Man made Global warming disproved in 2008

[durangodawood]

People do not want to be honest on this issue. (you know who you are.)
.

 

[Carey]

LA NINA KEY FACTS

La Nina translates from the Spanish as “The Child Girl”
Refers to the extensive cooling of the central and eastern Pacific
Increased sea temperatures on the western side of the Pacific means the atmosphere has more energy and frequency of heavy rain and thunderstorms is increased
Typically lasts for up to 12 months and generally less damaging event than the stronger El Nino


Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.
This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

Global Climate Scam
Don't be fooled by the hysteria. Get the facts about climate change.
www.GlobalClimateScam.com

Scientists love data, especially that gathered from over large spans of time. Data over the past few decades is still not convincing enough for many, yet to others it’s sounding alarms. Although there’s some uncertainty if global warming’s to blame for all the changes we’ve been seeing lately across our world, transformations across our ocean planet may indeed be in the works, and surf in coming years may very well be affected as a result.

Anthropogenic Global Warming Hoax Heats Up

By Tim Wood
04 Apr 2008 at 02:42 PM GMT-04:00
Confirmation that global temperatures are unchanged over the last ten years won’t deter liars, scammers and politicians from rigging a cash flow engine to Al Gore’s bogus “planetary emergency”.
NOTE: The BBC story referenced here was modified - without notification to readers - after publication to reinforce some global warming dogmas. The BBC's compliance with activist demands for the story to be recast is detailed by Marc Sheppard on American Thinker.

[SIZE=+1]S[/SIZE]t. LOUIS (ResourceInvestor.com) -- The BBC today aired a story confirming what responsible scientists have been saying for some time – that there has been no notable variation in global temperatures for the past ten years.
This is an inconvenient truth for the vast edifice being built atop the myth that human related carbon dioxide has exceeded some imagined tipping point, turning the world into a deadly hotbox.

It’s worth reviewing why no reasonable person subscribes to the idea that human related carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming. Some basic points:

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=41685

These facts change anyones mind yet??

 

[rambot]

I like to think so.

Come on, it was a joke.

Forgive me for thinking you were serious but look at canukian's response to your "joke".

Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.
This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.

Looks like someone's inference button is stuck on "simpleton".
Forget about the data and the facts, that inference doesn't even make sense.

Let's look at the measured facts instead of basing our opinions on a journalist's inferences shall we?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

And this guy:
[QUOTE[SIZE=+1]S[/SIZE]t. LOUIS (ResourceInvestor.com) -- The BBC today aired a story confirming what responsible scientists have been saying for some time – that there has been no notable variation in global temperatures for the past ten years.
This is an inconvenient truth for the vast edifice being built atop the myth that human related carbon dioxide has exceeded some imagined tipping point, turning the world into a deadly hotbox.[/QUOTE]should have taken 5 seconds to google "warmest years on record".

These facts change anyones mind yet??

Why would they? The first article, instead of dealing with the fact based truths the article does mention, decides to concentrate on the "boogeyman" factor. The second one is just a bold, outright lie

Again, the title of your thread was
" Man made Global warming disproved in 2008"
The VERY FIRST SENTENCE in the article you posted, right at the top in nice bold print:

Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

And please Carey, don't scatter.
You implied, with incredulity, that I am a liar by saying that 98% of scientists agree on the likelihood of MMGW and then don't have the guts to back yourself up. When I changed my figure to a slightly more precise, higher number, you don't even deal with the issue.
What are you yellow? If you are going to call someone a liar, have the moral honesty to back up your opinion at least. Let's see some numbers.

If you are going to ignore facts and reason, well, that's your business; I can't force you to think. But you can't imply I am being dishonest without backing that up.

 

[Carey]

Forgive me for thinking you were serious but look at canukian's response to your "joke".

Looks like someone's inference button is stuck on "simpleton".
Forget about the data and the facts, that inference doesn't even make sense.

Let's look at the measured facts instead of basing our opinions on a journalist's inferences shall we?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

And this guy:
[QUOTE[SIZE=+1]S[/SIZE]t. LOUIS (ResourceInvestor.com) -- The BBC today aired a story confirming what responsible scientists have been saying for some time – that there has been no notable variation in global temperatures for the past ten years.
This is an inconvenient truth for the vast edifice being built atop the myth that human related carbon dioxide has exceeded some imagined tipping point, turning the world into a deadly hotbox.

should have taken 5 seconds to google "warmest years on record".

Why would they? The first article, instead of dealing with the fact based truths the article does mention, decides to concentrate on the "boogeyman" factor. The second one is just a bold, outright lie

Again, the title of your thread was
" Man made Global warming disproved in 2008"
The VERY FIRST SENTENCE in the article you posted, right at the top in nice bold print:


And please Carey, don't scatter.
You implied, with incredulity, that I am a liar by saying that 98% of scientists agree on the likelihood of MMGW and then don't have the guts to back yourself up. When I changed my figure to a slightly more precise, higher number, you don't even deal with the issue.
What are you yellow? If you are going to call someone a liar, have the moral honesty to back up your opinion at least. Let's see some numbers.

If you are going to ignore facts and reason, well, that's your business; I can't force you to think. But you can't imply I am being dishonest without backing that up.[/quote]

I did not call you a liar I mearly showed proof and pointed out there are many conflicting statistics on the scientific comunities opinions and interpretations of theoretic computer models on natural phenomena.

If you want ignore these facts and reason while totally refusing to use any common sense then I will have to refer you to my signature on this topic when it comes to you.

 

[wpiman2]

It doesn't matter if it is true or not; it matters what people believe and the policy that will evolve from it.

We will look back in 50 years and laugh at the science; we can't get the three day correct; the 10 year climate swings are much more difficult to calculate.

Question is; how do we profit from this asinine belief?

 

[adent]

Give up fellas, everything is against you, the science, the economics, the politics, our religious leaders.

If, as your little exercise shows, more than 60% of people on what can be said is a generally conservative Christian forum think that climate change is man made, what do you think the general population think?

And please don't blacken the name of Galileo by thinking you're some modern-day version. Galileo was up against myth and superstition, not against the scientific method.

 

[Carey]

Give up fellas, everything is against you, the science, the economics, the politics, our religious leaders.

If, as your little exercise shows, more than 60% of people on what can be said is a generally conservative Christian forum think that climate change is man made, what do you think the general population think?

And please don't blacken the name of Galileo by thinking you're some modern-day version. Galileo was up against myth and superstition, not against the scientific method.

The lies the wealthy who fund the largest % of the scientific community are propogating and you have been duped into believing are in large part do to this agenda.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/taxing_us_for_breathing.html

 

[adent]

Yes because you and your extreme idealogues are special and somehow have seen through it all.

 

[rambot]

[1] I did not call you a liar I mearly showed proof and [2]pointed out there are many conflicting statistics on the scientific comunities opinions and interpretations of theoretic computer models on natural phenomena.

1) I'm not saying you "called" me a liar. I'm saying you implied it. And you did that when you wrote and bolded like this:

98 % eh?
and im dishonest?

2) That is an incredibly generous description of what you claimed to do. Nobody, not even scientists will rely 100% on computer models. But there were many computer models that were under-predicting the rise of global temperatures.
The problem though, is two-fold:
You discredit EVERYTHING related to models to the point that you don't even seem willing to accept that we are currently in a warming trend. There is ONE computer based models that i know of that indicates cooling trends. One out of HUNDREDS. AND this method was a new model. AND I don't know if that model passed peer review muster.

So you know what Carey, why don't we just agree to not bring up computer models at all. I'm completely fine with that.

Now, prove to me that the global climate has not been warming over the past few decades. And while you're at it, prove to me that 5 of the warmest years on record are within the last 8 years. Prove to me that, all the evidence of the past, disproves man made global warming.

If you want ignore these facts and reason while totally refusing to use any common sense then I will have to refer you to my signature on this topic when it comes to you.

1) The variance of those opinions and extrapolations is "the earth will warm slightly" to "the earth's temperature is increasing uncontrollably". There is no "Don't worry. Everything is totally natural" to "The world is cooling". It is the 0.8% of scientists that you choose to align yourself with whose opinions you choose to cherish as holy and "unspoilt".
2) Your definition of common sense is either "Regardless of how much scientific opinion is presented to you, ignore it" or "Learned climatologists, and various scientists with decades of experience and knowledge is equal to the 25 solid hours of internet research I have done into climate change".
A better definition of common sense is "Call doctors if you're sick. Call lawyers if you are arrested. Call climatologists if you want to learn about climate."

3) I honestly don't care what your or anyone else's signature says. If you can't be a exhibit the honest intellectual fortitude it takes to imply someone is a liar without backing it up, it's a wonder you receive creedence at all.
So come on then: Prove your point with data: Heck...I'll even compromise the truth and put my figure as low as 90%.
Prove to me that more than 10% of "scientists" are skeptical of MMGW. You don't even have to do a great job. Just get numbers from ANY website; so long as you cite it. At least that would prove you've put SOME kind of effort into this nonesense opinion.

It doesn't matter if it is true or not; it matters what people believe and the policy that will evolve from it.

Check your reps. The irony of a climate change skeptic is too much for my sense to even comprehend.

Question is; how do we profit from this asinine belief?

How about: By creating a world in which children and grandchildren won't have to clean up the crappy mess you've left behind.


As for the realclearpolitics page...it's difficult to give anyone any creedence when they don't recognize satire. What makes it worse is that he tries to deconstruct satire.
I can imagine him reading Swift's "A Modest Proposal" and then arguing over exactly which recipe should be used.

I honestly feel more stupid for having skimmed that ridiculous piece of proported scientific reportage.

 

[Carey]

1) I'm not saying you "called" me a liar. I'm saying you implied it. And you did that when you wrote and bolded like this:

2) That is an incredibly generous description of what you claimed to do. Nobody, not even scientists will rely 100% on computer models. But there were many computer models that were under-predicting the rise of global temperatures.
The problem though, is two-fold:
You discredit EVERYTHING related to models to the point that you don't even seem willing to accept that we are currently in a warming trend. There is ONE computer based models that i know of that indicates cooling trends. One out of HUNDREDS. AND this method was a new model. AND I don't know if that model passed peer review muster.

So you know what Carey, why don't we just agree to not bring up computer models at all. I'm completely fine with that.

Now, prove to me that the global climate has not been warming over the past few decades. And while you're at it, prove to me that 5 of the warmest years on record are within the last 8 years. Prove to me that, all the evidence of the past, disproves man made global warming.
1) The variance of those opinions and extrapolations is "the earth will warm slightly" to "the earth's temperature is increasing uncontrollably". There is no "Don't worry. Everything is totally natural" to "The world is cooling". It is the 0.8% of scientists that you choose to align yourself with whose opinions you choose to cherish as holy and "unspoilt".
2) Your definition of common sense is either "Regardless of how much scientific opinion is presented to you, ignore it" or "Learned climatologists, and various scientists with decades of experience and knowledge is equal to the 25 solid hours of internet research I have done into climate change".
A better definition of common sense is "Call doctors if you're sick. Call lawyers if you are arrested. Call climatologists if you want to learn about climate."

3) I honestly don't care what your or anyone else's signature says. If you can't be a exhibit the honest intellectual fortitude it takes to imply someone is a liar without backing it up, it's a wonder you receive creedence at all.
So come on then: Prove your point with data: Heck...I'll even compromise the truth and put my figure as low as 90%.
Prove to me that more than 10% of "scientists" are skeptical of MMGW. You don't even have to do a great job. Just get numbers from ANY website; so long as you cite it. At least that would prove you've put SOME kind of effort into this nonesense opinion.

Check your reps. The irony of a climate change skeptic is too much for my sense to even comprehend.

How about: By creating a world in which children and grandchildren won't have to clean up the crappy mess you've left behind.


As for the realclearpolitics page...it's difficult to give anyone any creedence when they don't recognize satire. What makes it worse is that he tries to deconstruct satire.
I can imagine him reading Swift's "A Modest Proposal" and then arguing over exactly which recipe should be used.

I honestly feel more stupid for having skimmed that ridiculous piece of proported scientific reportage.

well after looking at 2008 it seems we are in a global cooling trend.

But I suspect global warming is happening because the weather conditions global warming seems to cause God predicted these weather conditions would come to pass along with other conditions simultaneously that seem to be happpening now.

Manu scientist believe it is the decrease in the magnetic field of earth causing Global warming, others think it is the gravitational and other elements in the universe, sun burst etc.

It does not matter the fact is man is not causing it and can do nothing to stop it.

Luke 21 : 9But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.

10Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:
11And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

20And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

25And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

 

[Smidlee]

I try to be cautious when it comes to the "sky is falling" crowd. I remember "Kuwait's oil fires" scare , the "Y2K" scare , "Iraq has nukes" scare, and last but not least "must pass stimulus bill before reading it or we are all doom" scare. So I'm very skeptical of "global warming equals dooms day" scare.

 

[rambot]

Smidlee...keep in mind that this is based on science and the oil fires were based on a perceived lack of will and capability. The Y2K scare, that is based on a fear of the completely unknowable guess.

 

[Smidlee]

Smidlee...keep in mind that this is based on science and the oil fires were based on a perceived lack of will and capability. The Y2K scare, that is based on a fear of the completely unknowable guess.

Are you sure about the science? The "Kuwait's fire oil" claims was also by so called science yet they were very wrong in their predictions. The problem with science is it's done by those who is receiving tons of money going to toward their field because of globel warming so it would be hard for scientist to shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[adent]

Are you sure about the science? The "Kuwait's fire oil" claims was also by so called science yet they were very wrong in their predictions. The problem with science is it's done by those who is receiving tons of money going to toward their field because of globel warming so it would be hard for scientist to shoot themselves in the foot.

That would be a fair question, if it wasn't for the fact that all the National Science Academies of the developed countries unequivocally state that they agree that climate change is man made, and if all those scientists paid for by the oil and coal industries could provide evidence that there may be some other cause of it. The oil and gas industry has a lot at stake here, and being some of the most profitable companies, I expect they can afford some of the best scientists out there. Not one has as yet provided alternative evidence that has stood up to peer review.

Even the most respected skeptics, for example Lindzen and Singer, are asking their fellow skeptics to accept that climate change is happening and that humans are the cause of it, otherwise they won't be taken seriously when they try to influence political decisions.

 

[rambot]

Even the most respected skeptics, for example Lindzen and Singer, are asking their fellow skeptics to accept that climate change is happening and that humans are the cause of it, otherwise they won't be taken seriously when they try to influence political decisions.

It's pretty tough to take those two serious though. It must be almost completely impossible for them to find people to work with an credible institutes willing to back them up.

 

[wpiman2]

1)Check your reps. The irony of a climate change skeptic is too much for my sense to even comprehend.

How about: By creating a world in which children and grandchildren won't have to clean up the crappy mess you've left behind.

I actually agree with you.

Currently the only answer we seem to have is nuclear power.

Environmentalists who opposed this in the 80s are now actively lobbying for its return. Let's put it in your back yard.

Biofuels thus far have been a bust. It takes almost as much energy to make them as they give out. It takes food out of the marketplace for human consumption. This has driven up prices and caused real starvation around the world. Of course; we haven't heard the environmentalist scream over that- because they are getting the population control they want.

I think alagae proposes a real possilibty, lets hope this works out.

Wind and solar are never going to be able to cut it. Adding these is good; but environmentalists make a stink over these as well. Look at Cape Wind; it is a disaster.

 

[Smidlee]

Even the most respected skeptics, for example Lindzen and Singer, are asking their fellow skeptics to accept that climate change is happening and that humans are the cause of it, otherwise they won't be taken seriously when they try to influence political decisions.

"Lindzen offered a few simple truths that "our side" often forgets. For example, skepticism about man-made global warming does not, by itself, make a good scientist. Nor does accepting global warming make one a poor scientist. Lindzen acknowledged that most of the atmospheric scientists he respects do endorse man-made global warming. He added, however, that most of their science is not actually about global warming.

Lindzen decried what he sees as the intellectual corruption that global warming alarmism has brought to climatology. He noted that many climatologists are happy to issue ambiguous statements that are then spun by activists into alarms. The result is increased funding for climate research, so no one publicly complains about the spinning. Most of the funding for climate research would not be there were it not for the global warming issue. Lindzen added, "Most science funded under the rubric of climate does not actually deal with climate, but rather with the alleged impact of arbitrarily assumed climate change."
... "So what to do in the face of the global warming alarm juggernaut? Lindzen advised, "The most obvious point is to persevere, to better understand the science, and to emphasize logic, which ultimately has to trump alleged authority." It will eventually become clear that while there is some warming, and that some of it is caused by man, it is not leading to catastrophe."

We know the Earth in the past has both been warmer and more CO2 which may not be such a bad thing. The whole issue is if "the sky is falling" or not.

 

[rambot]

Wind and solar are never going to be able to cut it. Adding these is good; but environmentalists make a stink over these as well. Look at Cape Wind; it is a disaster.

Why do you think that? Because technology never improves?
And there are numerous other renewable energy sources: Why are you so concerned about single sourcing the energy demands?

Environmentalists who opposed this in the 80s are now actively lobbying for its return. Let's put it in your back yard.

They rejected it in the 80s because the technology made for copious amounts of incredibly dangerous and volatile wastes.

Biofuels thus far have been a bust.

Fools and farmers (not related) are the only two groups who maintained any long term support for biofuels...and it's just another example of short sightedness on the part of the bush administration.

We know the Earth in the past has both been warmer and more CO2 which may not be such a bad thing. The whole issue is if "the sky is falling" or not.

Humans have disrupted the natural cycle of events. That is the source of the concern. CO2 has ebbed and flowed as part of it's natural cycle. But it has never increased this dramatically nor so quickly in recorded history.

 

[wpiman2]

Why do you think that? Because technology never improves?
And there are numerous other renewable energy sources: Why are you so concerned about single sourcing the energy demands?


They rejected it in the 80s because the technology made for copious amounts of incredibly dangerous and volatile wastes.

Fools and farmers (not related) are the only two groups who maintained any long term support for biofuels...and it's just another example of short sightedness on the part of the bush administration.


Humans have disrupted the natural cycle of events. That is the source of the concern. CO2 has ebbed and flowed as part of it's natural cycle. But it has never increased this dramatically nor so quickly in recorded history.

Wind and solar are nondeterministic in their delivery.

I don't advocate a single source for energy. I think Cape Wind is a grand idea. It cuts out pollution (and when I say pollution; I don't mean CO2; but all the other bad stuff that is a byproduct of combustion).

 

[Smidlee]

Humans have disrupted the natural cycle of events. That is the source of the concern. CO2 has ebbed and flowed as part of it's natural cycle. But it has never increased this dramatically nor so quickly in recorded history.

First man is part of the natural cycle and second Lindzen continues to point out that the recent change is no where as dramatic as the "sky is falling" crowd (alarmist) claim.