Slashdot Mirror
Norwegian Study: Global Warming Less Severe Than Feared
Numerous news outlets are reporting the findings of a study from the Research Council of Norway — a government agency — which concludes that (in Bloomberg's version) "After the planet's average surface temperature rose through the 1990s, the increase has almost leveled off at the level of 2000, while ocean water temperature has also stabilized." The New York Times' Dot Earth blog offers some reasons to be skeptical of the findings.
An oil-producing country says that burning oil is okay. News at 11.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
There is Global Warming(tm) and if we do not give the United Nations more power to apply Global Taxes then The World Is Going To End. Make no doubt about it, folks: The whole "global warming" scam as nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with a grab for power and taxes. I realize that many people are so propagandized that they are unable to contemplate this information. To those of you who believe in the "global warming" propaganda, please consider this: Do we have to give the United Nations the power to tax the world in order to solve this "problem"?
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
I think the NYT's reporting is very telling here. His first reaction on January 26th is that it's not peer-reviewed, and therefore must be treated skeptically. A knee-jerk reaction that since the report doesn't confirm his existing beliefs, he must wait until others do his work for him and tell him whether the report deserves consideration or not.
Note what Reno Knutti, a Swiss climate scientist, told the NYT:
"there was little warming over the past decade despite a larger greenhouse gas forcing."
Now who's denying what, again?
The so-called "global warming deniers" are to be scorned, ridiculed, and otherwise have their professional reputations destroyed by any means necessary but it's just fine and dandy to be skeptical of this study.
Quickly looking at the story, the conclusion I HAVE to come to is AWG proponents have lost. Their viewpoint is either AWG is so horrible and so far along that there is nothing we can do about it, so why would we even bother? Or, if they become reasonable at this point and say, like this article attempts to, that it isn't so bad that there is something we can do about it, the anti-AWG people will destroy them with pointing out their previous lies (Gore's hockey stick graph comes to mind).
So its either unavoidable, or the AWG people lied to the point where no one will ever listen to them again. Either way we do nothing. Let this be an object lesson, but really you should have learned this in elementry school with "Peter and the Wolf". I guess that just shows AWG people are unable to be reasonable and have pushed everyone who isn't a wacko like them so far against them they will never become mainstream.
Congratulations on defeating yourselves.
Norway is one of the richest countries in the world... it has the second highest GDP per capita. Norwegians enjoy an incredibly high standard of living across the board... there is very little wealth-disparity and almost no poverty. Education is free and health-care is universal. It's a good life! And it's all largely thanks to oil, of which Norway has lots. Over 55% of Norway's GDP comes directly from petroleum. Imagine if you and all your fellow citizens had half of your assets invested in oil companies and depended on those investments for half of all your income and half of all your future retirement... in Norway that's the reality.
I wouldn't accuse the scientists of Norway's research council of fabricating data or anything, but they can't help but have a strong bias.
And why are the climate change alarmists vilifying this study?
Because both groups are driven by political agendas and personal beliefs that are largely unconcerned with science or figuring out what is actually going to happen or how best to fix it.