There are also article in nature that defy the reasoning behind anthro climate change. Do you accept them too?
Google Earth now shows CLIMATE CHANGE
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
The Warmists will keep on arrogantly preaching their now discredited religion to a largely skeptical humanity, even though it has all been proven to be a con, until they are blue in the face.
Eventually they will get bored and give up and we can all return to sanity.
hhmmm Thought you said we are in an ice age, yet your graphs from Vostok and Epica each show a plateau currently averaging above 0C. Some ice age.
A dynamic climate? Whoda thunk?
Delivering judgement on Global Warming
Some statements have a stunning impact. One made by Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber in Australia last year is an example. He said the difference between two degrees of global warming and four is human civilisation.
If the world is warming, and if average temperatures might exceed 2 degrees above those prevailing between, say, 1850 and 1950, then humanity is at risk. In assessing the seriousness of that risk, the issues are, first, the likelihood that the risk will eventuate; and, second, the consequences if it does.
If the risk is small and the consequences limited, the steps required to avoid it will be quite different from those that will be necessary if the risk is substantial and the consequences horrendous.
The evidence of experts may be very helpful in reaching conclusions about these matters. But some experts are better than others. It is probable that no climate scientist has more impressive credentials than Dr Schellnhuber.
He is a leading member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations. It maintains that climate warming is serious, and is human-induced. These conclusions are based on information garnered from all quarters of the globe. Thousands of scientists contribute. Nearly 200 countries, and the World Meteorological Organisation, are members.
As far as I am aware, nobody of any comparable expertise has challenged Schellnhuber's proposition that global warming by as much as two degrees, let alone four, would be a disaster of epic proportions. That conclusion is therefore highly relevant to the assessment of the overall risk we face. If it is correct, the second of the three issues in assessing risk is already answered.
The evidence about the first issue is contested, although the weight of scientific opinion is that the sceptics are wrong. And on the evidence available, only one answer is possible to the question of whether the risk of disastrous global warming must be taken seriously: it must be taken very seriously indeed.
We can differ about the certainty of the science. The sceptics may be correct in contending that their scepticism is based on better science than that of their opponents. But that is not the point. The sceptics cannot rationally contend that the science of their opponents is so unreliable that the risk to which those opponents point is a risk that can be ignored.
This, nevertheless, seems to be the position of Maurice Newman. He is chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council, and a man of substance. But he, like me, is a self-confessed layman on matters of climate science. That, of course, is no excuse for a failure to critically scrutinise the evidence. If I have any particular qualifications for joining the debate, they are that for more than 21 years as a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria I was required to base my judgments on a rigorous examination of the evidence. This frequently included the evidence of contending experts in areas with which I had little or no familiarity.
In an article published in The Australian on January 15, Newman contended that since its establishment in 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had been ''not a panel of scientists but a panel of governments driven by the UN''. He also asserted that the IPCC was a ''cartel'' which, with ''hundreds of billions of dollars at stake … will deny all contrary evidence''. In essence, Newman seems to allege that the IPCC is corrupt, and its work of no value.
Such a conclusion beggars belief. Most people are basically honest. In the absence of hard evidence to the contrary, it must be accepted that at least the overwhelming majority of IPCC scientists are honest and appropriately qualified. If in their professional opinion the world is at risk, it would be their imperative duty to warn us. If they did not, and the risk became the reality, they would rightly be excoriated for their failure.
There is another point. If the IPCC were corrupt, it would not tell its paymasters what they do not want to know. But it has consistently told its member governments that they must take difficult measures to avoid the global warming which the IPCC maintains is occurring. This is the last thing that governments want to hear. And if indeed there are ''hundreds of billions of dollars at stake'', it is likely that these funds are on the table because member governments are satisfied that the IPCC is on the right track, and that the money is required so that further vital information can be obtained.
Neither Newman nor anybody else has established that the risk of harmful global warming can be discounted. If the increase goes beyond two degrees, the consequences will be catastrophic. The steps required to avoid the risk must be tailored accordingly.
We cannot in conscience ignore the interests of our children, our grandchildren and subsequent generations when so much depends on what we do now. Other interests - of individuals, of business, of political parties - pale before the interests of the entirety of humankind.
With so much at stake, no government that takes seriously its primary duty to protect the future of its citizens can do otherwise than immediately tackle climate warming with every reasonable means at its disposal.
Delivering judgment on the great global warming debate | brisbanetimes.com.au
Some statements have a stunning impact. One made by Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber in Australia last year is an example. He said the difference between two degrees of global warming and four is human civilisation.
If the world is warming, and if average temperatures might exceed 2 degrees above those prevailing between, say, 1850 and 1950, then humanity is at risk. In assessing the seriousness of that risk, the issues are, first, the likelihood that the risk will eventuate; and, second, the consequences if it does.
If the risk is small and the consequences limited, the steps required to avoid it will be quite different from those that will be necessary if the risk is substantial and the consequences horrendous.
The evidence of experts may be very helpful in reaching conclusions about these matters. But some experts are better than others. It is probable that no climate scientist has more impressive credentials than Dr Schellnhuber.
He is a leading member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations. It maintains that climate warming is serious, and is human-induced. These conclusions are based on information garnered from all quarters of the globe. Thousands of scientists contribute. Nearly 200 countries, and the World Meteorological Organisation, are members.
