So, about that man made climate change... thing...

[jerome1232]

Apparently the average global temperature has plateaued for the past 15 years.

Climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years | Mail Online

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but my gut instinct is that if the little warming trend for the past 50 years or so was largely caused by man's pollutants, why would it plateau when we haven't decreased our polluting? That's a legitimate question, it's not a "gotcha". Working with the assumption that it (warming trend) is caused by us, is there an explanation that fits with that which explains this more recent steady trend.

[LittleWyvern]

...you realize the Daily Mail is a tabloid, right?

[Just_A_Guy]

I'd be interested to see the claims themselves addressed. Even a stopped clock can be right twice a day.

[john doe]

...you realize the Daily Mail is a tabloid, right?

So the emails and assertions that global warming has slowed are fakes?

[LittleWyvern]

So the emails and assertions that global warming has slowed are fakes?

I'm not trying to address the content of the article, but I see a lot of people in the US cite the Daily Mail like it's a reputable newspaper when it is very much not. If I were to cite, say, The Globe or The National Enquirer, I'd expect to be laughed out of the thread. Citing the Daily Mail isn't much different: all of my examples are essentially what are called "supermarket tabloids."

That being said, I would be interested to see if any of the content in the article can be backed up by more reputable news sources.

[Praetorian_Brow]

I find it strange that people are so bent on disproving this idea in a bid to somehow negate the impact of human pollution. Global warming does occur as evidenced by history, but what we not want to happen is for us to push it into happening, because frankly, I prefer that my house not be flooded and billions of people displaced, looking for my food. Then again, my kids would have more of an issue with that, but I could just say, who cares, I'll be dead, like so many of the last generation.

The same people who argue that its not happening, probably think recycling is for socialists, not pouring medication, oil or paint down the drain is for hippies and nuclear energy is safe.

Our activities are affecting our environment in an extremely negative way.

[mirkwood]

"The earth has a fever." - Al Gore

[jerome1232]

How about the ippc's website.

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[Guest]

"The earth has a fever." - Al Gore

More cowbell?

[john doe]

I find it strange that people are so bent on disproving this idea in a bid to somehow negate the impact of human pollution. Global warming does occur as evidenced by history, but what we not want to happen is for us to push it into happening, because frankly, I prefer that my house not be flooded and billions of people displaced, looking for my food. Then again, my kids would have more of an issue with that, but I could just say, who cares, I'll be dead, like so many of the last generation.

The same people who argue that its not happening, probably think recycling is for socialists, not pouring medication, oil or paint down the drain is for hippies and nuclear energy is safe.

Our activities are affecting our environment in an extremely negative way.

Or not. It has not been proven that global warming, or cooling, or climate change is caused by humans. The science simply doesn't support the theory. Yet we have lots of people lining up to make money off of that idea, including Al Gore.

Look, I'm just as much of a proponent of the responsible use of our planet as the next guy. We absolutely should be responsible stewards of what we have been given. I support recycling and repurposing until an item is completely used up, and the responsible use of our resources.

But to advocate spending billions and trillions of dollars on an idea that hasn't been proven seems to me to be a waste of money. If you want to spend your money on those ideas, go ahead, be my guest. But if you are going to spend my money on it, I think you should be able to show me (1), that your premise is true, and (2), that what you propose to do will actually make a difference in dealing with that problem. So far, those have not happened.

[jerome1232]

The same people who argue that its not happening, probably think recycling is for socialists, not pouring medication, oil or paint down the drain is for hippies and nuclear energy is safe.

Our activities are affecting our environment in an extremely negative way.

And that would be what's called a hasty generalization. Guess what, I think that the simpler explanation of natural climate change is more likely. I still take my oil from oil changes to autozone to be recycled.

I apologize for the initial article, here's perhaps a better one, the fact is there is a current plateau.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html

Look, I was looking to discuss what could be the cause of the current plateau. It doesn't fit with any of the models put forward by the guys that believe it's being caused by humans.

Idea's I've seen put forward generally are:

Oceans are absorbing the heat

1998 was a particularly hot year.

[Latter Days Guy]

I'm not trying to address the content of the article, but I see a lot of people in the US cite the Daily Mail like it's a reputable newspaper when it is very much not. If I were to cite, say, The Globe or The National Enquirer, I'd expect to be laughed out of the thread. Citing the Daily Mail isn't much different: all of my examples are essentially what are called "supermarket tabloids."

That being said, I would be interested to see if any of the content in the article can be backed up by more reputable news sources.

Yes it is a tabloid, but only in the way that it's a tabloid sized newspaper as opposed to a broadsheet. We don't have anything in the UK which is the equivalent of the National Enquirer/Globe. The Daily Mail was a broadsheet until it changes to it's current size. It is a serious newspaper, although with a centre right slant to it's journalism.

[prisonchaplain]

I wonder if the American tabloid can match the Mail for awards won (according to Wikipedia)?

