skadistic
Caomhanach
I get it. 100 years out of 100000 means nothing.
Environment gets Bushed
- Thread starter Sims2789
- Start date
I get it. 100 years out of 100000 means nothing.
100 years is pretty important when predicting the next 100 years.
And if you think your "peak dates specifically in Alaska" is the same thing as looking at an aggregate of 100 years of data, then you're just wrong
And if you think your "peak dates specifically in Alaska" is the same thing as looking at an aggregate of 100 years of data, then you're just wrong
skadistic
Caomhanach
So one year is pretty important when predicting the next year. Last year was on average 15-20* warmer for the last week then it was this year. So next year should be just as warm as it was this year right? But that would mean this year should be just as warm as last year. It wasn't. And the last 100 were not like the 100 before that. Hell the warmest year in the last 100 wasn't even in the last decade.
My peak dates only go to show that climate is not average. It is always changing.
Simple Simon
Simpleton
OK, you pick 1 (one) instance out of billions (daily temp maximum of a specific loaction), while most research on GW uses several million data sets. Who's mining here?
skadistic
Caomhanach
OK, you pick 1 (one) instance out of billions (daily temp maximum of a specific loaction), while most research on GW uses several million data sets. Who's mining here?
Several million cherry picked data sets if you are the IPCC. Those would be the data sets that most GW research is based on. If they can omit at will so can I.
Simple Simon
Simpleton
OK, you make a claim (cherry-picking by IPCC), you bring prove or you shut the (copulation) up.
This is going to be fun, skadistic desperately trying get out of the grave his great arrogant mouth dug him. Sit back and enjoy!
First of all, you will have to show that there is data conflicting with the IPCC report. Then, you will.... ah, forget it, you'll easily flunk step #1 anyways, so why bother about step #2! Come on, show us that the science behind the report cherry-picked data!
skadistic
Caomhanach
How cute you have to resort to telling me to shut up. I didn't dig a grave. Sit back and start reading.
Flaws in the IPCC process
1. There are scientists - quite a few, in fact - who are part of the so called "consensus" who do NOT agree with the final conclusion that "man is causing warming, period."
2. These scientists will tell you that the IPCC does not do any research or measuring of climate. The assimilate papers from climate scientists and have reviewers publish a "summary for policymakers". In many cases, the people who wrote those papers are reviewing their own work. So much for "peer review". The fox is guarding the henhouse.
3. The IPCC cherrypicks info and data that supports their conclusion, and rejects data that refutes their conclusion.
4. The process is about politics, not science.
Here are some links regarding the flawed IPCC process:
Many links about IPCC flaws *****
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm
IPCC bias (Part I of AGW doubts)
http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm
Problems with the IPCC reports
http://www.amlibpub.com/lib...-warming-report.html
Peer review? What peer review?
http://scienceandpublicpoli...nals/peerreview.html
Changes made to IPCC report after review - pdf file
http://stephenschneider.sta...apers/WSJ_June12.pdf
IPCC's contaminated data (Part II of AGW doubts)
http://www.nationalpost.com...story.html?id=145245
The IPCC's flawed selection of scientists, cherry picking of info
http://www.nationalpost.com...8dd-1e3ff42df34f&p=1
Errors in IPCC climate science
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/
IPCC Nobel winner calls IPCC report: "Dishonest Political Tampering with the Science..."
http://www.freerepublic.com...f-news/1940211/posts
Economic Formulas in IPCC Report Criticized for Overstating Emissions
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22786
IPCC report criticized by one of its lead authors
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1069
'Scientific consensus' not represented in the IPCC documents: scientist
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/...gust/13/letter4/&c=1
IPCC process is unscientific and flawed, say other scientists
http://www.hilltimes.com/ht.../may/28/letter4/&c=1
Vice Chair of IPCC Breaks Global Warming Consensus
http://letters.salon.com/te...ion_2/view/?show=all
Climate panel on the hot seat
http://www.washingtontimes..../702895001/home.html
No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081331.stm
IPCC's assessment of CO2 affect is wrong.
