Global Warming: On Hold? (Ooops)

The Discovery Channel ("Global Warming's" premier television cheerleader) ^ | March 2, 2009 | Michael Reilly

[ari-freedom]

“A tautology is a tautology”...is a tautology. :)
4 = 4 is a tautology and so is 2 + 2 = 4.
Sometimes they are trivial and sometimes it takes a little work to realize that the 2 expressions are indeed the same, the definition of a tautology.

[dila813]

stupid sun nut, you “sun is the center of the solar system freaks” are so nuts.

Everyone knows the earth warms due to the exhalation of politicians.

[Magic Fingers]

“Wow... these guys are amazing! THIRTY YEARS of cooling... all the while, still believing that CO2 is the culprit behind potential warming.”

They have faith in the Great Pumpkin’s return.

[theymakemesick]

Or an overabundance of tropical clouds may be reflecting more of the sun's energy than usual back out into space

The sun only gets one mention in the entire article, nust not have been written by an objective writer or scientist. Imagine that.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Still, according to a new study, global warming may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades.

Apparently global warming is far more tricky than previously believed. It's capable of hiding for decades to escape suspicion. Never fear, the intrepid environmentalists who are sworn to defeat global warming will never relent, not even if global warming tries to hide behind the next Ice Age.

[reformedliberal]

“Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive.”

---

Where does the radiative forcing hide out during the 30 years of cooling? I want to go there, now.

This is like saying that if I put hot food directly into the freezer, once it has totally frozen, it’s former heat is still lurking somewhere. I hope it isn’t adjacent to the ice cream.

[CedarDave]

Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he warned that it's just a hiccup, and that humans' penchant for spewing greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us.

"When the climate kicks back out of this state, we'll have explosive warming," Swanson said. "Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive."

It's obvious that no matter the evidence that CO2 is not the culprit, they will not back off their man-caused global warming mantra. Like all politically driven scientists, they won't let new facts change their environmentally driven and biased conclusions.

[runfree]

“global temperatures have flatlined since 2001”

Flatlined? Try DECLINED.

[torchthemummy]

4 = 4 is a tautology and so is 2 + 2 = 4.

I know this is on a tangent but I've always like the simple fact that just because B followed A does not necessarily mean that A caused B. In modern liberal politics it is an oft used, convenient assumption/claim that proves false when examined in detail.

[SomeCallMeTim]

My wife will be pleased if it’s next to the Pralines & Cream.... then, it’ll be easier for her to pick out all the pecans and candy!

These guys are grasping at straws... because, they can see that the WORLD is not believing them anymore.

[colorado tanker]

Obviously, you aren't a scientist. A sophisticated, nuanced understanding of complex computer models reveals beyond doubt that climate has nothing to do with the source of almost all energy in the Solar System, no our climate is driven by a secondary greenhouse gas of which humans generate a very small amount. Care for some Kool-Aid, it makes all clear?

[torchthemummy]

Instead, Swanson and colleague Anastasios Tsonis think a series of climate processes have aligned, conspiring to chill the climate.

"Conspiring" to screw up our socialist political agenda is more like it.

[Allegra]

"I'm a scientist. I do science."

[humblegunner]

Hold on, Betty. Do you mean this has to do with.. science?

[expatpat]

"When the climate kicks back out of this state, we'll have explosive warming," Swanson said.

Sure, Swanson, sure. Why should we believe your wild-assed guesses? You don't have the slightest idea what the temperature is going to be next Sunday, never mind about 30 years from now.

[Gene Eric]

>> "identifying the difference between natural variability (like the occasional March snowstorm) from human-induced change."

>> "and that humans' penchant for spewing greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us."

Michael Reilly, you're a funny spewin' human kinda' guy. Next time you decide to insult the species to which you belong, back it up with hard data and not your feelings.

[Gene Eric]

>> Michael Reilly, you’re a funny spewin’ human kinda’ guy.

Sorry Michael Reilly, it was Kyle Swanson who was to be pasted from the clipboard.

[Robert A Cook PE]

I notice that the Discovery Channel REFUSED (then) and REFUSES (even now) to even talk to a person not entirely committed to the global warming religion (er, hypocrazy.)

[torchthemummy]

You don't have the slightest idea what the temperature is going to be next Sunday, never mind about 30 years from now.

Yup. When a politician (including many scientists nowadays) claims nice even numbers like "three decades" or "5 million new jobs" or "will cost 3 billion dollars" you can rest assure that there were no real calculations made. It's the same BS from both parties.

[torchthemummy]

Where does the radiative forcing hide out during the 30 years of cooling? I want to go there, now.

This is like saying that if I put hot food directly into the freezer, once it has totally frozen, it’s former heat is still lurking somewhere. I hope it isn’t adjacent to the ice cream.

Great analogy!