"New NASA data indicates ocean temperatures … have cooled slightly since 2003." Now what could that mean? Perhaps the Al Gore warming scare was/is false? Perhaps future predictions of global warming are unfounded. Perhaps global climate change is beyond anyone's ability to analyze. In any case, these new numbers are there to figure out....... And Gore is going to have trouble with his on-going scams.

Check out some of the Hot Air

"Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren’t quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming…

In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it’s also possible that something more mysterious is going on.

That becomes clear when you consider what’s happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That’s a lot…

It’s … possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says. Or it’s possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don’t know about. It’s an exciting time, though, with all this new data about global sea temperature, sea level and other features of climate"

So it still remains that they don't really know anything for certain...

This statement clearly means why it always means. You have a double standard. You guess he's guessing. Its OK if you do it, it's not OK if he does it.

Bluefront isn't trying to get a Nobel prize for his guesses though.

An appearance on Jerry Springer is more like it.

It is possible to disagree with someone, and to discuss the differences and maybe try to persuade or explore the differences without petty insults.

From the Hot Air blog.....sums it up.

"What this does, is officially clear up a few things:

1> Al Gore tried to pull off one of the greatest scams in the history of mankind. This scam makes the “oil for goodâ€

From the Wasn't There An Ice Floe Here? blog, sums it up.

"A bunch of fail-trolls quote random fail-blogs and expect people to turn their brain off while reading. Too bad it only works on retards."

Actually, the information about oceans not warming up is interessant, too bad it's quoted from such a troll site.

Hot air blog?
Yeah.

I wonder how they would explain this:

Even President Bush has accepted the evidence for global warming.

Why is it so hard to believe?

Sheesh. Anyone who reads this drivel and takes it seriously is missing 1/2 of their deck. I'm coming to the conclusion that modern American Conservatism is a mental illness. Their idiocy is beyond mockery. If you full bore, over-the-top lampoon a conservative, one will be by in minutes, and outdo you. Except they'll be serious, and expect to be taken seriously.
This post is a good example. A scientist who works for NASA discovers something contrary to most scientific findings and suddenly, it's NASA the space agency saying it, not the guy. This quickly turns into definitive proof that Al Gore is masterminding some epic, world-wide scam because...well...um....because we all know he's a liberal and that means he wants everyone to suffer?

I'm not saying you have to agree with Gore, or even like him. I'm saying arguments like this are even more retarded than they are childish.

You know Darwin couldn't figure out the eyes. They had to be special. They didn't fit in with the possibility of simple changes in adapting to the environment. Everything he wrote must have been wrong (of course, much of it is, but that's beside the point). He was a complete failure.

We call 'em strawmen.

The IPCC wasn't either; it's not possible to nominate yourself for the Nobel, other poople (who they have no control over) nominate them. I do agree that the award was a little premature, to say the least. most scientists have to wait about 20 years from the date of their achievements for the award, if they ever receive one.

The common myth that global warming is simply a scam, perpetrated by a cabal of corrupt and incompetent scientists, is so beguiling precisely because it is a simple narrative; almost cartoonish, with the evil, avaricious liberal scientists on one side and the plucky so-called "sceptics" on the other. it requires no engagement of brain to accept this at face value. The truth, as always, is messy and complex, just like the atmosphere we seek to understand. we know the planet is warming, on average, but we don't know precisley what the effects of this warming might be; and as with anything that is unknown, there is a not insiginificant amount of fear that this change might not be benign.

anyway, it's all moot as China and India will burn enough coal to bury us all in a slag pile 3 feet deep.

Why is it that neither side can present their argument without resorting to insults? It's the science that we are interested in, not "Nah Nah Nee Boo Boo. I was right and you were wrong." What happened to civilized debates? This behavior seems to predicate all political arguments. Now it's creeping into science. If this is driving force behind the researchers who are trying to prove a theory, then we are all doomed. It won't matter which side is correct because we are regressing as civilized societies. As for me, I love to hear every angle of an argument and try to come to a conclusion based on the best supporting facts. Until scientific data can support or disprove the theory, then it's still a theory.

That's why I posted the pictures of the polar caps - if global warming is a sham, how is that explained?
This question is directed toward anyone, in general, who thinks the temperature hasn't increased (and Bluefront in particular).

Of course, it's still unclear whether humans had a large effect on the environment... maybe the temperature was going to increase anyway, and we just 'helped it along'.
Not sure...

Blue,

Isn't it obvious? Global warming is causing the ice caps to melt. Chunks of glaciers (called icebergs by some) are acting like giant ice cubes cooling down the ocean like my summer sweet tea...

My only problem seems to be that once something like global warming, or probably more accurately called "global climate change" is that once it's accepted by the majority as fact, it becomes the new source of all the problems in the world, prompting no further thought by the proponent of "global warming" into the mechanisms that might cause a given phenomenon other than "global warming".

Heh....the main problem here is that Al Gore is now the poster-boy of the Liberals. (You know the Al Gore who invented the internet). If you challenge any of his writing/beliefs, you strike a blow at the very heart of Liberal thought. And heaven forbid.....you can't do that.

