New Data Shows Global Cooling
20 August 2009 | By dillon-kgmi in National PoliticsRead an interesting article from McClatchy today, reporting that global temperatures seem to be cooling from their peak in 1998.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/74019.html
Of course, global warming proponents were quick to say this was simply ‘cherry picking’ a small time frame, and that it doesn’t disprove global warming.
But isn’t that the whole issue? All the fear about global warming is based on a relatively small time frame, in the first place. From a larger perspective, the last hundred years of record-keeping is just a blip on the global temperature radar screen. It appears the global warming proponents can have their own argument used against them.
They insist global warming will resume in the coming years, with a certainty that almost seems hopeful, as if they want it to happen. They have so much invested in the global warming theory, they won’t let updated facts slow them down to re-examine their hypothesis.
I realize a decade of cooling doesn’t prove or disprove anything, but, similarly, does a hundred years of warming?
28 August 2009 | Brent Postma Said:
Have you read Michael Crichton’s book “State of Fear”. Michael uses actual data in this novel to rebuff the environmental claim of global warming, man made or otherwise. The knee-jerk reactionaries of the environmental movement have not parked their Subaru Foresters yet. That is quite a double standard you have there, Mr. Gore.
16 September 2009 | madbee Said:
Aside from the arrogance of thinking that man can influence and change mother nature -[the sun,the seas,the winds,the volcanoes etc.] a little warming isn’t such a bad idea and a little carbon dioxide comes in useful too -plants need warmth and sunshine and carbon dioxide to grow, and man needs plants for his sustenance. What’s so hard to understand about that? Elementary my dear Watson.
21 September 2009 | Peter Said:
5, 10, and 20 year temperature trends aren’t the reason scientists think the global climate is changing. They think it’s changing based on the larger picture, the temperature trend over hundreds and thousands of years. The only reason there is still any debate over this issue is because people with agendas grab ahold of uninformed reporting like this news story. Has the media suddenly become reliable in this instance if you agree with it?
Brent, Michael Crichton’s book is fiction, are you aware of this? Why don’t you look up fiction in the dictionary.
Is it arrogant to think man can influence nature? What about London Fog? There never was any, it was pollution from the industrial revolution. Lake Erie had no fish in it in the 70’s, humans didn’t cause that? Who did it God? Why are species going extinct at a greater rate than ever in the history of the world? That’s not caused by man? I know, it’s all Obama’s fault! Nobody knows though because the media won’t tell us. Madbee, you suggest climate change would be pleasant and possibly an improvement. One tenth of the worlds population lives less than 10m above sea level, I don’t think they would agree with you.
25 September 2009 | Dave Said:
Peter, it is carbon that is the boogieman here. You say it is a trend over hundreds and thousands of years. But we are talking only the last hundred or so since industrial revolution. So, it doesn’t make sense. Also, they pull out temps in the trend data to “prove” their point. That is why I am skeptical. Climate change of course is happening, it always has. That is why you don’t even call it global warming in your post. To get away from something that we see is being disproved right before our eyes.
30 September 2009 | Peter Said:
Dave, based on the natural variations observed over thousands of years the abrupt changes that have occurred since the industrial revolution do not resemble natural variation. Of course there is no doubt climate change is happening, your missing the key, it’s being caused by humans.
08 December 2009 | Dirty white boy Said:
I was watching a documentary yesterday about a group of people retrieving a WW2 plane that was buried under 300 ft. of ice up in the arctic, they drilled a hole and brought it up one piece at a time then it dawned on me, If their is 300 ft. of ice over a plane that crashed over 50 years ago then the ice level was that low back then ? Democrat global warming liars are stupider than a fifth grader.