Russian Expert Predicts Global Cooling from 2012

[the_professor]

professor,

I found a video you might be interested in.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ndle&hl=en

Haven't finished watching it myself yet though.

Goates, thanks. I am watching it now. Looks like it is the anti-Inconvenient Truth. Looking forward to the holes it will no doubt poke in the hysteria we are all subjected to on an almost daily basis with this topic.

[North Shore]

Your attitude towards dissent would fit in very well with their culture

Ahhh, wrong. There, dissent is suppressed (Or at least, so I'm told, having never been to either place to see for myself) here, we allow it, and poke holes in its support - quite ably too, I might add, once one reads through the lawsuit...

[the_professor]

Your attitude towards dissent would fit in very well with their culture

Ahhh, wrong. There, dissent is suppressed (Or at least, so I'm told, having never been to either place to see for myself) here, we allow it, and poke holes in its support - quite ably too, I might add, once one reads through the lawsuit...

Are you suggesting that Joe has been tolerant of dissent on this topic? Because all I see are page-long tirades that discount any and every type of information presented that contradicts his beliefs.

You've got to hand it to the scientists who created the human-induced global warming theory though. They have successfully created a multi-billion dollar research industry that now supports tens of thousands of jobs. And boatloads of taxpayer money around the world are funding the bulk of that research.

goates' video link is a must-watch for anyone who wishes to claim that they have arrived at an educated conclusion on this issue.

[corporate joe]

Once again, a well-known source is cited in Ball, but because he presents a dissenting opinion he is automatically discredited by corporate joe, who then paints all dissenters as being "ignorant", lacking education, etc, etc.

OPINION is the key word here. In science we use data and facts. There is no room for opinion in science. That's why it doesn't matter what the opinion on the subject is, there is the observable reality and the data to back it up.

To the rest of you who may not be as closed-minded, do yourself a favour and read what is being said on the other side.

Very good advice. By doing so, you'll notice there are not much facts "on the other side" (other side.... Remember the comment about categorizing and simplifying?), mostly opinions. It also helps to understand how much data and research is one "side", before forming uneducated opinions about the other.

Unless of course you are happy being spoon-fed whatever happens to be the politically correct flavour of the month, in which case you should only listen to joe and his infalliable legion of copycat scientists.

"Spoon-fed, politically correct flavor of the month?"
A) It's a debate that has been going for over 10 years, but just recently made it in the mass media. Science magazine and university professors (real ones not self-proclaimed ones) have been publishing studies and data for years.
B)This is far past any political stage... Is that what this is to you? Left vs right crap again? All political parties including all major monetary organizations have all acknowledged the overwhelming and undeniable data a long time ago, and more data keeps coming to confirm. Guess the insurance companies, oil companies, major investments firms, and world banks and all their shareholders are all blinded to, but thankfully only you can see the truth, and you are here to tell us and the rest of the world about it.
"Joe and his infaillable (you sure that's a word bud?)legion of copycat scientists"
What the hell is that supposed to mean? All scientists are copycats, and we are all marching blindly to the same beat, spoon-fed by the media who just wants to scare us all? Clearly you absolutely have no clue of what scientific methodology is, and what really happens in academic domains, political circles as well as business organization to claim somethings as childish and ridiculous as that.

It took me a whole paragraph to "paint you as an ignorant" (to use your words), yet it only took you a sentence to prove you were one.

[the_professor]

Once again, a well-known source is cited in Ball, but because he presents a dissenting opinion he is automatically discredited by corporate joe, who then paints all dissenters as being "ignorant", lacking education, etc, etc.

OPINION is the key word here. In science we use data and facts. There is no room for opinion in science. That's why it doesn't matter what the opinion on the subject is, there is the observable reality and the data to back it up.

Fine. A dissenting conclusion is what he reached. And the video shows him, among dozens of other scientists from around the world, discussing the hard facts that contradict the general consensus on the issue.

[the_professor]

"Spoon-fed, politically correct flavor of the month?"
A) It's a debate that has been going for over 10 years, but just recently made it in the mass media. Science magazine and university professors (real ones not self-proclaimed ones) have been publishing studies and data for years.

