Should we spend a trillion dollars on "Global warming" when, in fact, the earth is cooling?

Question

Global warming has stopped!

Recent scientific studies may make 2007 go down in history as the "tipping point" of man-made global warming fears. A progression of peer-reviewed studies have been published which serve to debunk the United Nations on climate change.

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (LINK), noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped.

“The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %),” (LINK)

In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the obvious: global warming has stopped. (LINK) The UK Met Office acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures, but in an apparent attempt to keep stoking man-made climate alarm, the Met Office is now promoting more unproven dire computer model projections of the future. They now claim climate computer models predict “global warming will begin in earnest in 2009” because greenhouse emissions will then overtake natural climate variability.

Southern Hemisphere is COOLING

UN scientist Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007, explained on August 6, 2007 that the Southern Hemisphere is cooling. “In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature has slowly but surely declined in the last few years. The city of Buenos Aires in Argentina received several centimeters of snowfall in early July, and the last time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918! Most of Australia experienced one of its coldest months of June this year. Several other locations in the Southern Hemisphere have experienced lower temperatures in the last few years. Further, the sea surface temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998, according to a recent world-wide analysis of ocean surface temperatures," Dr. Khandekar explained. (LINK)

Meteorologist Joseph Conklin, who launched the skeptical website www.ClimatePolice.com in 2007, recently declared the “global warming movement [is] falling apart.”

“A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the real global warming won’t start until 2009,” Conklin wrote in an August 10, 2007 blog post on his website. (LINK)

Climate models made by unlicensed 'software engineers'

But the credibility of these computer model predictions took a significant hit in June 2007 when Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well," Renwick conceded. (LINK)

Another high-profile UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, recently echoed Renwick’s sentiments about climate models by referring to them as “story lines.”

“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios,” Trenberth wrote in journal Nature’s blog on June 4, 2007. He also admitted that the climate models have major shortcomings because “they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess." (LINK)

IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," declared “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” in an April 10, 2007 article. (LINK)

“All [UN IPCC does] is make ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates,'” Gray noted.

In addtion, meteorologist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, recently compared scientists who promote computer models predicting future climate doom to unlicensed “software engineers."

"I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society," Tennekes wrote on February 28, 2007. (LINK)



Should we spend a trillion dollars on "Global warming" when, in fact, the earth is cooling?

Answer 1

It isn't cooling. This is the definitive data.



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif



Year to year the weather jumps around, but the long term trend is undeniable. Carter's statements that warming has stopped, based on one unusual year, 1998, are laughable.



None of the reputable "skeptical" scientists make this claim anymore. It's absurd and unscientific.

Answer 2

A big mistake the world has made regarding global warming is to give the people you refer to the platform to make decisions they aren't totally qualified to make.



Meteorologist are responding to the greenhouse gas theory being presented to them and I have a problem with the CO2 trapping heat theory as well. It doesn't mean we don't have a problem, it means the science is missing.



At the same time, the globe is warming and we need to figure it out. The first error was determining that man made development was insignificant. It is assumed that buildings absorb the sun's rays and hold the heat in the area.



Surface Temperature Monitoring represented buildings were insignificant to climate change except the tool used for determining that is a thermostat.



We used the most advanced thermal imaging in the world to validate building and development performance. We did the research with the applicable building professionals.



Meteorologists are missing critical information before they voice an opinion. Buildings on the surface of the planet are generating extreme heat they aren't designed for and that temperature can get close to boiling temperature.



Meteorologists need to input into their atmospheric considerations the fact that every building is generating extreme heat. It isn't for the Meteorologist to determine if buildings can do that, this is my area of expertise.



How many buildings in North America or the world? Millions and millions of buildings as well as their development generating massive atmospheric heat. That would change hydrological cycles and what happens to that heat when it rises into the atmosphere? Generating constant heat changes the equation, they couldn't see it.



Let's keep the economic angle on the environment simple.

1. The environment isn't about tree hugging, it allows you to breathe or drink water.



2. If we don't look after the environment that sustains all life, we die



3. We are already spending a trillion dollars, why not do it and not impact the planet that will let your children breathe?



In regards to the earth cooling? Do an experiment and make an eco friendly environment room in your home. Have fish, aquariums, plants, pets, icebergs and people. The temperature in your room is 68 degrees F. Then we bring in big 200 degree heaters and the room will warm.



The big heat dumps we are doing throughout the world is changing weather world wide. Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatgain.html and see a small example of buildings generating heat when they are designed to fluctuate with atmospheric temperature.



