Global Warming?

[rah]

So you are saying ALL the experts, agree, without exception?

No, I am saying that the vast majority of experts in the field support the theory.

I don't think you could get all the experts in any field to agree on anything.

[rah]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Lol, so why didn't you post the bbc link? not sensationalist enough?


"Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

So someone has said he may have lost the relevant papers? Well the evidence is staggering to be sure. Most of the FOI requests can not be met as some of the data does not belong to the CRU. Sounds fair enough to me. Just stupid FOI requests.


"Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’."

So he needs a secretary? At what point does this say that the data is false? Trivial stuff.

[rah]

So you are ok with basing things on 12 cherry picked trees in the Yamal Peninsula that don't agree with about half of the entire instrument record? "Hide the Decline" right?

Surely you mean the Yamal tree ring study that used a subset of 224 focilised trees and 17 living trees?



"Classed" by whom? I've seen (and linked) to studies that say the MWP happened in Austrailia and New Zealand as well as the North.

In the following BBC article you linked to he explains how the MWP is classed. Please read your link.



Let's ask Dr. Jones. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009."



Show me where and by how much. I have yet to see anthing significant.
Please post the whole answer when you have it at hand.

"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/5temps.jpg




There are significant questions about every point of AGW. And each time someone brings those questions up, you do some arm waving about "peer review" and "concensious". These questions have to be answered, don't you think?

Every point of the AGW theory should be questioned continously to get the best possible science out of the studies. However posting blogarrhea is not questioning the science, it is questioning common sense. Usually the responses from the scientists themselves can be found with a little searching.



It (global warming/climate change) is a theory and as such it must stand up to rigorus challenges. You can't hide behind "peer review" and "concensious", and "the science is settled" forever. It is up to those proposing the theory to prove it, not the other way 'round. Science works by skeptics throwing questions at the theory to poke holes in it, and the proponents of said theory disproving those questions.

I am not hidding behind peer review, it is the best method we have for weeding out the crap. I think you will find they are trying to prove it every day. Maybe you need to look at the papers that are submitted and peer reviewed to get a better idea of the science involved. Scientists are skeptics. And the deniers are rarely scientists.



Again when you brought up the Nobel thing it was pretty clear to me at least, it wasn't a joke. But if you say so....

Ok, but to be honest, I don't really care.

[rah]

The IPCC has jumped into AGW with both feet. They won't look at anything that doesn't prove their hypothesis. That isn't science, that is politics.
Really? I doubt it. Just like I doubt you have any proof to support you claims. There are many different studies into sunspots and there effects on the climate. It is very interesting.


New technologies? Oh right...stuff produced by companies who have something to gain by this theory? Just like the oil companies, there is politics on your side too except you are obviously overlooking that. There isn't a way of stopping this unless you eliminate every car, half the power plants and take 5 billion people and make them disappear. It is ludricious to say the little cuts being proposed will stop AGW if it is actually working the way you say it is. That was James Loverock's point!

No, renewables were always going to be popular in the future despite AGW.
I have always said there is politics on both sides.
Actually I think you may be off with the fairies on this one, why do you want to kill so many people? Eliminating every car? Please have a look around, no-one is suggesting this that is not wearing a foil beenie.
The science is there, now it just needs you to read it.


You know of only one scientest? Oh really? Well as a kid in the 70's I remember all the stories on the news, and I remember the cover of Newsweek talking about it and others. It wasn't one at all my friend, it was the trendy theory then....

I meant personally. But there is a difference between media hype and science. Between 1965 to 1979 there were 7 papers suggesting global cooling. That is against 42 suggesting global warming. Crazy I know.


I am very skeptical. It is you that should be more skeptical. See, unlike you, I am very willing to follow the science where it goes. The only problem is, I will only say AGW theory is at best just a theory that doesn't have enough meat on it to make me jump ship. Furthermore, unlike you, I see the East Anglia controversy, among others and understand there is a lot of political wrangling going on. At best, the case for AGW is being destroyed by politics in the scientific community, and their allowing themselves to be used by the likes of Al Gore.

We have no real way of knowing how the earth is warming, IF it is warming, and WHY it is warming if it is.....and we wont find out when you have people like this POS Phil Jones losing Data that doesn't help HIS cause.


Ok, but I read it as fear, not skepticism. The science is there for all the world to see. The data is there as well if you would like to study it.

Sure we do, that is why it is studied. The more you look, the more you find. The blogosphere is not the best place to find information unless it is backed up.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Rah....I didn't ADVOCATE killing anyone. But for there to be a real reduction in CO2 emissions, you need to REALLY reduce them. That is impossible to do. THAT is my point. To really REDUCE them, you have to get people to either disappear, or use something that doesn't create CO2.

I am all for renewables. The fallacy is though that Solar, Wind and Tidal energy sources can take the place. If they could, they would. The reality is, none of them are much more than toys....

As for the science, I have seen it, read it, and think there is a lot of people WAY smarter than you and I who disagree with it.

Listen, what you have to grasp and understand is the solutions that are out there so far seem to be to tax and attack the capitalist system to "reduce" demand. Well that has a big hole in it. First off, the money is not put into new technologies only, it is given to countries that don't CARE about AGW.

Furthermore, the political movement behind this theory has done nothing but attack the US, Canada and Australia, while overlooking in a very convenient way the emerging behemoth's economically that are China and India. Their GROWTH in CO2 use will dwarf any meaningful efforts.

No...even if I believed as you do, I wouldn't buy into the the "solutions" and politics of what is going on. If AGW is the threat people keep telling me it is, we are screwed no matter what. Again, read James Loverock's theories on all of this. He thinks Cap and Trade is a ponzi scheme and the world is going to have this change and money would be better spent taking advantage of the changes or mitgating them. Nothing like this even talked about, instead I get emotional black mail.

Sorry....Not buying into the games...

[chuck34]

Sure it is the best process we have. Wow, didn't take me long to find this http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf

I can't belive that this noconsensus website wasted so many peoples time from so many countries.

Awesome, so you agree then that the IPCC violated their own rules by using 5587 articles that wern't peer reviewed. Thanks for agreeing with me

[chuck34]

Lol, so why didn't you post the bbc link? not sensationalist enough?

I did post it, keep reading.