It's been going on a lot longer than 10 years in the scientific community. That's why they were predicting global cooling based on the temperatures seen from 1940-1980 -- when the earth cooled, despite exponential growth in CO2 emissions during that period. The problem is that science has not fully explained atmospheric behaviour and the factors influencing it, so we have scientists arriving at different conclusions about the state of the atmosphere every few decades. But today's conclusions are presented as proof that cannot be challenged, and that is a load of crap.

B)This is far past any political stage... Is that what this is to you? Left vs right crap again? All political parties including all major monetary organizations have all acknowledged the overwhelming and undeniable data a long time ago, and more data keeps coming to confirm. Guess the insurance companies, oil companies, major investments firms, and world banks and all their shareholders are all blinded to...

Is it? What politician would dare challenge the current consensus among scientists, based on the reaction from people like you? I wouldn't, if I were a politician, because it would be suicidal.

One day my sources cannot be trusted because they're funded by big oil, and the next you say that big oil is on board with climate change? Which is it? And what does it cost the oil companies to come on board with the politically correct approach, given that we are decades away from replacing their product as our overwhelming source of energy? They don't lose by agreeing, because the growth of industry around the world ensures they will be around for a long, long time.

[corporate joe]

Ok, clearly this is much to complex for you, and you are asking me to educate you on what you don't know, and re-explain what I already have tried to teach you. The things you say! Unbelievable! Where do you get your info from? It's clear you ignore facts brought to you and don't even consider them. Your position is not based on rational, or data or science that is clear, so no point using the latter to debate with you. There are thousands and thousands of pages of data out there accessible for anyone who wants to see them to see.

However, I am going to try to make this as simple as I can for you:

The evidence gathered is more than enough to justify reduction in waste (not that we should need a reason to waste). The consequences for being wrong about global warming are such that striving for efficiency is justified (not that we should need a reason to strive for efficiency).

Forget global warming, because you do not have the will or skill to understand the debate. However surely you can comprehend the need for some form of conservation, on a planet with limited resources.
So, continue claiming you know the truth about the new world conspiracy, but while you're at it, buy the energy efficient light bulbs (if you can't find them, ask the little wal-mart lady to help you, she'll take you to them and she'll listen to your theories on global warming I am sure). You'll get to save on money on your power bill at the end of the month, and that way you will compensate the non-sense of your words with sensible actions.

[Hedley]

Where I am, Environment Canada said we had the coldest February in 28 years. And, the Rideau Canal was frozen and open for skating for only one day less than the all-time record.

Global Warming, my *ss. Where can we get some?

[corporate joe]

Where I am, Environment Canada said we had the coldest February in 28 years. And, the Rideau Canal was frozen and open for skating for only one day less than the all-time record.

Global Warming, my *ss. Where can we get some?

For the 10th time Hedley, there is a difference between climate and weather. What you are talking about is weather. Also, the AVERAGE temperature of the earth gets warmer. Some parts get colder, some parts get warmer, but the mean temperature is rising in a direct correlation with the amount of greenhouse gazes in the atmosphere.

PS: this is what environment Canada says:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/In ... 15#bio_pic

On the last graph, you will notice the large spikes in temperatures, the drops that follow are Earth's ICE AGES. Notice a trend? Also notice the quantity of CO2 gazes in the atmosphere today vs the last 600 000 years. Notice the difference? No models, no debate. Just pure hard data confirmed from thousands of different independent sources around the world. You can't debate quantified data. You can debate what will happen and when, but WHO CARES? The course we are headed on is a dangerous one. We are experimenting with our environment, and for what??? For people like the professor, with no credentials, no research done, no arguments or correct facts who want to sit their and debate a minor obscure detail, when the overwhelming evidence is right there in front of everyone.


