global warming,.....shut it

Promethean

man has had little to no effect on global warming, its a natural cycle that happens every few millennia and nothing we can do will effect it, we waste resources amd make our economies suffer in a fruitless effort to prevent it, a waste of time money sit back and enjoy the ride.......

Karl Hungus

Promethean wrote: »

oh no a few extra days of sunshine get over it

You're either trolling, or have pretty much 0.08% understanding of the issues you're talking about.

mike65

The former methinks. Ah sure let him play.

Mike.

bonkey

Hi Casey. Welcome back. We missed you.

Run_to_da_hills

Promethean wrote: »

man has had little to no effect on global warming, its a natural cycle that happens every few millennia and nothing we can do will effect it, we waste resources amd make our economies suffer in a fruitless effort to prevent it, a waste of time money sit back and enjoy the ride.......

I agree. Global warming will be the latest thing to hyjacked by the world governments and used to gain more control and dominance over our every day lives.

JIMSTARK

The dogs on the street know that the whole thing is a load of tatter.

Scam after scam after scam.

tbh

dogs are dumb. Everyone knows that.

muggyog

We know we're in trouble when the dogs start sunglasses ( or should it be raincoats?).

octo

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I agree. Global warming will be the latest thing to hyjacked by the world governments and used to gain more control and dominance over our every day lives.

Ah yes. Bilderberg. New World Order. United Nations. Club of Rome. Illuminati. Global Elite. Forces of evil.

Word of advice: Go out a little, get some exercise, don't spend so much time on the Internet. It distorts your perception and lowers your critical thinking skills.

diamondgeezer

octo wrote: »

Ah yes. Bilderberg. New World Order. United Nations. Club of Rome. Illuminati. Global Elite. Forces of evil.

Word of advice: Go out a little, get some exercise, don't spend so much time on the Internet. It distorts your perception and lowers your critical thinking skills.

You are bang on the money, Run.

This environment movement is nothing more than a basis for enslaving the average man.

Octo, stop being a "good guy".

AngryHippie

diamondgeezer wrote: »

Octo, stop being a "good guy".

He has a point though. The rabbits and birds and stuff growing has the potential to make you re-examine all your little CT's and realize that even if it is a massive conspiracy, life is just too short to be arsed worrying about it.

diamondgeezer

AngryHippie wrote: »

He has a point though. The rabbits and birds and stuff growing has the potential to make you re-examine all your little CT's and realize that even if it is a massive conspiracy, life is just too short to be arsed worrying about it.

Yeah there is a worldwide campaign to enslave me, however I should just go along with it????

Its all a con, and I'm sick of listening to the endless propaganda. You and you type are the cause of this problem, people who are taken in by the hype.

djpbarry

diamondgeezer wrote: »

You and you type are the cause of this problem, people who are taken in by the hype.

Yeah Casey, we're the ones who have been "taken in".

We're through the looking glass here people...

Húrin

Here is what the flat earthers need:

a) a compelling, logical argument

b) a sticky thread where they can challenge the mainstream consensus. The spamming up of this forum with repeat threads of such a basic topic is becoming tiresome.

AngryHippie

diamondgeezer wrote: »

Its all a con, and I'm sick of listening to the endless propaganda. You and you type are the cause of this problem, people who are taken in by the hype.

Propaganda ?
When was the last time you saw propaganda in a field or at the beach ?
You and your type that take everything a little too seriously are the problem, not the cause of anything. I take the hype in, read between the lines, check some of the odder looking facts out, draw my own conclusions, and have a little chuckle when I see people behaving like chicken little. I don't really care for your tone, and If you seriosuly think man hasn't damaged the environment, then you need some time to reflect on that. I'd suggest the local landfill or scrap yard, or maybe some open cast mines or quarry's. Theres a few lakes around the country with battle scars too. Get real dude. Everyone is not out to get you, In fact I'd say most people in control could not give less of a sh1t how worked up you get about this, They are fully aware of your inability to articulate a clear argument, so your simply not on their radar. Chill out:D

Kama

I mean, just for the lulz, you could make the argument that we are in an interglacial period, and we needs to make things warmer on the whole to prevent the Earth sliding down into a Frosty the Snowman scenario, and ensure we get nice hot summers. This was, I gather, one of the Russian responses to Kyoto: 'Warmer you say? We have much tundra! More of this sort of thing!'.

Of course, this a less Stoic position than that of the OP, one that accepts that we have a significant influence on climactic feedback loops and all that malarkey...

lostinsuperfunk

Interesting recent palaeoclimate piece in Nature on temperature and cycles of CO2 and methane concentrations in the atmosphere :
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/453291a.html

Conclusions are that temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations are highly correlated over the past 800,000 years and

concentrations of greenhouse gases in the modern atmosphere are highly anomalous with respect to natural greenhouse-gas variations

Also, this is interesting:

Carbon dioxide variability is almost universally viewed as an oceanic phenomenon, a consequence of the large pools of carbon sequestered there.

So it looks like in the past the ocean primarily controlled the concentrations, whereas nowadays they are being influenced by fossil fuel combustion.

gerky

lostinsuperfunk wrote: »

Interesting recent palaeoclimate piece in Nature on temperature and cycles of CO2 and methane concentrations in the atmosphere :
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/453291a.html

I saw that, very interesting especially as one of the arguments used against AGW is that records can't go back far enough, 800,000yrs is really something for those who worked on it to be proud of.

Belfast

Promethean wrote: »

man has had little to no effect on global warming, its a natural cycle that happens every few millennia and nothing we can do will effect it, we waste resources amd make our economies suffer in a fruitless effort to prevent it, a waste of time money sit back and enjoy the ride.......

I agree.

great book on the natural variation of climate

Atlantis of the West (Paperback)
by Paul Dunbavin (Author)



http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atlantis-West-Paul-Dunbavin/dp/1841197165

octo

Hey man, this whole global warming thing is like, a huge hoax dude. I know because I read it on the internet. World government, cosmic rays, icecaps on mars, sunspots, WEATHER IS ALWAYS CHANGING DUDE!

I feel it in my gut. I just know its wrong. Scientists know nothing. They're always wrong.

Does the Bible mention "global warming"? NO!

Do your research. Its a natural cycle, just like the man said above.

Free your mind.

gerky

octo wrote: »

Hey man, this whole global warming thing is like, a huge hoax dude. I know because I read it on the internet. World government, cosmic rays, icecaps on mars, sunspots, WEATHER IS ALWAYS CHANGING DUDE!

I feel it in my gut. I just know its wrong. Scientists know nothing. They're always wrong.

Does the Bible mention "global warming"? NO!

Do your research. Its a natural cycle, just like the man said above.

Free your mind.

Climate Expert

octo wrote: »

Hey man, this whole global warming thing is like, a huge hoax dude. I know because I read it on the internet. World government, cosmic rays, icecaps on mars, sunspots, WEATHER IS ALWAYS CHANGING DUDE!

I feel it in my gut. I just know its wrong. Scientists know nothing. They're always wrong.

Does the Bible mention "global warming"? NO!

Do your research. Its a natural cycle, just like the man said above.

Free your mind.

Global warming is not a hoax. Anything on the internet that says so is obviously false and I would relate it to every other crackpot conspiracy theory. Weather is not always changing at least not like this.

Gut feelings count for nothing. Scientists are always right.


Just translated that garbage above for you.

Man made global warming is a myth. Fact? Who knows, give it 50 years and we might.

Kama

Anything on the internet that says so is obviously false and I would relate it to every other crackpot conspiracy theory.

The argument to beat isn't guilt-by-association.
Its the data set, see above. Given the choice between peer review and a page on the internets, peer review wins, and internets fail.

Weather is not always changing at least not like this.

Certainty isn't really possible. What we can get is a highly likely hypothesis that is A: consistent with the data B: obeys Teh Lawz of Fizzikz and C: has predictive power.

Gut feelings count for nothing.

Climate Expert seems to be an advocate of Faith-Based Policy...

Scientists are always right.

Science, unlike most ideologies, has mechanisms that allow its cherished 'gut feelings' and preconceptions to be proved wrong. It ain't perfect or 'right', and thankfully doesn't claim to be.

But imperfect science > certainty of 'gut feeling'.

Anyways, if you're conspiranoid:

A: follow the money trail on AGW deniers. Its usually an oil or coal company funded the research. Ask the basic conspiracy question, Cui Bono?

B: If you were The Cabal, (

There Is No Cabal

)would you only bet on one side?
Surely both sides of the debate are controlled? So both Global Warmers AND their enemies are 'under control'?

Anyway, if anyone is *really* feeling paranoid, please read less Dan Brown and more Robert Anton Wilson, you'll be better off...

Cabaal

shhh don't feed the trolls,

Kama wrote: »

B: If you were The Cabal, (

There Is No Cabal

)would you only bet on one side?
Surely both sides of the debate are controlled? So both Global Warmers AND their enemies are 'under control'?

You are indeed correct, there is no Cabal but there is a Cabaal!! mwhahahah! :pac:

Jack Sheehan

As a member of the shadowy world conspiracy I strongly deny that!

Climate Expert

AGW deniers

Typical disgusting pro global warming expression, a denier. This term originated from holocaust deniers ie. Nazis. This is what you would like to equate me to but I'm invoking Godwins law so you lose and I win.

octo

Climate Expert wrote: »

Typical disgusting pro global warming expression, a denier. This term originated from holocaust deniers ie. Nazis. This is what you would like to equate me to but I'm invoking Godwins law so you lose and I win.

I agree that comparisons with the Nazi holocaust are unwarranted, but there are a number of interpretations. You've chosen that one, and hence justify rejecting the label.

Our use of hydrocarbons is often compared to drug addiction, and 'denial' has a well understood meaning in that context which I think is appropriate:

Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism' postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference). (Wikipedia)

So I would say instead that you are "in denial". The first stage of recovery.

spank_inferno

I'm sitting on the fence regarding global warming but I would welcome an answer to this query...

Does anyone know the average temperature in Ireland or the world in 1987 vs 2007

simple enough question and the answer to which would be great


many thanks

Climate Expert

spank_inferno wrote: »

I'm sitting on the fence regarding global warming but I would welcome an answer to this query...

Does anyone know the average temperature in Ireland or the world in 1987 vs 2007

simple enough question and the answer to which would be great


many thanks

Here it is from 1988. Its colder now than in 1988


Seemingly its gone up a little since then the latest from May is still .1c less than in 1988.
Hadcrut is a well respected in measuring globabl temperature and not some conservative backed 'science' project.

In this same period carbon emissions have increased substantially.

(to 2004 but you can extrapolate out to 2008)

AngryHippie

Ah the statistics speak for themselves, and have fcuk all to say... so whats new

Kama

Claiming the use of the word 'denial' is grounds for invoking Godwins Law is a pretty fail response tbh. As the first person to say 'Nazi' for rhetorical purposes, Godwins could be used against you btw...

Rhetorical moves aside, your chart, if read as trend data, seems to supports the idea of warming. Notice the graph is moving upward overall. Taking the low point of a trough as your point of comparison makes no more sense than choosing the high of 1998 and going 'OMG itz warming!'.
Your comparison with the output chart, offered copypasta in lieu of an argument (I presume?) assumes a linear relationship between output and temperature, doesn't find one, declares it a Win. This ain't so.
Global weather systems and the carbon cycle aren't generally presumed to work like this; nonlinear chaotic systems don't behave in a linear manner.

Btw I could paste a load of graphs too! Its doesn't constitute a refutation, and placing the reference next to them would be a nice gesture. Especially since, peculiarly enough, the Hadley Center staff are a bit miffed that their data is being grossly misinterpreted in this way, and offered a rebuttal.

More recently, 2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not boosted by the El Niño conditions that augmented the warmth of 1998....The fact remains that the rise in underlying surface temperature has averaged in excess of 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. Met Office/Hadley Center

or more directly

A significant drop in global average temperature in January 2008 has led to speculation that the Earth is experiencing a period of sustained cooling.
A brief look at the graph depicting January global average temperatures reveals large variability in our climate year-on-year, but with an underlying rise over the longer term almost certainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.Hadley Center

Straight from the horses mouth. Helps to go to the source on these things, don't you agree?


Climate, I'm wondering who you consider to be the interests who are keeping the Truth down, besides paid shills for the Climate Cabal like myself ^_^

Because from the Other Side, it looks like organizations like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute who are the puppetmasters propagating disinfo on matters on which the scientific consensus has been clear for some time.

Climate Expert

I'm not the first scientist to invoke Godwin's law on this issue by the way.

A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade

The Hadley centre are trying to mould the facts to fit the consensus. I only deal with facts about climate not predictions and the latest figures show us that there is nothing to be alarmed about.

With all this data you can make up any story you want. Thats why global warming is such bull****. Yes its warming, but its also cooling as well depending on the time scale you are using.

djpbarry

Climate Expert wrote: »

I only deal with facts about climate not predictions and the latest figures show us that there is nothing to be alarmed about.

Really? What figures are these?

Climate Expert wrote: »

Yes its warming, but its also cooling as well depending on the time scale you are using.

Not exactly; one could argue, as you have done, that the global average temperature was lower at one particular point in time than another, which means very little. On the other hand, if long-term trends are considered, over the course of years, or even decades, there can be absolutely no argument that the average global temperature is increasing.

Kama

A short while ago the Hadley crowd were 'well respected in measuring global temperature'. At this point you assumed they agreed with you, due to getting your data secondhand, and picking a trough point for a comparison.

Now that they explicitly disagree with the position you were trying to push, and provide reasoned arguments for their position, such as Nina effects, solar minima, and so forth, they are 'trying to mould the facts' with their pernicious rationality.

With all this data you can make up any story you want.

Yes you can, but for that 'story' or 'theory' to be believable and coherent to others it has to bear some relationship to the facts, aka data.

Please provide some to support your argument.

Yes its warming, but its also cooling as well depending on the time scale you are using.

But as you can see from the data you provided, the trend in the last 20 years, as requested by spank_inferno, is clearly upward. If you would prefer a more longitudinal treatment, a reference from paleoclimatology was provided earlier by a constructive contributor.


Keynes once said something relevant to this discussion, and life in general:

'when the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?'

Climate Expert

Kama wrote: »

A short while ago the Hadley crowd were 'well respected in measuring global temperature'.

I've said nothing that changes in that respect. They are well respected.

the trend in the last 20 years, as requested by spank_inferno, is clearly upward

Go back 100,000 years then and you can find many more trends where the earth is warming or cooling. The earth has been warmer than it is now in the past.

What matters is the now. And now global temperatures are perfectly normal and within the standard deviation of what could be considered mean earth temperature. The only problem is that the temperature of the earth is non-staionary so there is no mean.

I look forward to the next 20 years when the facts go against the theory and the green lobby comes up with all sorts of excuses for it. Just like the hadley centre referring to variablity. Nobody was mentioning variablility 2 years ago except the 'skeptics'.

FACT
Since 1880 the Earth has not had any warming.

Argument over.

Really? What figures are these?

Recorded temperatures obviously. No other data required.

Dara Robinson

Climate Expert wrote: »

Recorded temperatures obviously. No other data required.

Even as I am suggesting this I know how unbelievably lame this sound but.... here it goes anyways

Go, watch an Inconvenient Truth. Then go off, do research and try and find "Recorded temperatures" that say other than the claims that are made in the DVD

Kama

And now global temperatures are perfectly normal and within the standard deviation of what could be considered mean earth temperature.

Well if you take the Pleistocene as cold, and the Jurassic as hot, well of course we are within 'normal variation' of 'mean earth temperature'. Could you please be specific when making claims?

Also, please list references when making factual claims.
It makes the difference between factual data and hearsay and rumour, and does your argument no credit.

I notice you have backtracked from your earlier argument. Would you mind admitting, for the benefit of spank_inferno and any others, that mean temperatures have increased since '88? A 2o year increase should be sufficient as evidence for the 'now', as you put it.

If you are unable to concede this point, and if you are unable to provide factual, reasoned arguments, instead of saying 'FACT' repeatedly or making unsubstantiated claims, yes the argument is over.

Produce evidence, or admit you don't have it.

oscarBravo

Kama wrote: »

Climate, please list references when making factual claims.

I'm going to echo this request, but in my case it's a moderator instruction. Engage meaningfully in the debate or stay out of it - your choice.

Kama

On a follow-up note, noting your evident glee at the prospect of being right, Pascal's wager is instructive here.

Assume scientific indecidability whether we can now.
Make a box with true/false action/inaction as its axes.

If 'we', the AGW consensus is wrong, then you get to laugh.

If 'you' are wrong, we will suffer a severe catastrophe, economic and ecological.

Climate Expert

Kama wrote: »

On a follow-up note, noting your evident glee at the prospect of being right, Pascal's wager is instructive here.

Assume scientific indecidability whether we can now.
Make a box with true/false action/inaction as its axes.

If 'we', the AGW consensus is wrong, then you get to laugh.

If 'you' are wrong, we will suffer a severe catastrophe, economic and ecological.

Thats the same lame arugment put forward for believing in a God. Well done.

Also, please list references when making factual claims.

Your not on a ****ing peer review commitee. I've better things to do than go searchign around for references for some goon on the internet.


Heres some evidence. Mean global anomaly (not sure what the normalisation is) in 1879 is +.05c. 2008 to date is +.09.
130 of industrial explosion and thats all you get.
Game, set and match.

Now if any of you try and disrupt the beautiful, comfortable lifestyle we have in the Western world then I will end all of you. With facts and figures of course.

Kama

Pascal's is a logical thought experiment. Logic is a helpful tool for thinking.
References are a helpful habit when attempting to convince others.
A string of unattributed numbers does not equal data.
Insults do not equal an argument. And so on.

I note you have ignored the moderator request.
I am unsure if 'some goon' is me or Oscar.
Hopefully me ^_^

I think you've demonstrated repeatedly now that you are not contributing any reasoned argument or scientific data, anything other than preconceptions, backed by random info-tidbits divorced entirely from any kind of context within which they would make sense, served up with an attitude of superiority and contempt for the opinions of others.

In this, you appear to exemplify the discourse of AGW-denial.
The truth is there is no 'debate'. There is a recognised scientific hypothesis on one side, and a well-funded disinfo-meme campaign on the other.

oscarBravo

Kama wrote: »

I note you have ignored the moderator request.

...which has earned him a ban.

bonkey

Climate Expert wrote: »

What matters is the now. And now global temperatures are perfectly normal and within the standard deviation of what could be considered mean earth temperature. The only problem is that the temperature of the earth is non-staionary so there is no mean.

If one looks at the rate of change, however, it would appear that the current change is exceptional

Kama

Climate wasn't making many actual arguments, just trying to muddy the water. Responding to what he said didn't accomplish much (believe me i tried) which I'm guessing was a factor in the ban.

When trying to track the HADCrut reference, it was kinda frightening how many anti-AGW blogs and pages popped up. To my naive eye the trend seemed very clear from the start that it was an average increase, but the trough point is still being widely claimed as 'evidence' that global warming was baloney.

Pretty scary stuff. Gerkys post on the criminal liability of the fossil fuel industry for funding the spread of disinfo like this is relevant here. Astroturf disinformation to attempt to create the illusion that there is a 'debate', much like the Intelligent Design 'debate', helps hold back the necessary policy shifts that AGW demands, and is clearly being funded on a massive scale.

Apologies for feeding trolls, views like these should always be publicly challenged in an open forum imo.

piraka

Pretty scary stuff indeed!!!

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3119

piraka

I find it scary when a prominent British Antarctic Survey scientist Dr Eric Wulff, when asked if ozone depletion has had an effect on the surface climate of the Antarctic answers with an emphatic NO in front of a couple of hundred people!!!

http://ao.atmos.colostate.edu/ThompsonPapers/ThompsonSolomon_Science.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080612141015.htm

Son, S.-W., L. M. Polvani, D. W. Waugh, H. Akiyoshi, R. Garcia, D. Kinnison, S. Pawson, E. Rozanov, T. G. Shepherd, and K. Shibata, 2008: The impact of stratospheric ozone recovery on the Southern hemisphere westerly jet, Science, 320, 1486-1489

http://www.columbia.edu/~sws2112/publications.html

Kama

Any chance of a precis or summary on what any of those references mean for the admittedly-lazy neophyte?

Read up on the first, methodological criticism of the NASA figures by an (ex?)oilman, couldn't access one of the others, drowned in text with the ones I could.

Belfast

Climate Expert wrote: »

Global warming is not a hoax. Anything on the internet that says so is obviously false and I would relate it to every other crackpot conspiracy theory. Weather is not always changing at least not like this.

Gut feelings count for nothing. Scientists are always right.

Just translated that garbage above for you.

Man made global warming is a myth. Fact? Who knows, give it 50 years and we might.

I agree man made global warming is not a hoax.

Gut feelings count for nothing: true

Scientists are always right. I do not think so. nobody is always right.

I think the people who believe the ideas behind man made global warming are mistaken, but this does not make it a hoax or a myth.

djpbarry

piraka wrote: »

Pretty scary stuff indeed!!!

What is?

piraka wrote: »

I find it scary when a prominent British Antarctic Survey scientist Dr Eric Wulff, when asked if ozone depletion has had an effect on the surface climate of the Antarctic answers with an emphatic NO in front of a couple of hundred people!!!

Scary? Why? Did he use a scary voice?

Belfast wrote: »

I think the people who believe the ideas behind man made global warming are mistaken...

Why's that?

octo

Eh... so what?

piraka wrote: »

I find it scary when a prominent British Antarctic Survey scientist Dr Eric Wulff, when asked if ozone depletion has had an effect on the surface climate of the Antarctic answers with an emphatic NO in front of a couple of hundred people!!!

http://ao.atmos.colostate.edu/ThompsonPapers/ThompsonSolomon_Science.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080612141015.htm

Son, S.-W., L. M. Polvani, D. W. Waugh, H. Akiyoshi, R. Garcia, D. Kinnison, S. Pawson, E. Rozanov, T. G. Shepherd, and K. Shibata, 2008: The impact of stratospheric ozone recovery on the Southern hemisphere westerly jet, Science, 320, 1486-1489

http://www.columbia.edu/~sws2112/publications.html

EyeOnTheBall

Promethean wrote: »

man has had little to no effect on global warming, its a natural cycle that happens every few millennia and nothing we can do will effect it, we waste resources amd make our economies suffer in a fruitless effort to prevent it, a waste of time money sit back and enjoy the ride.......

Could you please show links/evidence of your statement?