Go to http://www.thermoguy.com and scroll down to the picture of the fetus. Click on the link and see the study on polluted newborns with a toxicity ratio of 100%.



How do babies that have never taken a breath get banned pesticides inside them?

Answer 3

What an ignorant load of crap.



1998 was an anomalously hot year due to El Nino. If you draw a line between 1998 and Present, you can make it look like the planet is cooling. That's not a scientific test, to say the least.



If you do a statistical analysis and examine the current warming trend, the planet obviously continues to warm.



http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1998.jpg



Bob Carter is either stupid or a liar.

Answer 4

Lol. So, Bob Carter thinks the warming stopped in 1998 does he? Then I think I'd like him to explain this:



http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1998.jpg



That's the trend for the past nine years calculated using both the HADCRU3 and GISTEMP data sets.



Sting.



Edit: Also, here's the trend calculated from the MSU satellite data since 1979:



http://data.co2science.org/tmp/071110091324.gif



Ouch.

Answer 5

No, no need trillion dollars, only 1 dollar every time u fill your gas. If everyone is concerned about global warming, take action. Plant some trees in front of the house, save fuel, use public transportation and here I can save fuel using this product. Check this website www.saveandwealthy.myffi.biz Besides saving fuel, it can reduce emissions. My friend even checked the CO carbonmonoxide, after using it, very low,only 0.068%. GO SAVE THE WORLD from POLLUTION

Answer 6

Absolutely not, these delusional mindless automatons spouting rhetoric such as post peer reviewed literature, should be held criminally accountable for the damage they are causing to the infrastructure of civilization. There is not one single class anyone could take anywhere in the world where a reasonable fundamental understanding of climate is taught. Until climatologists actually predict something right, they cannot be trusted.

Answer 7

Global warming has not stopped--it is getting worse. That is proven scientific fact.



The fact that some crackpots post BS like this on the web doesn't make it valid--nor does it mean there is any "debate." There isn't. And tripe like this stuff you've been gullible enough to swollow isn't going to make anyone take those kooks seriously.



As for your question-no one is suggesting we "spend a trillion dollars to stop global warrming." That kind of bull is jst propaganda from the special interests--mostly the oil commpanies. the reality is that oil, coal, etc. are obsolete. Modern technology is cleaner, cheaper--and investment in wind, solar, etc. is already creating thousands of jobs and helping people save money on energy.



But try to tell the "skeptics" that. They simply are so ignorant they don't get it: fossil fuels are on the way out. That may happen a little faster because of efforts to stop global warming. But its going to happen either way.

Answer 8

Actually one trillion dollars a year is pretty close to the what the Stern Report is asking for which is the most often quoted paper on the subject.



Some politicians like the sound of that because it involves raising taxes a lot.



Imagine what that amount of money could do for real problems like global poverty or preventable disease.

Answer 9

Global warming is a huge problem. It can not cooled down overnight. A lot of years must be down to cure the sickening Mother Earth.



Thanks for asking. Have a great day!

Answer 10

"Most of Australia experienced one of its coldest months of June this year."



This statement is untrue. This June was the coldest since 1983. The average June temperature in Victoria is 11.4c

June 2007 average temp was 13.3



And NSW's coldest June was last year. Coldest since 1982 but also 2 degrees warmer than average (and this is the average calculated from thee late 19th century to now.



refer this link for Australia's average temperature variation from average for the last 96 years and tell me if the temperatures are trending up or down.

Answer 11

The truth about "peer review"



While passing the peer-review process is often considered in the scientific community to be a certification of validity, it is not without its problems. Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986.[6] He remarks, "There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print."[7]



Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability -- not the validity -- of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." [8]

Answer 12

Yawn.



Another skeptic who's too lazy to do research. Next time, cite something peer-reviewed and you might get an intelligent reply. (What's that? Can't find any peer-reviewed literature to support your viewpoint? What does that tell you?)



Reposting junk from political websites cuts no ice with me, nor with any other scientist.

Answer 13

I live in california. So sometimes it is warm.

But,

And I am sorry but thats was to much stuff to read so much.. but.

I went to San Francisco in the summer when it was supposed to be warm. Guess what, your right because it was real coold and I think thats what you mean.



I think it started when we used too much gas and we also should have better abortions for teenagers

and kill old people and also stupid people unless they are cool or on TV



I like Ali Gore, but he shouldn't have sex with Mrs. Clinton. Because of ethics and stuff.

Answer 14

If the earth were indeed warming ( its happened before) it has very little to do with human activity in fact. A single St. Helens size volcanic eruption puts out as more Co2 than all human activity in one year. Humans shouldn't flatter themselves to much. Holes in the ozone also happen periodically throughout the ages.



A good theory to look into is the idea that the United Nations needs to make us believe in global teamwork, so they make people believe that it's possible for humans to stop the warming so that we come to like the idea of a global village.

Answer 15

hey mr.knows too much that data u are talking about is cathastrofically edxpired sorry if that disapointed u

Answer 16

i think we should spemd. may be it is cooling but we all know that global warming is still there. we should spend alot until global warming is nowhere. if we we will not spend, we also suffer iin the end.

Answer 17

i didnt read the whole thing because i dont want to but i do not think we need to spend billions of dollars on it because humans arent the only reson and it isnt for the worst and it isnt happening as fast as they say!!!!!

Answer 18

I think it is all just a bunch of ridiculous theories, and our beautiful planet will stay just as healthy as it is, unless we continue to poison our air and environment. I don't think it is cooling or heating, and I don't think we should spend any money on trying to stop any of these things.

Answer 19

Should we waste time reading your nonsense and answer your question?

Answer 20

I had my hopes up for warmer temps but, you are probably right. It is all about the money.

Answer 21

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!......................



we human cause the global warming ...

Answer 22

G’day Ubi Caritas,

Let’s play the debate game, shall we?

Should we spend a trillion dollars? Well, it’s going to be spent anyway, so if what you’re saying is true, what harm could come from increasing the efficiency and independency of our energy needs and technologies? It’s better than spending a trillion dollars invading a country with no ties to terrorism, just to steal oil and Americanise the Middle East with democracy, spending money on the development of machines designed solely to kill, maim, injure, demolish, destroy, and raze everything they come into contact with. On the other hand, millions of people will be employed to improve how and why we use energy, instead of wasting it; these technologies could one day progress to the point where inter-stellar travel is possible, which subsequently increases the human contextual field of existence. Without efficient energy management, such endeavours would probably be impossible.

Should we spend it on “global warming”? No. The words “global warming” have a very negative connotation, which brings feelings of rage and embarrassment for having done all this damage to our only home. The truth is we are not to blame for what we have done, no one is at fault, or guilty of anything, and no one deserves to be judged, condemned, or executed for causing global warming.

We should be spending our money on energy management, climate stabilization, Gaia harmony, and learning interdependency with our planet. This way, regardless of what happens in the near and/or distant future, both future generations and us will have a clear and accurate understanding of our place in this existence, and of the function of cause and effect created by our every action as it relates to our environment.

“… the earth is cooling?” I think not. Raw data observations recorded at Honolulu Meteorological Station in Hawaii over the last 30 years shows an undeniably clear trend toward higher average temperatures. Hawaii is chosen because it is furthest from any localised changes in temperature. Alongside those readings are CO2 PPM readings, that have been increasing almost every year consistently since before 1948. Again, I quote Hawaii’s readings because it’s not near any major emitters of CO2 on a global scale. This shows that the planet is warming up, and that one of the greenhouse drivers (CO2) hasn’t stopped increasing (on average) since before records began being recorded there.

Paleo-climate scientist Bob Carter has testified before the US Senate many times, because he is willing and prepared to allow corporate interests to influence his findings for a price, however when confronted regarding climate change on issues that he had not been told what to say, he either refused to comment (pleading the fifth), or spoke his own personal opinion that climate change drivers are increasing in PPM in the atmosphere. Other essays, written both before and after the one quoted, indicate his belief that global warming has not stopped, but actually presents a grave and immediate threat to human life on Earth.

The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that ground-based warming readings are inconclusive due to heat pools in urban areas, particularly industrial areas. Inconclusive does not mean there is no change; it just means the change is indeterminate or unknown.

Lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show that thermostatically the number, size, and intensity of thermal activity has increased dramatically, as a result of the ground based heat pools. Comparatively speaking, the lower atmosphere in areas of little or no human activity show a small yet obvious increase in average temperature relative to previous years and decades, and this is because a large percentage of the thermal activity radiates out into space and is wasted. Unfortunately, because these thermals occupy a large area of atmosphere, accurate average temperature readings in urban areas are deceptive at best, and often off the charts.

