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

THE_GHOULS_OF_GREED

andykn wrote: »

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

Precisely, boiled frog syndrome and all that. But the deniers cant read past their dumb sensationalist headlines. As illustrated by the pathetic cut and paste job above of contradicting academic papers.

LittleMissAspie

If it were proven beyond all doubt and everyone agreed that humans are not affecting the weather or global temperatures, will that mean it's okay to stop recycling, throw stuff into landfill, forget about fuel efficiency, use as much petrol as we like, not worry about leaking oil into the sea, cut down more forests and destroy more habitats, make more animals and plants go extinct etc etc etc?

No it won't so I don't get all the fuss about global warming. It's irrelevant. We should live with as little impact on the planet as possible anyway.

smeagold

andykn wrote: »

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

You have it your way mate: the seas are cooling, the icecaps are growing, the temperatures are getting colder but the world is still warming up because humans contribute 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.

Its all our fault now go buy your carbon credits. Al Gore will sell you some at Generation Investment Management


Sure your not from the government?

andykn

smeagold wrote: »

You have it your way mate: the seas are cooling, the icecaps are growing, the temperatures are getting colder but the world is still warming up because humans contribute 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.

That's a misrepresentation, the only way you can make your case. And temps are going up again as per Dr Roy Spencer's chart (yours unaccountably ending two years ago.) And that's from a high level even though solar activity is low.

Can't answer that one, can you?

A._Badger

THE_GHOULS_OF_GREED wrote: »

Precisely, boiled frog syndrome and all that. But the deniers cant read past their dumb sensationalist headlines. As illustrated by the pathetic cut and paste job above of contradicting academic papers.

Hate to shatter your illusions but 'the boiled frog' is an urban myth.
Still, there's a fine irony in a warmist leaning on it for support.

smeagold

World historical temperature fluctuations are completely normal. Human contributions to Co2 production are insignificant. Its a scam a hoax created to tax and control and you believe it

A._Badger

andykn wrote: »

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

And that invalidates their opinions, how?

andykn

A._Badger wrote: »

And that invalidates their opinions, how?

It shows that they are prepared to put ideology above science.

After all, look at their description of the "An Inconvenient Truth" court case and then the BBC version:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7037671.stm

"The British High Court properly recognized that Al Gore's movie is nine parts political propaganda and one part science" just isn't true.

smeagold

The drum beaters for AGW on this thread are attempting to give the impression that AGW has been 'proved', this is not the case.


In November 1995 the International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy was held in Leipzig, Germany to discuss alternative views on climate change. From this the "Leipzig Declaration" was issued, and support was solicited from the international scientific community. The Declaration stated:
".we consider the scientific basis of the 1992 Global Climate Treaty to be flawed and its goal to be unrealistic. The policies to implement the Treaty are, as of now, based solely on unproven scientific theories, imperfect computer models - and the unsupported assumptions that catastrophic global warming follows from an increase in greenhouse gases. We do not agree."
More than 1,500 scientists from around the world, including many leading meteorologists and climatologists, signed on to this declaration.

A year or so later, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine issued a petition for the American scientific community, stating:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, catastrophic heating of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide produces many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
This petition was signed by over 19,200 people of whom 17,100 were scientists in that they held at least a B.Sc. in the physical sciences. It was signed by 2,660 persons holding degrees in physics, climatology, or meteorology, et cetera, and by 5,017 persons with degrees in chemistry, biology, or biochemistry, et cetera. Most signers had Ph.D.s.



Fortunately many people now realise that AGW is pseudo-science backed by fraud, dodgy statistics, flawed models and assumptions, Al gore style propoganda and government and corporate interests.

A._Badger

andykn wrote: »

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

'Plenty of teams?' You have read Montford's book, I presume? Or do you just cut and paste from Gavin !!!!!!!'s criblist? (I note the software here is so !!!!!! it renders his very name as a series of exclamation marks - maybe there is a God after all?)

andykn wrote: »

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.

This tiresome litany began with you claiming there was no alternative explanation of the global warming that hasn't happened since 1998. I proved you were ether wrong or dissembling by pointing out a perfectly respectable alternative proposed by the Danish physicist, Svensmark. I could, just as easily, have pointed to Dr Roy Spencer's work - http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

Of course there are alternative explanations. And I bet you know there are, too. You just thought you would get away with pretending there weren't on a non-specialist blog.

One of the key tests of a scientific theory is its ability to predict events. 'Global warming' has failed at just about every turn. The earth stopped 'warming' (even if you believe the heat island conditioned readings) when Jones, Hansen et al predicted it would rise. It didn't.

Similarly, hurricanes disobligingly refused to increase in number and now we find that the sea level rises we were threatened with (an 82 foot rise by 2100 according to Hansen!!!) have been shown to be yet more warmist scaremongering - http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

And finally, because I am as bored with arguing as I would be discussing religion with a Jesuit, I would remind you that we are still awaiting some sort explanation as to what your co-religionist Edenhofer meant when he (apparently) let the cat out of the bag, in Switzerland

Oh, and in case anyone reading this is curious and still maintains an open mind, there's a pretty good rundown of why so many scientists
remain sceptical - and so many others have just concluded the whole thing is one big scam at: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths