So it seems that practically every global warming conference keeps having to be cancelled due to snow but still the environmental alarmists persist that the world is heating up faster than a hot-pocket in a microwave.
And the fact that the world is not actually getting warmer, I thought, could one day pose a serious problem to their theories so I was wondering what they’d eventually say to explain away the actual real life static temperatures. But I must admit I didn’t see this one coming. Ready for it? Here it is.
Global warming is sleeping. Shhh.
Discovery is reporting:
For those who have endured this winter’s frigid temperatures and today’s heavy snowstorm in the Northeast, the concept of global warming may seem, well, almost wishful.
But climate is known to be variable — a cold winter, or a few strung together doesn’t mean the planet is cooling. Still, according to a new study, global warming may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades.
Earth’s climate continues to confound scientists. Following a 30-year trend of warming, global temperatures have flatlined since 2001 despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have cranked up the planetary thermostat.
So it’s hiding. Global warming is all curled up and snoring away in hibernation but you are hereby warned to please not disturb it. Because when it wakes up…boy howdy will it be fierce.
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.”
So it won’t be just plain old global warming it’ll be “EXPLOSIVE warming!” So you better listen to them now. Because the threat sounds really bad.
So it’ll be like a sequel to a really sucky movie where in the original the bad guy made a lot of threats about destroying the world but instead opted for a nap. But in the sequel he returns…Explosively. And this time he really means it.
March 4, 2009 at 4:34 am
Keep in mind that Obama/Pelosi have earmarked $400M for “global warming studies”. Scientists are not stupid. There is no way they will allow that money to go unspent, or fail to ensure the arrival of more. You are about to be snowed!
March 4, 2009 at 5:04 am
So the first movie was “An Inconvenient Truth”, and the sequel is “An Inconvenient Truth Strikes Back.”
March 4, 2009 at 10:12 am
Materialist – SO TRUE! Many scientists and researches actually base their entire lives around a single thesis, hoping they have it right and it will propell them into the textbooks (of their own writing). They can spend decades collecting the data to support their thesis, then even more arranging the data to fit the hypothesis when it is apparent they are dead wrong. And when they can actually get paid/sponsored to do it, well…that’s a no brainer.
And don’t get me wrong. I definitely believe in climate change (not global warming) which has pretty much been going on since the earth developed an atmosphere. And yes, humans DO have an impact on on the climate (as do animals and trees). But the earth has a way of ridding itself of “impurities” (i.e. lifeforms) when needed in magnitudes humans could not even imagine. And it doesn’t ask us for permission. So, if there is going to be another permean extinction, all we can do is pray.
March 4, 2009 at 12:34 pm
great blog
March 4, 2009 at 12:44 pm
So…do we call this new trend Global Lukewarming?
These guys are killing me…thanks for the laugh!
March 4, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Global-warming cultists are the new flat-earthers.
March 4, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Global lukewarming. That’s a good one.
March 4, 2009 at 3:22 pm
This all reminds me of the early 90’s when everyone was screaming about El Nino. Remember Chris Farley as El Nino in that SNL sketch? RIP Chris.
March 4, 2009 at 3:30 pm
“Global Warming II – Electric Bugaboo.”
March 4, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Larry, This is the order of the trilogy.
“An Inconvenient Truth”,
“An Inconvenient Truth Takes a Nap”
and “Revenge of the Inconvenient Truth”
By the third movie, Algore will be as annoying as the Ewoks and/or Jar Jar Binks”
March 4, 2009 at 4:22 pm
The most amazing thing about global warming is that our “greenhouse gases” are causing it on Marsand several moons of Jupiter and Saturn too! We’re pretty darn powerful!
March 4, 2009 at 4:22 pm
The most amazing thing about global warming is that our “greenhouse gases” are causing it on Marsand several moons of Jupiter and Saturn too! We’re pretty darn powerful!
March 4, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Of course it can all be blamed on G.W. Bush.
March 4, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Okay, I’m really sincerely wondering, why is it that the reality of Global Warming sends most Traditional Catholics into paroxysms?
http://festungarnulfinger.blogspot.com/2009/03/unacceptable-truth.html
March 4, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Really? Is the Obama administration still using “global warming” instead of “global climate change” which EPA has stated is preferred since “global warming” is not descriptive of the overall problem? You would think that Obama’s folks would be in sync with EPA.
March 4, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Dutchman,
Your straightforward facts, aren’t.
You wrote “I can see no theology behind this, nor have I ever heard any such reasons cited.”
This is because it has nothing to do with theology. It has to do with the lack of evidence that it causes warming. In fact, it has to do with the actual lack of evidence of actual warming. Evidence, not theology.
Wondering why Trads reject Global warming while putting on another sweater rather humorous.
March 4, 2009 at 7:14 pm
By the third movie, Algore will be as annoying as the Ewoks and/or Jar Jar Binks”
He already is.
March 4, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Phooey… you’re too fast for me, Patrick! 🙂
Dutchman,
Speaking for myself, I have two reasons:
1) In the fine tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas, et al., I prefer to have something established as “fact” before I agree to call it a “reality”; so-called “global warming” (which, I’m told, has since been amended to “global climate change”–hmm….) doesn’t satisfy the requirements, I’m afraid.
2) The positive correlation between “activist against ‘global warming'” and “embracing the culture of death” (via abortion, euthanasia, contraception, etc.) is mind-bogglingly strong; that might give you some idea of why any sane Catholic would be at least leery of anyone who’s rushing at them, wearing a sandwich-board warning of “The sky is melting, the sky is melting”; such a person is far more likely (than the norm) to support Planned Parenthood and their ilk. I’ll leave the question “Why do orthodox Catholics hate Planned Parenthood and their ilk?” as an exercise for the reader.
Does that help?
March 4, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Your straightforward facts, aren’t.
Look, we’re not talking about crack-pots here, we’re not talking about dewy-eyed world-improvers or so-called “social scientists,” we’re talking about real scientists, hard data scientists, you know, the people who eradicated small-pox and got us to the moon. The basic conclusions about global warming have been endorsed by the national academies of science of all major industrialized countries. All of them.
There is plenty of evidence for global warming, my question is: why do people choose to ignore it?
I prefer to have something established as “fact” before I agree to call it a “reality”; so-called “global warming” (which, I’m told, has since been amended to “global climate change”–hmm….) doesn’t satisfy the requirements, I’m afraid.
Isn’t that kind of like waiting until your car crashes before you turn the wheel, because the crash isn’t a “fact” until you hit something?
If the scientists are right about this, and we change our patterns of energy consumption, we might just save ourselves. But if we do nothing, and the environment continues to deteriorate, then our civilization is probably doomed. If the scientists are wrong, we still have nothing to lose be being prudent.
The positive correlation between “activist against ‘global warming'” and “embracing the culture of death” (via abortion, euthanasia, contraception, etc.) is mind-bogglingly strong …
The positive correlation between ” ‘global warming’ denial” and “embracing the culture of death” (via materialism, consumerism, oppression of the poor, etc.) is mind-bogglingly strong …
See? It works both ways. Why would someone oppose lowering carbon emissions unless they had fully embraced a high-energy consumption lifestyle? Do you think that Dorothy Day, Saint Benedict, or Mother Theresa would defend that kind of consumerism?
March 5, 2009 at 12:46 am
Why would someone oppose lowering carbon emissions unless they had fully embraced a high-energy consumption lifestyle?
Who said anything about embracing a “high-energy consumption lifestyle?” I can’t speak for anyone else on this blog, but I highly doubt our blog hosts are seriously suggesting we all go out and buy five Hummers and leave them running 24/7. I haven’t read enough on the subject to have a well-informed opinion, but I don’t think one has to jump on the global warming bandwagon to oppose wasting resources. And those who have jumped on the bandwagon, or who shifted it into high gear, are just as good if not better at wasteful, consumerist lifestyles as those who are more skeptical (viz. the monstrosity of an energy sucker, er, house Algore had until people called him on it).