Video titled Analysing the IPCC`s climate change models
Description: "Bill Kininmonth, the head of Australia`s National Climate Centre from 86 - 98 looks at the climate change issue and the IPCC`s projections to see if they are logical or not"
Here are two videos, each about 8 minutes long, from climate scientist Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama Huntsville. He also works with NASA on their climate satellites. These video show a talk he gave about a paper he wrote (published in a science journal) about how the IPCC climate models and their positive feedbacks are wrong.
part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xos49g1sdzo
part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watc...W-ik&feature=related
UN asked to admit climate change errors
by maggie
A group of four scientists has sent a letter to the UNs IPCC asking them to admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures.
This is reprint of the letter sent to the IPCC on Monday, April 14
14 April 2008
Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC
We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position that mans CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.
If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.
We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.
More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically.
The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASAs Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) [1] as well as by the UKs Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted - Hadley CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe DAleo [4], and are shown below.
These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade, and may now even be falling.
A third important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2]
IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food - maize as biofuel - has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5].
Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?
We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.
Yours sincerely,
Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist, mMensa, hans@tech-know.eu
Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist UK, Dir. WeatherAction.com, piers@weatheraction.com
Dr Don Parkes, Prof. Em. Human Ecology, Australia, dnp@networksmm.com.au
Svend Hendriksen, Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared), Greenland, hendriksen@greennet.gl
Cc: IPCCs yu.izrael@g23.relcom.ru christy@nsstc.uah.edu spencer@nsstc.uah.edu dy.pitman@gmail.com
Tim Yeo MP (Chairman Environmental Audit Committee) Lord Martin Rees (President Royal Society)
Gordon Brown MP David Cameron MP Nick Glegg MP
Footnote 1: Two heavily publicised quotations which emerged from your organisation, respectively in February and December last year, are:
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4).{2.4} [6] and
The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction. (Summary statement, Bali Conference.) [7].
Footnote 2: Data over the past two decades indicates that temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes. This completely contradicts conventional global warming models. Before we radically rearrange the political economy of the world because some scientists claim anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of climate change, it might be worthwhile for anyone taking a position on the topic to consider whether or not this is indeed well settled science. Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, March 2008.
References:
1. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa...te/research/msu.html
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature
3. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
4. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts Joseph DAleo, Certified Consultant Meteorologist,
Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), Executive Director Icecap.us
5. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0801.htm
6. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/asse.../syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
7. http://www.climate.unsw.edu.au/bali/
No smoking hot spot
David Evans | July 18, 2008
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Researchers: Global Warming Halts Until 2020
New research indicates no warming for next 15 years.
Previous articles in DailyTech highlighted the views of scientists who believe another Ice Age approaches, the rapid temperature decline in 2007, and the official prediction of the United Nations that the planet will continue cooling in 2008. Now, a team of researchers has predicted that global warming will halt for up to 15 years, as oscillating ocean currents cause the planet to cool slightly.
In a paper appearing the journal Nature, the scientists study changes in SST (sea surface temperatures) caused by the Atlantic Mutidecadal Oscillation and the Meridional Overturning Oscillation. A larger, slower-acting version of the better-known El Nino/La Nina oscillation, the MOC is expected to weaken over the next 15-20 years, causing cooling throughout Europe and North America. Pacific temperatures are expected to remain flat.
The actual cause of the MOC is unknown, but its cycles last from 60 to 70 years and, by this new research, it appears to have a much stronger effect on climate than previously thought. It may also explain why global temperatures rose during the first half of the 20th Century, before beginning a 30-year cooling trend in 1940.
The most intriguing part of this research is the scientists themselves. Led by Noel Keenlyside, the team from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology have not in the past been global warming skeptics. In fact, they've been solidly on the side of catastrophic anthropogenic warming.
