Slashdot Mirror
2008 Is the Coldest Year of the 21st Century
dtjohnson writes "Data from the United Kingdom Meteorological Office suggests that 2008 will
be an unusually cold year due to the La Nina effect in the western
Pacific ocean. Not to worry, though, as the La Nina effect has
faded recently so its effect on next year's temperatures will be
reduced. However, another natural cycle, the Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation, is predicted to hold global temperatures
steady for the next decade before global warming takes our planet into
new warmth. If these predictions are correct, there must be
a lot of planetary heat being stored away somewhere ... unless the heat
output from the sun
is decreasing
rather than increasing
or the heat being absorbed by the earth is decreasing due to changes in
the earth's albedo."
Climate change denial has got to be the (second) largest example of cognitive dissonance and self-deception in history. Let's hope reason and logic come back into fashion soon.
Wow, believe it or not, most people aren't going to care about a theory that A) Doesn't affect them B) has many people that reject it C) Has no short or medium-term impact and D) has no effects right now.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
But what will I do with all my "Gore 2012" buttons?
Ha.
Still, remember that the Gore stance is roughly (yeah, it's exaggerated, but roughly) in line with the science.
The global warming platform from the Republican party is to shoot into the air and yell "yeeehaww!" a bunch.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Tell you what you can do besides whining on /. anonymously. (1) Get a PhD, (2) become a climatologist yourself, (3) get a big-time faculty position at a top-tier university, (4) do research for 20 years so you can get some solid data to support your hypothesis (5) publish a paper in Nature debunking the whole global warming thing, and (6) collect your Nobel prize and the cool million that goes with it.
Haven't started yet? Still waiting on you to get the PhD in climatology....
Just callin' it like I see it.
Plenty of people rejected theories.
It's not less than 1%. And if it is that does not bode well for the field.
Because if we're warming up, why is 1938 was the hotest year on record? Why is it after WW2 we entered the coldest non-ice age period, ever recorded?
I don't think CO2 production is bad. I know it is. But for the right reasons. It causes acidic water. But that's where it ends. It does not warm. It probably does not cool.
I'm pretty sure the record rainfalls the Ottawa Valley totally has to do with "global warming". Face it, you started off like idiots, you're going to end like idiots. Stupid blunts like the hockey stick projection by a UN official cannot be forgiven. You made mistakes. Sure, we forgive you because you're human. But march right out if you think we'll keep buying your peddled crap when you change the meaning a bit to keep in line with what's happening.
A) What's a product that doesn't work for its designated task? It's defective.
B) What's a A) that now works? Two lies and counting.
And let me leave you with a final thought. Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Global warming is a misnomer anyway
Translation: We were wrong about global cooling, we were wrong about global warming. Instead of being wrong, I want to invent a phrase that allows me to be right no matter what.
it should be called,
"I'm a prick that wants to control the lives of other people, but I don't have the balls to leave my mama's basement... so, I'm going to make the guv'ment do it!"ism.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
Its just like that other century where we industrialized every aspect of human life and began polluting on a grand scale... oh wait, that has only happened once?
I'm confused--the Industrial Revolution started in the 18th century, yet most historical temperature models I've seen (for instance, I just checked some on wikipedia) don't show any substantial heating (and indeed fluctuations up as well as down) until maybe the 1970s? So, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here?
Not every theory requires historical evidence, and if you have to ask what evidence the climate change scientists are using, you obviously haven't looked at the issue at all.
Well, as another poster said, show me the model that said there was going to be a decade long (starting now) "pause" in global warming (apparently in addition to the flat temperatures of the past decade). Yet a number of articles I've read have recently proposed this temporary pause theory.
What I was asking you is, just what theories (you correctly note there are many and that you don't believe ALL of them) are you choosing to believe in that predict mankind polluting = radically destabilized global climate? That is, out of all the climate change theories, which ones theorize that a radically destabilized global climate is the most likely outcome? Links / scientist names / article names / whatever you have, would be greatly appreciated.
I bet the consensus of climate scientists who have concluded that humans are changing the climate probably never thought of that "ice age" thingy. Good thing you found out about it on the web - maybe you should email them!
Does anybody actually realize that the Earth has cycles of global warming/cooling?
This is a perfect example of what is wrong with people. Each armchair theorist like yourself seriously approaches this issue with the attitude that nobody, not even scholars working in the field of climatology for decades, have had the genius idea of applying... climatology to the issue. Well done, shithead. You're really the first person to think of that. There are only about a dozen fucking people making the same point (and each idiot thinking he's a genius bringing something new to the table) in this thread alone, and you ask "Does anybody actually realize...".
This stuff really makes me lose all hope in humanity.
You then take the scientific consensus, twist it into something badly stated, and then attribute it to "ecofreaks".
At the end you degenerate into SciFi. I'm just waiting for the crack-smoking moderators to mark you +5 insightful.
Sorry, I don't buy into the global warming alarmism until the "high priests" start practicing what they preach.
You'd be hard pressed to make a clearer example of argumentum ad hominem. Listen, when you want to use a fallacious argument, you have to be sneakier. You have to attack the messenger, and only imply that the message is false. If you clumsily admit that you refuse to believe in certain known facts because you don't like someone associated with them (in your mind), then you won't be able to slimily claim that the personal attack was separate from the issue. You'll have no defence against the charge of being an ignorant prick.
Did you really just cite The Center for Media and Public Affairs as a source to support the notion that the media is tougher on Obama than McCain? The same Center for Media and Public Affairs that has been criticized for advancing a notion of objectivity thought to be ideologically consistent with the values of liberal democracy. The one that Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky argue that is organized around the creation of "flak," which they define as "negative responses to a media statement or program" and which they maintain is part of a project of "disciplining the media." [1]
Yeah, that's pretty funny! Good one!
1. Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent. New York: Pantheon, 2002, pp. 2, 26-27
everything in moderation
Global warming is a scam.
Don't look at me, people didn't do it.
Al Gore is a weenie.
Just doing my part!
(Nuclear has limited supply? You mean that theoretically, as in, we only have enough nuclear fuel for 100,000 years, assuming no recycling, right? Right?!)
everything in moderation
So they're criticized by Noam Chomsky, and cheered by Biill O'Reilly, and this is supposed to be a good thing?
everything in moderation