement is untrue. This June was the coldest since 1983. The average June temperature in Victoria is 11.4c

    June 2007 average temp was 13.3

    And NSW's coldest June was last year. Coldest since 1982 but also 2 degrees warmer than average (and this is the average calculated from thee late 19th century to now.

    refer this link for Australia's average temperature variation from average for the last 96 years and tell me if the temperatures are trending up or down.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.