'Climate Change' - what are your thoughts?

I just typed my response to this part of your crap and its just vanished. I swear this fuking site works against me. Of course when you're working with the truth all you have to do is repeat it and people will believe it, right? Right?! Like the aforementioned galileo. Ok, back to business.

I already mentioned how IPCC chairman Rajendra Pauchauri admits to the temperature plateau this decade. Even the pro-AGW Reuters has reported him saying it.



http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1171501720080111?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

This is what else he says "There are some people who would want to find every single excuse to say that this is all hogwash."

Same link: "We are in a minor La Nina period which shows a little cooling in the Pacific Ocean,". Go study La Nina, and you'll have a better understanding of ther current 'plateau'.

You see, people that deny global warming accuse the "alarmists" (loooool) of ignoring data(which isnt true, everything claimed by the denialists is rebuked.. with SCIENCE), whilst picking one single statistic, piece of data, and ignoring the rest.




Speaking of pro-AGW media, you can't get anymore pro than the BBC. Even they were forced recently to admit global temperatures have not risen since 1998.

This is un****ing believable. There are, what, 30? scientific organtisations arounfd the globe that confirm global warming. Nerdboy wants to pick a news group to prove his whacky claims. By the way, this is the same news that has repeatedly been applauded for its lack of bias in revealing the current news to the general public. IN FACT, if you search Nerdboys posts, there is a good chance you will find claims by him that the BBC is one of the BEST news groups on the planet, best for providing an unbiased, unpolitisized opinion of the truth.


The World Meteorological Organisation serves under the UN. The same guys who oversee the IPCC.

BY the way, fo anybody that's interested. The IPCC are not scientists. Essentially what they do is, take all the information on Climate change, by reputable scientists around the globe, and transfer all the information into one big peer reviewed report so that people can read and understand what scientists, and the general scientific consensus is.

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The IPCC site where you can access the 4 reports written about Climate change. I can't lie, each report is pretty long, is boring, and can be quite a difficult read.

Nerdboy will claim that the science has been politicalized, the truth is, if you watched the video of my previous post, it was politized by people that didnt give a toss about the truth. Not by the actual scientists that care about the truth. Because you can argue all you want, but at the end of the day, scientists, for the most part, are scientists because they want to know the TRUTH.


I've got tons more. Seriously, you're about the only guy left who's kind of looked at the information, yet still believes temperatures have risen since 1998.

Come on, man. Anybody else reading this, no matter how many times Nerd4Hire says this, just dont believe it. Do some research.

In the past month I have talked to about a dozen scientists, and all of them have said that the temperature, whilst being unbelievably hard to read, has either increased over the past decade, or has remained static, or stabile over the past decade. IE, it hasn't been cooling as you are trying to force on people.
In fact, if you read the article you linked me too carefully you'll see not even they think temperatures have risen since 1998. What they give you is an explanation of why they don't think it matters.

WHAT THE **** are you talking about? The link I posted said that there are temperature readings that do NOT include the artic ocean. The Arctic ocean, by the way, is the fastest warming place on the planet. If you remove something so vast in your calculations then obviously you will be miles of the reality. There have been other assesments that have[tried their best] to include the arctic ocean in their calculations. ANd they show, even with la Nina, that he world temperature is either currently in a position of stability, or it is increasing.

You see, the truth is, people like Nerdboy accuse the scientists that do reserch on this subject and that write peer reviwed papers on this subject, DO NOT TAKE into acount certain factors, like underwater volcanos. However, Nerdboy is more than happy to take the same information, collected by the same people, WITH THE SAME INACCURACIES, and use them as proof that global warming is a myth. A hoax. ITs all about some bad bad people, that want to destroy the industrial world we lve in, to criple countries economies.. ALL TO MAKE A LITTLE EXTRA CASH. REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THESE VERY SAME PEOPLE OE TO MAKE FUTURE PREDICTIONS. ANd the prediciotns are that money spen on AGW, is precious money, taken from the governmwent and wasted, this same money will cripple some countries, destroy economies, and make lots of people poor. The same people(scientists) that argue this theory.

Edit: Accidently pressed submit, I have more to add on this subect.
 
E
Edmund Blackadder
Become anal like me and everytime you are about to public 'Ctrl A' then 'Ctrl C' JUST in case
Is it just me or dosnt it seem obvious, without even knowing all the facts, that with an increase of 5 billion people and heavy industrial pollution in the last hundred years that humans must be affecting the planets atmosphere kinda majorly?
 
here's a climate change forum if any of you guys want to join up: Climate Change Forum - The Environment Site Forums

Or instead, here's a nice picture of our beautiful world:
climate-change-2.jpg


I think I'm going to try and evolve into some kind of sea creature, I think life would be simpler.
 
Is it just me or dosnt it seem obvious, without even knowing all the facts, that with an increase of 5 billion people and heavy industrial pollution in the last hundred years that humans must be affecting the planets atmosphere kinda majorly?

God, yes. So obvious. Go toss a stone in a river and it will cause ripples. This is such a simple point, but it is so overlooked and it is vitally important.


Just admit you were wrong, and we can move on. I'd really like to get to this business of which scientists believe what, how many of them there are, and whether or not it matters.

Youre not going to attack the process which the IPCC collect their data are you? Cos that would be really lame, and old. Removing 20 names from 1000 doesn't really make the position of the 20 names more important than the 980. Less opinion, less data collected.



BTW Lindzen never "claim(ed) that smoking is not related to lung cancer". He made a comment one time to effect the science; even that concerning red button issues such as passive smoking (second hand smoke) has to be credible in order to be accepted in the future.

Here's what we know about Richard Lindzen, for sure.



National Post Story

Wow! THIS is propaganda at its finest. Cherry picking? Not even close. I have to read what you have written here, several times.IN fact, I'm going to share it with some colleagues of mine. Ever thought about a career in politics?
Oh wow, really...are you him? Are you the guy who has actual real world science (not models) showing how CO2 is forcing climate in the real word to crisis levels? I've been looking for you. I've heard this stuff exists, but I can't find it.

Go ahead. I'm you're willing pupil. Show me.

I've had disappointments though. I've met false prophets. You're not one of those are you? The last "We are the science" guy I talked to just gave me a link to WG1 of the policy makers report. You're not going to do something lame like that are you? I mean, the IPCC report. Talk about politicized science.

Jesus... I think you should educate yourself about Co2.

By the way, Nerdboy. There's this little thing called physics where we understand that carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere, and our sister planet Venus which demonstrates that robustly.

Do you need educated on Venus? Or should I assume you know what I'm talking about, and its just one, in a huge amount of evidence that you wish to ignore.
 
E
Edmund Blackadder
hehe - we both said anal
Anyway I hope Global Warming is true.

I just bought me an Ice Cream van and I could make a FORTUNE

Need an assistant to run it?

I hope global warming is true too, or anything of that nature, I'd just love to see this world thrown into chaos. I think it would be awesome actually. I mean, come on, who cares if millions of people die.. as long as its not us right?. Plus maybe I could test my fire lighting skills.
 
Need an assistant to run it?

I hope global warming is true too, or anything of that nature, I'd just love to see this world thrown into chaos. I think it would be awesome actually. I mean, come on, who cares if millions of people die.. as long as its not us right?. Plus maybe I could test my fire lighting skills.

OK here is my plan.

I will use my Ice Cream van to spew pollutants into the air THUS increasing Global Warming which will increase my trade. With the increase in profit I will then buy another Van which you can then 'rent' off me as a Franchise mobile.

In turn the extra money I am making now from both(as there is not further pollutants in the air) will allow me to buy 2 more vans THUS employ two more people.

********************************************

On another note, I think the world could stand to lose about half the population(well actually I would say close to 5/6) and as you say as long as it isn't me, I would be cool with it.
 
You know when Natural Disasters occur, hurricanes, tsunamis etc, I'm always a little disappointed if there isn't a signifacant death toll. I know that sounds (is) really bad, but I guess that's just how my brain works....
I don't want people to die, but the planet obviously does, I'm not arguing with that.
 
You know when Natural Disasters occur, hurricanes, tsunamis etc, I'm always a little disappointed if there isn't a signifacant death toll. I know that sounds (is) really bad, but I guess that's just how my brain works....
I don't want people to die, but the planet obviously does, I'm not arguing with that.

It doesn't sound bad and I agree.

Though I DO want people to die.

I want something near cataclysmic to attack the Earth and wipe out billions of lives. That would definitely make people think about how they treat each other.
 
You know when Natural Disasters occur, hurricanes, tsunamis etc, I'm always a little disappointed if there isn't a signifacant death toll. I know that sounds (is) really bad, but I guess that's just how my brain works....
I don't want people to die, but the planet obviously does, I'm not arguing with that.
---------------------------------------
It doesn't sound bad and I agree.

Though I DO want people to die.

I want something near cataclysmic to attack the Earth and wipe out billions of lives. That would definitely make people think about how they treat each other.
I agree with both of these statements.
The world needs an enema.

Federal aid for Galveston homeowners?
Whatever happened to insurance? If they didn't purchase it then that's the risk you run. Renter's insurance for non-homeowners is inexpensive. Don't have it? Them's the breaks. Especially double-stupid to not have when living in an area that historically has major "difficulties". I was a home-owner in Texas just outside of Houston. I know for a fact that flood insurance at minimum is required. State taxes are for local repairs. Texas has one of the highest property tax rates in the country and it grows exponentially each year you own. Obviously one of the reasons I no longer am a homeowner in Texas since I bailed on that as soon as possible.

I'd also like to see housing prices crash across the USA as well since they were artificially inflated in the first place to facilitate higher loan amounts (for banks) and profits across the entire housing process (from construction on up the ladder). I was in property management previously so this isn't an uninformed opinion. It will cause damage but not nearly as much otherwise.
The whole real estate business as a whole is completely criminal.
 
Meanwhile back at the human caused global warming debate...😉

The original statement was...

There has been no warming since 1998.

The response was...

This is.. inaccurate, to say the least.

At one point in 98 the planet was hotter than it has been since, but the average temperature of the planet has continually risen.

I've read through the thread. Near as I can find the support for that statement appears to be as follows...

Pretty much all scientists agree...

To which I respond, no they don't. Show me the scientists who specifically say global temperatures have risen since 1998. They don't exist.

A collection of unrelated claims, none of which have anything to do with whether or not global temperatures have risen in the last 12 years, or even this current century.

To which I respond, Huh?

Words to the effect Nerd4Hire is a poop-head

To which I respond, perhaps, but how does that prove global temperatures have risen since 1998? (They haven't)

A link was given to a pro-AGW site which purported to answer the question

Even they don't think global temperatures have risen. What they said was, "Some climate scientists are predicting that surface temperatures will remain static or even fall slightly over the next few years, before warming resumes. " In other words surface temperatures are "static". They have not risen.

A reference to Bob Carter...

In fact I have seen Bob Carter,(Robert Carter who denies Anthropogenic global warming. BTW, since I mentioned him, I would just like to say that I have a great deal of respect for Bob carter, and I think he is a highly intelligent man) state that it is nigh impossible to answer this question. Specifically "It depends", temperature on such a small scale is so difficult to use to any decent effect.

Except that isn't exactly what he says concerning whether of not global temperatures have risen since 1998. What he says specifically is...

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 - Telegraph

If you you'd like to hear him say it again from his own lips, and in greater detail here's a four part lecture. Here's the part where he states specifically there's been no increase in global temperatures since 1998.

YouTube - Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4

A link to Data from NOAA

Quite baffling, because according to the poster it says, "These readings suggest that the surface temperature of the planet is in a stable period. It is not rising, it is not cooling. If you take 98 as your starting point, all the temperatures after it are lower." In other words even according to the most complimentary data you can find global temperatures have not risen since 1998.

Now how any of that is supposed to prove global temperatures have risen since 1998, I have no idea. It's just a mistaken claim buried in a lot of rhetoric, and misdirection.

In support of the claim global temperatures have not risen since 1998 I have posted sourced graphs showing not only has there been no warming since 1998, but global temperatures have dropped since 2002. I have posted links to quotes from the head of the IPPC, the World Meteorological Organization, and two world renowned scientists stating clearly global temperatures have not risen since 1998.

There's no sense in going on with this. I want to get into some of the other details which have been mentioned here. For now it's clear, there's been no warming in global temperatures since 1998. You'll see that statement of fact made again, and in emboldened text.

I'd like to make one thing clear though. The world has not been warming since 1998, however both sides of this debate agree, we are in a long-term warming trend which swallows up all short term trends. Some say it began with the industrial revolution. Some say it began as we pulled out of a cold period sometimes referred to as The Little Ice Age at least 300 years ago. There is another even longer warming trend going back to an even colder period about 15,000 years ago.
 
Meanwhile back at the human caused global warming debate...
Dude, I already stated it was all media/political crap and the new religion in one of the other Global Warming threads.

I'm on the same side as you, I'm just standing further away because you seem... well overly-overly zealous.
Stark naked tree-hugger branded with multiple peace signs all over their body chained to a tree zealous.

Which I believe was the point in the creation of this thread in the first place by BotD.
 
True, this is my issue. That's no secret. Want me to post? Start talking human caused global warming. That's well-known amongst old-timers here and at AD.

But, I don't want you take the "Meanwhile" thing personally, OK. I hope you didn't. I didn't mean it that way. I was just looking for a way to transition, because I arrived late, after everybody else had gone. So please don't feel irked. That wasn't my intention.
 
True, this is my issue. That's no secret. Want me to post? Start talking human caused global warming. That's well-known amongst old-timers here and at AD.

But, I don't want you take the "Meanwhile" thing personally, OK. I hope you didn't. I didn't mean it that way. I was just looking for a way to transition, because I arrived late, after everybody else had gone. So please don't feel irked. That wasn't my intention.
Nah. I ain't irked nor was it taken personally.
My original reply was regarding the tangential discussion Darwinism of humanity & natural disasters and the relation (which was more interesting).
Then I expanded on it a bit.

I'm well aware of your self-described "hot button" and I'm not alone in the knowledge. It certainly doesn't take an "old-timer" to see it. :whistle:
 
I'm not sure how you can reasonably say that my posts are attempts at hopefully impressive rhetoric and nothing else, whilst tossing that last pile of bunk at me.

Essentially all you're doing is nitpicking at one thing I said, and ignoring everything else, whilst continually making claims that you don't even bother trying to back up.

I think I already asked, but, again, how many peer reviewed studies/reports have there been proving or claiming(suggesting?.. ok guessing then) the anthropogenic global warming theory to be untrue? I mean the answer couldn't possibly be zero could it? Because with all the peer reviewed studies that have been published by highly respected scientific acadamies, all the newspaper articles claiming AGW to be horse poo doesn't really hold up.

What have you claimed thus far anyway?

AGW is a fraud.
Temperature is not increasing.
In fact, its been cooling for some time.
Everybody agress with this claim..except me.
Increases in global temperature is caused by Solar activity?(was it this thread that you claimed that nonsense, or another thread?)


What have you proven thus far anyway?

...

You have also stated several things that are complete fabrications, and misdirection.

For example, like "alarmists" as you call them, say that increases in CO2 will destroy the planet.

Also think you may have been advocating the 'great global warming swindle' as some honest insight into the fraud behind AGW.

is itself a Fraud and a Swindle

The link above goes over many of the lies and gross inaccuracies in the 'great global warming swindle. The person does so using linked sources.

Also here is a debate from Austrailian TV:

YouTube - Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 1/9

It begins with a short interview with Martin Durkin, the 'documentary' maker, pointing out some of the falsehoods in his piece of fiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)

Here's the wikipedia on Durkin. Among other pieces of bilge, he also made a 'documentary' "which argued that the medical dangers of silicone breast implants had been exaggerated for political reasons and highlighting evidence that implants may even carry medical benefits".

The Austrailian ABC debates follows up with a discussion by pro and anti AGW experts. Amongst them is Bob carter(previously mentioned in this thread), and also David Karoly - Here's some information on David Karoly:

OU School of Meteorology

If you watch the debate you will clearly see Prof Karoly state that temperature has been rising, contrary to what Nerd4hire has been claiming. You will also see that he answers everthing put force by the skeptics with good reasoned argument and scentific information.



MET said:
Anyone who thinks global warming has stopped has their head in the sand. The evidence is clear "“ the long-term trend in global temperatures is rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise. Global warming does not mean that each year will be warmer than the last, natural phenomena will mean that some years will be much warmer and others cooler. You only need to look at 1998 to see a record-breaking warm year caused by a very strong El Niño. In the last couple of years, the underlying warming is partially masked caused by a strong La Niña. Despite this, 11 of the last 13 years are the warmest ever recorded.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/warming_goes_on.pdf

Met Office: Global warming goes on

Met Office: Climate monitoring


MET said:
Average global temperatures are now some 0.75 °C warmer than they were 100 years ago and since the mid-1970s average global temperatures have increased at a rate of more than 0.15 °C per decade. Yet over the last 10 years temperatures have risen more slowly, causing some to claim that global warming has stopped. Here we explain why this is not the case and explains that observed changes are entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continuing long-term warming. The evidence is very clear that global temperatures are rising and that humans are largely responsible.


I think, at the very least, that I have proven that there is NO consensus that the temperature has been cooling. If you look at the graph in the met link, and the link posted by Nerd4hire with the little statment by Richard Lindzen and graph, I think its pretty ****ing obvious that while temperature goes up and down, as is its nature, the current trend is that temperature is increasing.


Speaking of Consensus, here is a little something by Naomi Oreskes, where she talks about the various studies by respected scientific acadamies in the US all agreeing with the AGW theory.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Here is a little about her from Wikipedia:

Naomi Oreskes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If anybody watched the video I posted earlier, she's the one with the annoying voice. Here is another great talk from her:

Naomi Oreskes: You CAN Argue with the Facts - Full Talk | Smart Energy

Lastly, I mentioned Venus in my previous post, just in case anybody read it and didn't know what I was referring to.

Venus is the second planet from the sun in our solar system. Its atmosphere is made up of 97% Carbon Dioxide (CO2). 97 %

Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, has a very small amount of CO2. We're talking 0.0 something.

Which planet is hotter? The one much closer to the sun, or the one with 97% CO2 in the atmosphere?

It wouldn't be Venus would it...
 
What have you claimed thus far anyway?

AGW is a fraud.

I think so, but it's a statement made more broadly than it deserves, because it was made for effect. Specifically what's fraudulent is the way a hypothesis of human caused, crisis level global warming is being used to further activist,political, and other agendas, before any real science is put forward to make the claim credible by scientific method.

Temperature is not increasing.

Nope. Never said that. I don't know if anybody says that. What I claim is a long term trend of gradual warming can be shown as the world comes out of what's referred to as the Little Ice Age. It's natural, and over the longer range of geologic time quite normal.

However. Since at least 1998 there has been no warming. If you start with 2002 you can show cooling.

Yes El Nino, and La Nina are important. I'd prefer not to get into why until we agree there has been no warming since 1998 though. Once there we can get into why El Nino and La Nina change things, and if it matters. Here's a hint though. El Nino, and La Nina are natural. They did not suddenly start becoming important in 1998, and they can be seen in other natural ocean effects.


In fact, its been cooling for some time.

Again, nope. The only claim I've made similar to that one is cooling can be shown since 2002.

There was a cooling trend from the 40s some time to the 70s sometime. The warmist guys have been trying to discredit it for some time. The last I heard they were making something of the way some temperatures were read through submarine inlets, or something like that, but as far as I know that cooling trend still pretty much holds.

Everybody agress with this claim..except me.

The specific claim I don't see challenged lately by anybody except yourself is there's been no warming since 1998. You know what though? After reading that link to The Met, I have to admit, there is somebody who kind of, almost does agree with you.

You have to read carefully what he's saying though. It's deceptive. What he says is if you look at the warming within the long term warming trend you can even show temperatures rising since 1998.

Let's take a look at his graph. You can see what he's actually saying there, I think.

Metanomaly75_072.jpg


When I saw that trend from 1998 my first reaction was, Huh? I've seen Had Crut computed with anual averages and you just can't see a trend anything like that. Look. I'll show you.

Hadcrut1998to2008.jpg


That graph comes from HERE, but it's obviously one of meteorologist Joseph D'aleo's. I defy you to show me a warming trend there. It can't be done. So my question becomes how was the guy at the met able to show one for the same years using what is supposed to be the same raw data. I puzzled over that a long time. I think I've figured it out.

First of all you'll notice the graph is supposed to come from Brouhan et al 2006, but if it's 2006 how is the data for 2008 up there? It isn't just a continuation of a trend. It's the actual curve.

OK so I looked around for some more Had crut graphs, and I found this one...

HERE.

2HadCRUT3GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979.gif


Going by the title it's supposed to be using a 37 month running average. I don't know much about it. I got it from Google images. I'm just using it to illustrate what I think must have been done with the Met one.

If you run a ruler along the averaged anomaly line from 1998 to 2006 you can show an upward trend. I know there's more to calculating trends than that, but that basically what the guy did with the Brouhan graph. He showed that trend from 1998 to 2006 (which is actually a buried trend from 1975), then he added the line for the following 2 years on the graph. But that trend only makes sense if you're averaging from a much colder time - say 1975 to the present. If he really wanted to show the trend from 1998 to 2008 that's what the graph would have been - 1998 to 2008. It wasn't. That was clue one something fishy was going on.

OK so that tells us what the guy is really saying. He's saying if you view the short term trend from 1998 to present within the context of a longer warming trend such as the one from 1975 you can show warming. That's not the same thing as no warming since 1998. There's been no warming since 1998, and if you go from 2002 you discover this.

All four plotted data sets, yes even GISS, shows a decline since 2002

ALL_SINCE_20022.jpg


ICECAP

Increases in global temperature is caused by Solar activity?(was it this thread that you claimed that nonsense, or another thread?)

We can discuss that if you like. But first let's deal with this no warming since 1998 issue.

Basically though I don't know if there's enough data out there on Solar influences to come to firm conclusions right now on exactly how Solar affects other influences. I don't agree with the way the IPCC and others have minimized the possible influence of stuff like solar, and clouds though, and I do suspect the sun might have something to do with how hot the earth gets, yeah. But that's just my opinion, and only because it makes sense. Although there is actual science allowing me to have that opinion.

As for the stuff like Connely's playground at Wikipedia, and Oreskes, and the other hucksters, I would so love to get into that, but again let's save the best for after the no warming since 1998 thing.


[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]
Oh wait, I forgot. You were asking for some peer reviewed stuff challenging aspects of Anthropogenic Global Warming right?

Start with these if you like...

Ten of the Best Climate Research Papers (Nine Peer-Reviewed):

Peer-Review Papers Skeptical of "Man-Made" Global Warming

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
 
You have also stated several things that are complete fabrications, and misdirection.

For example, like "alarmists" as you call them, say that increases in CO2 will destroy the planet.

There have been a few classics lately.

James Hansen from GISS says, "we are going to destroy the creation,”. Not sure exactly what he means by that, but it doesn't sound good.


James Lovelock predicts the "Revenge of Gaia" :lmao: in which humans will be reduced to a few breeding pairs in the arctic.

Ted Turner says we're going to turn into Cannibals.

We should have known we were in trouble when global warming killed the Loch Ness monster.
 
OK global warming is getting a bigger problem, and we are, frankly, the ones to blame. We are destroying the enviroment. I am not going all "green peacy" on this topic, but I defiantely think there should be done something.
I mean, Denmark hasn't had a white Christmas in years. It used to be around December when the snow would fall. Now it's just mid warm. NOT COOL!

I know the effects won't really hit me, but I would like my children, and their children to grow up to world that isn't flooded, and overheated. I want them to see the gleishers, and the snow on Greenland.
 
There have been a few classics lately.

James Hansen from GISS says, "we are going to destroy the creation,". Not sure exactly what he means by that, but it doesn't sound good.


James Lovelock predicts the "Revenge of Gaia" :lmao: in which humans will be reduced to a few breeding pairs in the arctic.

Ted Turner says we're going to turn into Cannibals.

We should have known we were in trouble when global warming killed the Loch Ness monster.


You do understand the fundamental difference between the planet, and the people on the planet?

I'm not sure if its desperation, but I am a feeling an increasing political leaning in your little ramblings about AGW not being real. I'm not interested in discussing this, if this is just some pitiful attempt to get across some political agenda using obvious propaganda as your last couple of posts seem to be.

I'm in a bit of pain right now, and I can't properly concentrate on reading your "peer reviewed literature" ( I will), but looking at the brief descriptions, I gotta ask you, have you actually read these? I mean, study on tree ring data? Are you kidding me? Point of fact, Mann(and many more independant scientists) did studies superceding tree ring data with more accurate data that still showed the 'hockey stick' trend.

Looking at the brief descriptions, none of the studies(which I will look into, because no doubt they were reviewed by close friends who have this outlandish belief, probably funded by exxon) are a comprehensive rebuttal of AGW. They are all about niggly little things like how to determine temperature...

But good job, no doubt the people reading this topic won't click on the links and research the bullshit that is being claimed. Propaganda at its finest, mankind at its laziest.


I'll get to what you have said, but first I have to read the "peer reviewed propaganda.. uh, I mean literature. I said propaganda, cos I wanted to try out your tactic for a post. Anyway, something else by some nutter who thinks temp is still increasing

Recent Climate Change - Annual Average Global Surface Temperature Anomalies 1880-2006 | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

I'd post a picture of the graph, but I can't remember the name of the site I could use to upload photos.
 
Back
Top Bottom