So someone has said he may have lost the relevant papers? Well the evidence is staggering to be sure. Most of the FOI requests can not be met as some of the data does not belong to the CRU. Sounds fair enough to me. Just stupid FOI requests.

He lost some of the data, he doesn't deny that.


So he needs a secretary? At what point does this say that the data is false? Trivial stuff.

A body of evidence to the "nature" of his work.

[chuck34]

Surely you mean the Yamal tree ring study that used a subset of 224 focilised trees and 17 living trees?

Can't post the link right now. But they did sample 224 trees, decided they didn't "agree" and used a subset of 12 I believe.


In the following BBC article you linked to he explains how the MWP is classed. Please read your link.

What about the evidence that the MWP wasn't regional. In a peer reviewed piece as well?


Please post the whole answer when you have it at hand.

"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/5temps.jpg

The whole thing doesn't add anything. The point is still that Dr. Jones agrees that there has been NO SIGNIFICANT WARMING since 1995.


Every point of the AGW theory should be questioned continously to get the best possible science out of the studies. However posting blogarrhea is not questioning the science, it is questioning common sense. Usually the responses from the scientists themselves can be found with a little searching.

We've all posted links explaining how and why the peer review process is flawed. yet you isgnore them.


I am not hidding behind peer review, it is the best method we have for weeding out the crap. I think you will find they are trying to prove it every day. Maybe you need to look at the papers that are submitted and peer reviewed to get a better idea of the science involved. Scientists are skeptics. And the deniers are rarely scientists.

You seem to be the one ignoring common sence. And I post things from scientists for the most part, maybe not climate scientists, but statisticians etc.

[anthonyvop]

It is official: The whole Global Warming Cult is a religion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7610937/Worker-wins-50000-after-environmental-discrimination.html

At least in the U.K.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It is official: The whole Global Warming Cult is a religion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7610937/Worker-wins-50000-after-environmental-discrimination.html

At least in the U.K.

Hey Tony, you have to understand, if it is in the Tely, the majority of the believers won't believe it. It seems they treat the Tely over there like Fox. I guess news is only news when it comes fed to you in bites and in a way that supports your perceptions. Never mind that in the UK, I firmly believe that the believers in GW are like a cult, and they are not much different over here either.

I am one of those rare people who remain a skeptic of the THEORY, not the reality. I may agree in time it has been warmer, but I refuse to buy this myth it is all Man's fault. As I have pointed out until I am blue in the face, they have had "warming" trends at many times in history, but CO2 production from our industry has only been an influence in the last 150 years.

[donKey jote]

on a lighter note: science catfight: meteorologists vs climatologists (http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/tue-april-6-2010-reverend-al-sharpton)

coming up: astrologists vs astronomists ;) :p

[anthonyvop]

It is apparent that the man-made global warming are for an open debate............As long as you agree with them!

If not they will sue you!


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/04/20/climategates-mann-demands-hide-decline-video-be-removed-youtube

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, a Russian scientest obviously isn't buying into the Greenhouse gas theory either.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html\

IN a nutshell, he says solar fluctuations have caused the heating and the CO2 numbers we are seeing are a symptom of the change, not the cause of the change.

[Rollo]

Rah....I didn't ADVOCATE killing anyone. But for there to be a real reduction in CO2 emissions, you need to REALLY reduce them. That is impossible to do. THAT is my point. To really REDUCE them, you have to get people to either disappear, or use something that doesn't create CO2.

If you were to plant lots of trees, wouldn't that sink the carbon via various chemical reactions (ie photosynthesis and whatnot), by creating wood?

[Mark in Oshawa]

If you were to plant lots of trees, wouldn't that sink the carbon via various chemical reactions (ie photosynthesis and whatnot), by creating wood?

That is what I would think. The more green matter we plant, the greater the amount of CO2 sucked into to this biomass.

Problem is, you have the Brazilians burning off sections of the rain forest to have cattle ranches, and similar ecological degradation in places like India and Africa. We have a population in enviromentally sensitive areas that is struggling to survive, and governments quite willing to look the other way to the destruction of this ecosystem. Of course, it is way more complicated than that....but that is leading me back to my theory that if one really believed the theory in the first place was man made, to have REAL effects of the CO2 reduction you would have to have the premise of a much less populated earth..and that solution is not one that anyone sane would propose.

IN short, if I believe the IPCC, my next conclusion is we are screwed. Lucky for my sanity, I think they are trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole. The Russian theory I posted the link to sounds like what I have always thought all along...that solar fluctuations drive our climate moreso than our CO2 production.

[Easy Drifter]

You are all overlooking all the hot air Eki creates!!!!!!


I think I am in trouble.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You are all overlooking all the hot air Eki creates!!!!!!


I think I am in trouble.
talk about hijacking a thread....and being obsessed...lol

[rah]

Well, a Russian scientest obviously isn't buying into the Greenhouse gas theory either.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html\ (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html%5C)

IN a nutshell, he says solar fluctuations have caused the heating and the CO2 numbers we are seeing are a symptom of the change, not the cause of the change.

Solar fluctuations do have an impact, and it has certainly been measured in the past, but it does not hold true for the last 20-30 years. It usually happens on an 11 year cycle IIRC.

[rah]

That is what I would think. The more green matter we plant, the greater the amount of CO2 sucked into to this biomass.

Problem is, you have the Brazilians burning off sections of the rain forest to have cattle ranches, and similar ecological degradation in places like India and Africa. We have a population in enviromentally sensitive areas that is struggling to survive, and governments quite willing to look the other way to the destruction of this ecosystem. Of course, it is way more complicated than that....but that is leading me back to my theory that if one really believed the theory in the first place was man made, to have REAL effects of the CO2 reduction you would have to have the premise of a much less populated earth..and that solution is not one that anyone sane would propose.

IN short, if I believe the IPCC, my next conclusion is we are screwed. Lucky for my sanity, I think they are trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole. The Russian theory I posted the link to sounds like what I have always thought all along...that solar fluctuations drive our climate moreso than our CO2 production.

Your spot on about deforestation. It is happening wordwide faster than reforestation. But carbon sequestation through various farming techniques is supposed to work.

At the end of the day, reducing the worlds population would work, but it is very hard to find a couple of billion volunteers. Some countries will naturally reduce their populations, but that will take a while.

