gbaji wrote:
As to those asking for a source of my earlier statement about temperatures, how's
this?
I didn't bother with it last night but this has to be one of the single stupidest blog entries I've seen on this topic in a long, long time. It contains nearly every flaw in the counter argument ******* against the ACC theory.
Blog wrote:
Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998.
Opponents of the ACC theory love, love
love to use 1998 as their starting point because it was a clear outlier in the data and makes anything after it look artifically lower. They also love to point to any wavering of a straight upwards shot as
proof! that ACC is flawed despite a glance at the
temperate charts showing downward trends which soon reverse themselves. In short, they take "4 steps forwards, 1 step back" and call it walking backwards.
Blog wrote:
But despite overwhelming signs of global cooling - China's coldest winter for 100 years and record snow levels across Northeast America - allied with temperature records showing a decline - global warming advocates still cling to the notion that the world is cooling because of global warming!
Three things here (this guy really packs the errors in):
(1) The willful ignoring that ACC is a
global thing and so pointing to select regions as a rebuttal is pretty stupid.
(2) Somewhat amusingly, the author points to China's winter as proof that ACC must be false. In fact, China's average 2008 temperature (and that of northern Asia as a whole)
was warmer than the 1998-2007 mean. He picked the worst possible example to disprove ACC.
(3) Calling anthropogenic climate change "global warming". It's less of a mouthful and easier to type but paints an inaccurate picture of what climatologists are talking about. However, the author needs this false definition because then he can say "LOL They're Trying To Explain Cold With GLOBAL WARMING!!!"
Blog wrote:
According to man-made global warming advocates, CO2 emissions are the main driver of climate change and natural weather patterns caused by sun activity and other native contributors play second fiddle.
Wait a second... according to
who? I can't answer for every hippie and Prius owner but I've never seen a legitimate study make the claim that natural events play "second fiddle". The argument is that CO2 is acting as a force multiplier to natural events -- enhancing the effects of warming events and diminishing (though not eliminating) the effects of cooling events resulting in an accelerated warming trend in the long term.
Blog wrote:
Global temperatures have remained reasonably flat since a decline in 1998 and cooling trends are now being observed despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels have increased in the atmosphere
Again, why start with 1998? Because it was unusally warm, even by the trend standards and makes a handy point to make everything else appear low by comparison. Why not start at 1990? 1980? 1995? Because then you get a much more accurate trend than the author wants you to believe.
Blog wrote:
Following the accelerated industrialization period of 1940-1970, when carbon emissions reached a crescendo, global temperatures plummeted, prompting an international fearmongering campaign about the deadly consequences of global cooling.
So-called experts were lavished with media platforms to tell us that all animal life in the sea would be extinct by 1979 and England would be underwater by the year 2000, amidst a myriad of other outlandish proclamations.
I discussed "global cooling" upthread. Whenever I hear someone fall back on it, I wonder is they're intentionally disingenuous or just really, really ignorant of how little one relates to the other.
And then it ends with a shot at Al Gore. Because, you know, Al Gore is the one publishing the studies and running the research which lends evidence to ACC.
A fine pick, Gbaji. You should be proud.
