What happened to Global Warming?

These simple disprove your loud statement that SEA LEVELS ARE DROPPING.. because they aren't, not one of those say sea levels are dropping.. they simply say the rate of rise is reduced. Jason, your original statement was full of half truths bro.. I know you are passionate about this, but bro, please don't skew or make stuff up to bolster your points.. it wrecks your credibility.

 

It's a matter of picking endpoints Marty. U of C shows a slight downward trend since 2006, and the Arctic Ocean I do not believe was even included in that. And as I stated in a prior post a month ago, its too soon to know if the trend continues.

Anyone who has followed my posts should know I don't like short time periods. Even a thousand year period is too short for me, but I chose this short period for two reasons. One, because around 2002, land and oceans began to cool. A short lag later, sea levels dropped. This may or may not mean anything, but it is a departure from the record, and if cooling continues, it could get even more interesting.

My second reason, is the predictions made 20 or even 10 years ago that should already have brought us coastal flooding and catastrophe. Even over the last 3 years we heard how sea level rise was excelerating, or "worse than we thought", yet there it is at the official sea level monitoring site, showing sea levels flattening and/or dropping during that time.

 

link

Don't forget the scientists you are quoting, are also being funded by someone. To imply others are just in it for the money, while they are also being funded is just an attempt at slander.
And fyi you can stop bringing up cap and trade. I never said it was a good idea.

Why? Its a minimal impact like you stated. Which was your point. Now where it goes from there is where the larger impacts come in. Chaos theory bro.

 

Correct, many of them are (or were) ICPP employees. Call them whistle-blowers or whatever, they are speaking out against what they see as a conscious and concerted effort to skew the data to meet a pre-determined outcome.

I disagree, considering who is paying them. I also don't think it's dirty pool to point out who may or may not benefit by something like cap and trade, I'm not trying to lay that at your feet and imply that you support it, I just feel that it supports my conclusion.

Scientists ignoring current data + placing ultimate faith in faulty computer models + heightened scare tactics + a strong push for regulation ($$) + the people pushing for that regulation in position to benefit ($$) = Something very fishy and underhanded

I go back to this, when the data said that the earth was cooling and had been for a few years, the GW crowd dismissed it and said just the opposite, infact some folks said that the warming had accelerated and we needed to rush through Cap and Trade. When I look at that and ask myself why, I keep coming back to the same answer ($$). Show me where I'm wrong and I'll be glad to consider it.

Not at all. If our emissions raise the temperatures even one degree, let alone a few like you suggest, it's a big deal IMO, I don't feel that we are having that sort of impact brother. Again, the ant on the see-saw. Sure he has some impact on weight distribution, but is it enough to see your lazy butt lift off the ground? Nope.

 

Really because I was reading the quotes jason posted, and at least one I read about is supposedly tied to big oil. It cuts both ways, if you question ones funding you have to question all of their funding. Just like as much as you guys like to call out the computer models, some of the opposition depends on those computer models as well just with different parameters. It cuts both ways.

No you are msising the point bro. It is minimal in so far as we raise the temperature only one or two degrees. HOwever, from a system wide change the change turns bigger and bigger. That is chaos theory, from simple equations comes complex behavior, so complex in fact if you put in a small change to your input , in this case our degree change, it causes large changes throughout the system. Which begs the question even if you admit we have an effect, and even if you admit that effect is very little, given the way the system is designed, it will have possibility of having a large effect, yet was still a very little change to the input.