Global "cooling"... debunked?

[lomiller]

You're giving credit to the Bush administration based on a "confidential" memo from a paid consultant suggesting that Republicans use different terminology?

Hardly "confidential" Lundz is quite open about what he does, and his role in getting Republicans to switch from calling it "global warming" to "climate change" and why it was designed to benefit the denier argument.

 

[Peephole]

That's the point. Perhaps we should plot the data before the ice age. Looks like global cooling. I can't accept AGW because of this.

You can't accept AGW because there's something as glacial periods? You're not making much sense.

Why would it have been a little cooler the last few years?

Because sun activity is at its minimum and there was a strong La Nina episode.

How can you account for the cooling period?

There wasn't a "cooling period". First of all, climate isn't determined by individual years. That's a bad thing to do, because there are always minor variations. Secondly, when I said cooler, I meant cooler relative to the year Monckton had selected (2002). 2008 was still the tenth warmest year on record. The other most recent years, 2007 and 2009 hold a shared place of second warmest year on record.

 

[Peephole]

Terminology that is later voluntarily used by GW proponents to call themselves? The fact remains that calling it global climate change plays both sides of the fence. What's so hard to understand about that?

I always use the term "global warming", do you have any proof that there were as a shift in terminology or are you just making stuff up?

I seem to recall a recent scandal cover up.

Yes? Please share which "cover up" you are talking about.

 

[mythstifieD]

Hey AAA, add ServiceSoon to the list of coolers.

Why are you making a list?

 

[Peephole]

He's making a list, he's checking it twice

 

[MattusMaximus]

Why are you making a list?

Because A.A.Alfie implied that there weren't any coolers here at the JREF Forum, so "why were we going on and on about this?" - Linky.

 

[Matilda]

That's the point. Perhaps we should plot the data before the ice age. Looks like global cooling. I can't accept AGW because of this.

So if other factors have influenced the climate in the past, even if those factors cannot explain current warming when AGW does, you reject it? That makes no sense.

Why would it have been a little cooler the last few years? If CO2 is the culprit, was it decreased in the last few years? Even if it was decreased, it's my understanding that CO2 doesn't disappear. How can you account for the cooling period?

The trend is up. You've been shown the data demonstrating this.

 

[Matilda]

I seem to recall a recent scandal cover up.

You keep making vague assertions. Be specific.

 

[Pixel42]

I always use the term "global warming", do you have any proof that there were as a shift in terminology or are you just making stuff up?

There's a good piece about the history of the two terms here:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Both have been used forever. The recent emphasis of the term “climate change” rather then “global warming” actually comes from the denier side. Focus groups by right with spin doctors found that “climate change” sounded less threatening so it was easier to convince people it wasn’t a problem if you use that term instead of “global warming”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

That article is dated 2003. The IPCC (Climate Change) is not called the IPGW and it was formed in 1988.

Can you please elaborate Lomiller, you appear to be incorrect here.

Hardly "confidential" Lundz is quite open about what he does, and his role in getting Republicans to switch from calling it "global warming" to "climate change" and why it was designed to benefit the denier argument.

See above...
So, why don't we have the International Panel on Global Warming (IPGW)?

Why are you making a list?

I have been curious as to why we AGW skeptics are constantly called "deniers", when I reckon virtually all the deniers on the JREF forum agree that warming is occuring.

Because A.A.Alfie implied that there weren't any coolers here at the JREF Forum, so "why were we going on and on about this?" - Linky.

I will be happy to admit I am wrong - I just wanted the point made that they are difficult to find here and in the miinority.

But it does seem we have a few, however it has taken some time for them to be identified.

 

[BenBurch]

Because A.A.Alfie implied that there weren't any coolers here at the JREF Forum, so "why were we going on and on about this?" - Linky.

Don't worry, he'll just move the goalposts again.

 

[lomiller]

Can you please elaborate Lomiller, you appear to be incorrect here.

Please read my post. you quoted it so it's impossible for you to have missed it's existence.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Don't worry, he'll just move the goalposts again.

I assume I'm off ignore - how nice.

How is it moving the goalposts if I am happy to admit I'm wrong?
No pleasing some people.

Please read my post. you quoted it so it's impossible for you to have missed it's existence.

My mistake - I misread it in part.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I assume I'm off ignore - how nice.

How is it moving the goalposts if I am happy to admit I'm wrong?
No pleasing some people.

For the record, folks, I think AAA is being genuine here. He did, in my mind, admit that he was wrong about his earlier implications.

Now, back to the parody

Where have all the coolers gone?!!

 

[BenBurch]

Please tell AAA that s/he is still on ignore, and that's not going to change.

 

[Drysdale]

Both have been used forever. The recent emphasis of the term “climate change” rather then “global warming” actually comes from the denier side. Focus groups by right with spin doctors found that “climate change” sounded less threatening so it was easier to convince people it wasn’t a problem if you use that term instead of “global warming”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

That does'nt make any sense. I highly doubt it can be pinned down to when and who initiated climate change as opposed to global warming but that article really does'nt make sense.

Any papertrail to this supposed memo?

 

[lomiller]

I don’t know what type of paper trail you are looking for. Lundz's career is public, and he is open about writing the memo, and exactly what it contains. There is also ample evidence the language recommendations it contained were subsequently adopted by the Bush administration and we continue to see that same language echoed in these forums today.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Please tell AAA that s/he is still on ignore, and that's not going to change.

I'm not surprised and actually glad about that; it helps reinforce my groupthink suspicions.

(Please tell Ben, I can read his posts - I do not have him on ignore.)

I don’t know what type of paper trail you are looking for. Lundz's career is public, and he is open about writing the memo, and exactly what it contains. There is also ample evidence the language recommendations it contained were subsequently adopted by the Bush administration and we continue to see that same language echoed in these forums today.

If it's a 'cry' of the deniers, then why don't we have an Internation Panel for Global Warming?

I'd genuinely like your thoughts.

 

[mhaze]

Assuming your graph is fair, honest and complete, why wasn't there an increase in the trend during 1945-1975? The oil embargo didn't occur until after 1973. That event probably took some cars off the road, decreasing the amount of CO2, as did the US national 55 mph speed limit. Oil prices didn't get to their original level until early 1980's, but the trend increases before then.
​

Originally Posted by mhaze
These factors you mention have no correlation to global temperatures that is worth discussing.
​

CO2 has no correlation? Then what are we discussing?...

For example, there was a study done which looked for correlation between fossil fuel use and global temperatures.

Nothing significant found.

Does that answer your question?

 

[LoudHoward]

Intergovernmental