Physicist and ex-Harvard professor Lubos Motl, who was not involved in the research, says the discovery of such a large, previously unknown factor indicates a "critical flaw" in modeling predictions, "no paper so far has even properly combined the effects of ENSO, PDO, and AMO". Motl believes the research indicates that IPCC climate predictions will be incorrect for as much as 70 years in the future.
However, Richard Wood, from the U.K.'s Hadley Center for Climate Change, says that it's "important to make sure we don't get distracted" from the long-term problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Wood also cautions that such modeling is in its infancy, and the results may change.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now there is hours of reading and viewing for you to take in and it is what you asked for and more.
So I expect a response from you some time tomorrow or Saturday after you have read all of it.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Skad, first, what do you think they mean when global temperatures are going up in the theory of global warming?
a. Each and every part of the globe is getting warmer. Every single place on Earth will get warmer with the same temperature/percentage.
b. The average temperature of the Earth is going up. Causing the climate make-up of the Earth to shift.
Which of those two are claimed?
Second, please point out where I claim we are dooming the world. I seem to have a memory prolapse and would like to see my statement so I can apologise and correct it.
Third, look at this sentence:
Ohhh so its a global average .....not global.
Do you see?
Ohhh, so it's a painful bruise .... not painful. Ohhh, so it's a green apple ... not green. Ohhh, so it's statistical data .... not statistical.
See now?
Or would you like me to google and post and copy paste dozens of articles in this post so I look all clever while numbing the discussion by dataflooding?
Skadistic, Ainwood, Basketcase.
What metric would you use, what event would need to happen, before you'd think that man-made CO2 was causing global climate change? Now, what event/metric would you use to say "hey, our current CO2 is having an effect"? What event/metric would you use to predict that "our future CO2 emissions will aggravate the effect"?
You're not convinced, so what would need to happen to convince you?
What metric would you use, what event would need to happen, before you'd think that man-made CO2 was causing global climate change? Now, what event/metric would you use to say "hey, our current CO2 is having an effect"? What event/metric would you use to predict that "our future CO2 emissions will aggravate the effect"?
You're not convinced, so what would need to happen to convince you?
Simple Simon
Simpleton
Hm, why do I get the impression that you totally fail to back up the claim you made, the one I asked you to back up?
I'd say you know it was false, or simply are clueless. Instead of backing your claim you go on a copy&paste spree - all that I can say is:
you FAIL!
Name, position, affiliation, source of their funding?
Show conclusively that 'they are part of the so-called consensus'. Show that they do not agree with the final conlcusion. Also, show that the final conclusion is "man is causing warming, period".
Hint: in case you didn't know, using ""s around something means it is a verbatim quote. I have read the conclusions section of the report, and what you claim to quote from it is not in it. Either you are a liar, or you are ignorant of the proper methods of quoting someone. Both do not make you look good here.
Speculation on your part. Also, hearsay. Bring proof.
Additionally, it is common knowledge, and in fact the basic idea of the IPCC that is uses the sum opf all available science, instead of conducting science. After all, why should researchers who conduct science duplicate it for the IPCC purpose?
I can't help but feel that you do not know what that mysterious IPCC is, and how it came about.
A) The IPCC report is NOT a review. It is, as you state, a SUMMARY. Therefore, you can only mean that the scientists do not submit their papers, which are summed up in the report, for peer review before they are published. Please back up this claim.
Neocon BS, nothing more. Why donÄt you take the literature list (if the printout is not too heavy for you) of the report, go to a good university library and find the actual papers. Go look for the reviewers yourself.
Go, do it insterad of slandering the people who do the work instead of c&p-ing the way you do.
You made this claim before, I asked you to back it up. You do not even attempt to do so - WHY?
False - it is about the scientific base data that any policy maker should review before making political decisions on the issue. If you fail to grasp this, then you don't even being to understand how politics should work.
I should disregard your obvious uninformed c&p, but since I love to pillory GW liars and those who uncritically support them (that means you!), I'll address a few....
Let me direct you to the main page of the first link:
http://mclean.ch
Can you read who and what this so informed guy is?
Correct:
Hm, why do i get the feeling that this is a conspiracy nut, or some other moron? he is certainly not an informed expert
let's have a look at his associates:
Vincent Gray, a coal chemist, long since retired. Claims to be "an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)" (http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=12&Itemid=45), but what is that? Wiki tells us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Gray_(scientist)
"self-selected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer"
Why am I instantly suspicious of such people? No credentials, affilitaion with polluting industries, and blowing their egos up to the fare thee well....
Next, Gerrit J. van der Lingen:neither Google nor Wikipedia reveal anything. A nonentity.
Next: August H. ("Augie") Auer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augie_Auer
no real information, just that he apparently can't come up with anything better than a creationist-style strawman. YAWN!
Next: Bob Carter
This appears to be Robert M. Carter. A real expert here: a marine taxonomic paleontologist. read for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter
OK, enough on the friends of dear Mr. McLean. Nothing useful, just the usual lies and inaccuracies by distinct NON-experts.
First, read what a great expert John Daly was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lawrence_Daly
Oh yeah, the REALLY knew what he was babbling about! :lo:
Now for the piece you linked to:
David E. Wojick: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_E._Wojick
"strong links to the coal industry and a now-defunct coal industry front group called the Greening Earth Society"
"According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Wojick has not published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change"
So, a paid liar.
Can you understand why I will not waste time on the remaining links?
Now, you fail to back up your claim, you link to worse-than-dubious sources, you link-spam - but do you have anything useful to say?
No?
How about finally showing how the ICPP cherry-picks? Come on, find some proof in the report!
Simple Simon
Simpleton
God personally would have to tell them, which would have them immediately turn round and become atheists
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Oh, yes it is. You test an idea by gathering examples. Have the test subjects do whatever it is you're testing, and see what happens. That's how scientists test things in a lab.
Whenever human beings predict a great worldwide disaster, said disaster is always much less devastating than the prediction said it would be. And that's on those fairly rare occasions when said disaster even happens.
So there you have it. Thousands of examples, and no counterexamples--that I know of. It's likely there are a few counterexamples out there, but I haven't found them, and their (hypothetical) existence would not change the fact that, at the very least, humans are almost always wrong when they predict a Doomsday scenario.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Real-world testing has shown the opposite--most of the time. Plants generally grow more mass when exposed to increased CO2.
skadistic
Caomhanach
Thanks for attacking the sources and not the substance. I expected as much from you. I didn't fail in anything. You didn't "waste you time" on the other links because you can only attack the sources. Its ok. I don't expect much from you. I sure didn't expect you to read and watch all the links. All you do is ask for proof about anything you can pick out.
Bottom line is the ICPP picked out the data it wanted to use and left out data that wouldn't fit with its fear mongering. Nothing will be good enough for you. You will just keep moving goal posts all over the place. That is if you actually bother to read links. And you didn't. If you had you wouldn't have attributed the articles to me. But its hard to use things like "neocon BS" as a slur against some one who is right when you are wrong is you actually read the links.
So you keep attacking everything but the substance. Keep making a joke of your self. I rather enjoy laughing at you.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Simple: something that has never happened before in the history of Earth.
We have not yet reached this point--Earth's previous interglacial (about 120,000 years ago) was a full degree Celsius warmer than the current one. Since the planet can clearly get that warm without human help, we cannot reasonably conclude that the planet isn't doing the same thing again.
There's a second possibility: some method, much more extensive than current methods, of measuring temperature, plant biomass, and CO2 concentrations accurately over a very large number of sample points evenly spaced over the entire planet. Probably satellites will be needed for this.
skadistic
Caomhanach
How about showing me a real effect of CO2 causing the climate to heat up. The last few years have been stagnant despite more CO2. CO2 is lagging behind temp in all the graphs. Maybe bring me a real study not based on the massively flawed ICPP report. CO2 does have an effect. Show me some proof that the CO2 that makes up a fraction of a fraction of the air and isn't even the most effective green house gas out there was making the temp rise before it leveled out and so far this year even gone down. And make sure its man made CO2 witch is a fraction of CO2.