But it can all be fixed by reducing our impacts. Thats where some sexy technologies like algae based fuels and fussion come in. They are both just around the corner (15-25 years).

Doesn't mean we should not start reducing emmisions other ways immediately though.

[Daniel]

Your spot on about deforestation. It is happening wordwide faster than reforestation. But carbon sequestation through various farming techniques is supposed to work.

At the end of the day, reducing the worlds population would work, but it is very hard to find a couple of billion volunteers. Some countries will naturally reduce their populations, but that will take a while.

But it can all be fixed by reducing our impacts. Thats where some sexy technologies like algae based fuels and fussion come in. They are both just around the corner (15-25 years).

Doesn't mean we should not start reducing emmisions other ways immediately though.
Something we all agree on finally :)

If AGW is happening or not this is a disaster.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Another nail in the coffin of AGW. This guy who was one of the wheels of the IPCC now admits it is a lot of "supposed" support....

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-i

[fandango]

What annoys me about the whole "do we cause it?" question is that often there is some calamitous flood, storm, heatwave etc which they then say in news reports that "this is the worst event of this type for 80 years", or something like that, and it's therefore proof of Global Warming. So "what was the cause 80 years ago?" is the obvious question, but it never gets asked/answered...

[Mark in Oshawa]

What annoys me about the whole "do we cause it?" question is that often there is some calamitous flood, storm, heatwave etc which they then say in news reports that "this is the worst event of this type for 80 years", or something like that, and it's therefore proof of Global Warming. So "what was the cause 80 years ago?" is the obvious question, but it never gets asked/answered...

Hey, just remember. The earth had temperature fluctuations great enough to cause ice ages, or allow Dinosaurs to roam everywhere. Yet there wasn't a SUV in sight then. It is the conceited, naive assumption that man is capable of creating a new climatic condition based on his lifestyle. While we may be having some effect on the climate, rest assured the planet does things without our help....

No...the climate warriors bent on using scare tactics of ecological disaster to get their hands on the economy are just about out of bullets...

[rah]

Another nail in the coffin of AGW. This guy who was one of the wheels of the IPCC now admits it is a lot of "supposed" support....

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-i

Sure sure, from the man himself: http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Correcting-reports-of-the-PiPG-paper.pdf

That,s the problem when with misrepresentation, if the guy is still alive he can defend himself.

Only took me about 5 mins to find this.

[rah]

What annoys me about the whole "do we cause it?" question is that often there is some calamitous flood, storm, heatwave etc which they then say in news reports that "this is the worst event of this type for 80 years", or something like that, and it's therefore proof of Global Warming. So "what was the cause 80 years ago?" is the obvious question, but it never gets asked/answered...

Please remember that comments like this do not come from scientists. In fact I rarely hear them at all. They only come from reporters who do not have to be peer reviewed.

[rah]

Hey, just remember. The earth had temperature fluctuations great enough to cause ice ages, or allow Dinosaurs to roam everywhere. Yet there wasn't a SUV in sight then. It is the conceited, naive assumption that man is capable of creating a new climatic condition based on his lifestyle. While we may be having some effect on the climate, rest assured the planet does things without our help....

No...the climate warriors bent on using scare tactics of ecological disaster to get their hands on the economy are just about out of bullets...

Try Googling "beginners guide to global warming"

Hope this helps.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Try Googling "beginners guide to global warming"

Hope this helps.

Look up Lord Monckton, and CFACT. I don't need "Beginner's guide to global warming". I took 2 courses in climatology in my university days. I have more than a passing knowledge of weather forecasting and methodology, and those principles are just tossed out the window by the AGW crowd. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to actually read what Lord Monckton or CFACT have written about, because you keep naively thinking that the IPCC is right; when there is evidence all over the place their methods, and efforts have been manipulated to get the results they want.

[rah]

Look up Lord Monckton, and CFACT. I don't need "Beginner's guide to global warming". I took 2 courses in climatology in my university days. I have more than a passing knowledge of weather forecasting and methodology, and those principles are just tossed out the window by the AGW crowd. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to actually read what Lord Monckton or CFACT have written about, because you keep naively thinking that the IPCC is right; when there is evidence all over the place their methods, and efforts have been manipulated to get the results they want.

Well just as well you didnt come back to me with some science otherwise we may have had an argument. Monckton is a PR hack. Reading CFACT was like watching someone vomit, slightly amusing but mostly nauseating.

So 2 courses and you still do not understand how science works?

I do not naively think that the IPCC is right. The IPCC has way too many people involved to give an accurate picture. It's more like a best case conservative outline.

What evidence do you speak of? Give me something to work with here. Maybe some science to debate would be good, if you have some.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well just as well you didnt come back to me with some science otherwise we may have had an argument. Monckton is a PR hack. Reading CFACT was like watching someone vomit, slightly amusing but mostly nauseating.

So 2 courses and you still do not understand how science works?

I do not naively think that the IPCC is right. The IPCC has way too many people involved to give an accurate picture. It's more like a best case conservative outline.

What evidence do you speak of? Give me something to work with here. Maybe some science to debate would be good, if you have some.

Why should I be presenting the evidence? First off, Lord Monckton isn't a PR hack, the guy represents a lot of scientests who think this is bunk.

Second of all, the number of stories in the media about the faults and lies in the IPCC methodology and the East Anglia scandal says to me you are the one who has to defend the theory. I am of the theory that the earth may be warming, but it isn't CO2 related. I may be wrong, the earth may cool in the next 20 years or you might be right. My assertion is that there is so much crap flying around about the methodology, and the number of people in the field who don't buy into the AGW crap who have PhD's in Climatology says to me that your arrogant assertion that CFACT and the rest are full of crap is just your opinion. Last I looked, I am entitled to mine too...and I think you are wrong.

No one KNOWS Rah....no one REALLY knows, but I am telling you that I don't buy for one second your side because all the solutions for the "problem" involve kneecapping the more developed nations such as Canada, USA and Western Europe while blithly ignoring or even TRYING to convince India or China to cut their CO2 emissions. Sorry, if this is an emergency, show me the urgency. Furthermore, if you read James Loverock's theory on this, he believes there is nothing we COULD do because we have done too much damage. He agrees with your side, but thinks the IPCC panel is out to lunch and most governments are. So....even among people who believe in this as you do, there is no consensus on what should be done. So why should I buy into this theory, when it is clear that near as I can figure, the solution to it all is Cap and Trade, which by the way, doesn't do CRAP except make a lot of pompous jerks like Al Gore rich?

If your belief in this theory is correct, then we have to really look at the reality that there are too many people to change a damn thing at this point. As I said, unless you are volunteering to have 5 Billion people exterminated tomorrow, you cant stop the earth's population from creating the CO2 issue. Furthermore, since that is NOT a viable option, then we have to go back to the urgency. Copenhagen was 6 months ago. Nothing has been done, or said to change a damn thing. If impending doom was coming to take me out, I would have to think I would be talking about it every day to stop it. The world's leaders are NOT. They are trying to fix the financial disaster that is the world's finances...so that tells you all you really need to know. The AGW scare is all about powerful people using your sentiments to find more ways to control your money...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Please remember that comments like this do not come from scientists. In fact I rarely hear them at all. They only come from reporters who do not have to be peer reviewed.
Peer Review? IS that what the East Anglia emails were talking about? I remember now...yes...hacked or not, the truth was there. The gent's in question were admant they would rather destroy data than give it up for peer review, and apparently they had. Does THAT tell you all you need to know about their real faith in their work?

Reporters may or may not be wrong, but I know that the email scandal confirmed to me that a lot of this IPCC crap was just a theory that somehow was being sold as a consensus, which of course means nothing. You can find thousands of people who all agree on something, but they could all be wrong...

The IPCC has a theory..but I am not for changing the world's economy upside down on a theory. NOT this theory...

[chuck34]

What evidence do you speak of? Give me something to work with here. Maybe some science to debate would be good, if you have some.

Perhaps you should look at the evidence I and others have linked to here. You have WILLFULLY IGNORED any evidence we have presented or worse, dismissed it out of hand.

If we put up evidence, written by statisticians, that the climate guys have gotten their statistics wrong, you blast them for not being "climate scientists". If we put up evidence that says the temperature monitering stations used are not up the the standards written by the various agencies themselves, you say the autors of these reports aren't "climate scientists" and therefore aren't to be believed. It goes on and on with you.

YOU are the one ignoring the evidence, and diverting the debate. Instead of debating the "credentals" of the authors of studies, why don't you want to actually debate the evidence they are putting forward? You're like talking to a brick wall.

[chuck34]

Monckton is a PR hack.

Let's further this argument into a debate then. Let's say for a minute that I agree with you, Monckton is a PR hack. Ok, we've agreed on that premise. Now, that means we don't have to debate his credintials any longer, we agree, they are sh!t. But is what he says completely invalid because of that? I mean after all PR hacks usually don't just invent things out of thin air. What exactly is this PR hack saying that is wrong? Is what this PR hack saying completely made up, totally over exaggerated, or slightly embelished?

Speaking of PR hacks ... what exactly is Al Gore? Should everything comming out of his mouth be completely discredited as well? After all he took 1 climate class in college, so I guess Mark is a more qualified climatologist.


Reading CFACT was like watching someone vomit, slightly amusing but mostly nauseating.


Good, good. You can have your OPINIONS about that orginazation. That's all well and good. But it's not really a debate now is it? In order for it to be a debate, that you so badly seem to want to have, you must have a rebutal to what they say. Show Mark and I why they are wrong, convince us, and others. Saying you laugh at them really doesn't do much for furthering debate. And after all that is what you say you want, isn't it?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Chuck, I am putting Rah on ignore. He keeps stamping his feet and sticking his fingers in his ears going "Nah nah nah, I cant hear you"....

Fact have a funny way of proving people wrong, and he doesn't want to look at them. The fact is the global warming caused by man crowd doesn't have anything but a nice theory, and that is all it is.

The fact is, many other people have great theories out there and some say the earth's climatic shifts will happen regardless of what we do.

As for me Chuck, I took TWO climatology courses...lol..and had at one point a valid Weather Observer's certificate. So I have a working knowledge of how they come to make forecasts and how weather obs are taken at the stations. That data is part of what goes into the climate modelling those guys love to spout when they cry about when the sky is falling.

So I have a bit of knowledge, but I am not a climate expert, I am lucky if I can predict weather 10 minutes ahead of time!!!

That said, I understand how weather works, and what drives it, and what the Global Warming fans on this board have failed to grasp is just how much data you would need to have a definative grasp on our world's climate. They are at best, educated guesses. Guesses are not worth tearing up the world's economy in some grand socialist scheme; but that never stopped the likes of Al Gore, who for those who forgot, walked away from Kyoto and never pushed to get it ratified in the US and then spent 4 years trying to reinvent himself after 2000 before latching onto being the great climate saviour. IN short...the man is fat fraud. BIG FAT Fraud..and his wife found him out finally as well. Guy has the carbon footprint the size of North Dakota and he is lecturing me??

[chuck34]

Sorry it's behind a pay wall. But thought this might be interesting.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026510.shtml


We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995–2005) warming period with the previous (1920–1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005.

And Greenland is held up by many as "proof" of AGW?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Half a month later, Still no debate....Just name calling...

[chuck34]

An interesting read about the "dire" consequences of Global Warming (or whatever they're calling it now).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/22/eight-tenths-of-a-degree-think-of-the-grandchildren/

[fandango]

Hey, just remember. The earth had temperature fluctuations great enough to cause ice ages, or allow Dinosaurs to roam everywhere. Yet there wasn't a SUV in sight then. It is the conceited, naive assumption that man is capable of creating a new climatic condition based on his lifestyle. While we may be having some effect on the climate, rest assured the planet does things without our help....

No...the climate warriors bent on using scare tactics of ecological disaster to get their hands on the economy are just about out of bullets...

One part of me agrees with you, one part of me doesn't. The fact that there have been fluctuations which have not been caused by people doesn't mean that current changes aren't caused by people either.

And then, if being "greener" helps a situation which wasn't of our making that doesn't discredit being green either.

BUT (you knew that was coming) people's objections to how their neighbours are or aren't recycling are largely irrelevant, given the small numbers involved, so that part mostly comes down to what kind of society we want to see when we leave our homes. It's just people being narky, mostly. What counts is what industry does, and we should keep an eye on those guys, because they are us.

