Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

U.N. Report Authors Struggle With Global Cooling Trend

Climate change believers say the heat is being locked in oceans

September 20, 2013

STOCKHOLM (AP) — Researchers working on a landmark U.N....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Sep-20-13 4:49 AM

I've done study on climate since the 70s,predicted global warming to the exact year yet not month and then predicted it would last aprox 30 yrs and then predicted the start of global cooling to exact year which was this year but not month yet turns out it started in March.

I have a forumla which proves how this works and have offered it to only the US government once they see proof in the next 3-5 years from Space of the Arctic Ice mass having grown outside all 79 levels. I will be charging a two million fee to save trillions for the government for my decades of work after taxes.

The bottom line is the earth cools then warms on avg. about every 30 years on small phases like change of seasons and is normal. There are mid sized phases and large phases that are unlike these small phases and we have been in once since the last Ice Age and are going to trend back to another Ice Age in about 500 years.

It's the Sun & PDO, not ENSO that signal it.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 5:47 AM

The IPCC (International Panel of Climate Crooks) need to come clean on the whole story here. Their predictionw were OFF by a factor of 15!

Which means instead of 0.3 C rise in 15 years they got 0.02C. Now that is beyond the resolution of their equipment which says there IS no global warming.

EVERY SINGLE PREDICTION they have ever MADE has not come true!

If you had a stock broker giving you investment advice and you lose money 75 out of 75 times, you would have to have your HEAD examined to invest for the 76th time!!!

Scientist NOW know that warming CAUSES an in increase in CO2 NOT the other way around. There is a bout an 800 year LAG in the nature increase in CO2 about 800 years AFTER the temperature begins to rise.

Also scientist NOW know that the effects of CO2 are logarithmic, not linear. So if you DOUBLE the CO2, you do not double the effects, only log(base 10)2= 0.3 increase.

AGW is a myth, a RELIGION!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 7:49 AM

Look-up the accuracy of weather forecasting and then tell me that I should "believe" the voodoo science that is predicting the Climate 50 years from now...

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 8:38 AM

The IPCC is addicted to Lieagra!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 8:44 AM

Global warming became a political buzzword for liberals and thereby dooming the issue to the political junkyard. When the concept became political, then of course it would be opposed and there are other scientific facts that disagree, not so much with the concept that it can occur but to the exaggeration, for political purposes. The over dramatization of the issue, the crass politics, the demand that you must believe this hurts the idea of warming and retards efforts to reverse it. The environment is in danger as much from the phonies who highjacked the issue for partisan polliical gain, as it is from the people who are actually doing things that could harm the planet's climate. Climate change is real, the severity and blame game is not.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 9:40 AM

good thing they shut down those coal fired power plants.they were running when i was a kid and it still got cold then.if pollution would have killed it would have been during WW11 when the whole world was being polluted.nobody cares to live forever.this global warming has been a scam from the gets cold and it gets hot.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 12:46 PM

Well, at least it is a slight improvement on past WI articles re: climate change. Now the paper seems to be acknowledging that 1. global warming is a reality, 2. Warming rates have slowed but not reversed, and 4. the consensus is that humans are playing a substantial role in the process. The reporter also presents the consensus that the recent warming slowdown is a minor blip in the overall process and is probably driven by anomalies related to heat temporarily trapped in ocean depth. The real bottom line is that climate change poses a critical challenge for human societies and will have a major impact on our future.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 12:47 PM

opps, change "4" to "3".

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 1:58 PM

Dawg, I've come to the conclusion you did not learn English with the same dictionary I did. My conclusions from this article is that people that make a living off claiming there is human induced climate change are struggling to explain what has actually happened to the climate, versus what their models predicted. They are also trying to block publication of that information. I see an article that includes information that is contradictory to your claims. I see an article that ignores the fact that single point data from weather stations that existed before 1930 show it was hotter in the 30s than now, and the climate had significant reactions that have not reoccurred. Ever hear of the Dust Bowl?

Pictures from Danish government archives show much of the Greenland coast was ice-free then. It isn't now.

So explain how from the 30s to the 70s, while human activity was growing by leaps and bounds, the world was COOLING?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 2:11 PM

Like almost all human activity, the real point is "follow the money". Most governments have adopted climate change for political and monetary reasons. Green is cute and cuddly, and carbon taxes raise money. Most climate research is government funded. I have met very few academics that will do studies that show there is no problem, and no further research is needed.

But then there's Jim Lovelock. 90+ years old, one of the inventors of the science of climatology, the originator of the Gaia living-planet concept.

He says you and algore and his ilk are full of hooey. He is a skeptic, not a denier, but he sees nothing like the claims of NASA and UN groups actually happening. He further said it's just as likely for a new ice age as continued heating.

BTW, in general, heating is inconvenient, cold kills. Far more people worldwide freeze to death than die of heat problems.

Also, have you heard a large group of NASA astronauts, including most of the living Apollo group, h

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 2:14 PM

You guys really have to put the stop back in for comment length.

A significant group of NASA astronauts, including most of the remaining Apollo group, have sent a letter to the NASA administrator denouncing the junk science the agency is publishing.

