GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

“The warming is taking a break…
There can be no argument about that”

by

So says meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel.  He is also one of Germany’s best-known climatologists.  The facts have begun to overtake the fiction (NBC’s shrill Green Week was undeterred, however).

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

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.”

Now who was it that talked incessantly about “Inconvenient Truths”?   Hmmmm…

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  1. One of my favorite little stories along these lines is the “Arctic ice” issue. Global Warming scienticians screeched that we’d have an ice-free summer. Then reality compelled them to admit that we wouldn’t, and that if anything, the polar ice is thickening:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/23/about-that-arctic-ice-disappearance/

    Unfortunately, there will be another calendar year when the Earth’s temperature statistically rises again – probably soon – and then the eco-commie-fascist media will come roaring back, with “Global Warming is back!” type of stories.

    But it’s good that we at least had this year, where the facts forced some people to question the irrational, agenda-driven dogma that is AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming).

  5. I guess you read the news for what you want out of it, not what’s actually there. If you’d gone on to read the rest of that article, you would see this:

    “Climatologists use their computer models to draw temperature curves that continue well into the future. They predict that the average global temperature will increase by about three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, unless humanity manages to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions…

    The Hadley Center group expects warming to resume in the coming years. “That resumption could come as a bit of a jolt,” says Hadley climatologist Adam Scaife, explaining that natural cyclical warming would then be augmented by the warming effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.”

    But instead, you selectively read, and excerpt, the article to throw enough dust up in the air to justify your own willfully ignorant, do-nothing attitude towards climate change.

    Depressingly disingenuous, but coming from this website, not surprising.

  7. Depressingly disingenuous, but coming from this website, not surprising.

    But we’ve read the same bullshit doom & gloom before, Bill. We were promised that the North Pole would completely melt last summer. We were promised more intense hurricanes from 2005 on. We were promised that, by now, rivers would have dried up and the oceans boiling. We were promised massive tornadoes (somehow without cool air) would ravage the entire country. We were promised drowning polar bears.

    It ain’t happening. When folks call it out as bullshit, the brainless lemming f*cktards wail “depressingly disingenous”. What’s “depressingly disingenous” is, well, YOU.

  8. I also find it interesting that the latest fallback from the climate fascists is to claim that the “natural cyclical warming” will be “enhanced” — when their previous tactic was to deny that such “cyclical warming” ever existed in the first place.

    If warming is “cyclical”, then the fundamental assertion of climate fascism is undercut. William seems not to recognize that he and his leftist pals have been caught in their lies.

  9. Another point, when they started selling “green” sex toys and condoms, there should have told you something about bullshit global warmism is and the suspension of disbelief required.

  12. And, william, “climate change” is a complete bullshit term. The Earth’s entire ecosystem would cease to exist in the ABSENCE of climate change.

    It is called “WEATHER”. And the climate has been changing for billions of years.

    The problem with Gore & his worshippers is their complete and blind arrogance.

  13. 15

    Wow Bruce, thats a really weak response.

    First off, there is a huge difference between climate and weather. Climate refers to the general heat balance of the planet and how it is distributed, and thus the empirical focus is on average regional temperatures and precipitation over extended periods of time. Weather, of course, refers to the localized expression of the overall climate – whether it rains or shines in a particular place. If the climate of the Earth were completely stable, you would still have a normal amount of weather events – water would still evaporate, the wind would still blow, rain would still fall, and when watching this weather it would appear very dynamic.

    Secondly, believe it or not, but those who study climate are aware of the fact that it always changes. All of their models are built on the accumulation of historical data of changes and rates of change. In fact, the reason that you know that it always changes is because they told you so. (they being the climate science community)

    The issue with anthropogenic global warming is the RATE at which warming is occuring. The earth used to be a lot warmer than it is now, or than it will be in 100 years. But it took thousands of years (often times millions) to cycle through these hot periods and cold period. Now we are talking of significant change over decades. That means that it will be impossible for many species to have the time to adapt, and most pertinent to us, will not allow sufficent time for our infrastructure to adapt – ie our coastal cities, our agricultural regions etc.

