March 23, 2017

January 29, 2013

Euro-Media Concede Global Warming Has Ended

We’ve been waiting for this admission a long time, and watching the media reaction is interesting to say the least. Bojanowski writes that “The word has been out for quite some time now that the climate is developing differently than predicted earlier”. He poses the question: “How many more years of stagnation are needed before scientists rethink their predictions of future warming?”

The entire article is available here.

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



Well, not exactly, they simply admit that the data don’t support the theory. Really? That needs an explanation? How about your theory is obviously incorrect?  There is way too little data on weather (ie too few years) to make any reasonable guess abut future temperatures. They think in human terms but the planet responds in its own timetable and we can only guess at that.

[1] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 1-29-2013 at 04:05 PM · [top]

Not until they give up on the idea of using the global warming, errrrr… climate change “crisis” as a way of giving more power to governments to tax us more and interfere in our lives.  Freedom is just too dangerous for us plebs to handle after all.  The aristocracy knows best.

[2] Posted by Bill2 on 1-29-2013 at 04:47 PM · [top]

Unfortunately I think the media in North America will be very slow to report this.  Here in Canada the children have been taught for years that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and the governments uses Climate Change as an excuse for all kinds of policies that have less-politically-appealing motives.

The climate has been warming for 10,000 years, and it would be hard to argue that this was all anthropogenic.

[3] Posted by Michael D on 1-29-2013 at 05:30 PM · [top]

They simply need to build more epicycles into their model to account for the differences between theory and observation.

[4] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 1-29-2013 at 07:41 PM · [top]

It WAS cooling off not so long ago.

[5] Posted by maineiac on 1-29-2013 at 10:49 PM · [top]

It does what it does, and while local conditions can effect local changes (L.A.), world-wide, it does what it’s going to do, Al Gore and his fake movies of icebergs calving not withstanding.
desert padre

[6] Posted by desertpadre on 1-30-2013 at 11:53 AM · [top]

Back in the 1970’s global cooling was the talk of the day, including fears of a new Ice Age. This intensified, as I recall, following the winter of 1976-77, which was unusually cold east of the Rockies and even featured snow in South Florida.

I have to agree with Bill2 - this “climate change” hype seems to be another excuse for the government to take more of our money and liberty.

[7] Posted by the virginian on 1-30-2013 at 04:18 PM · [top]

Having lived through the “Great Blizzard of 1978” in New England while going to college, I remember those days well.  My then girlfriend’s brother had to abandon his car on the freeway outside of Boston along with everyone else, because there was so much snow the cars couldn’t move.  When he went to retrieve it later, it had been destroyed by a snowplow along with the other cars.  I also remember the window of my dorm room froze shut and I couldn’t get it open for several months.  It was a very cold, wet and snowy year, starting from the fall of 1977, and we had snow flurries up until the last week of May 1978.

[8] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 1-30-2013 at 04:37 PM · [top]

Follow the money - there’s government (our) money in global warming / cooling “research” .

[9] Posted by MercyMe on 1-30-2013 at 04:46 PM · [top]

#9 There’s more money than just that involved. That reasearch $$ is what motivates the scientists, I suppose, but at the level of government, the whole thing is a redistribution scheme. Companies will be made to pay fines, implement new procedures, etc. to comply with regulations justified by global warmism. Thus their costs will go up, and their prices will go up.

Thus the middle class will take another hit for the sake of “social justice”. If one really believes this scam, he’s as dense as the clods who really believed that Obama would “stick it to the Man”.

[10] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 1-30-2013 at 05:47 PM · [top]

anybody find this article in English yet???

[11] Posted by elanor on 1-30-2013 at 06:49 PM · [top]

I mean the original one, at Spiegel.  Somehow I don’t think my “true believer” friends will believe that blogger’s comments.  Original sources are best when chipping away at Global Warmism religious nuts.

[12] Posted by elanor on 1-30-2013 at 06:50 PM · [top]

elanor, will your friends trust a translation done by someone who might not be a “true believer”?

[13] Posted by Rich Gabrielson on 1-30-2013 at 09:45 PM · [top]

I wish I hadn’t sold my ‘58 Chevvy, and had invested in oil (tar) sands, when I could. I’d be making a mint now.  Problem is that we are putting a lot of crap into the atmosphere that doesn’t come out easily. and we have to breathe it eventually, and it
seeps into our drinking water supply (which isn’t infinite—H2O is the same amount on this planet that it was millions of years ago, from what I’ve heard!  I think the climate-change-deniers are basically saying that ‘polution is at least neutral, if not good for you.  Does anyone believe that?

[14] Posted by rdrjames on 1-30-2013 at 09:58 PM · [top]

Oh good grief!  Of course no one believes that.  What many people do believe, however, is that the earth goes through tempearture cycles…always has, always will.  Some of them last a long time, some a relatively short time.  These cycles existed long before human beings were on the scene and therefore could not have been caused by us.  Pollution is bad…of course it is.  But people need to use their brains a bit in combatting it and not resort of draconian federal legislation paid for by our tax money.  Local and state governments, as well as individuals, are quite capable of doing quite a bit to reduce pollution.  Once upon a time Pittsburgh lived under a cloud of smoke.  Today it is a joy to look at its sparkling skyline.  It can be done.  Let companies compete on the open market place for pollution reducing technology instead of favoring stupid government favorites.  If people find that things work and have an advantage for them and their world they will do/buy them.  We drive a Prius; who wouldn’t want 45 mpg?  We recycle and we don’t put chemicals on our lawn.  Experiment all you want!  But don’t stick us with idiotic light bulbs that are going to poison the environment along with (possibly) reducing our electricity costs.  And STOP treating this theory like it is gravity, i.e., something proven by extensive observable experiments over a long period of time.

[15] Posted by Ann Castro on 1-31-2013 at 08:29 AM · [top]

rdrjames, did you even notice that the article is about CO2 global warmism, and not about pollution? Or are you trying to say that it’s ok to lie about the one, because you suspect it might lead to pollution being addressed?

Your attitude exemplifies perfectly how liberal dupes can be led around by the nose. Just suggest legislation that makes you feel that some vague concern of yours is being addressed, and you won’t even bother to verify what it is supposed to achieve. You will just blindly support it. You’re not even interested in thinking of the cost/benefits or even quantifying what your concerns are, let alone investigating whether the legislation will address any of it.

Tell me, why are you willing to blindly support legislation that was admitted by the EPA to be a redistribution scheme that will not impact emissions at all?

[16] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 1-31-2013 at 11:51 AM · [top]

#13, Spiegel finally published it in English.  Just liking it on facebook hasn’t generated any discussion, so I guess I’ll hafta stir the pot ...

[17] Posted by elanor on 1-31-2013 at 06:46 PM · [top]

grrrrrrrrr….......  intellectual dishonesty by libs ....  IT"S GONE. Can’t even search for it on their own website.

[18] Posted by elanor on 1-31-2013 at 06:54 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.