EDIT: threw in some graphs because I know you don't read the links. These are directly from Environment Canada (see link above to see for yourself and have the explanation) and hopefully they clarify some of the BS data that was given by the poster. Notice they stop in 2000, but from 2000 to 2006 is the largest spike in all the graphs, with a quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere larger than anything ever seen in the history of the earth (despite what Napoleon... err the professor says).







Imagine this, we are on an Airbus 380, and almost all the passengers are pilots. All the passengers/pilots have their own independent navigational data and they are all acting as navigators. All of them are saying the same thing: if we continue on our present course we are going to hit that mountain in front of us. All the pilots agree we are going to hit it, but some say we are going to hit it at a certain angle of attack, others say we are going to hit at a certain airspeed, but nonetheless all agree we are going to hit it. In front we have the professor, who is NOT a pilot (in this example) saying: "I know better than these pilots and their navigational data, and I say we are not going to hit the mountain, let's keep the course". Forgive the example but this is how idiotic this is right now. And we are all in that same pilot's seat with our everyday actions and our everyday choices. When we choose to waste irresponsibly, we are all slowly keeping the track towards that mountain.

So I'll say this again: no matter what your understanding of the scientific data in the debate is, and no matter what your position is, wasting is idiotic and irresponsible no matter how you look at it.

It's time for efficiency and responsibility no matter what the doorknobs believe.

[Hoov]

I dont have any sources right now but I believe you are wrong on the canal hedly. My understanding was that it opened late but was able stay open for 44 consecutive days as opposed to 45 which is the record. Meaning there was no shit in between to keep it momentarily shut down and then re-opened. Please correct me if I am wrong that was just my understanding when I heard it on the news.

[Glen Quagmire]

C Joe you are talking to brick walls, no reasoning is allowed to penetrate. The thing that these fringe dwellers do not realize is that rational educated people do a form of due diligence so to speak when it comes to taking sides on arguments. What I mean by that is educated/scientific/rational minds look at both sides of the argument/problem and then make a decision as to what side to take, of course based on the information at hand and not personal opinion. A fringe dweller makes a decision first, usually based on some form of ideology, then looks for information to back up that predetermined position and tosses out the rest. That is the professor, hedley etc. in a nutshell; it is also fundamentalism in a nutshell.

This type of thinking is detrimental to the human condition; I shouldn't need to explain why this mindset is dangerous.

The point that corporate joe is desperately trying to make and the most important aspect of this discussion is that whether or not you think climate change is ridiculous, human excess and waste is not. Spend a smoggy July afternoon in Toronto and see the result of human excess; it might help raise your consciousness a little.

[the_professor]

Forget global warming, because you do not have the will or skill to understand the debate. However surely you can comprehend the need for some form of conservation, on a planet with limited resources.

I've never been against trying to minimize our impact on the planet.

However, I am against the type of culture that has developed around this issue, where scientists and proponents like yourself would have us believe that the science is a slam-dunk, and there is no room for debate. Well guess what? The science is not a slam-dunk, and there is plenty of contradictory evidence to support that, even if you will not acknowledge it.

The video link in this thread is but once source that raises legitimate doubts about the conclusions reached by the majority of bandwagon-jumping [fund-seeking] scientists, who are then parroted by politicians and the media.

Industrialized nations are setting up to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a "problem" (using the term loosely) whose cause is unknown. That is senseless.

"Because when we all think alike, no one thinks very much" -- Walter Lippmann

[Dust Devil]

95% of climatologists

Was there a poll? or is that another empty statistic.

[Dust Devil]

Forget global warming, because you do not have the will or skill to understand the debate. However surely you can comprehend the need for some form of conservation, on a planet with limited resources.

I've never been against trying to minimize our impact on the planet.

However, I am against the type of culture that has developed around this issue, where scientists and proponents like yourself would have us believe that the science is a slam-dunk, and there is no room for debate. Well guess what? The science is not a slam-dunk, and there is plenty of contradictory evidence to support that, even if you will not acknowledge it.

I think that sums it up nicely.

[corporate joe]

the majority of bandwagon-jumping [fund-seeking] scientists, who are then parroted by politicians and the media.