Global warming may be a nonsense, but the secondary effects of making us think about how much crap we generate and where we throw it, rather than just not thinking about it at all, are good. That is, however, merely my opinion. I have no science to back it up, and nor do I think it necessary.

[Door slams, as The Great Fandango leaves the entire lecture theatre to ponder his great words as he searches through his pockets for the keys to his Hummer]

[555-04Q2]

Damn. I just f@rted. The world temperature just increased slightly. I am global warming...the "scientists" have been looking in the wrong place for explanations to our warming source.

[donKey jote]

you should have litten it... turned it into water and plant food :dozey:

[555-04Q2]

I would hate to be mistaken for a Greenie :p :

[glauistean]

Having read all of the posts about this topic there is one conclusion that can be gathered.

Those of you with a right wing slant from a particular continent that know little to nothing about science or geography let alone geology and listen for inspiration to the Fox blathermouths who pontificate from their glorified pedestals are the exact ones that I find it not surprising that they would be the one's that deny that there is climate change. The fact that they believe Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck , people without a modicum of scientific knowledge except that which is fed to them to satisfy their unheducated audience by the use of ignorant and rash assumptions knowing that the big words used "must" be true because they add credibilty to their argument.

Climate Change is real. As a person of science I do not have to be in awe of anything said by anyone.

[glauistean]

Having read all of the posts about this topic there is one conclusion that can be gathered.

Those of you with a right wing slant from a particular continent that know little to nothing about science or geography let alone geology and listen for inspiration to the Fox blathermouths who pontificate from their glorified pedestals are the exact ones that I find it not surprising that they would be the one's that deny that there is climate change. The fact that they believe Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck , people without a modicum of scientific knowledge except that which is fed to them to satisfy their uneducated audience by the use of ignorant and rash assumptions knowing that the big words used "must" be true because they add credibility to their argument.

Climate Change is real. As a person of science I do not have to be in awe of anything said by anyone. The simple fact that I can speak of atrial fibrillation or HT re-uptake inhibitors does not prevent me from listening to the 99% of scientists that believe and know that there is climate change. Any person that does not see this and wants "proof" that it is happening is either ignorant or doing exactly what one of the earlier poster s is doing. Failing to believe because it does not fit into your political world view.

Wake up. Time is ticking and if you want to know what will happen when Greenland emits it's methane into the atmosphere after it's shield has been broken, you need to read what the ramifications are for doing nothing.

[chuck34]

Having read all of the posts about this topic there is one conclusion that can be gathered.

Those of you with a right wing slant from a particular continent that know little to nothing about science or geography let alone geology and listen for inspiration to the Fox blathermouths who pontificate from their glorified pedestals are the exact ones that I find it not surprising that they would be the one's that deny that there is climate change. The fact that they believe Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck , people without a modicum of scientific knowledge except that which is fed to them to satisfy their unheducated audience by the use of ignorant and rash assumptions knowing that the big words used "must" be true because they add credibilty to their argument.

Climate Change is real. As a person of science I do not have to be in awe of anything said by anyone. The simple fact that I can speak of atrail fibrilation or 5ht re-uptake inhibitors does not prevent me from listenting to the 99% of scientists that believe and know that there is climate change. Any person that does not see this and wants "proof" that it is happening is either ignorant or doing exactly what one of the earlier poster s is doing. Failing to believe because it does not fit into your political world view.

Of course Climate Change is real. The climate changes all the time. Where I'm sitting right now used to be 2 miles under ice. As a man of science it should be really easy for you to prove that anything we've seen in the past few years is 1) out of the "ordinary", 2) man caused it, and 3) it's a bad thing. So go ahead, prove it.

This has nothing to do with politics. As I've said I started out as a believer in "Global Warming" (that was before the "climate disruption" we have now, and before "Climate Change" even). You might also want to look up the Left's Anti-Christ, George W. Bush's, views on the subject. There is way too much uncertainty even in our current temperatures let alone the historic record to say any of this for sure.

[glauistean]

Of course Climate Change is real. The climate changes all the time. Where I'm sitting right now used to be 2 miles under ice. As a man of science it should be really easy for you to prove that anything we've seen in the past few years is 1) out of the "ordinary", 2) man caused it, and 3) it's a bad thing. So go ahead, prove it.

This has nothing to do with politics. As I've said I started out as a believer in "Global Warming" (that was before the "climate disruption" we have now, and before "Climate Change" even). You might also want to look up the Left's Anti-Christ, George W. Bush's, views on the subject. There is way too much uncertainty even in our current temperatures let alone the historic record to say any of this for sure.

Chuck.

Global temperature has increased and precipitation patterns have changed over the 20th century as a result of human-induced global warming, resulting in some increases in extremes of temperature and precipitation. According to the IPCC-AR4, “[i]ncreases in the amount of precipitation are very likely [better than 9 to 1 odds] in high-latitudes, while decreases are likely [better than 2 to 1 odds] in most subtropical land regions,” and “[i]t is very likely [at least 9 to 1 odds] that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent. Thereby in regional areas such as the one you describe, a river that was once all ice is not unusual to you?

The point, that you are making this so colloquial, is difficult for anyone to make argument to you that you will believe. That we have had record breaking hurricanes, drought, starvation on a massive scale the shrinking of the glaciers and all the other weather anomaly's that have occurred this past ten years and you need me to point them out to you is inane to say the least.

There were three hurricanes rated at a 5 in 2005. One of them was Katrina.The others were Wilma and I can't the other. I will given time if you wish.

In South America, a glacier from the Andes dislodged for no reason other than warmer weather. But why is it cold in the winter. I'm not going into that save for the point that if you do a little research into how weather is affected dramatically season to season and causation is based on one season to another you will understand.

It is not up to me to determine what you believe is good or bad. I would would suggest that rising ocean levels, emissions of CH4 and CO2 as well CFCS is bad. Dying off of species of plants as evidenced in the Himalayas as well as cities becoming victims to weather that are directly attributed to warming.

You said you were not politicizing this yet you slam people that are of a left leaning persuasion and deem it necessary to generalize that people have a feeling toward President Bush that I never once heard anyone that I know of ever state. I can't say the same about the right wing at this moment in time.

