Has global warming stopped?
The New Statesman:
Does the emotionally loaded term "global warming" mean "Humanity is recklessly endangering the environment by releasing excessive greenhouses gases into the air," or does it mean "The earth is now warmer than it was when glaciers covered most of Europe and North America"?
With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 - there has been no warming over the 12 months.I've blogged on this topic before (pro-warming, pro-debate, pro-conspiracy). It's been interesting watching the way journalists (some of them committed environmental activists) have constructed the public understanding of the scientific debate. Politicians, business executives, and leaders of environmental groups can all be excused for their rhetorical excesses, but not the reporters.
But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.
The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming - the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.
Does the emotionally loaded term "global warming" mean "Humanity is recklessly endangering the environment by releasing excessive greenhouses gases into the air," or does it mean "The earth is now warmer than it was when glaciers covered most of Europe and North America"?
2 Comments
Leave a comment
Recent Related Entries
Collaborative Authorship Made EasyA good overview of the issues relating to using Wikis in the classroom. From the NCTE Inbox Blog:The benefits for collaborative writing should be obvious. Wikis allow multiple authors to edit a text easily. While the video doesn't discuss it,...
Does anybody remember that Facebook thing?
A group of Seton Hill graduates who bonded through the SHU blogosphere in 2003 and 2004 have continued to use their blogs, and there are some newer students who have made an effort to continue their blogging this summer. Since...
Go Ahead, Steal My Car
The Chronicle Review ponders the effects of Grand Theft Auto IV:You need to be honest with yourself. Go outside and find a locked car -- or go to the back alley where missile launchers hover in a glowing light waiting for...
Above the Law?
Inside Higher Ed:Student newspaper advisers are something of an endangered species these days. They often get caught in the middle when administrators and student journalists clash over content, and in more than a few cases on college campuses in recent...
Using Text Analysis Tools for Comparison: Mole & Chocolate Cake « Digital Scholarship in the Humanities
Lisa Spiro posts an interesting analysis:I wanted to get a quick visual sense of the two texts, so I plugged them into Wordle, a nifty word cloud generator that enables you to control variables such as layout, font and color....
I'll tell you what it means.
It means whatever happened, it's bad an big bad evil "consumer society" caused it.
They've argued that same point for decades and only in the last 30 years has their theory been "man-made global warming" - and really, only because that scared people more than their other ideas and because, for a while, it did warm (not that that hasn't happened countless times in the past - we see retreating Alpine glaciers but the glacial retreat is revealing archaeological finds, obviously from periods when glaciers had retreated further).
So their stated method by which mankind causes everything is global warming, and no matter what happens, it's the result of man-made global warming.
Here is an example of how global warming causes everything:
In 2003 and 2004, when hurricane damage was up because of an increase in coastal development, and in 2005 when hurricanes were more frequent and more powerful, and in 2006 when they thought the trend in 2005 would continue, they said global warming causes more frequent and more powerful hurricanes:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Science/story?id=923864
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-5817067-7.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181
But then a funny thing happened. The trend reversed – hurricanes, as anyone not living in a cave has noticed, have since become less frequent and weaker. In reality hurricanes follow 25-30-year cycles, always have, and they thought there were a few more years left on the bad side so they “predicted” more bad hurricane seasons and said that that’s what global warming caused. A few mild seasons means the cycle has shifted and most of the next 20 will also be mild.
They don’t want to hear “hey Al, where’d the hurricanes go” for the next 20 years.
So, as if on cue, they’ve changed their story to, you guess it, hurricanes are made weaker and less frequent by…. (drum roll please)….. global warming!
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2008/01/23/claim_global_warming_decreases_hurricanes/5230/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/23/tech/main3742196.shtml
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23640879.htm
This is just another example, along with polar bear populations declining / growing, seas getting saltier / less salty, snowfall declining / increasing, and even warming versus cooling itself, the only consistency in anything the warmers have to say is this equation:
X happens, they say global warming causes X.
Y, the opposite of X, happens, they say global warming causes Y.
And X or Y, more people are figuring out that it's all BS.
Please don’t say “Global Warming”; say “Climate Change” instead. That way we can take credit for anything. Read on:
http://penshorn.com/2008/05/11/attention-activists--please-do-not-use-the-term-global-warming.aspx