Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

Here I was thinking "good news", then I saw it was from the daily mail.

ren wrote: Here I was thinking "good news", then I saw it was from the daily mail.

I hope that isn't judging something before reading the article

I mentioned on some other thread that I like to read the end first to know what to expect from the content.

Here's the end:

So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels.

True. I have lived in the french alps and have witnessed the yearly shrinking of glaciers. My partner comes from a region of africa where there are deserts which are noticeably getting bigger every year as well. So there is a warming of sorts that I can observe, and burning fossil fuel is known to emit CO2. Nothing new learned there.

But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.

Ah. that word: "but".
So that whole massive article's purpose is to come to the conclusion that the government should do less. For the record, the king of England identified a problem with pollution in London 700 years ago, and banned coal fires. I find the whole apathy regarding the pollution issue to be sickening, and would be pleased to literally piss on anyone involved in the "It's OK the pollution issue is overrated" lobby.

So no, I didn't read the article. I can predict it to be a pile of garbage that attempts to make the following points:

-climate science harms the economy.
-climate scientists are liars who can only see what they want to see.
-When we read the data the way scientists dont read the data, the data is flawed.
-Eeew all of this is financed by taxpayer's money.

All this documented by quotes from various scientists and officials which are factual, yet turned in a way that can only come to the pre-determined article's conclusion. (which is basically "Yes climate scientists you're right, but we dont think it's as bad as you think so why dont you fuck off and let us make more money instead.")

'Took you long enough to come back after a... what, SEVEN month hiatus?' Tom sneered at Jack. She ignored him in favor of the article.

"Another dumbox who takes the phrase 'Global warming' WAY too literally." She mumbled, more to herself, "Kendalina, when do you think people will start using the same term that scientists use to refer to the problem: Global Climate Change?"

Kendalina looked up from what she'd been browsing -- a series of documents about the sorry political status in the US candidate's race.

'Probably when members of the US Congress are allowed to use medical terms for female genitalia without getting banned.' Ah. In other words, not anytime soon, 'This bugging you, girly-girl?'

"...It's just..." Jack sighed, "I've SEEN this argument before: Well, if global warming is true, why do we still have winter? They THINK they're being clever and smart, but they're really just twisting terms and then finding data to back it up. It's not smart, it's not scientific, it's just immature. And... these are ADULTS. Are we REALLY that immature as a society that people can make the childish form of 'proof' into a mainstream perspective?"

Kendalina gave her a Look.

"Oh. Right."

Hehehe, everything with a grain of salt, right? The earth warms, it cools, it warms again. Not too surprising. I've always thought the global warming scare was overrated, but I do agree changes can be made. Maybe not blanketing the map with wind turbines (ehhh!) but using more solar or thermal power. How easy would it be to slap some solar panels on your roof? Maybe not thaaat easy because few do it, but probably not too hard.

The one thing I wish, would be to change how water is "owned" in my country. How stupid can we be to let another state own another states water rights? And all those damns (power good, tiny rivers maybe not so good). Our home river use to be a mile wide (100+ years ago) now it's barely strong enough to float an inner tube.

Though I did have to laugh at the comment about how this newer study was released quietly. Nobody in the spotlight ever admits mistakes.

The Earth has been getting warmer for a long time. And its cooled on several occasions as well. Several of the mass extinctions in Earth's past were caused by radical climate change without human intrusion. In recent history farmers have noticed warming trends for hundreds of years. What I'm saying is global warming isn't news, but it is still a relevant issue. And there is very strong evidence that in the last hundred yeas it has increased. However, the idea that it is exclusively humans doing it seems a bit flawed.

BUT, and this is a big one, anyone who denies that we as humans are absolutely crushing our planet is just not paying attention. The increase in the speed of climate change is only one small part. We need to start paying more attention to it or we are going to screw ourselves over before we have a chance to find another planet to screw over. Air pollution, soil pollution, chemicals in the ecosystems, hormones in the water, water pollutions, destruction of the reefs, destruction of the rain forests, chemicals in everything with no idea what the long term effects will be. Its pretty damn awful.

I'm with Ren, I'd gladly watch him piss on someone and clap.

Good lord! That is so aggressive, the whole pissing thing. Ewww. :sick:

The thing is, our planet is a lot more resilient than we give it credit for. Extinctions, weather changes, erosion, pollution, etc. happen ALL the time and we're still here. Volcanoes pollute, we pollute, fish pollute...(of course, seagulls trapped in pop plastic is pretty sad).

I'm not sure how factual this is, but I've heard talk about how in hundreds/thousands of years, old garbage dumps could contain many precious materials. Anyways, even if we “destroy” the earth for life forms such as us, I’m sure the planet won’t give two hoots. It’ll keep floating in space until asteroids bombard it or the sun takes it with it when it dies.

I agree the rock we stand on probably will not care, but to me the planet's value lies in its biodiversity - a system humans are part of. So far it is the only example of life known to exist, anywhere ever. Even if there is life all over the universe... it is still where humanity arose and will always be unique in its diversity and evolution. Not to mention the biosphere is more complex then anything humanity has ever created so lets not be too quick to throw it in the useless basket.

Whenever a species/organism has no predator, limited space and limited resources; its population climbs rapidly to a peak where it dies, most usually complete extinction within that environment of what was the peak species/organism. Most of us here will likely see population double from where it is right now before we join the Force.

Depending on the scale, the factors change but the type of conditions and results seem to remain the same. At the petri dish level its mutation due to overcrowding, corruption of food supply with pollution, and exhaustion of resources. I'm sure humanity will milk every last drop out of this planet because we all think we are so smart, but we already know that the wrong sort of virus could wipe us all off the face of the planet in a couple of months.

There should be no illusion that this is a time this planet has never seen before, and considering one of the observations of biology about this very type of event, we should be taking things as a global community a bit more seriously. I'm taking about population growth in a closed system (Earth) not climate change, as that just seems part of natures systems to balance energy entering the atmosphere, but if it makes society progress in the right direction then I guess its a good thing.

It just seems logical to look at the rate of population growth and imagine it (at least) directly proportional to an increase in environmental damage through deforestation, pollution, overpopulation pressures on food supply and conflict. All these things tend to facilitate disease, which is probably also mutating at an increasing rate similar to population growth as the opportunities for it to spread and mutate also increase. Have a look at the graph and consider what it really means beyond the obvious;



So for me climate change is interesting and perhaps reflective of the population growth, but there are more important issues out there right now, resolving conflict, providing health and nutrition and improving education so people can participate in wealth creation. Population growth is going to happen no matter what, so we have to try and stay ahead of the other curves which population growth also represents. Ignorance and greed are the risks, and when people start thinking that greasing the wheels of business means leaving some fat for the next bloke instead of corruption to achieve illegal or unethical advantage, then we might have a hope.

You are correct. That being said I'd like my species to continue on.


ADDITION: I agree with the above poster, we do have more pressing problems.