President Bush believes in Climate Change and enacted in 2007 at the G8 Summit measures to thwart and stem the threat it is to his credit that he listened to his own NASA scientists as well as those from around the world.

[Daniel]

Chuck.

Global temperature has increased and precipitation patterns have changed over the 20th century as a result of human-induced global warming, resulting in some increases in extremes of temperature and precipitation. According to the IPCC-AR4, “[i]ncreases in the amount of precipitation are very likely [better than 9 to 1 odds] in high-latitudes, while decreases are likely [better than 2 to 1 odds] in most subtropical land regions,” and “[i]t is very likely [at least 9 to 1 odds] that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent. Thereby in regional areas such as the one you describe, a river that was once all ice is not unusual to you?

The point, that you are making this so colloquial, is difficult for anyone to make argument to you that you will believe. That we have had record breaking hurricanes, drought, starvation on a massive scale the shrinking of the glaciers and all the other weather anomaly's that have occurred this past ten years and you need me to point them out to you is inane to say the least.

There were three hurricanes rated at a 5 in 2005. One of them was Katrina.The others were Wilma and I can't the other. I will given time if you wish.

In South America, a glacier from the Andes dislodged for no reason other than warmer weather. But why is it cold in the winter. I'm not going into that save for the point that if you do a little research into how weather is affected dramatically season to season and causation is based on one season to another you will understand.

It is not up to me to determine what you believe is good or bad. I would would suggest that rising ocean levels, emissions of CH4 and CO2 as well CFCS is bad. Dying off of species of plants as evidenced in the Himalayas as well as cities becoming victims to weather that are directly attributed to warming.

You said you were not politicizing this yet you slam people that are of a left leaning persuasion and deem it necessary to generalize that people have a feeling toward President Bush that I never once heard anyone that I know of ever state. I can't say the same about the right wing at this moment in time.

President Bush believes in Climate Change and enacted in 2007 at the G8 Summit measures to thwart and stem the threat it is to his credit that he listened to his own NASA scientists as well as those from around the world.
The thing is records are always going to be broken, species will always go extinct and so on and so forth......

We're forever getting told that sea ice in the north pole is declining and then you see stuff like this

http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg

My opinion has and always will be that scientists should make predictions for 20-50 years in the future and be proven to be correct at 5 year intervals and when those predictions are proven to be accurate over the full term of the prediction then they can call it fact. Whenever you see one of these alarmist global warming shows it's full of people who made a prediction 10 years ago which was right but if you had a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters then one of them is going to get it right.....

I think it's a symptom of humankind thinking they're more clever than they are to think that they can

A) Predict what the earths climate is going to do
B) Influence the climate

[glauistean]

The thing is records are always going to be broken, species will always go extinct and so on and so forth......

We're forever getting told that sea ice in the north pole is declining and then you see stuff like this

http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg

My opinion has and always will be that scientists should make predictions for 20-50 years in the future and be proven to be correct at 5 year intervals and when those predictions are proven to be accurate over the full term of the prediction then they can call it fact. Whenever you see one of these alarmist global warming shows it's full of people who made a prediction 10 years ago which was right but if you had a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters then one of them is going to get it right.....

I think it's a symptom of humankind thinking they're more clever than they are to think that they can

A) Predict what the earths climate is going to do
B) Influence the climate

You put up two pictures of what? It says nothing. Are you denying everything that I just wrote. Are you showing any estimates of ice depth? Are you saying that 2300 scientists that recently attended the EEO, the most gifted of climatologists are in this for scare tactics? What would be their agenda?

As has been stated. If you don't believe in Climate change then that is your prerogative. The question is "what if you're wrong"?

[Daniel]

You put up two pictures of what? It says nothing.

WTF? Are you illiterate or something?

[glauistean]

WTF? Are you illiterate or something?

That's your response? Those pictures show nothing of what is occurring. You are trying through a layman's mind to argue that these two maps are representative of.......? Tell me what you are concluding from what you see?

[glauistean]

WTF? Are you illiterate or something?



By the way Daniel. I take insults as compliments from those that know no better.

[Daniel]

That's your response? Those pictures show nothing of what is occurring. You are trying through a layman's mind to argue that these two maps are representative of.......? Tell me what you are concluding from what you see?
Are you unable to read? The maps clearly state what they mean.....

[glauistean]

WTF? Are you illiterate or something?




Just to help you out Daniel. From the same site as you got your maps and try to misrepresent what they say or I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You don't know.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/region.mask.gif Choose a region from the map left or the list below : Arctic Basin (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html)Laptev Sea (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.8.html)Bering Sea (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.2.html)East Siberian Sea (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.9.html)St. Lawrence (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.3.html)Chukchi Sea (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.10.html)Baffin/Newfoundland Bay (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.4.html)Beaufort Sea (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.11.html)Greenland Sea (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html)Canadian Archipelago (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.12.html)Barents Sea (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.6.html)Hudson Bay (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.13.html)Kara Sea (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.7.html)Sea of Okhotsk (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.14.html)

[Daniel]

Just to help you out Daniel. From the same site as you got your maps and try to misrepresent what they say or I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You don't know.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/region.mask.gif Choose a region from the map left or the list below : Arctic Basin (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html)Laptev Sea (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.8.html)Bering Sea (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.2.html)East Siberian Sea (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.9.html)St. Lawrence (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.3.html)Chukchi Sea (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.10.html)Baffin/Newfoundland Bay (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.4.html)Beaufort Sea (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.11.html)Greenland Sea (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html)Canadian Archipelago (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.12.html)Barents Sea (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.6.html)Hudson Bay (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.13.html)Kara Sea (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.7.html)Sea of Okhotsk (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.14.html)
Your graph only helps to back up what I'm saying, which is that there will always be fluctuations.... but that the sky isn't falling down just yet

[chuck34]

Chuck.

"Glauistean". This is gonna be long, so please bear with me.


Global temperature has increased and precipitation patterns have changed over the 20th century as a result of human-induced global warming, resulting in some increases in extremes of temperature and precipitation. According to the IPCC-AR4, “[i]ncreases in the amount of precipitation are very likely [better than 9 to 1 odds] in high-latitudes, while decreases are likely [better than 2 to 1 odds] in most subtropical land regions,” and “[i]t is very likely [at least 9 to 1 odds] that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.

