Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[Zzarchov]

How about the fact that the Northern Passage is open, and it is supposed to be a myth?

The planet is warmer, no one disagrees thats true (except you guys) they only disagree about if its natural or man made.

Does it matter if your house catches on fire for natural or man-made reasons? Not until after you put it out.

We know how to cause Global cooling, so lets do that.

 

[Walter]

How about the fact that the Northern Passage is open, and it is supposed to be a myth?

It's been open before.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...ssage+history+viking&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca

 

[Said1]

Friday, November 30, 2007

Canadians should brace for coldest winter in almost 15 years: forecast

Michael Oliveira, THE CANADIAN PRESS

TORONTO - After years of warmer-than-normal winters that spurred constant talk of global warming, winter this year is expected to be the coldest in almost 15 years and should remind everyone of what real Canadian cold feels like, Environment Canada said Friday.

With the exception of only small pockets of northern Canada and southwestern Ontario, this December through February is forecast to be one of the harshest winters in recent memory across the country, said senior climatologist David Phillips.

http://www.mytelus.com/ncp_news/article.en.do?pn=canada&articleID=2830954

The climatologists did say we would get extremes of weather at both ends of the scale.

Hopefully they mean Ottawa. :lol:

I can usually gage what the winter will be like by how fat my cat gets at this time of year. She's really thin. Either it's going to be REALLY warm OR she's not well.

 

[gopher]

Seems to me GW theory is getting the sh%t kicked out of it as of late :lol:Funny how the temps stopped rising now isnit?:lol:

Bush - biggest fraud in history:

 

[Walter]

Scientists have found a new threat to the planet: Canadian beer drinkers.
The government-commissioned study says the old, inefficient "beer fridges" that one in three Canadian households use to store their Molson and Labatt's contribute significantly to global warming by guzzling gas- and coal-fired electricity.
"People need to understand the impact of their lifestyles," British environmental consultant Joanna Yarrow tells New Scientist magazine. "Clearly the environmental implications of having a frivolous luxury like a beer fridge are not hitting home. This research helps inform people — let's hope it has an effect."
The problem is that the beer fridges are mostly decades-old machines that began their second careers as beverage dispensers when Canadians upgraded to more energy-efficient models to store whatever Canadians eat besides doughnuts and poutine.
University of Alberta researcher Denise Young, who led the study, suggests that provincial authorities hold beer-fridge buy-backs or round-ups to eliminate the threat — methods that Americans use to get guns off the streets.

What about my wine cooler?

 

[coldstream]

There was a piece on CTV Newsnet yesterday by a climate scientist who cut through the gobbledy gook of the Global Warming con job. Canada is in for its coldest winter since the mid 90s. This is predictable since the earth itself is in a totally expected cooling phase. The southern hemisphere has been cooling for 20 years, the northern hemisphere will start its cooling phase about now. It will last until about 2030. The chief impetus of this.. lo and behold its cyclical changes in the sun and the sun's radiation, as it always has been. The climate computer models of man produced carbon producing a dramatic warming are completely without credibility.

Not that you'll never convince the credulous saps of the Global Warming political cult. You really can fool SOME of the people ALL of the time.

 

[Extrafire]

No, it's not Mann. Believe it or not Extra there are many other paleo-climate researchers, whose independent studies have yielded similar results. This isn't even paleo-climate.

Still with the straw men eh?

You know, I've been ignoring your accusations of strawman tactics because they were so obviously inapplicable to my comments, but I'm beginning to think you don't know what the term means. You use strawman arguments yourself frequently (apparently without realizing the name of what you're doing) and just as frequently accuse me of using a strawman argument when I plainly have not. Take this instance. I made a comment comparing this work to Mann et al, because there were some similarities. I suspect, since a number of credible sources have established that warming has stopped, that this work could be as accurate as Mann et al. I drew a comparison. I made no argument, strawman or otherwise. Because until someone like McIntyre checks it out I have no basis to judge it.

Here's a hint; A strawman argument is when you take a statement or position of your opponent and twist it into something different and argue against that different position, not addressing the position of your opponent at all. I didn't do that. I didn't argue against anything. I merely drew a comparison illustrating that I didn't trust this source.

When I first heard of Mann et al, I knew at once it was bulltweety, because its conclusion contradicted known historical weather records. In this case I have reason to believe it's also not accurate, but cannot be certain as I was with Mann et al. So I made NO argument against it. Yet you called it strawman.8O???

You must have a problem with comprehension.

 

[Extrafire]

Not surprising at all that you would call a magazine article a paper. Not science.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Like it matters what I call it. As a matter of fact, I called it by the same name as the person who referred it to me. Perhaps a more fitting name would be a summary, or report. :roll:

What difference is it what I call it? I could call it Hubert and it would still read the same. And it sure has the scam figured out.

 

[Extrafire]

So you didn't read it. Real objective Extra.

As a matter of fact I did peruse it. I didn't follow all the links, I don't have time for that. I did notice that there was no mention of southern hemispherical weather, which has been quite cold lately. (Did I miss it, is it there?) I offered a link to a sample of one of the weather recording stations in the US, one of many that are similarly badly flawed. And the US recording stations are considered to be among the best in the world! Many scientists believe much of the warming of the last 30 years to be a result of heat islands due to such improper stations.

In case it was too subtle for you, that was a suggestion of why the report might be inaccurate. Notice I said "might" because until someone like McIntyre checks it out, I won't know for sure, I only suspect.

 

[Extrafire]

It's funny that the global climate, which in the past has taken millenia to change half the magnitude that we've experienced this century, and some people are picking a nine year period as example that the change has stopped.

Actually, the data shows that changes twice as fast as the current one were common in the past, as well as twice as large. As for the nine year period, yes it is too short, it's statistically insignificant because such fluctuations are part of either warming or cooling trends. But then some people use the 30 year warming to forecast dire consequences when it is also similarly statistically insignificant for the same reason. As is a 200 year warming or cooling. Trends are much longer than that. 10,000 years is more reasonable to establish a trend.

Further, lets look at the tired old mantra that climate warms 800 years before we see a change in carbon dioxide concentration. So why don't we look at the temperature record to find the rise 800 years ago that corresponds to our 30% increase in carbon dioxide. Well, it's not there.

It isn't a tired old mantra, it's a matter of empirical evidence. And yes it is there. Historians call it the medieval climate optimum. I quite realize that there are those who claim that particular warming was not sufficient to explain the current increase in CO2, and that may well be true. And the extra CO2 may well be due to human activity. In fact, some of it most definitely is.

Strange. The comment was that warming has stopped. You reply that it hasn't (fair enough) but then go on to talk about CO2 increase. I fail to see your point on this last bit, or how it relates to the original comment of warming stopping.

 

[Extrafire]

An op-ed from one of the shills of the AGW scam.
Bali: now the rich must pay



[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]A fair and global effort to tackle climate change needs wealthy states to take the lead in CO2 cuts[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Nicholas Stern[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Friday November 30, 2007[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The Guardian[/FONT]


[...]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2219534,00.html

Yet more evidence that the real purpose of all this AGW scam is to attack the economy of the capitalist West.;-)

 

[Extrafire]

Friday, November 30, 2007

Canadians should brace for coldest winter in almost 15 years: forecast

Michael Oliveira, THE CANADIAN PRESS

TORONTO - After years of warmer-than-normal winters that spurred constant talk of global warming, winter this year is expected to be the coldest in almost 15 years and should remind everyone of what real Canadian cold feels like, Environment Canada said Friday.

With the exception of only small pockets of northern Canada and southwestern Ontario, this December through February is forecast to be one of the harshest winters in recent memory across the country, said senior climatologist David Phillips.

http://www.mytelus.com/ncp_news/article.en.do?pn=canada&articleID=2830954

The climatologists did say we would get extremes of weather at both ends of the scale.