Industrialized nations are setting up to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a "problem" (using the term loosely) whose cause is unknown. That is senseless.

These words show how disconnected from reality you truly are, and how little comprehension and research you have truly done on the subject. This is not even about a global warming debate or not. That is pure BS that you pulled out of your ass, that has absolutely no fact behind it, that is based purely on educated guesses at the best that you confuse with reality. The above statement is incorrect in so many ways it truly makes me question your grasp on reality and your knowledge of what is truly happening in the world around you.

Like I said, if you call yourself the professor on these forums, you may as well call yourself Napoleon in real life.

[Idriveplane]

The fact is that man made global warming has gone far past science. It's become a whole industry in itself generating tens of thousands of jobs. It has become the modern example of the anti establishment movement. And it has gained so much ground that in many cases has become the main political platform for many politicians. I can't believe the number of people that buy this shit, it is truly incredible how gullible people are. Now a days if you deny the whole media driven frenzy, you are considered to be scum. It is frustrating, even in the scientific world, ones who oppose are shuned upon, and assumed to be paid off by the oil companies. Its time people wake up.

This is an excellent example of an actual notable researcher vs Disney sketch comic, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McsZ1U20W0M

[Falken]

Hey Corporate Joe,

You're really passionate about the subject! You keep mentioning how nobody opposing your view has done any kind of real research into the subject.

I'm just curious: what is your background? & did you publish?

[corporate joe]

Hey Corporate Joe,

You're really passionate about the subject! You keep mentioning how nobody opposing your view has done any kind of real research into the subject.

I'm just curious: what is your background? & did you publish?

Yes I am passionate about the subject. Those who know me also know that I am passionate about pretty much everything I do. Passion has served me well in my lifetime as a pilot and as an individual and I believe that my humble personal successes in life are in part attribuable to that passion.

One thing I do need to clarify though is that this is not "my" opinion or anyone else's for that matter, it is a scientific fact. If you were to come here and say gravity is not real, the burden of proof would lie on your shoulders, since many studies already prove it's existence. I am noticing that some posters use personal opinion to discredit scientific research, without having the proper credentials to do so, and in the process confuse opinion with fact.

As for my background, check your PM's that should clarify a lot things.

[the_professor]

One thing I do need to clarify though is that this is not "my" opinion or anyone else's for that matter, it is a scientific fact.

What you meant to say is that it is a scientific consensus, not scientific "fact". Scientists have frequently been wrong with their "consensus" on a variety of other matters in the past. Climate change science is in its infancy, and there have been flip-flops in science's consensus as recently as 20 years ago. (cooling vs. warming)

Your gravity vs. climate change analogy is flawed. There are many areas in which climate change science can be debated, right down to the true impact of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. For instance, Tim Ball argues water vapour is by far more influential in warming/cooling cycles than CO2 is. No reasonable person would try and debate the conclusions behind gravity.

You are blinded by your unquestioning acceptance of a theory.

[Glen Quagmire]

the professor, Hedley and dust devil, what is your belief on the age of the planet and the universe, also where do you think humans originated. Designed or evolved? Bit of both? Answer truthfully, I am honestly curious.

I have a theory that the above questions are directly linked to an individual’s opinion of climate change.

[corporate joe]

What you meant to say is that it is a scientific consensus, not scientific "fact".

Ah, but you are wrong. It's not scientific consensus vs scientific fact, just like its not right vs left. It's a scientific consensus reached because of scientific facts.

Scientists have frequently been wrong with their "consensus" on a variety of other matters in the past. Climate change science is in its infancy, and there have been flip-flops in science's consensus as recently as 20 years ago. (cooling vs. warming)

Wrong again. Scientists have been wrong many times, but very seldom have scientific consensuses been reached, even more infrequently have they been wrong. If you are talking about 18th century science, then yes, it has happened, but much less frequently then consensuses being right. With modern day science things change because of the way information travels around the world in seconds. Earlier scientists could not share information like information is shared today, and they did not have the tools to compute, gather and analyze facts like they can today. Also, never in the history of science has there been such research done by so many different interests on so many different levels, with all of them coming to the same conclusion. So you could say that global warming is the consensus that has the most data and research to back it up. Furthermore, saying that science has been wrong in the past therefore we can not trust today's results is not a valid argument, because under that same logic we could never again trust any conclusion reached by anything. Everything is imperfect, and everything has at one time made a mistake, does that mean that nothing is true because of that? Of course not.

