“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

Some Scientists ‘Baffled’ by Lack of Global Warming

j0382673It seems some in the “scientific” community are confused by the vacation that global warming has taken.

From the German Spiegel:

The planet’s temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,” confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany’s best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. “There can be no argument about that,” he says. “We have to face that fact.”

Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility.

“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,” says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. “We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”

Of course, the scientists who are really dedicated to the premise that they are never wrong are desperately looking for alternative explanations…but they’re grasping at straws.

If these “scientists” are really this clueless as to why temperatures have stabilized while “greenhouse gas” emissions have not, perhaps they should check solar activity…which has diminished in recent years.

They should also check historical temperature information going back hundreds and thousands of years which shows climate change on our planet is a natural, cyclic phenomenon that goes up and down.

Meanwhile, there are tens of thousands of scientists who aren’t “baffled” over this “time out” from anthropogenic global warming. Despite Al Gore’s desperate cries of “consensus” and “settled science,” they haven’t been drinking his Koolaid for some time.

It’s no wonder the number of people who believe this silly hypothesis has been dwindling for some time. As people begin to push themselves away from the table of media pop-culture pap and start to learn a little about the issue, they quickly realize the whole ball of hysteria just doesn’t pass the smell test of credibility.

Meanwhile, some socialists in congress want to torpedo the American economy and rob Americans of our freedom and prosperity.  They’ve already voted for the cap and trade global warming tax in the U.S. House to fight this non-existent “problem,” and the Senate is considering it now.

They need to take a hike, and in 2010 and 2012, Americans are going to help them do that.


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


11 Responses to “Some Scientists ‘Baffled’ by Lack of Global Warming”

  1. From a neighbor that is from the state North of you…Climate models have constantly gotten the climate wrong. Even inside the meteorological community there is great debate and it is mostly one sided that global warming is not man made, or at least the rounds that I make.

  2. The true believers will look for any explanation, no matter how far-fetched, to account for inconsistencies in their theories. To consider that the basic theory is wrong is just unthinkable to those that have their entire careers, their reputations and their world-view at stake. This is true whether talking about global warming or evolution or the Big Bang. That is why we shouldn't think of them so much as scientists but as disciples of a particular faith.

  3. We all know that the hypothesis of C02 induced warming is incorrect. The original hypothesis in the 50's was that C02 caused cooling. It is crazy that this hypothesis has now resulted in the Waxman-Markey bill. We owe this to Al Gore, who is making money on this and also to James Hansen who just the other day re wrote the US temperature record again. Now 2007 is almost as warm as 1998. Do they really think we are fools? There should be class action lawsuits filed against Al Gore, Hames Hansen and most if not all of the Democrats who voted for (without reading) the Waxman-Markey bill.

  4. That sums it up wonderfully. Far too much of what gets called “science” runs like this: (1) Start with a false hypothesis, with non-scientific motivations behind it, and refuse to consider alternatives. (2) Get baffled when actual evidence doesn't line up with it. (3) Spend a lot of energy hypothetically explaining *why* the evidence doesn't line up, managing to make yourself sound smarter and more “scientific” in the process.

  5. I just learned about the hack into CRU yesterday. The hacker has released 61 mb of data, code, and emails from Phil Jones at CRU to and from many people. I have only seen the emails so far and they are staggering. Phil Jones, Michael Mann and others deliberately falsified data to show global warming. I do know that Jim Hansen is doing the same thing as others are trying to check GISS data and are finding some strange inclusions of temperature data there.
    These people should be fired and imprisioned for life.

  6. This is what the expert scients think about C02:

    From: Dave Schimel <[email protected]>
    To: Shrikant Jagtap <[email protected]>
    Subject: RE: CO2
    Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:21:35 -0600 (MDT)
    Cc: franci <franci@xxxxxxxxx.[email protected]>, Benjamin Felzer <[email protected]>, Mike Hulme <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Mike MacCracken <[email protected]>

    I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working
    with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are
    scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines.
    You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense
    realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios
    provided by the synthesis team.

    If you want to do 'realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity
    analyses bracketing possible trajectories. We do not and cannot not and
    must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are
    ultimatley a political decision (except in the sense that reserves and
    resources provide an upper bound).

    'Advice' will be based on a mix of different approaches that must reflect
    the fact that we do not have high coinfidence in GHG projections nor full
    confidence in climate ystem model projections of consequences.

    Dave

  7. In my opinion, while climate models are not able to explain abrupt climate change, they are reasonably accurate in explaining past climate states. In other words, while climate models ought not be treated with a high degree of confidence, they ought to be taken seriously. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water OR don't make perfect the enemy of good.

    Too many people think because climate models are essentially educated guesses that their guess is as good as the next person's. WRONG. All people created equal is a political truth, not a scientific one.

  8. This independently verified clean energy technology produces electricity at the astonishingly low cost of 1 cent per kilowatt hour. As reported by both CNN and the New York Times:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1iqa0dSJO0

    Check out above link to a 2 minute youtube video of a CNN report. What are the odds that the independent testimony below is fraudulent (not bloody likely unless you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist)? Here is a silver bullet technology: clean cheap and abundant energy.

    In a joint statement, Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary, Rowan University Meritorious Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Dr. Amos Mugweru, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, and Dr. Peter Jansson P.E., Associate Professor of Engineering said, “In independent tests conducted over the past three months involving 10 solid fuels made by us from commercially-available chemicals, our team of engineering and chemistry professors, staff, and students at Rowan University has independently and consistently generated energy in excesses ranging from 1.2 times to 6.5 times the maximum theoretical heat available through known chemical reactions.”

    Also, check out this article: http://www.nytimes.com/external/venturebeat/200

    Brad Arnold
    St Louis Park, MN, USA
    [email protected]
    http://www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod

  9. In my opinion, while climate models are not able to explain abrupt climate change, they are reasonably accurate in explaining past climate states. In other words, while climate models ought not be treated with a high degree of confidence, they ought to be taken seriously. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water OR don't make perfect the enemy of good.

    Too many people think because climate models are essentially educated guesses that their guess is as good as the next person's. WRONG. All people created equal is a political truth, not a scientific one.

  10. This independently verified clean energy technology produces electricity at the astonishingly low cost of 1 cent per kilowatt hour. As reported by both CNN and the New York Times:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1iqa0dSJO0

    Check out above link to a 2 minute youtube video of a CNN report. What are the odds that the independent testimony below is fraudulent (not bloody likely unless you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist)? Here is a silver bullet technology: clean cheap and abundant energy.

    In a joint statement, Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary, Rowan University Meritorious Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Dr. Amos Mugweru, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, and Dr. Peter Jansson P.E., Associate Professor of Engineering said, “In independent tests conducted over the past three months involving 10 solid fuels made by us from commercially-available chemicals, our team of engineering and chemistry professors, staff, and students at Rowan University has independently and consistently generated energy in excesses ranging from 1.2 times to 6.5 times the maximum theoretical heat available through known chemical reactions.”

    Also, check out this article: http://www.nytimes.com/external/venturebeat/200

    Brad Arnold
    St Louis Park, MN, USA
    [email protected]
    http://www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod