Climate Change, do you believe humans cause it?

enfant terrible

I'm glad he made a point I made earlier, consensus is not what science is about ,prediction and experimentation is.

Don't believe in something because there is scientific consensus, read the studies yourself and check what predictions the IPCC make to see how accurate they are.

Maybe a lesson to those on here who push the consensus argument for believing in anthropogenic climate change.

Dave!

enfant terrible wrote: »

I'm glad he made a point I made earlier, consensus is not what science is about ,prediction and experimentation is.

Don't believe in something because there is scientific consensus, read the studies yourself and check what predictions the IPCC make to see how accurate they are.

Maybe a lesson to those on here who push the consensus argument for believing in anthropogenic climate change.

You think non-academics are qualified to read a scientific paper, understand it on its own, understand it in the context of all of the other studies that have been done, and all of the available data? How do you know what's a good quality study or not? How do know who's a legitimate respected researcher and who's a crank? How do you know what journals have a strict peer-review process and what do not?

There isn't much point in spending years studying for a Ph.D if any clown with an internet connection is just as qualified.

monument

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/01/global_warming?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fwl%2Fbl%2Fclimatechange

PAULWATSON

As always, global warming threads are taken over by the agenda at large.

bobblepuzzle

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Wow.... 52% no, 48% yes


So much for Ireland's highly educated population, and this farce of a knowledge economy.


Hopefully it's naivety and not ignorance.

I agree, there should be more no votes... :P

PAULWATSON

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Wow.... 52% no, 48% yes


So much for Ireland's highly educated population, and this farce of a knowledge economy.


Hopefully it's naivety and not ignorance.

Too highly educated to get taken in by this scam.

Pace2008

PAULWATSON wrote: »

Too highly educated to get taken in by this scam.

I doubt you've ever opened a science book in you're life, yet you're still arrogant enough to make categorical judgements on related topics despite a complete absence of actual education in the area.

I remember this piece of facepalm material:

PAULWATSON wrote: »

No bible basher myself, however I don't ever want to be confused with an athiest. I don't pride myself on "the scientific method", or believe in evolution for that matter.

One thing always bothered me about evolution, according to the theory the people around you are the fittest "best of the best" after two million years of dog eat dog. Now looking at this lot, what must the prototype have been like, a right clown I'd say.

What's next? Has the wool been pulled over our eyes and the laws of themodynamics are really a fabrication by scientists with vested interests?

PAULWATSON

Pace2008 wrote: »

I doubt you've ever opened a science book in you're life,

Why would you doubt that?

Pace2008 wrote: »

yet you're still arrogant enough to make categorical judgements on related topics despite a complete absence of actual education in the area.

I'm well schooled in the area of propaganda. You see, most of you lot get off on the idea of reading new scientist. It indulges your ego, these writers could fill you with any cock and bull story and you'd swallow the lot. Me, I don't bow down to a white coat.

Pace2008 wrote: »

I remember this piece of facepalm material:

One of my more astute observations.


The wovles reallyy are out today. Maybe some of you lot are up for the chop, some opinion leaders you are turning out to be. I could have this place running like clock work, you lot run in groups and still look foolish!

Pace2008

PAULWATSON wrote: »

Why would you doubt that?

Because it's apparent from the above quote from a previous thread that you don't even know what evolution is. If someone doesn't even understand the basic premise behind a concept I don't think theyr'e in a position to debunk a theory that has resisted rigorous attempts at falsification.

Re. climate change, I myself have only a layman's understanding on the subject, which as I've said is vast and compicated. Hopefully a few years down the line my knowledge will have expanded and I'll be able to debate the finer points in earnest. Until then, I'm happy enough to accept an argument from authority from people who've actually researched the issue. I atill think it's a preferable standpoint than the inflated sense of ability one must harbour to disregard a theory without ever having attempting to read a piece of unpartisan literature on the topic.

I'm well schooled in the area of propaganda

With conservative and libertarian think-tanks, funded by global corporations who'd stand to lose a lot should they have to alter their business practices, having paid you through college.

One of my more astute observations.

Congratulations, you're in the illustrious company of people who believe the earth is 5,000 years old and is orbited by the sun.

Lumen

PAULWATSON wrote: »

One of my more astute observations

It was one of the most retarded observations I've read on After Hours. Which, for a place so delightfully full of 'tard, is quite an achievement.

PAULWATSON wrote: »

The wovles reallyy are out today. Maybe some of you lot are up for the chop, some opinion leaders you are turning out to be. I could have this place running like clock work, you lot run in groups and still look foolish!

Yes, untroubled by expertise, your random opinions are free to run wild and create new realities. You are your own man! Go forth and fix the world!

PAULWATSON

Pace2008 wrote: »

Because it's apparent from the above quote from a previous thread that you don't even know what evolution is. If someone doesn't even understand the basic premise behind a concept I don't think theyr'e in a position to debunk a theory that has resisted rigorous attempts at falsification.?

Resisted attempts at falsification? Mate, inspite of a global media bombardement, the truth is still there for all to see. Hence global warming was adapted to "climate change" (is that academic evolution?). In the climategate emails, the main researchers in the field privately admitted that they "can not account for the lack of warming".

And this is besides the point, it has been well documented that climate models take no account of reality. They are predictions based on a specific set of beliefs.

Pace2008 wrote: »

Re. climate change, I myself have only a layman's understanding on the subject, which as I've said is vast and compicated. Hopefully a few years down the line my knowledge will have expanded and I'll be able to debate the finer points in earnest. Until then, I'm happy enough to accept an argument from authority from people who've actually researched the issue. I atill think it's a preferable standpoint than the inflated sense of ability one must harbour to disregard a theory without ever having attempting to read a piece of unpartisan literature on the topic.?

Pal, I have been following this agenda for the last 15 years. I am well aware of all the tricks. And believe me, you APPEAL TO AUTHORITY is a bit long in the tooth at this stage.

Pace2008 wrote: »

With conservative and libertarian think-tanks, funded by global corporations who'd stand to lose a lot should they have to alter their business practices, having paid you through college.?

You do realise that BP is one of the main sponsors of the green movement, puts that argument to bed, eh?

Pace2008 wrote: »

Congratulations, you're in the illustrious company of people who believe the earth is 5,000 years old and is orbited by the sunc

A lot of your main men were very much into the esoteric and indeed religious areas of research. You should look into the histories of Einstein and a variety of leading "scientists". Old albert was mor interested in the "philosophers stone" than any apples that might fall to the ground. The same goes for Newton, go and read his private papers.

Lumen

PAULWATSON wrote: »

You should look into the histories of Einstein and a variety of leading "scientists". Old abert was mor interested in the "philosophers stone" than any apples that might fall to the ground.

Abert, apples, what? Apples was Newton. Einstein was....

oh never mind

bobblepuzzle

Unfortunately, an economy exists worth billions of dollars that if the human contributed Climate Change theory is debunked would cause it's collapse.

The best scientists in the world left the IPCC knowing full well what a farce it was, just a lot of graphs and data with no substance and easily debunked through the events of the last 200 years and more.

The problem here is that very very few of the IPCC scientists will DARE turn around and say "well there actually mightened be a problem here" for fear of being hounded out, their careers destroyed.

We have "Global Warming Correspondants" in the media who to are unlikely to debunk it because of their own careers. Now we have politicians who have also followed suit!

The whole thing stinks tbh

PAULWATSON

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

The problem here is that very very few of the IPCC scientists will DARE turn around and say "well there actually mightened be a problem here" for fear of being hounded out, their careers destroyed.

We have "Global Warming Correspondants" in the media who to are unlikely to debunk it because of their own careers. Now we have politicians who have also followed suit!

The whole thing stinks tbh

You said it pal, it's all about the money. You also have a lot of people on internet forums who are out for the wonga.

They talk about why scientists don't step out of line? Well all science is funded by grants, you speak up and see that grant disappear.

CMpunked

I think that is the tightest poll ive ever seen on boards. :eek:

*customary AH reference to tight being used as a sexual remark..*
Giggetty..

PAULWATSON

CMpunked wrote: »

I think that is the tightest poll ive ever seen on boards. :eek:

*customary AH reference to tight being used as a sexual remark..*

Giggetty..

Pity the non believers cannot avoid paying th carbon tax!

Hells Belle

Maybe there should have been a third option like "humans have an effect but are not the only cause" type. I don't believe we are fully to blame but we are partly and I had to vote NO, now I'm not sure. Damn it.

I've done this wrong haven't I?

Turtwig

PAULWATSON wrote: »

the truth is still there for all to see. Hence global warming was adapted to "climate change" (is that academic evolution?). In the climategate emails, the main researchers in the field privately admitted that they "can not account for the lack of warming".

I couldn't really be fully bothered here as this is after hours but it was always called climate change in the literature, and it wasn't "researchers" it was "a researcher" Kevin Trenberth and his colleagues disagreed with him. Trenberth's believed that C02 warming should be positive enough so that the negating effects of a strong la Nina wouldn't cause a cooling effect.
Had you bothered to actually read the emails you would have seen that his correspondences didn't agree with him and that this was far from a private admittance on Trenberths part.

Turtwig

Hells Belle wrote: »

Maybe there should have been a third option like "humans have an effect but are not the only cause" type. I don't believe we are fully to blame but we are partly and I had to vote NO, now I'm not sure. Damn it.

I've done this wrong haven't I?

In all honesty the poll options are rubbish. It should more be more along of the lines do you accept the scientific consensus on Climate Change. In which case you'd realise that nobody is saying that humans are solely to blame, but the problem is there's not much else available to explain the observed rise in temperatures other than CO2 emitted by humans every other explanation falls far shorter than the current Anthropogenic models do and in science you take the explanation that best fits the evidence even if offers some discomfort.

Hells Belle

Malty_T wrote: »

In all honesty the poll options are rubbish. It should more be more along of the lines do you accept the scientific consensus on Climate Change. In which case you'd realise that nobody is saying that humans are solely to blame, but the problem is there's not much else available to explain the observed rise in temperatures other than CO2 emitted by humans every other explanation falls far shorter than the current Anthropogenic models do and in science you take the explanation that best fits the evidence even if offers some discomfort.

Well maybe not as confrontational as that but yes that's basically what I meant. I don't like the argument from the Science community that if you don't agree you are an idiot, which is my feeling from reading most of this thread. I'd imagine a lot of people who haven't "read" Science (which is an awful lot of Joe Public) would fall somewhere in the middle of the argument too. These things are way too complicated for yes or no.

PAULWATSON

Malty_T wrote: »

I couldn't really be fully bothered here as this is after hours but it was always called climate change in the literature, and it wasn't "researchers" it was "a researcher" Kevin Trenberth and his colleagues disagreed with him. Trenberth's believed that C02 warming should be positive enough so that the negating effects of a strong la Nina wouldn't cause a cooling effect.
Had you bothered to actually read the emails you would have seen that his correspondences didn't agree with him and that this was far from a private admittance on Trenberths part.

Clearly I have read the emails as I am aware of the contents, I would have thought that was obvious. Pal, the "science" was painted as black and white, clear for all to see. What is this mention of doubts and la nina effects. These factors were never mentioned in public articles.

It was a simple case. Rising CO2 levels caused global warming, correct me if I am wrong. Now as this has been disproven there apperas to be a lot of back tracking going on.

Malty_T wrote: »

In all honesty the poll options are rubbish. It should more be more along of the lines do you accept the scientific consensus on Climate Change. In which case you'd realise that nobody is saying that humans are solely to blame, but the problem is there's not much else available to explain the observed rise in temperatures other than CO2 emitted by humans every other explanation falls far shorter than the current Anthropogenic models do and in science you take the explanation that best fits the evidence even if offers some discomfort.

Talk about loading a question.

Well solar activity has being driving weather patterns for millions of years, but I suppose it would be best to discount this. As for the climate models, they are a laughing stock.

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

"It doesn't matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true."
- Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

Turtwig

PAULWATSON wrote: »

Clearly I have read the emails as I am aware of the contents, I would have thought that was obvious. Pal, the "science" was painted as black and white, clear for all to see. What is this mention of doubts and la nina effects. These factors were never mentioned in public articles.

Actually it is far from clear to me that you have read the emails. Trenberth's "doubts" are mentioned in the introduction of the paper I linked you. He disagreed with the stock explanation of natural variation and outlines his own explanation. In the emails, his correspondences quite clearly disagree with his own explanation.

It was a simple case. Rising CO2 levels caused global warming, correct me if I am wrong. Now as this has been disproven there apperas to be a lot of back tracking going on.

It's very rarely simple and yes you are wrong. Rising C02 levels contribute to global warming but there are other factors that must be taken into account too.

Well solar activity has being driving weather patterns for millions of years, but I suppose it would be best to discount this. As for the climate models, they are a laughing stock.

Yes it has. So has Water Vapour, Earth's Orbit, Earth's Precession, Solar Cycles, Asteroid Impacts, Volcanic Eruptions etc. etc. Climate models, while limited, like Newton's laws are very good approximation of real world environments. They're just not exact. That said, so far they've been used to predict past climates and future climates pretty accurately. Of course, the future predictions have a small dataset consisting of just 40 years. So far though their predictions have been rather good, not perfect but good, but they could always be a fluke. The models are like everything else in science being continuously refined.
With regards to the solar activity well we've been on the end of one of the lowest decades or solar activity for almost a century yet we've just had the warmest decade of the century. For the last 40 years solar activity cycles and temperature show little correlation. I'm not saying that solar isn't the explanation but I'm saying currently there exist so little evidence to suggest that is.

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”

Well, either this guy is an idiot, not worth his salt or he has been quoted out of context. What "data" is he referring to? I'd love to see the source behind this quote. Btw, I'm not the biggest fan of quote walling.

Greenpeace's opinion on science is irrelevant.

mgmt

smk89 wrote: »

Al Gore's movie is quite good, very informative and explains everything. But we must remember that >50% of the population morons so just show them the day after tomorrow

Al Gore is a fraud. That movie is a joke.

PAULWATSON

Malty_T wrote: »

In the emails, his correspondences quite clearly disagree with his own explanation.

It is called lying to the "masses". What he said in the email was his private beliefs.

Malty_T wrote: »

Rising C02 levels contribute to global warming but there are other factors that must be taken into account too..

You said it, especially when it has not warmed for the last ten years.

Malty_T wrote: »

Climate models, while limited, like Newton's laws are very good approximation of real world environments. They're just not exact. That said, so far they've been used to predict past climates and future climates pretty accurately...

They have? If that was the case the human population would have been wiped out ten times over. Seems the armageddon is continually geetting pushed back as this "science" is seen for the fraud that it is.

Malty_T wrote: »

So far though their predictions have been rather good,With regards to the solar activity well we've been on the end of one of the lowest decades or solar activity for almost a century yet we've just had the warmest decade of the century. For the last 40 years solar activity cycles and temperature show little correlation. I'm not saying that solar isn't the explanation but I'm saying currently there exist so little evidence to suggest that is..

Absolute tripe. The models have been shown to be a farce. As for the last decade being the warmest on record, that must have occured "over there". These data sets are all faked, as recent episodes in new zealand have proven

Malty_T wrote: »

What "data" is he referring to? I'd love to see the source behind this quote.

He is referring to the climate data.

Lumen

PAULWATSON wrote: »

It doesn't matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true."
- Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace[/FONT]

Wait....but...<brain explodes>

PopeBuckfastXVI

It's a pity reality isn't a popularity contest.

The world would be a much nicer place if what most people believed were true, were actually true.

Turtwig

PAULWATSON wrote: »

.

It is called lying to the "masses". What he said in the email was his private beliefs.

Please explain how publishing something in a public forum i.e the scientific literature is a private belief.

They have? If that was the case the human population would have been wiped out ten times over. Seems the armageddon is continually geetting pushed back as this "science" is seen for the fraud that it is.

Armageddon? The science never said there would be an Armageddon.

Absolute tripe. The models have been shown to be a farce. As for the last decade being the warmest on record, that must have occured "over there". These data sets are all faked, as recent episodes in new zealand have proven

How have the models been shown to be a farce? The data sets are all faked, I presume too you extend this reasoning to those that show solar cycles influences climate? I'm not aware of the episode in New Zealand that you are referring to, perhaps you could enlighten me.

He is referring to the climate data

Prove it. Source and context please.

ScissorPaperRock

What's astonishing is that it's easier for some people to believe the opinion of a tiny minority of scientists that are skeptical about anthropogenic climate change rather than accept the broad consensus based on the research of the vast majority.

It's a bad sign when you have to point to an email to try and argue against such a significant body of work.

People don't want to accept that they might be taxed for something. I bet if climate change was going to create a lot of jobs in the country people wouldn't so eager to ignore the evidence.

It's those that argue against it and complain about the tax that have a vested interested.

FrostyJack

I find it hard to believe (well maybe not) that people are so guliable to argue that the vast majority of scientists are making up lies to line their pockets but the tiny minority who would be on the side of corporate multinationals are the most likely to be honest :rolleyes:

I am one of the people that has to pay more than the average person on petrol but I still stand on the side of logic and fact. Put it this way if the scientists are right and we do what we can, all we lose is some money, the opposite will most definitely result in loss of life and major disruption of the way of life. I know which side the logic sits on.

Bucklesman

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

People don't want to accept that they might be taxed for something. I bet if climate change was going to create a lot of jobs in the country people wouldn't so eager to ignore the evidence.

Mitigation and adaptation projects might even create jobs. The only thing lacking is the political will to get them going.

Political will for "green" projects is hard to produce when every barstool climatologist in the country is spouting off about a tax conspiracy. There's a massive budget deficit, why would the government need a convoluted pretext to raise taxes?

eightyfish

FrostyJack wrote: »

I find it hard to believe (well maybe not) that people are so guliable to argue that the vast majority of scientists are making up lies to line their pockets but the tiny minority who would be on the side of corporate multinationals are the most likely to be honest :rolleyes:

The only argument against human acceletated global warming is paranoid conspiracy theory.

monument

Forget if climate change is real or not.

The measures that are being taking or being suggested have great benefits anyway way. For example: People get jobs while others get better insulated houses which leads to cheaper energy bills. The country and economy gets weaned off oil and gas which are depended on supply from elsewhere and/or -- more importantly -- international market prices even if its sourced off our coasts. Than pollution decreases which will have massive and widespread health benefits. People switch to more healthy forms of transport and again there's less pollution and there's also less congestion. We then have more attractive towns and cities which are more attractive to live in, do business in and visit. Water conservation measures are good for taxpayers, good for business and attractive to potential business.

Benefits are good for the economic, good for people, good for health, good for tourism, good for mobility and good for energy security.

Is anybody here afraid of the above?

bobblepuzzle

eightyfish wrote: »

The only argument against human acceletated global warming is paranoid conspiracy theory.

No the argument is quite simple:

None of the data produced to now proves anything whatsoever that the planet has gone into a period of climatic change that rivals anything over the last 1000 years at least, both in rate of climb and overall global temperature figures.

The ONLY fact on this is that it appears to be, up to now, the natural cycle of climatic change that has been on-going since the planet was born... there is NOTHING that proves it otherwise. This I believe forms the basis of the anti "consensus" view...

El_Dangeroso

eightyfish wrote: »

The scientific consensus is 100% in agreement that global warming is accelerated by human activity. That's not to say that there are other factors also involved. Any "debate" about the scientific consensus is either generated by the media, putting across the notion that there are two sides to every argument even though, among the people who make the study of this sort of stuff their careers, there is not - or well funded groups with an interest in spreading disinformation about global warming (US Republicans for example).

New Scientist have a good section on their website summing up the topic.

This position always reminds me of this quote by Michael Cricton:

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus"

Dave! wrote: »

I've tried wrapping my head around the science but have never really been able to understand the evidence completely. Considering my ignorance on the topic, it would be arrogant of me to dissent from the scientific consensus (and there is an overwhelming consensus) on the issue. So I'm gonna go with 'yes' until such time as the scientific community begins to change their opinion.

Accusations of conspiracy and corruption to follow...

I'm in the same position, know nothing about climate science and don't profess to. But I read the New Scientist articles above and why do I still have this feeling of being unconvinced? I accept consensus on a lot of other things I don't thoroughly understand, why does man-made climate change smell like bull****? Could it be we have as a population 'disaster fatigue'? Global cooling followed by acid rain followed by Ozone layer.. could be a boy who cried wolf scenario and the one time we're all not paying attention..

Side question, at what stage do you think we'll actually be able to look back and go 'well that was right/wrong'? 20, 30, 50 years? Or are we doomed to these threads that go nowhere until the end of time?

Son Of A Vidic

The greatest evidence out there is contained within the Ice core samples, which have been examined back to over 700,000 years ago. What does this evidence show? Well it clearly demonstrates that the earth repeatedly goes through cycles of warming and cooling. CO2 rises and CO2 falls, this happened long before we arrived here and it will continue long after we've gone. All the manipulated data and graphs out there can't hide real evidence, best not publicise it though eh?

Bucklesman

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

The greatest evidence out there is contained within the Ice core samples, which have been examined back to over 700,000 years ago. What does this evidence show? Well it clearly demonstrates that the earth repeatedly goes through cycles of warming and cooling. CO2 rises and CO2 falls, this happened long before we arrived here and it will continue long after we've gone.

And yet when we compare that wonderful record of historical climate data to current instrumental records, whaddya know, there's more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the last 700,000 years.

Yes, the climate has changed, and yes, CO2 rises and falls, and yes, this has happened as a natural cycle and will always happen. This time it's different, it's an unnatural cycle and we're the cause. We know the amount of carbon we spew into the air and it's much, much more than any natural phenomenon does.

NASA wrote:

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

All the manipulated data and graphs out there can't hide real evidence, best not publicise it though eh?

Frankly I don't believe the entire scientific establishment would fabricate data for cash, capers or an ideology. Apart from the notions of peer review, professionalism and experimentation, there's way more money to be made making up the disinformation the skeptics are obsessed with.

El Siglo

Environmental Science Forum anybody?

bobblepuzzle

Bucklesman wrote: »

We know the amount of carbon we spew into the air and it's much, much more than any natural phenomenon does.

Humour us as to what Compounds you are refering to and we'll debunk them one by one

smk89

mgmt wrote: »

Al Gore is a fraud. That movie is a joke.

Care to elaborate?

HUNK

Cimate change is srs bsns

Ali Babba

While there's nothing wrong with making things more efficient I find it so hard to believe so many people are taken in by all this global warming/climate change bullsh!t. This planet's been warming up for millions of years and will continue to warm up long after mankind has become extinct, that is fact, we are only on this planet for a very short time in relation to the history of the planet.

Meanwhile some very smart people have been scare mongering people into paying out yet more taxes and penalties in the name of saving the planet. It's all a big game that is being played out with our money as usual because the bottom line, just like everything else in this world, is down to cold hard cash.

bobblepuzzle

Don't want to kick the pro IPCC heads in the balls, but we won this debate

monument

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Don't want to kick the pro IPCC heads in the balls, but we won this debate

So, what you're saying is that you do fear what I mentioned in my last post?

eightyfish

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

That's completely untrue. Modern science progresses by consensus. It works like this - researchers publish their research in scientific journals. Scientists in the same field read these journals and - in some cases - repeat the research to confirm the results. Either way all research scientists must read these papers, it's part of the job. After a while, if enough evidence is built to support a certain theory, it becomes part of a collective body of accepted knowledge - something that the vast majority of scientists accept to be true considering all available evidence. This is what I mean by the scientific consensus.

eightyfish

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

No the argument is quite simple:

None of the data produced to now proves anything whatsoever that the planet has gone into a period of climatic change that rivals anything over the last 1000 years at least, both in rate of climb and overall global temperature figures.

That argument is basically sticking its fingers in its ears and humming away to itself ignoring all the accepted evidence in the room. The anti-climate science argument, like the anti-evolution one, is based either on ignorance or conspiracy. (I'm not saying this is your argument)

I think about it - the many people on here saying it's all bull**** and the data is falsified in order to be able to increase taxes on fuel and all that... well in order for that to be true all of the thousands of researchers worldwide, working for hundreds of separate institutes and colleges, and their colleagues in related fields, need to be in on it. Of all the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have peer-reviewed the published climate research papers, not one has found any a series of faked peer reviewed papers. Unless of course they're in on it. Not only that, but all the journal editors, publishers, staff, college professors who teach climate science etc... all these thousands of people have to be involved in a lie over the last dozen years or so in order so that now the government can make you pay more for an energy efficient fridge. Seems crazy to me.

The far more likely explanation is that the people who study this stuff for a living have shown that the world is warming faster than ever before since we started pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and we'd better do something about it.

EDIT: Here and here are list of all the climate sceptic claims (including all the ones in this thread) with each one of them refuted.

DERICKOO

Natural Causes of Climate Change

The earth’s climate is influenced and changed through natural causes like volcanic eruptions, ocean current, the earth’s orbital changes and solar variations.


Volcanic eruptions - When a volcano erupts it throws out large volumes of sulphur dioxide (SO2), water vapour, dust, and ash into the atmosphere. Large volumes of gases and ash can influence climatic patterns for years by increasing planetary reflectivity causing atmospheric cooling. Tiny particles called aerosols are produced by volcanoes. Because they reflect solar energy back into space they have a cooling effect on the world. The greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is also produced however the CO2 produced is insignificant when compared to emissions created by humans.
(see also featured article - Do Volcanoes cause climate change)

Ocean current - The oceans are a major component of the climate system. Ocean currents move vast amounts of heat across the planet. Winds push horizontally against the sea surface and drive ocean current patterns. Interactions between the ocean and atmosphere can also produce phenomena such as El Niño which occur every 2 to 6 years. Deep ocean circulation of cold water from the poles towards the equator and movement of warm water from the equator back towards the poles. Without this movement the poles would be colder and the equator warmer. The oceans play an important role in determining the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Changes in ocean circulation may affect the climate through the movement of CO2 into or out of the atmosphere.

Earth orbital changes - The earth makes one full orbit around the sun each year. It is tilted at an angle of 23.5° to the perpendicular plane of its orbital path. Changes in the tilt of the earth can lead to small but climatically important changes in the strength of the seasons, more tilt means warmer summers and colder winters; less tilt means cooler summers and milder winters. Slow changes in the Earth’s orbit lead to small but climatically important changes in the strength of the seasons over tens of thousands of years. Climate feedbacks amplify these small changes, thereby producing ice ages.

Solar variations - The Sun is the source of energy for the Earth’s climate system. Although the Sun’s energy output appears constant from an everyday point of view, small changes over an extended period of time can lead to climate changes. Some scientists suspect that a portion of the warming in the first half of the 20th century was due to an increase in the output of solar energy. As the sun is the fundamental source of energy that is instrumental in our climate system it would be reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change. Scientific studies demonstrate that solar variations have performed a role in past climate changes. For instance a decrease in solar activity was thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

Current global warming however cannot be explained by solar variations. Some examples are evidenced such as since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
If global warming was caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. They have only observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. This is due to greenhouse gasses capturing heat in the lower atmosphere. Also climate models that include solar irradiance changes cannot reproduce last century's observed temperature trend without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

Einhard

Ali Babba wrote: »

Meanwhile some very smart people have been scare mongering people into paying out yet more taxes and penalties in the name of saving the planet. It's all a big game that is being played out with our money as usual because the bottom line, just like everything else in this world, is down to cold hard cash.

So what you're saying is that thousands of scientists from across the world, including Irish ones operating in Maynooth and UCD, have all come together in a massive conspiracy to squeeze money from the taxpayers of the world, eh including themselves, and for the benefit of, er, other people? Seriously? Even as conspiracy theories go, that's pretty dumb...

Ali Babba

What i'm saying is it's happening anyway but now we have to pay taxes for it to fund the likes of your friends and governments too. Pretty dumb to me paying more taxes if you ask me............

Einhard

Ali Babba wrote: »

What i'm saying is it's happening anyway but now we have to pay taxes for it to fund the likes of your friends and governments too. Pretty dumb to me paying more taxes if you ask me............

No, what you're saying is that there's no such thing as anthropomorphic climate change. Therefore, all the climate scientists who claim that there is, all the thousands of them, working independently of one another across the globe, are all lying in order that they, and everyone else be taxed a bit more. That's just nonsensical.

And incidentally, since when did governments need reasons to raise taxes? You really believe that they are engaged in this massive conspiracy in order to do something (rasie taxes) that they routinely do anyway?

Einhard

Ali Babba wrote: »

What i'm saying is it's happening anyway but now we have to pay taxes for it to fund the likes of your friends and governments too....

And they're not "my friends". And were they to come out against climate change, they'd get far more funding from Big Oil and other vested interests than they would from governments. You realise that Irish third level funding will drop in real terms over the next few years? And the same will happen across Europe, and much of the Western world. So where's this extra funding that the worldwide cabal of respected scientists are getting as part of the deal to pull a massive hoax on society? You know, it's quite a feat to be able to so completely ignore logic and common sense.