As far as I am aware, nobody of any comparable expertise has challenged Schellnhuber's proposition that global warming by as much as two degrees, let alone four, would be a disaster of epic proportions. That conclusion is therefore highly relevant to the assessment of the overall risk we face. If it is correct, the second of the three issues in assessing risk is already answered.
The evidence about the first issue is contested, although the weight of scientific opinion is that the sceptics are wrong. And on the evidence available, only one answer is possible to the question of whether the risk of disastrous global warming must be taken seriously: it must be taken very seriously indeed.
We can differ about the certainty of the science. The sceptics may be correct in contending that their scepticism is based on better science than that of their opponents. But that is not the point. The sceptics cannot rationally contend that the science of their opponents is so unreliable that the risk to which those opponents point is a risk that can be ignored.
This, nevertheless, seems to be the position of Maurice Newman. He is chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council, and a man of substance. But he, like me, is a self-confessed layman on matters of climate science. That, of course, is no excuse for a failure to critically scrutinise the evidence. If I have any particular qualifications for joining the debate, they are that for more than 21 years as a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria I was required to base my judgments on a rigorous examination of the evidence. This frequently included the evidence of contending experts in areas with which I had little or no familiarity.
In an article published in The Australian on January 15, Newman contended that since its establishment in 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had been ''not a panel of scientists but a panel of governments driven by the UN''. He also asserted that the IPCC was a ''cartel'' which, with ''hundreds of billions of dollars at stake … will deny all contrary evidence''. In essence, Newman seems to allege that the IPCC is corrupt, and its work of no value.
Such a conclusion beggars belief. Most people are basically honest. In the absence of hard evidence to the contrary, it must be accepted that at least the overwhelming majority of IPCC scientists are honest and appropriately qualified. If in their professional opinion the world is at risk, it would be their imperative duty to warn us. If they did not, and the risk became the reality, they would rightly be excoriated for their failure.
There is another point. If the IPCC were corrupt, it would not tell its paymasters what they do not want to know. But it has consistently told its member governments that they must take difficult measures to avoid the global warming which the IPCC maintains is occurring. This is the last thing that governments want to hear. And if indeed there are ''hundreds of billions of dollars at stake'', it is likely that these funds are on the table because member governments are satisfied that the IPCC is on the right track, and that the money is required so that further vital information can be obtained.
Neither Newman nor anybody else has established that the risk of harmful global warming can be discounted. If the increase goes beyond two degrees, the consequences will be catastrophic. The steps required to avoid the risk must be tailored accordingly.
We cannot in conscience ignore the interests of our children, our grandchildren and subsequent generations when so much depends on what we do now. Other interests - of individuals, of business, of political parties - pale before the interests of the entirety of humankind.
With so much at stake, no government that takes seriously its primary duty to protect the future of its citizens can do otherwise than immediately tackle climate warming with every reasonable means at its disposal.
Delivering judgment on the great global warming debate | brisbanetimes.com.au
Deny warming all you want, you're just bucking the facts.
Ocean Warming Faster Now Than in 10,000 Years
Anyways, I tried finding the climate addition to GE and couldn't yesterday. Perhaps today .........
Ocean Warming Faster Now Than in 10,000 Years
Anyways, I tried finding the climate addition to GE and couldn't yesterday. Perhaps today .........
The consensus of a gang of scientists who cannot plead disinterest because of their funding and associations isn't is scientific proof it's conspiracy.
Will global warming create fertile farmland from Arctic tundra faster than cities swallow up fertile farmland?
How many bank transfers will stop the climate from ever changing again?
If the dinosaurs had a good banking system they'd still walk the earth.
If the dinosaurs had a good banking system they'd still walk the earth.
Scruffy-lookin, skinny white dude? lol
Just yours. I'll send a PM with the address.
The fact is ice may melt in fact the sea may rise, and once fertile places will
be sand dunes. The globe has seen many changes in fact the continents
themselves have moved around. It does not mean the end. Could there be
a lot of pain, yes there always is. We see these things happened over time
regardless. The difference between now and the sixteen hundreds is different.
too. This does not mean the world will end it just means Hawaii may be somewhere
else and much colder.
We have this belief that we can prevent the climate from changing and we will all
give up living to do it. It won't happen, for a lot of reasons the fact is it won't happen.
The truth is the greenies and climate change gang have adopted their beliefs into a
religion. Some governments support the concepts so there is distractions from the
real problems confronting us. The day might come when the climatologists are stuck
in the ice up north or eaten by polar bears. In other words what is no will be very different
in the future and its always been that way.
be sand dunes. The globe has seen many changes in fact the continents
themselves have moved around. It does not mean the end. Could there be
a lot of pain, yes there always is. We see these things happened over time
regardless. The difference between now and the sixteen hundreds is different.
too. This does not mean the world will end it just means Hawaii may be somewhere
else and much colder.
We have this belief that we can prevent the climate from changing and we will all
give up living to do it. It won't happen, for a lot of reasons the fact is it won't happen.
The truth is the greenies and climate change gang have adopted their beliefs into a
religion. Some governments support the concepts so there is distractions from the
real problems confronting us. The day might come when the climatologists are stuck
in the ice up north or eaten by polar bears. In other words what is no will be very different
in the future and its always been that way.