Your gravity vs. climate change analogy is flawed. There are many areas in which climate change science can be debated, right down to the true impact of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. For instance, Tim Ball argues water vapor is by far more influential in warming/cooling cycles than CO2 is. No reasonable person would try and debate the conclusions behind gravity.

Everything can be debated, even gravity. However like Glen Quagmire said, when you take position on something you measure both sides of the data provided. Nothing will be perfect or clear cut, but when there is so much overwhelming evidence on one side, and so little on the other, you can not stand there and say that we should disregard tens of thousands of facts and hundreds of thousands of scientist, because a dozen questions raised by a dozen individuals. Especially when you consider the consequences of being wrong.

You are blinded by your unquestioning acceptance of a theory.

Main Entry: the•o•ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption.
Global warming is long past the stage of theory, you said it yourself it's a scientific consensus. If you knew anything about science, you would know that no scientist would ever agree to come to a consensus on theories only. For consensus there has to be facts, and lots of them. You truly think major world organizations would justify acting on theories? That would go well with their shareholders... You think insurance companies, oil companies, politicians, and the whole scientific community (to name only a few) are all acting only on a theory? You think that all the major organizations of the world are also all acting on only a theory, that they are all being blinded because, unlike you, they don't question the research done?

Guess again Napoleon, you're not the brainchild that has discovered the secret to the greatest conspiracy of all times, you're just a chump who likes to state his un-educated guesses and world conspiracy theories (now that's what a theory is) as if they were facts.

[Dust Devil]

the professor, Hedley and dust devil, what is your belief on the age of the planet and the universe, also where do you think humans originated. Designed or evolved? Bit of both? Answer truthfully, I am honestly curious.

I have a theory that the above questions are directly linked to an individual’s opinion of climate change.

I have no idea how old the earth is. Probably a few hundered million odd years old. Never looked it up. As far as humans I belive in evolution.

What does this have to do with anything??

[Dust Devil]

What you meant to say is that it is a scientific consensus, not scientific "fact".

Ah, but you are wrong. It's not scientific consensus vs scientific fact, just like its not right vs left. It's a scientific consensus reached because of scientific facts.

Scientists have frequently been wrong with their "consensus" on a variety of other matters in the past. Climate change science is in its infancy, and there have been flip-flops in science's consensus as recently as 20 years ago. (cooling vs. warming)

Wrong again. Scientists have been wrong many times, but very seldom have scientific consensuses been reached, even more infrequently have they been wrong. If you are talking about 18th century science, then yes, it has happened, but much less frequently then consensuses being right. With modern day science things change because of the way information travels around the world in seconds. Earlier scientists could not share information like information is shared today, and they did not have the tools to compute, gather and analyze facts like they can today. Also, never in the history of science has there been such research done by so many different interests on so many different levels, with all of them coming to the same conclusion. So you could say that global warming is the consensus that has the most data and research to back it up. Furthermore, saying that science has been wrong in the past therefore we can not trust today's results is not a valid argument, because under that same logic we could never again trust any conclusion reached by anything. Everything is imperfect, and everything has at one time made a mistake, does that mean that nothing is true because of that? Of course not.

Your gravity vs. climate change analogy is flawed. There are many areas in which climate change science can be debated, right down to the true impact of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. For instance, Tim Ball argues water vapor is by far more influential in warming/cooling cycles than CO2 is. No reasonable person would try and debate the conclusions behind gravity.

Everything can be debated, even gravity. However like Glen Quagmire said, when you take position on something you measure both sides of the data provided. Nothing will be perfect or clear cut, but when there is so much overwhelming evidence on one side, and so little on the other, you can not stand there and say that we should disregard tens of thousands of facts and hundreds of thousands of scientist, because a dozen questions raised by a dozen individuals. Especially when you consider the consequences of being wrong.