Awards

Received

The Daily Mail has been awarded the National Newspaper of the Year in 1995, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003 and 2012 by the British Press Awards[53]

The Daily Mail journalists have won a range of British Press Awards, including:

• "Campaign of the Year" (Murder of Stephen Lawrence, 2012)
• "Website of the Year" (Mail Online, 2012)
• "News Team of the Year" (Daily Mail, 2012)
• "Critic of the Year" (Quentin Letts, 2010)[54]
• "Political Journalist of the Year" (Quentin Letts, 2009)
• "Specialist Journalist of the Year" (Stephen Wright, 2009)[55]
• "Showbiz Reporter of the Year" (Benn Todd, 2012)
• "Feature Writer of the Year - Popular" (David Jones, 2012)
• "Columnist of the Year - Popular" (Craig Brown, 2012)
• "Best of Humour" - (Craig Brown, 2012)
• "Columnist - Popular" (Craig Brown, 2012)
• "Sports Reporter of the Year" (Jeff Powell, 2005)
• "Sports Photographer of the Year" (Mike Egerton, 2012; Andy Hooper, 2010, 2008)

Other awards include:

• "Orwell Prize" (Toby Harnden, 2012)
• "Hugh Cudlipp Award" (2012; Stephen Wright/Richard Pendlebury, 2009; 2007)[56]

[applepansy]

I recently re-read Michael Crichton's State of Fear. The best part of the book is the authors comments. :) I like the story. Its engaging but the research the author did before writing the book and his conclusions about global warming got my attention. I've always like Michael Crichton's books and this was not exception.

After reading some of the references he gives I came to the same conclusions he did.

[Traveler]

Is it a small wonder that when politics takes up a cause that there is usually more politics involved than truth or reality? There are two sides of the problem. Mankind pollutes and much of the pollution produced by modern societies is harmful even to the creators of the pollution.

The truth is that man cannot sustain certain cultures and the modern through-a-way is an unsustainable culture. We are too wasteful and as G-d has made us stewards we must become more prudent with our resources.

I personally believe that man made global warming is a hoax - but at the same time our wasteful and selfish indulgences will have consequences. For whatever reason wealth has become a license to waste and if it be nature or G-d we will have to pay for what we use up - one way or another.

The Traveler

[mnn727]

I have no idea to what extent man is affecting climate change, HOWEVER we have been pouring tons and tons of crud into the atmosphere and the oceans for centuries and I can not believe that has no affect.

I believe in common sense and in being good stewards. Cap and Trade is ridiculous, developing alternate cleaner sources of energy is wise.

I hear people complaining that solar energy is not efficient right now so there's no sense in using it, but without people using and developing it, it will never get more efficient. Gasoline engines were not efficient when they first came out either, it took decades of use to get to where we are today.

Electric cars are not fantastic today, but they continue to move ahead. Electricity is mainly made from coal and natural gas in this country and we are a net exporter of that, meaning we have more than we use, so it makes sense to switch to that rather than continue to import oil (from countries that mostly hate us anyway) As more and more electric vehicles get in use, battery technology will improve.

Most city dwellers live and work within battery range for an electric car today, the week or two a year they might need longer range they could rent a gas powered car. Vehicle prices continue to drop, GM just announced a $30K all electric vehicle that has a 200 mile battery range, Telsa has a low cost long range electric car close to being released.

Common sense - Yes

Good Stewardship - YES!

Money making schemes that do no real good - NO!

Edited September 30, 2013 by mnn727

[Mahone]

Yes it is a tabloid, but only in the way that it's a tabloid sized newspaper as opposed to a broadsheet. We don't have anything in the UK which is the equivalent of the National Enquirer/Globe. The Daily Mail was a broadsheet until it changes to it's current size. It is a serious newspaper, although with a centre right slant to it's journalism.

I guess you and I have different definitions of serious. I see the daily mail as very low class journalism, and always take anything written there with a pinch of salt. I certainly wouldn't class it as an even remotely trustworthy source, but I am surprised at how often it is used as one.

Take the following article as an example... I guess the journalist failed to spot the fact that the baby is in a 100% identical position to the photo above..? Or maybe he did, but wrote whatever would get the readers.

Horror as woman stamps on her baby after being accused of phone theft | Mail Online

I personally don't think they do much more than mere rumour mongering.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Mahone

[kgrigio]

The problem is the models. It was recently reported in the same reports on the temperature plateaus that the models predicted there would be almost no ice caps in 2013. This year the ice caps are the largest they have been since we have been keeping records on their size (30 year IIRC).

I know a fair bit about mathematical models and in any model there are a number of variables that must be tuned in order to get the model to accurately predict the outcome. If you don't tune the model correctly, the input will not reflect reality. Hence the models 15 years ago predicting rising temperatures and no polar ice caps today.

The problem is, over the last 15 years or so, as the models have become better, they can't factor in the largest variable of them all, the water content in the atmosphere. This variable is so hard to estimate, or predict how it will change over time. This is the single biggest factor for the models being essentially garbage.

