Because the sun is the primary driving force for global temperature. And solar minimum cycles reduce temperatures.
That is nowhere in your article. That is your opinion.
It’s a short article. Google Maunder minimum. Temperatures typically cool during times of low solar activity.
I’ll tell you what I think it means. It means that we should probably stop ignoring the sun as a factor in global temperatures.
God, I dont know why I participate in this stuff anymore…
First, like we told you last time you posted a similar article (whose own authors stated lower solar activity would not curtail GW), no one, not a single person, is ignoring solar activity when studying/forecasting climate change. Why do you continue to say this?
Follow along for a moment. Im just pulling numbers out of the air here for purposes of demonstration.
If AGW is forecasting a 2.7 degree increase in global avg temperatures over the next four decades, then the effect of a maunder minimum may curb that increase by 0.3 degrees, meaning the global avg increases by 2.4 degrees as compared to 2.7… But here’s the catch, it’s only a temporary impact. The solar activity may subside for a decade, two, maybe four. Eventually, solar activity resumes to normal levels and guess what, that CO2 continues to linger in the air for much longer periods.
Most of their past predictions have failed miserably. In order to show any warming at all. They have had to “revise” old temperature data. And they always revise it downwards. Never upwards. It’s a scam. Just ask the next polar bear yo see.
No, they have not. They’ve been surprisingly accurate, in fact.
As for temperature adjustments, its necessary. They have to control for things like using different temperature instruments, the instrument moving, a city being built around a temperature over the long term, etc. If you take the latter example, let’s assume an instrument is placed in a rural area 70 years ago. Over time, the area becomes more populated, eventually growing into a small city, introducing the urban heat island effect. The temperatures are artificially inflated due to the surrounding urban zone, therefor requiring adjustments to be consistent with historical readings from that same instrument at the same location.
How about these? The polar bears are supposed to be in decline. The opposite has happened. They are thriving as never before. In fact, the left faked a video of an emaciated bear and lied by blaming it on global warming.
Is your source an organization dedicated to the politics of global warming? I think they are.
https://barbwire.com/al-gores-10-global-warming-predictions-10-years-later/
Good luck. There is literally nothing you can say or evidence you can provide that will change their minds. They’ve convinced themselves they are correct and nothing else matters. It’s sad because they can ignore the facts and predictions all they want, but the outcome will still be the same. It’s the epitome of modern anti-intellectualism and old fashioned ignorance.
1 Like
I kinda like some of these. 
It was so doom and gloom back in the day.
Are you different? Are you open to the idea that global warming could be a farce? Done for political reasons? Are you expecting people to do what you refuse to do yourself?
1 Like
Sure. Prove it. Objective, reproducible, peer reviewed and validated facts. That’s what you have on the climate change side of the debate. That’s what you’ll need to prove otherwise.
Wait a sec… you link to a a piece by Barbwire, with clearly unbiased reporting, and you’re questioning the link I provided. Here’s an excerpt from your article (in case you didnt read it): “Because of long standing behavior that is suspect to say the least, multitudes view as con artists multimillionaires like Al Gore, Michael Moore, the Clintons and others who prey on the gullible and get rich off causes, advance their fame and live lavish lifestyles off the backs of the unsuspecting.” Brother 
First, sea level is rising, and continues to rise. Secondly, polar bear populations are declining. Two populations are increasing due to recent hunting restrictions allowing the populations to bounce back, but the others are shrinking as a result of… less sea ice. Im not going to go through these one by one, but damn man, this is where you get informed, and yet you question sources that present the result of actual scientific studies. Amazing, though not surprised at all…
Im curious how one would think an article that reports on how well predictions were realized decades later is “biased”, but honestly, I don’t know that I can stomach more of this…it’s completely illogical.
3 Likes
Not according to the Canadian government.
Really, Paul Ehrlich, his stuff was discreded not long after it came out. It never made it out of the 70’s. 
Is the Canadian government a reliable source?
That’s why I said I liked some of those and that they were so doom and gloom back then. 
They are a hoot.
We are all going to DIE!!! SOON!!! Like in 10 years!!!
Oops we are still here.
On that note also, remember when we were all going to freeze to death?
I remember getting that drilled into our heads in school and people freaking out about it etc.
Between that and the Alar scare we were all sure we were doomed. 
Oh and acid rain. Forgot that one.
I love when people take things and run around with their hair on fire. Fun to watch. Fun to add gasoline to that fire at times too. 
His stuff started falling apart w/in years after he wrote ‘‘scary’’ book. The climate change science has stood the test of science for a couple of decades(except for the denier kooks).
Yeah, I’ll bet you and the other young earthers get a laugh out of that.
1 Like