You are blinded by your unquestioning acceptance of a theory.

Main Entry: the•o•ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption.
Global warming is long past the stage of theory, you said it yourself it's a scientific consensus. If you knew anything about science, you would know that no scientist would ever agree to come to a consensus on theories only. For consensus there has to be facts, and lots of them. You truly think major world organizations would justify acting on theories? That would go well with their shareholders... You think insurance companies, oil companies, politicians, and the whole scientific community (to name only a few) are all acting only on a theory? You think that all the major organizations of the world are also all acting on only a theory, that they are all being blinded because, unlike you, they don't question the research done?

Guess again Napoleon, you're not the brainchild that has discovered the secret to the greatest conspiracy of all times, you're just a chump who likes to state his un-educated guesses and world conspiracy theories (now that's what a theory is) as if they were facts.

Man you gotta lay off the name calling. it really doesn't add any anything to your cause. Enviromentalist's sure seem to lean this way. Even the lord Suzuki himself has resorted to calling the Alberta premire names. Seems mainstream enviromentalism is getting more fanatical every day.

[goates]

You truly think major world organizations would justify acting on theories? That would go well with their shareholders... You think insurance companies, oil companies, politicians, and the whole scientific community (to name only a few) are all acting only on a theory? You think that all the major organizations of the world are also all acting on only a theory, that they are all being blinded because, unlike you, they don't question the research done?

I bet they're acting more on the fact that it's suicide right now for politicians to go against what the general public believes. Most of those other industries you mentioned are probably doing it for similar reasons. They've seen that whether or not humans are warming up the planet entirely by ourselves or just contributing to it, it's better to start doing something about it now before radical environmentalists push and get extreme measures passed into law.

Yeah, we need to make some changes to cut back our impact on the environment, but this fixation on Kyoto isn't going to help anyone. Does it address smog? How about water quality? It also looks like I could still drive around in my massively over sized SUV if I just go and buy a few trees somewhere too. That doesn't sound like much of a solution as that SUV is still pumping out lots of crap into the atmosphere.

Oh, and I believe in evolution as well, so don't bother asking. That's rather weak attempt to discredit people.

Just out of curiosity, what should the average global temperature be in 100 years?

[corporate joe]

DD: lay off the name calling? You mean Napoleon? Or chump? Or brainchild? I think that remains within the limits of political correctness just as the terms "the lord suzuki" or "fanatic". You'll notice harsh words used on both sides, but I don't think we need to call the "bad word police". If you're going to get offended by descriptive terms please get offended by the ones used by everyone including yourself, or don't get offended at all.

Goates: That's an interesting theory: Large businesses all over the world cutting into their profits and failing their shareholders, as well as politicians passing laws because they are affraid of "extremist environmentalists" forcing them to pass harsh laws. Don't you think it's a bit far stretched? Is it that hard to believe that we are having an impact on our environment to a point where we need to act? Does the truth really seem easier to believe that this is a large scale conspiracy of modern science, the largest mistake of modern man to date, rather than to consider that we as humans are affecting our environment? As far as Kyoto goes, you'll notice I NEVER mentioned it in any of my posts, and there is a reason for that.

Look at this as a pilot and allow me this analogy: You're flying along when your instruments and your observations, as well as the first officer's instruments and observations show that there is a 90% probablity that your number 1 engine is going to blow, ripping your wing off. Do you shut down number 1, causing yourself some inconvenience and diverting your flight to an alternate destination because you feel that 90% is a good enough chance to justify acting, and you'd rather fly with no engine than no wing, or do you sit there and keep flying because there is a 10% chance it may not blow up on you, and you start making theories (some of them a bit far stretched) to convince yourself you may not need to shut it down, that it could be a generalized failure of all your computers and safety systems, including all your EIS indications, and that the noise your co-pilot is hearing is also made up,just because you don't feel like getting out of your comfort zone and diverting?