But I guess ex-astronauts are just ignorant denier hicks.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 5:26 PM

I would like to complement the WI for this recent article on climate change. The paper has stepped beyond the purely political ideology and presented the science that is supported by the vast majority (95+%) of credible climate scientists. Obviously, the debate is far from over. There is still the questions of the degree of natural warming vs. human generated, most effective means of mitigation, politically and economically practical options to deal with the likely challenges, adjustments necessary to deal with environmental and social impacts, etc. However, if the WI has the courage to confront the evidence supporting climate change and acknowledge its reality hopefully others on this forum will follow their lead and move the discussion on.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 6:03 PM

The not so deep dark secret of Global Warming aka "Climate Change" is it all about THE MONEY.

1) The US government spends $4 BILLION per year for Global Warming research. If it doesn't exist, about 600 "climate scientists" would have to find a REAL job.

2) Al Gore, General Electric, Siemens, etc. are making BILLIONS on selling "green products" that have no market value otherwise, or carbon credits like Al Gore, etc.

3) Third World countries expect to get BILLIONS from the 'rich' Nations like USA and Germany as bribe money to FIX their coal-fired plants.

It is a big SCAM of JUNK SCIENCE along with crony capaitalists to redistribute wealth.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 6:07 PM

Wheezerdawg keeps repeating lie after lie after lie that he cannot back up with anything other than his mouth.

Over 30000 scientists have signed a petition renouncing global warmin, most former astronauts and NASA Employee have signed another petitions, etc. etc.

Only a TINY TINY HANDFUL of "so called climate scientists" who are on the take from AGW grants support this junk science and THAT IS IT!!!

It is the scam of the century and a disgrace to real science.

Climate Science is Politicial Science with no more data to support it than Astrology or Numerology.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 6:09 PM

No consensus Wheezerdawg, only among a couple of hundred crooked scientists on the take.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 6:14 PM

Here is one of Wheezerdawg “climate scientists”, the godfather of Global Warming.

The NASA scientist who once claimed the Bush administration tried to "silence" his global warming claims is now accused of receiving more than $1.2 million from the very environmental organizations whose agenda he advocated.


The lawsuit claims James Hansen privately profited from his public job in violation of federal ethics rules, and NASA allowed him to do it because of his influence in the media and celebrity status among environmental groups, which rewarded him handsomely the last four years.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 6:15 PM


Gifts, speaking fees, prizes and consulting compensation include:

-- A shared $1 million prize from the Dan David Foundation for his "profound contribution to humanity." Hansen's cut ranged from $333,000 to $500,000, Horner said, adding that the precise amount is not known because Hansen's publicly available financial disclosure form only shows the prize was "an amount in excess of $5,000."

-- The 2010 Blue Planet prize worth $550,000 from the Asahi Glass Foundation, which recognizes efforts to solve environmental issues.

-- The Sophie Prize for his "political activism," worth $100,000. The Sophie Prize is meant to "inspire people working towards a sustainable future."

-- Speaking fees totaling $48,164 from a range of mostly environmental organizations.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 6:15 PM

Follow the money!:

-- Speaking fees totaling $48,164 from a range of mostly environmental organizations.

-- A $15,000 participation fee, waived by the W.J. Clinton Foundation for its 2009 Waterkeeper Conference.

-- $720,000 in legal advice and media consulting services provided by The George Soros Open Society Institute. Hansen said he did not take "direct" support from Soros but accepted "pro bono legal advice."

Federal rules prohibit government employees from receiving certain types of income outside their job. Employees are required to file Form 17-60 in writing before any outside activity. And annually, they're required to submit Form SF 278, after receiving outside compensation.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 6:17 PM

Note that "climate Scientist" James Hansen got $3/4 of MILLION dollars from GEORGE SOROS, Democratic Party Financier and activist!!!!


0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 6:21 PM

The earth is about 15 degrees C COLDER than 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs ruled the earth.

At that there were NO MEN and NO SUVS and NO COAL POWER PLANTS.

But CO2 was 2000 ppm.

EXPLAIN, Wheezerdawg______________???

Global Warming is the just the hubris of the Baby Boomers who think man is the center of universe and can control everything (while putting a bunch of money in their pockets!)

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 8:13 PM

Good to see that Wheeldog acknowledges that slightly over half of the climate warming is due AGW & the other half is natural (according to the IPCC AR5 leak). My question is: Should the World Government only mitigate the man caused portion? Isn't natural warming just as bad as AGW?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 8:20 PM

dah, you would really have enjoyed sitting in judgement of Galileo.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 8:21 PM

BigMike, sounds good to me. Want to join the team?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 8:33 PM

Fascinating. The ability to totally ignore reality even when it's right in front of you.

Dawg, there was a Saturday morning cartoon in my youth called Tom of T.H.U.M.B. The hero was fighting against a cabal called M.A.D., a group of "evil scientists, bent on destroying the Earth for their own gain." Even as a kid I realized that was silly, since once the earth was destroyed there would be nothing left for them. But I really think that's how you see people like me.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-20-13 8:47 PM

Wheeldog: After hearing all the gloom and doom from the warmists, isn't natural warming just as bad as AGW?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 29 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.

I am looking for: