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

ILW

It's still bloody cold here.

WhiteHorse

The interesting thing about the Global Warming debate is that it's always presented as one of two extremes. Either nothing is happening, or it is happening, and mankind is responsible for everything.

Both groups have an agenda to push. The first want to carry on wrecking the planet and making obscene profits, the other to raise taxes and accrue more power for themselves. In truth, both groups are equally odious.

The evidence supports neither position. In reality, Global Warming is a natural cycle that has been made worse by mankinds activities. You can't stop it, but you can ameliorate it.

andykn

smeagold wrote: »

World historical temperature fluctuations are completely normal. Human contributions to Co2 production are insignificant.

I've already explained how that's not true here:

andykn wrote: »

Take a pint glass with room for a single measure, pour in a double measure of whisky and a single measure of liquid will be spilled. There will only be a small proportion of whisky in the spill but all the spill will be due to the addition of the whisky.

Every year nature produces and absorbs many more times CO2 that man produces. It can additionally absorb a quantity equal to about half man's production but the more of man's CO2 it absorbs, the less natural CO2 it can absorb.

If you don't think the rise in CO2 over the last few decades compared with thousands of years before that is due to man, what on earth is it.

Its a scam a hoax created to tax and control and you believe it

The only scam going on here is you trying to pretend that the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1870, amounting to about half man's production in that time is not due to man but some "mystery" source and that man's CO2 is magically disappearing at the same time.

One record from one single point on the planet is interesting but not as reliable as multi proxy reconstructions. That's very elementary science.

andykn

smeagold wrote: »

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

As I've already explicitly explained, there is generally no proof in empirical science. So to suggest otherwise is a lie.

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.

The IPCC are not predicting catastrophic warming either so the petition would seem to be some huge and pointless strawman.

smeagold

andykn wrote: »

The IPCC are not predicting catastrophic warming .

Fantastic. Nothing to worry about then is there? and yes its still bloody cold so yes global warming is over:D

andykn

WhiteHorse wrote: »

The interesting thing about the Global Warming debate is that it's always presented as one of two extremes. Either nothing is happening, or it is happening, and mankind is responsible for everything.

Both groups have an agenda to push. The first want to carry on wrecking the planet and making obscene profits, the other to raise taxes and accrue more power for themselves. In truth, both groups are equally odious.

The evidence supports neither position. In reality, Global Warming is a natural cycle that has been made worse by mankinds activities. You can't stop it, but you can ameliorate it.

The trouble with the "natural cycle" argument is that all natural cycles have causes. Ice ages are due to Milankovitch long term orbital cycles, there is the well known 11 year sunspot cycle. There was warming a few thousand years ago due to orbital cycles:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7580294.stm

But we know of no natural cycle that can explain the warming of the last few decades.

The trouble with the tax argument is that nearly all the UKs green taxes were in place long before climate change became a political issue to comabt pollution and congestion and some of those since (like landfill tax) are nothing to do with climate change at all.

andykn

smeagold wrote: »

Fantastic. Nothing to worry about then is there? and yes its still bloody cold so yes global warming is over:D

It's not cold. You only think it's cold because it's been so warm over the last few years. It snowed earlier in the UK only 17 years ago.

And if I said you were going to be injured tomorrow but not catastrophically would you describe that as nothing to worry about?

LilacPixie

ILW wrote: »

It's still bloody cold here.

Cold here too. Then again its Scotland, its winter and just becaus ethe last 10 or so (apart from last january) have been quite mild people seem to of forgotten how to cope.

smeagold

andykn wrote: »

It's not cold. You only think it's cold because it's been so warm over the last few years. It snowed earlier in the UK only 17 years ago.

And if I said you were going to be injured tomorrow but not catastrophically would you describe that as nothing to worry about?

Of course its not cold its actually very warm outside because... er it was colder 17 years ago, how could I have been so wrong? and global warming isn't going to cause catastrophic warming just a bit of warming so we need to be a bit worried but not too much just worried enough to allow for carbon credits and green taxes to come into force but don't panic but don't turn on your heating on either as its actually warm tonight and if you turn on the heating it could get warmer outside. which would be terrible and don't forget it's all your fault and only the government and the IPCC can save us from the warm cold weather outside which is caused exclusively by the 0.28% Co2 that we produce

ILW

andykn wrote: »

It's not cold. You only think it's cold because it's been so warm over the last few years. It snowed earlier in the UK only 17 years ago.

And if I said you were going to be injured tomorrow but not catastrophically would you describe that as nothing to worry about?

If I thought I may stub my toe tomorrow, I would not change my lifestyle to avoid it. But if a lot of people were making a good living out of it they may try to force the issue.