It's Bloody Cold Here - Is Global Warming All Over?

smeagold

andykn wrote: »

So far you've posted two temperature graphs that contradict each other.

There are hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers by thousands of scientists all containing evidence to support the theory that CO2 warms the atmosphere. So to say "There is no evidence to prove CO2 causes global warming" is a lie.

You can even calculate the temp the earth should be yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

And then tell us why it's warmer.

you are trying to persuade us that the science of AGW is 'settled' and everyone accepts it. That is absolutley not the case. Most of the evidence presented over the last few years by the IPCC has been debunked. Melting icecaps and glaciers, the hockey stick graph etc. I state yet again that AGW is a theory. It has not been proven and there is a wealth of evidence to contradict it.

Your problem is your inability to think outside the box but instead just accept everything fed to you from the now discredited, government funded, IPCC. without question.

whats warmer here:?



My work here is done.

Up_For_Grabs

I read that there has recently been a meeting of top scientists the outcome of which was that we should be more concerned about the planet cooling down than warming up. Of course the BBC haven't seen fit to mention any of this as it doesn't fit with the gigantic con that they were helping to perpetuate about man made global warming..
The worlds Governments are now probably sitting to decide what taxes they can levy to stop the world cooling!! After all we are probably now responsible for that as well.
Couldn't possibly be a natural cycle as there are no tax possibilities in that!!

Graham_Devon

Dunno what you lot are blathering on about, but, I agree, bit chilly innit!

andykn

smeagold wrote: »

I havn't contradicted myself at all just shown 2 graphs from different sources, there is divergence of viewpoints you know, AGW is neither proved nor universally accepted:

Er, the temperature over the last few years isn't really a "viewpoint", it's a matter of scientific record. Very little in science is "proved" or "universally accepted". The Ancient Greeks knew the earth wasn't flat, there's still a flat earth society.

You can't post two graphs that contradict and expect us to believe both of them.

Interesting article:

Quick facts that debunk Global warming:

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/quick-facts-that-debunk-hysterical-global-warming-claims/

no doubt you'll refuse to read it so heres a snippet

irrelevant tosh snipped

We know all that, none of that is any way relevant to the fact that, small quantity though it is, CO2 does affect temperature and has gone up by more than 50% over the level it had been at for thousands of years due entirely to man and not some "mystery" source. That's enough to raise the temperature slightly as has been seen. Nothing else accounts for it.

andykn

A._Badger wrote: »

No, that's twaddle. Mann's cronies torture the data to get the results they want.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/10/01/ross-mckitrick-defects-in-key-climate-data-are-uncovered.aspx

Still waiting for a response to the IPCC's Ottmar Edenhofer's admission about the real purpose of this monumental scam.

That's just rubbish, plenty of teams of scientists have done similar work and come up with similar hockey sticks.

If you've got a better explanation for the temp rises we've seen over the last few decades I'd like to see it.

andykn

smeagold wrote: »

Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.


The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

Unfortunately, if you read the petition, it doesn't deny man made warming. that's a lie.

No one has denied that methane and CO2 have a beneficial effect, so does water but you wouldn't want it all over your front room.

andykn

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Dunno what you lot are blathering on about, but, I agree, bit chilly innit!

That's because you are already used to warmer temps. It snowed earlier than this as little as 17 years ago.

andykn

smeagold wrote: »

you are trying to persuade us that the science of AGW is 'settled' and everyone accepts it.

No, just that scientists don't dispute the basics, CO2 is a warming gas, is increasing and so are temps. How much increased CO2 will lead to increased temps in the future (but not if) is still the subject of much debate and uncertainty.

That is absolutley not the case. Most of the evidence presented over the last few years by the IPCC has been debunked.

Simply not true.

Melting icecaps and glaciers, the hockey stick graph etc. I state yet again that AGW is a theory. It has not been proven

Very little in empirical science is "proven", anyone expecting in such fields is not a scientist.

and there is a wealth of evidence to contradict it.

Not true. All there is are theories that neither fit the facts and that contradict each other, as well as the science behind the IPCC case.

Your problem is your inability to think outside the box but instead just accept everything fed to you from the now discredited, government funded, IPCC. without question.

Every time I hear a sceptic I question it. it always succeeeds and the sceptic argument fail.

whats warmer here:?



My work here is done.

CO2 is not the only factor affecting temps, solar activity does also. That is very low at the moment but tempsare still high according to your graph, Why do you think that is?

Oh, and add the last two years onto your graph and see what's happening and try and explain it against a backdrop of low solar activity.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Oct_10.gif

andykn

Up_For_Grabs wrote: »

I read that there has recently been a meeting of top scientists the outcome of which was that we should be more concerned about the planet cooling down than warming up. Of course the BBC haven't seen fit to mention any of this as it doesn't fit with the gigantic con that they were helping to perpetuate about man made global warming..
The worlds Governments are now probably sitting to decide what taxes they can levy to stop the world cooling!! After all we are probably now responsible for that as well.
Couldn't possibly be a natural cycle as there are no tax possibilities in that!!

Perhaps what you read was rubbish, which is why the BBC didn't cover it.

andykn

smeagold wrote: »

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22160/British_Court_Rules_Inconvenient_Truth_Represents_Partisan_Political_Views.html

Ah yes, the Heartland Institute, best known for lobbying against anti smoking laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-AJPH1-4