
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - jamesbritt
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html
======
Casseres
First it was global cooling about 40 years ago. Then it was global warming.
Then it was climate change. Now it's a global warming pause.

The only thing constant is that career scientists get to make a name for
themselves, agenda-pushers have something to base their claims on, and
newspaper companies get to sell more newspapers.

We don't have the technology to accurately predict the future. Heck, the past
has already happened and won't change, but the way we interpret new
discoveries changes it changes all the time. If we keep discovering new things
about the past, how is it possible that we've already discovered everything
about the future?

~~~
kaonashi
>career scientists get to make a name for themselves

Yea, there's so much money in climate science, as opposed to say, energy
extraction.

~~~
Casseres
When the government creates grants for political reasons, then yes there is.
Same with green energy extraction.

~~~
kaonashi
Drop in the bucket compared to fossil fuels.

~~~
Casseres
Yes, because it's more economical and better for the environment to improve
efficiency. There is a good correlation between economic efficiency and what's
good for the environment. Right now it is more harmful to the environment to
manufacture new electric cars and the batteries that they use. It's also more
expensive. There are many other large, well-established companies besides new,
small, green-initiative companies trying to improve battery efficiency and the
environmental impact of said batteries because it's better for business.

Interestingly enough, nuclear power is much more efficient, cheaper, and safer
than fossil fuel based power, yet the United States has not built any new
nuclear power plants in about 40 years because of environmental regulations.
If we built newer, safer, more efficient nuclear power plants, we would be
able to retire the older, not-as-safe, less-efficient nuclear power plants -
and the price of electricity would go down making it more affordable to use
electric cars all while using less fossil fuels!

(Long-term storage of spent nuclear material is also incredibly safe. There
are a bunch of lies floating around that it's not because they suit the other
side's story. Also, economics will will encourage the development of
technology to find usage for the material rather than keeping it in storage
for the next X number of years.)

I'm all for having a cleaner, safer environment. But until people get over
their "not in my backyard" emotions, and get rid of harmful environmental
regulations, then we are forced to use the technology that those people
dislike.

Why am I familiar with all of this? I'm a merchant mariner. A lot of us work
in the energy sector. I'd rather lose those jobs (higher competition for my
job and less money) due to self-dependance on nuclear energy while having a
cleaner, safer environment.

Have you seen the YouTube videos of tests where they crash jets into walls
used in nuclear facilities or trains into nuclear containers? The United
States is pretty large, we can build those nuclear power plants in places were
they will be safe from the environment (unlike Japan which doesn't have much
space to choose from).

------
tedsuo
The Daily Telegraph is notoriously full of climate change cranks, and
regularly misrepresents the views of scientists and the IPCC. A previous
example regarding arctic sea ice:
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/07/arctic...](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/07/arctic-
misrepresentations/)

~~~
adventured
Can you speak to what specifically the article is wrong about regarding the
apparently dramatic expansion of arctic ice?

~~~
kaonashi
It was at record lows, so the capacity for a record bounce-back is higher.

~~~
Shivetya
as in, science still pretty much has so much to learn about then environment
and claims of doom and gloom should be taken with the same grain of salt as
with religious prophets.

~~~
kaonashi
Not really, no. The earth is warming, ice receded this summer at record
levels; because of that record recession, the normal winter bounceback is
higher than normal.

------
orionblastar
Climate change, have the numbers been fudged?
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climatega...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-
e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/)

I don't know if climate change is true or not, but if these leaked emails show
anything there is a political agenda behind it and data was concealed and
cherry picked to support climate change. Apparently they did not even follow
the scientific method? If these emails are true and not fake of course.

But why would they fake data? To manipulate the price of fossil fuels and sell
carbon credits? How come more money is spent on climate change studying
instead of finding alternatives to fossil fuels? Nobody knows.

The news media is manipulated one way or another, to get ratings and page hits
to sell more advertising. I fear that science has become this way as well.
People will believe any report as long as it is stamped with 'peer reviewed'
on it.

[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22784/abstrac...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22784/abstract)

[http://people.stern.nyu.edu/wstarbuc/Writing/Prejud.htm](http://people.stern.nyu.edu/wstarbuc/Writing/Prejud.htm)

[http://www.the-
scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/26628/...](http://www.the-
scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/26628/title/Tackling-peer-review-bias/)

Oh dear, quite a bit of bias there. Ah well find some peers who will review
your papers and confirm them so you can continue to get grants and funding. If
anyone asks about bias, keep your mouth shut, it was a double blind study done
by a neutral third party even if it was biased in some way. Any peer reviews
that find problems or find your paper is wrong, conceal such information and
claim it does not exist.

After all what is the worst that can happen?

~~~
dTal
> if these leaked emails show anything there is a political agenda behind it
> and data was concealed and cherry picked to support climate change.

They really, really don't. You never see more than a sentence or two out of
context in what you would call "the news media", because as you say it is
manipulated to provide the impression of a scandal, which sells much better
than "climate scientists proven honest".

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I
will find something in them which will hang him." That there's barely anything
even out of context that's quot-ably dishonest in 5000 emails is if anything a
testament to their integrity, given that the whole premise is that they
thought they were "talking freely".

------
JoeAltmaier
Arctic ice melted, cooling the oceans. This was modeled and expected. Stop
reducing 'global warming' to a catchphrase, its a complex system and its
crashing.

------
adamconroy
Good old telegraph. They try hard to beat fox for the right wing crackpot
crown. This article is for their readers not the general public.