So you haven't read every post in this thread as you said. Because if you had you wouldn't post IPCC-AR4 as "gospel". There are so many holes in their data gathering techniques, and validity of conclusions that it isn't funny.

A listing of just a few, and this is from a while ago
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm


Thereby in regional areas such as the one you describe, a river that was once all ice is not unusual to you?

No. Have you seriously never heard of the ice age? Show me one bit of land that has always been as it is now.


The point, that you are making this so colloquial, is difficult for anyone to make argument to you that you will believe.

I will believe credible evidence. Why do you believe the IPCC at face value?


That we have had record breaking hurricanes,

Really? I don't see any trend in Accumulated Cyclone Energy.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/nh_ace_yearly.png


drought,

In the US there doesn't appear to be any trend other than cycles.
http://www.drought.unl.edu/risk/us/%25droughtlg.gif


starvation on a massive scale

Starvation is a hard thing to pin down. And how do you attribute that to climatic issues rather than political? Afterall the places where most starvation exists aren't usually the most politically stable to begin with, and they just happen to be the places that AGW says will be hardest hit. So how do you seperate one cause from another?


the shrinking of the glaciers

You mean these glaciers? From that bastion of "right wing thinking" the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm

The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says.


and all the other weather anomaly's that have occurred this past ten years

What "other weather anomalies"? And are you sure that said anomaly is unprecedented?


and you need me to point them out to you is inane to say the least.

Some actual data would be nice. Other than taking the IPCC report at face value, why not look around and see what's really out there. It's not that hard.


There were three hurricanes rated at a 5 in 2005. One of them was Katrina.The others were Wilma and I can't the other. I will given time if you wish.

Rita. I've already shown you the yearly A.C.E. Yes 2005 was the most, but there is no trend. In fact this year is the lowest since 1976.


In South America, a glacier from the Andes dislodged for no reason other than warmer weather.

You'll have to show me that one, and are you sure the only reason could possibly be from "warmer weather"? That's a mighty tall claim.


But why is it cold in the winter. I'm not going into that save for the point that if you do a little research into how weather is affected dramatically season to season and causation is based on one season to another you will understand.

Ok I'll just have to take the great "glauistean's" word for it once again.


It is not up to me to determine what you believe is good or bad.

Quite right. So why are you trying to tell me how to live my life?


I would would suggest that rising ocean levels,

Looks to me like the "dreaded sea level rise" slowed down in about '06. Be careful of linear trend lines.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.jpg


emissions of CH4 and CO2 as well CFCS is bad.

Really? Why are they "bad"?


Dying off of species of plants as evidenced in the Himalayas

The greatest cause of species dying off is loss of habitat. The main reason they are loosing habitat is because humans change said habitat into housing, farm land, or some other use. So basically you are saying over-population is the real concern. As such I volunteer you to be the first to be "fixed" in the name of all those little critters that may, or may not, become extinct because of us evil humans. :)


as well as cities becoming victims to weather that are directly attributed to warming.

You are going to have to be more specific on that one.


You said you were not politicizing this yet you slam people that are of a left leaning persuasion and deem it necessary to generalize that people have a feeling toward President Bush that I never once heard anyone that I know of ever state.

If you have never heard of anyone on the left call Bush "pure evil" or the like, you just wern't listening. Come on, you're better than that.


I can't say the same about the right wing at this moment in time.

Can't say what?


President Bush believes in Climate Change and enacted in 2007 at the G8 Summit measures to thwart and stem the threat it is to his credit that he listened to his own NASA scientists as well as those from around the world.

Exactly. You we're dismissing my views simply because I lean to the right politically. So I was pointing out someone who has been put up as some sort of "god of the right" to show you that this has nothing to do with politics. This has everything to do with science and freedom.

[chuck34]

You put up two pictures of what? It says nothing.

I'll spell it out for you. Although we aren't back to "average", we are well above the low for ice extent.


Are you denying everything that I just wrote. Are you showing any estimates of ice depth?

See my previous response to you. And are you showing ice depth?


Are you saying that 2300 scientists that recently attended the EEO, the most gifted of climatologists are in this for scare tactics? What would be their agenda?

Oh, I don't know, perhaps their agenda could be to securing funding so that they can "earn" a living? Afterall these guys all make a living off government grants. You ever try getting a government grant to study why everything is "normal"?


As has been stated. If you don't believe in Climate change then that is your prerogative. The question is "what if you're wrong"?

You obviously DO believe in "climate change". What if YOU are wrong? What if we follow your advice and enact all these "cap and trade" schemes that will kill the US economically? What if we follow your advice and China/India/Others don't sign on? What if all our jobs go there? What if they still "pollute" at the same levels or greater? What if, even after all that, all the doom-and-gloom, apocalyptic scenarios DON'T happen? What have we lost then?

What if YOU are wrong?

[glauistean]

Your graph only helps to back up what I'm saying, which is that there will always be fluctuations.... but that the sky isn't falling down just yet

My graph does exactly the opposite. Can you read a graph since you are the one that has pointed towards literacy.

I believe I can read a graph as well as any man even when it is not in my field. To cherry pick as you did and to suggest that there is a conclusion to be made from those world maps is disingenuous and points to you being either a/ unable to understand what is being represented, or B/ trying to suggest through smoke and mirrors that you have found something that would be worthy of global celebration.

I suggest anyone that is reading this , go to the site in question and delve into what is being stated. It can be done easily by going to the page where I posted the illustration of the world and sea ice.

[glauistean]

"Glauistean". This is gonna be long, so please bear with me.



So you haven't read every post in this thread as you said. Because if you had you wouldn't post IPCC-AR4 as "gospel". There are so many holes in their data gathering techniques, and validity of conclusions that it isn't funny.

A listing of just a few, and this is from a while ago
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm



No. Have you seriously never heard of the ice age? Show me one bit of land that has always been as it is now.



I will believe credible evidence. Why do you believe the IPCC at face value?



Really? I don't see any trend in Accumulated Cyclone Energy.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/nh_ace_yearly.png



In the US there doesn't appear to be any trend other than cycles.
http://www.drought.unl.edu/risk/us/%25droughtlg.gif



Starvation is a hard thing to pin down. And how do you attribute that to climatic issues rather than political? Afterall the places where most starvation exists aren't usually the most politically stable to begin with, and they just happen to be the places that AGW says will be hardest hit. So how do you seperate one cause from another?