In August 2007, the UK Met Office did not concede that global warming has stopped. They conceded that for a short period one of their oldest and local-only computer models showed a flat lining of temperatures based on temperature readings in their region only, which is being affected by the slowing down of the North Atlantic Current (Thermohaline Conveyor), which brings warmth to the region from the tropics. Recently they have updated their system to include an additional model that was developed by scientists from the IPCC, that takes these changes into account, and have found that UK average temperatures continue to increase in the warm months, and are inconclusive during the cold months when it is sometimes colder and sometimes warmer. Forecasts predict that if this trend continues, the UK could become uninhabitable within a few decades.

A similar thing is happening in the southern hemisphere. Because 60% of the Earth land mass is in the Northern Hemisphere, it means that land areas in the South are more susceptible to oceanic thermohaline current changes. In addition, the clear felling of hundreds of football fields worth of the Amazon rainforest every year has led to mid-level atmospheric changes in the region. One of the only two major lungs of our planet is being destroyed systematically by the mining and farming interests of North America, and the South American Governments desire to reduce foreign debt. The Buenos Aires snowfall is the result of these two variations coinciding to produce extreme unforeseeable circumstances. Such extremes are one of the major forecasted side effects of climate change, and are expected to not only continue but actually get a lot worse, and not just in Buenos Aires, but everywhere, and I really mean EVERYWHERE on Earth.

As an Australian myself, I and other people living here that have answered your question can say without any doubt that average temperatures here have increased during all four seasons, and in addition the seasons come earlier than each previous year. Our seasonal cycle is more than a month ahead of the 1990 seasonal cycle, and this is explained in Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth. This has had a far more detrimental effect on the breeding cycles of animals with a lower generational cycle than insects, including but not limited to all birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, fish, and other sea creatures.

The group of British scientists that concluded that the real global warming won’t start until 2009, were referring to the fact that although global warming continues to warm our planet today, solar output in currently declining as part of the thermo-radiative cycle of the sun. NASA recordings from the last few decades shows that around 2009 the suns cycle troughs out and begins to increase, subsequently further increasing the effects of climate change. FYI, the peak is expected in late 2012.

Jim Renwick knows as well as anyone that variability in climate is natural and necessary, which is why we have averaging of statistical recordings. It is almost impossible to account for every influence on an environment as large as the planet with the technology at our disposal, but that doesn’t make climate models any less reliable than tomorrow’s temperature forecast. Predictions are not meant to be perfectly accurate anyway. They are by definition a hypothetical possibility, based on the information we have at the moment, and the best way to convey a prediction is to tell it like a story line, as Kevin Trenberth has said.

You say “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios” yet the dictionary definition of the word prediction is understood to be a what if scenario. The shortcomings of climate models that Trenberth details are not major, because the recovery of the ozone layer could not affect the PPM of CO2 or methane in the atmosphere, or average global temperatures, and forcing agents such as Chloro-flouro-carbons are such a small percentage of emissions globally after the global sanctions on the use of CFCs in aerosols in the western world, that it’s not worth accounting for them.

Dr Vincent Grey is not a climatologist, and works for pacific rim oil interests. He is paid to debunk climate research, and is highly disreputable.

It is true that climate model development is farmed out to software engineers, because the average climatologist doesn’t have the time, patience, knowledge, or experience in software development. When it is done to the specifications set by the climatologists and their peers, it is tested using baseline artificial greenhouse environments before being used for any research on climate change. They do not sell their products to society; they are contracted to develop a program for a specific purpose for a specific organization or government department.



Should we spend a trillion dollars on solving the climate crisis before it’s too late? Well, it’d make a good start toward reducing our ecological footprint on our only home, but I think the governments of the world should get together and write a blank check to the IPCC on the condition that this crisis is averted as soon as possible, regardless of any and all other inconveniences placed on the average human population, including death.



The real question is:

Do you have children?

If not, do you want children one day?

If not, do you care about future generations of your kind?

Do you want them to grow up happy and healthy, and have children of their own?

Do you think they want to grow up happy and healthy, and have children of their own?

Are you willing to risk their future for the sake of a few dollars more per person in taxes per year globally till this crisis is averted?

Is their life worth less to you than a few measly dollars a year in insurance?

If not, why are you here, living on Earth?

Are you here to kill us off?

Do you enjoy killing other people with your propaganda and rhetoric; the same propaganda used to convince people that smoking cigarettes is not dangerous, or that clearing land for pastures doesn’t increase the salinity of the soil?



It’s time to pull our heads out of the sand and look at the damage we’ve done. It’s time to wake up and solve the climate crisis now.