You can believe all the Nobel prize winning junk science you want to.
skadistic
Caomhanach
Won't some one please please save the polar bears! Their ice is melting and will be gone completely in 08.........
Spoiler :
Simple Simon
Simpleton
Third time's the charm: you will have to bring proof - your links contain tons of allegations, but no hard data. You bring no evidence, but whine and spam more links - great.
TIME FOR PROOF! Bring it or shut up.
I ask for backup of your claim, you don't even attempt to bring evidence, now you refuse to. Also, you start personal attacks. Why do I conclude that you are conspiracy-deluded and clueless?
I checked the first few - no content, just allegations.
Bringing proof does not mean dumping the entire internet. If you bring 99.99% irrelevant stuff, don't expect ME to sort through it. That is YOUR job. Refusal to do it means any sane person will dismiss your claim.
If you were correct, then it should be easy for you to find a long list of publications that were NOT used, but are peer-reviewed. They should, ideally, also not have been recalled because of errors, or have been demonstrated false before the ICPP refused them.
Come on, where is that list?
Simple Simon
Simpleton
I didn't know you were ignorant of the English language!
Sorry for misunderstanding you; you must have been writing in Marsian or whatever!Or DO you speak English? Can your read it? Then, if that should be the case, let me point you to a nice little word: 'may'
'may' as in
'North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer'
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html
Now, the article you link to simply ignores in its slandering tone the FACT not nobody of any sanity and expertise predicted CERTAINTY.
So I am left wondering why they now whine that the other alternative happened?
And why you, the oh so smart supergenius who understands everything much better than the experts, who post a link to an article of such utter stupidity - or is it rather a strong political bias? Is it, perhaps, because nothing is below you? Would you go a tiny step further and lie on this topic? 'Cause that article is extremely close to a lie......
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
We're not talking about doomsday scenarios.
Since Global Warming does not mean it will doom the human race. It would just make life generally more unpleasant. But even if doomsday was predicted, all you'd have if strong implication, not proof.
You'd need to find examples of people predicting life becoming more unpleasant. Not doom. And there's quite a few people who predicted for instance the possibiliy of WW2, or other local disasters.
edit: Hey, this would mean I just proven Global Warming. Since those who tried to appease Germany got it wrong. That's you. The appeaser. The one saying in 38: "Oh, Germany will be fine, they won't be a big problem"
Take it from someone in the gambling industry. When a roulettegame has showed 100 reds in a row, it doesn't tell yuo anything about spin 101. Red still has a little under 50%, black still has the same odds. Now scientists do not study examples for predictions even thousands of years ago, they study data, trends leading up to today.
So, bottom line. What you showed was a. not scienctific. b a far cry away from proof.
Now to your examples:
Infectious diseases (Ebola, AIDS, hantavirus).
What? Those do not exist and make life miserable for a lot of people?
Environmental disasters (Exxon Valdez, the Kuwait oil well fires).
Same thing.
The use of nuclear weapons (Japan got hit by two).
What are you saying? The people hit by those we doing fine after they hit?
Genetically-engineered supercrops.
???
Mutated insects.
???
The Y2K bug.
Go find the definition of: risk. It was allready clear the risk would be small, but the effects of this happening would be big. Find me credible scientists who guaranteed the Y2K bug would be a definate problem.
Do you even understand the concept of risk? If you insure your car, but drive around without accidents for 10 years. Are you pissed off that you insured your car?
edit 2: It's odd isn't it? We are prepared to diss out a lot of money to protect our wallet against the risk of financial disaster, we do not blink an eye when those insurancecompanies make billions of our hard earned cash.
Similar threads