You mean these glaciers? From that bastion of "right wing thinking" the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm




What "other weather anomalies"? And are you sure that said anomaly is unprecedented?



Some actual data would be nice. Other than taking the IPCC report at face value, why not look around and see what's really out there. It's not that hard.



Rita. I've already shown you the yearly A.C.E. Yes 2005 was the most, but there is no trend. In fact this year is the lowest since 1976.



You'll have to show me that one, and are you sure the only reason could possibly be from "warmer weather"? That's a mighty tall claim.



Ok I'll just have to take the great "glauistean's" word for it once again.



Quite right. So why are you trying to tell me how to live my life?



Looks to me like the "dreaded sea level rise" slowed down in about '06. Be careful of linear trend lines.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.jpg



Really? Why are they "bad"?



The greatest cause of species dying off is loss of habitat. The main reason they are loosing habitat is because humans change said habitat into housing, farm land, or some other use. So basically you are saying over-population is the real concern. As such I volunteer you to be the first to be "fixed" in the name of all those little critters that may, or may not, become extinct because of us evil humans. :)



You are going to have to be more specific on that one.



If you have never heard of anyone on the left call Bush "pure evil" or the like, you just wern't listening. Come on, you're better than that.



Can't say what?



Exactly. You we're dismissing my views simply because I lean to the right politically. So I was pointing out someone who has been put up as some sort of "god of the right" to show you that this has nothing to do with politics. This has everything to do with science and freedom.

This is pointless. You are given arguments for GLOBAL and you limit it to the US. You don't know why too much CO2 CH4 and CFCS are bad? You besmirch an organization and state that it has holes all over it's conclusions. The organization is viewed as the preeminent organization on these studies. Then you debase the travesty of starving people and instead of looking at what has been proven and shown about drought's you disparage their plight and make it a political event.

You then start off on your George Bush angle which I stated to you earlier was the bait to make it political.

There is another great part of the earth out there worth exploring.

By the way there are other organization such as EEA that might benefit your curiosity and cause you to study more within the field you decided to post the thread.

I am done with this now so no need to respond.

[chuck34]

My graph does exactly the opposite. Can you read a graph since you are the one that has pointed towards literacy.

Apparently I can't read a graph. Can you point me to the one that shows a "dramatic" decrease in ice?


I believe I can read a graph as well as any man even when it is not in my field. To cherry pick as you did

How exactly did he cherry pick?


and to suggest that there is a conclusion to be made from those world maps

That's not a world map. Do you want me to break out the world maps? I'd suggest, for your sake, that you do not.


is disingenuous and points to you being either a/ unable to understand what is being represented, or B/ trying to suggest through smoke and mirrors that you have found something that would be worthy of global celebration.

And to dismiss his point is pretty much to say that 30 years is MUCH more significant than 3 years on global time scales. Is that really what you are trying to say?


I suggest anyone that is reading this , go to the site in question and delve into what is being stated. It can be done easily by going to the page where I posted the illustration of the world and sea ice.

I did and I sure don't see WORLD sea ice. Again do you really want me to post that?

[chuck34]

This is pointless. You are given arguments for GLOBAL and you limit it to the US.

The only thing I limited to the US was about droughts because that's what I found quickly. But yes let's eliminate the US it's an insignificant portion of the land in the world. Come one.


You don't know why too much CO2 CH4 and CFCS are bad?

I know the theories behind why some seem to think this. Can it be conclusively proven? Do you know about the concept of "feedbacks"? Do you know if said feedbacks are positive or negative? How do you prove one way or the other?


You besmirch an organization and state that it has holes all over it's conclusions. The organization is viewed as the preeminent organization on these studies.

Oh, and preeminent organizations are never wrong? Please. The world's flat, malaria and yellow fever aren't transmited by mosquitos, man can't go faster than the speed of sound, man can't live in zero g. Those are just some of the theories held by "preeminent" organizations throughout history. But they must be right. Right? I mean afterall they are preeminent and scientific, right?????


Then you debase the travesty of starving people

No. I never debased that people starving is a travesty. IT IS. I just question the cause. You have done nothing to "prove" that it is caused by "climate change". "The Great Glauistean Says It's SO" just doesn't cut it for me. Sorry.


and instead of looking at what has been proven and shown about drought's you disparage their plight and make it a political event.

Again, I'm not disparaging any tragedy. I'm only questioning how you can prove that said tragedy wouldn't have happened if humans hadn't made economic advancements.


You then start off on your George Bush angle which I stated to you earlier was the bait to make it political.

YOU WERE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT POLITICS INTO THIS

Those of you with a right wing slant from a particular continent that know little to nothing about science or geography let alone geology


There is another great part of the earth out there worth exploring.

Yep. And it's obvious you need to start with the Antarctic. How's the ice doing down there?


By the way there are other organization such as EEA that might benefit your curiosity and cause you to study more within the field you decided to post the thread.

Yep. They are a great place for political advocacy. Why don't you start looking at the science, and question everything? Incuding what I say?


I am done with this now so no need to respond.

Ah, just like your hero, Al Gore, you refuse to debate. The science is settled, right? I'm a "flat-earther" right. The difference being is that I'll gladly debate anyone who believes that the earth is flat. You, and those like you, just run away and hide. Stand up for what you believe. Even if I think you're wrong, that way at least I'll have some respect for you. If you just run away, you're just proving the point that you don't know your facts, and this is all, at the heart of it, a political control issue. "We" don't know what's good for us. So "you" need to step in and tell us what to think/do. Sorry, but I'm not buying it. I still have a mind of my own, thank you very much.

[Daniel]

Chuck, just give up. This guy is beyond help

[chuck34]

Chuck, just give up. This guy is beyond help

But I want to debate. I don't know everything. Perhaps he has some sort of insight that might help us all understand what is going on.

Probably not. More likely is that he's dranken (drunk?) Al Gore's Kool-Aid and won't have any facts, and won't debate the issues. Who knows?

I do know that it says quite a bit that I've posted by far more links to actual scientific research than all the AGW supporters/"the science is settled" types out there. Interesting isn't it?

[Hondo]

I do believe you have Joe Biden, dressed in a glauistean suit, chuck.