The ice-cube theory aside..... if there is global warming, why is it confined to the land areas? Is this new computer data mistaken? Falsified perhaps? Al Gore had something to gain with his scam.... I can see why his supporters would deny the significance of this new data.

Heh....the main problem here is that Bluefront is now the poster-boy of the Ultra-Conservatives. (You know the Bluefront who invented 'ignoring rational arguments'). If you challenge any of his writing/beliefs, you strike a blow at the very heart of Conservative thought. And heaven forbid.....you can't do that.

The ice-cube theory aside..... if there isn't global warming, why are the polar caps melting? Is this old data mistaken? Falsified perhaps? Bluefront (apparently) has something to gain with his scam.... I can see why his supporters would deny the significance of this old data.

...
Fixed.

On a serious note, the data you posted isn't being ignored, but in the face of other evidence (see my first post with the pictures of the ice caps), how can you seriously deny global warming?

You can challenge Al Gore from here to the afterlife. It's not about him, and for the life of me, I can see no need for anyone to defend him from your delusions. But when your "challenges" are wild and unbased accusations of some nefarious scheme that seeks to bring civilization to it's knees, you'll be rightly ridiculed for spouting unhinged drivel. When you need to resort to well documented lies such as, "Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet" you'll get rightly ridiculed for being completely full of &^it.

I'd wager you don't even know what a liberal is. It seems to be whatever it is that you don't like at a given time. If you want your politics to be taken seriously, try some oversized shoes and a big red nose - it couldn't hurt.

Hey Neon Joe,

Thanks for the civil posts.

There are many who do not ignore global warming, but also are not alarmed.

I acknowledge that there are large cycles of global warming and cooling. It is a demonstratable fact. There have been periods of time when Ice covered much more of the world than today, and times when it covered less.

I am not alarmed by recent global warming, and others are. I do not believe that the recent global warming is man caused. We might have contributed 5% to accelerating an already existing trend.

To characterize this as ignoring global warming is not accurate. Posting pictures of receding ice caps or glaciers does not prove anything, that is not being contended. (Now I do appreciate the posting of the pictures as there was no personal attact, and data was used.)

I am all for each of us doing what we can to live more sustainably, but as someone said above, as the China and India economies boom, and they continue to polute, that wil dwarf our efforts to clean things up. (But every little bit helps.)

Sorry joe....but the new data isn't made up. It just appears to go against what Gore is preaching. I'm waiting to hear what the Gore-speak will be. We've already heard that global warming causes colder weather. Now how can global warming cause colder oceans?

Sorry Bluefront, but the idiocy stands. To quote from your link:


The scientist interviewed admits he has yet to understand what the new data means, but you do!! Al Gore is plotting to end civilization!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My initial response wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. My follow up reply:


VanWaGuy, I posted the polar caps pictures as evidence that the temperatures are increasing... also, the evidence wasn't really directed at you, you seem to be fairly level-headed on this.
Hopefully we all agree on this:

That's the exact reason most of these sort of threads end up getting locked. This one seems to be going downhill much faster than the norm, so if all the childish name-calling doesn't stop, I'll lock this and delete the entire POS.

Ralf....what you're seeing is attacks on the bringer of bad news, rather than the news itself. I fell free to attack Al Gore and his message..... if someone other than Gore, considers that a personal attack on himself, he's wrong.

Wah, everybody's picking on me. Wahhh, wahhhh.

Really? He kissed his wife like a man. Name one thing GWB did that showed he had any guts, a mind of his own, a conscience. All we have is a puppet.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I forgot, you call everything black.

Finally words of wisdom. Credit the OP.

Most seem to agree the correct term is global climate change.

An unstable climate means, "locally" (globally speaking) there will be places where it becomes warmer, while other places become colder (and maybe some places will not be significantly affected at all).
I don't think it is more beneficial to have a colder climate instead of a warmer one, the problem still remains.



We don't know what the bad news (?) means, the scientists don't either.
Therefore, it is way too soon to draw conclusions from this new data.
Until scientists have an idea of what it means, all of the "conclusions" are merely speculation, conjecture.

So, I don't have a problem with the first sentence in the OP, but I do have problems with the second and the third sentences.

[Second sentence: "Now what could that mean?" - no one knows yet, but the OP is pointing into a very distinct direction.]

[Third sentence: "Perhaps the Al Gore warming scare was/is false?" - the news is being abused to discredit Al Gore and the people who think he's got a point, again without knowing what is causing the new data. No wonder people take this personal.]

spookmineer.....it's obvious that climate change is an on-going thing. But the "greenhouse" effect that Gore talks about, points directly to a warming effect caused by a decreasing ozone layer. The new NASA data tends to cast more doubt on Gore's theory. Now if you take that as a personal attack.....

These threads get locked because of childish thread trashing and spamming, demonstrated by some of the several posts already appearing in this thread. Too bad this new data doesn't quite fit into current PC beliefs.....that's the bad news. The good news is that this new computer data seems to indicate that climate change isn't quite as drastic as the Gore theory would have you believe...... maybe much less so.