    And though climate change is a constant in earth’s history, such that it is impossible to image that it wouldnt be occuring (though at a very slow rate), I doubt that ecosystems would die out if the climate were stable. How do you figure that?

  14. Dearest:

    You’re obviously defensive, having been called out on one of the cheapest, most sophomoric tricks of the (right-wing) blogging trade: excerpt the section of an article that seems to support your case, and ignore the part that doesn’t, and hope nobody bothers to follow the link. It’s shoddy hackery and we all know it. Most decent political bloggers (those with an actual commitment to enhancing the understanding of their readers) have grown up from that little gimmick. But then again, you clearly don’t have very high ethical standards when it comes to either journalism or the truth. You throw your little bits of red meat and they eat it up: got to keep them well-fed, got to keep them angry.

    Yes, I can wrap my head around the fact that you’re a climate-change denier. There are plenty of you anti-science “it’s called weather” morons out there. But when you seek to support that claim by linking to an article that in fact says quite the opposite…

    “Climatologists… predict that the average global temperature will increase by about three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, unless humanity manages to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions…” and “The Hadley Center group expects warming to resume in the coming years… (with) natural cyclical warming…augmented by the warming effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.”

    …you’re just plain dishonest. And you’ve said all you need to say about yourself.

    As for the other responses, I can’t quite understand you with all the spittle flying out of your mouth. And I’m not really fluent in “raving idiot,” anyway, so it’s probably not going to work out between us, the whole communication thing. Sorry.

  16. As for the other responses, I can’t quite understand you with all the spittle flying out of your mouth. And I’m not really fluent in “raving idiot,” anyway, so it’s probably not going to work out between us, the whole communication thing. Sorry.

    Well, Bill, it is what it is. You can try to make bullshit look appealing, but it’s still bullshit. You can try with all your might to convince yourself that you aren’t shoveling it and that you’re the smartest person here, but you’re still shoveling bullshit.

    The ray of light is that more and more people are seeing you and yours as a mad pack of monkeys flinging shit everywhere.

    It is what it is and I’m all too happy to tell you instead of coming up with some arrogant, hifalutin way of telling you that it ain’t.

  17. excerpt the section of an article that seems to support your case, and ignore the part that doesn’t, and hope nobody bothers to follow the link. It’s shoddy hackery and we all know it.

    Which is EXACTLY what you did in 18. And you left out this gem:

    Climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf is so convinced that his predictions will be correct in the end that he is willing to back up his conviction with a €2,500 ($3,700) bet. “I will win,” says Rahmstorf.

    His adversary Latif turned down the bet, saying that the matter was too serious for gambling. “We are scientists, not poker players.”

    Nice.

  18. Were is Al Gore’s statement assailing this find? I think we should demand he give back his Oscar. Then we can give it a worthy peson.

    The cycle will keep going – warm – cold – warm – cold

  19. william: could you explain to us just WHY these scientists felt it neccesary to REMOVE the 1940s warming high point and trend from the hockey stick? Or WHY they felt the need to prevent various papers from being included in the IPCC report? Thank you.

  21. So we should keep using our grocery sacks made in Chinese sweat shops and toxic lightbulbs made in other Chinese sweat shops? Perhaps we should get a bunch of those “green” butt-plugs and use them on the cows so they won’t fart anymore, eh?

  22. @25:

    TGC:
    Perhaps we should get a bunch of those “green” butt-plugs and use them on the cows so they won’t fart anymore, eh?

    “Green” butt-plugs?

    Now I’ve heard everything. LOL.

    How does one acquire a ‘green’ butt-plug, pray tell?

    As in … ‘gang’-green?

    Ewww …

  23. But it took thousands of years (often times millions) to cycle through these hot periods and cold period. Now we are talking of significant change over decades.

    Which has happened within recorded human history already; it’s called the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age.

    And by the way, what else was in those emails? Oh yes, the “scientists” talking about how they needed to ignore and eliminate the MWP because it didn’t fit their data.

    So Tano, what do leftist “scientists” like yourself call faking and eliminating data that doesn’t fit your predetermined conclusions? Because as we understand it, it certainly isn’t science.

  25. It should have thrown red flags when they wouldn’t release their data for years and years after being asked for it. Apparently, it did for some but not enough others thought it a problem.