When the models can't predict the weather accurately over the next 2-3 weeks, how can they predict the weather in 10-20-30 or even 50 years?

Elder Lund wrote a great book in the early 70's called "The Coming of the Lord" where he has a chapter devoted to how, in previous times, any time there was a natural disaster, flood, drought, etc... the people took it as a sign to repent. He predicted that as the world became more wicked, they would stop looking to these events as signs from God, but rather calamities brought upon themselves due to their own doing. And if brought upon them by their doing, then they could correct them by their doing rather than turning to God and repenting.

Obviously he states is way better than I can, but I read that and instantly knew that what he was saying fit the bill of the global warming crowd. Should we take better care of the Earth? Yes. But it's the height of arrogance to think that man can influence one tiny bit the ebb and flow of this Earth and what God has created. Who is to say that the temperature of the Earth today is the optimal temperature. What if the earth's natural state is warmer? It's been much warmer before there was "carbon emissions". One volcano puts out more carbon "emission" than all of the "emission" that man has created for over a decade. I see global warming as one of man's tower of babels, trying to put themselves on par with God, at least for those that truly believe in it. Most that espouse the global warming hoax are in it for the money and control and know there is nothing man can do to prevent it.

[Traveler]

I would like to point out a few things.

First of all carbon in the atmosphere is not a pollutant. Carbon monoxide is harmful to things that breathe but carbon monoxide is not a greenhouse gas and is relatively unstable in earth's atmosphere and is changed to carbon dioxide that is a greenhouse gas but is necessary for plant life and photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant!!! Plants love it.

Carbon dioxide makes up less than 3% of the greenhouse gas that exist in the atmosphere. The primary greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is water - in other words humidity. Humidity varies a great deal in our atmosphere (from 20% to 99%) - so much so that a 10% variation in the 3% carbon dioxide gas is insignificant concerning global warming from greenhouse gases

Refined petroleum pollutes less than coal or wood when burned as an energy source. Fire is considered one of the great advances of man but for the thousands of years of man's history that fire was used as an energy source; other fire sources created much more pollution than the use of petroleum (including natural gas). The air is much cleaner now per person than at any other time in the history of mankind.

Wind turbines are a touted solution to the energy needed as an alternate to burning petroleum - but wind turbines take energy out of moving air (wind) and convert it to electrical energy. The impact of using wind as an energy source has a greater environmental impact per kilowatt hour than burning petroleum (natural gas) as an energy source.

We should be prudent with your use of energy - but we should not be stupid. I honestly believe that future generations will look back on our era as perhaps the most naive and gullible era in history. I believe we will be used as an example of why individualism and individual freedoms was such an overall social failure.

The Traveler

[Praetorian_Brow]

I am astonished that you believe our air is "cleaner" than anytime in human history. I will suggest that perhaps you meant that the air quality within cities has improved, as there is less coal burning, or wood burning as you stated. However, that doesn't make up for all the other wonderful toxins released, through other processes.

Are we to believe that you imply we will run out of wind and burning fossils is a better solution?

[bytebear]

I'm not trying to address the content of the article, but I see a lot of people in the US cite the Daily Mail like it's a reputable newspaper when it is very much not. If I were to cite, say, The Globe or The National Enquirer, I'd expect to be laughed out of the thread. Citing the Daily Mail isn't much different: all of my examples are essentially what are called "supermarket tabloids."

That being said, I would be interested to see if any of the content in the article can be backed up by more reputable news sources.

The National Enquirer exposed the John Edwards love child. Seems they are the only ones actually reporting truth at least in that instance.

[bytebear]

I am astonished that you believe our air is "cleaner" than anytime in human history. I will suggest that perhaps you meant that the air quality within cities has improved, as there is less coal burning, or wood burning as you stated. However, that doesn't make up for all the other wonderful toxins released, through other processes.

Are we to believe that you imply we will run out of wind and burning fossils is a better solution?

You make the assumption that there is a cost effectiveness to "renewable" energies than to fossil fuels. The reason we use fossil fuels is because they are the absolute cheapest to use, by A LOT! Nuclear is second. Nothing else (solar, wind) even comes close.

[Praetorian_Brow]

No cost was mentioned in my post and therefore no assumption was made.

I reigned in my sarcasm in regards to the notion that fossils were more abundant than wind. I hope The Great Eye is proud of my restraint.

[bytebear]

It's not that wind isn't abundant but you have to build turbines, and have land to put them on. Do you know the physical footprint a wind farm would need to equal (in power outage) even a modest nuclear plant?

[Dravin]

You make the assumption that there is a cost effectiveness to "renewable" energies than to fossil fuels. The reason we use fossil fuels is because they are the absolute cheapest to use, by A LOT! Nuclear is second. Nothing else (solar, wind) even comes close.

Geothermal and hydroelectric can be cost competitive with coal. Admittedly you can stick a fossil fuel or nuclear plant pretty much anywhere, conceptually (the political realty is somewhat different), which is not the case with geothermal and hydroelectric.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Dravin