Oh, that's so hilarious!:lol: And pathetic at the same time. Just like when they said GW would cause worse and worse hurricane seasons, and when it didn't happen they claimed that GW could also cause milder hurricane seasons, and just to be sure they had it all covered, they finally claimed that GW could cause an average hurricane season.

If you add it all up, it would appear that GW causes everything, even tsunamis. It's so ridiculous, yet people are so fundamentalist in their belief in AGW that they'll swallow anything, hook, line and sinker.

How pathetic you all are.

 

[Extrafire]

How about the fact that the Northern Passage is open, and it is supposed to be a myth?

The northwest passage is a myth? Never heard that one before.

The planet is warmer, no one disagrees thats true (except you guys) they only disagree about if its natural or man made.

It's warmer than it was 30 years ago. It's the same as it was 70 years ago. It's warmer than it was 200 years ago. It's cooler than it was 1000 years ago. It's cooler than it was 2000 years ago. It's cooler than it was 7000 years ago. It's warmer than it was 16,000 years ago. You need to put it all into perspective.

Does it matter if your house catches on fire for natural or man-made reasons? Not until after you put it out.

Does it make sense to panic and call the fire department saying that your house is on fire when in fact it isn't?

We know how to cause Global cooling, so lets do that.

You do??? I don't. Please, tell us the secret.

And while you're at it, tell us why you would want it to be colder when historical evidence indicates that a colder globe is very hard on humanity. Like failing grain crops all across the northern hemisphere. Like massive crop failures in fruits and vegetables. Like plagues and famines. It's always been better when warmer.

 

[Extrafire]

Another example of how silly these global warming alarmists are:lol::lol::lol::lol:

November 30, 2007

Warmist polar expedition was cancelled due to extreme cold

Thomas Lifson

You can't make stuff like this up. The snicker factor just keeps mounting over the antics of global warming alarmists. Patrick Condon of the Associated Press reported last March:


A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.


"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.


On Monday, the pair was at Canada's Ward Hunt Island, awaiting a plane to take them to Resolute, Canada, where they were to return to Minneapolis later this week.
While losing toes to frostbite is no joke, one has to wonder if these two publicity-seekers were undone by believing their own propaganda. Did visions of an ice-free North Pole lure them into pressing onward after some equipment was damaged? Extreme cold is to be expected if one is visiting polar regions, and presumably, as experienced polar trekkers, they brought along adequate gear. So why did they not abort the mission when they suffered gear problems?


And how many purportedly harmful carbon dioxide molecules were generated by the rescue airplane to be sent to save them from their folly?:roll:


I hope the two recover fully and come to realize that it can still be really, really cold in the arctic, no matter what Al Gore tells them.


The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft's 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.lol::lol::lol
I hope they are now letting those school groups know that it is foolish to plan to swim in the Arctic because it gets really, really cold there.
LINK

How could anyone take these clowns seriously?:lol::lol:

 

[Tonington]

You know, I've been ignoring your accusations of strawman tactics because they were so obviously inapplicable to my comments, but I'm beginning to think you don't know what the term means. You use strawman arguments yourself frequently (apparently without realizing the name of what you're doing) and just as frequently accuse me of using a strawman argument when I plainly have not.

The strawmen was the station recorder. I argue your points. I don't need to make up ones to argue.

Here's a hint; A strawman argument is when you take a statement or position of your opponent and twist it into something different and argue against that different position, not addressing the position of your opponent at all. I didn't do that. I didn't argue against anything. I merely drew a comparison illustrating that I didn't trust this source.

A strawmen is establishing a position in debate and attributing it to the other person. It's a position that I never claimed to support. It's called a straw man because it is a position that is easy to refute, like knocking over a scare crow. Which you did with the station recorder. That served no useful purpose to the debate, unless you've found evidence that that particular station was used in the study.

When I first heard of Mann et al, I knew at once it was bulltweety, because its conclusion contradicted known historical weather records. In this case I have reason to believe it's also not accurate, but cannot be certain as I was with Mann et al. So I made NO argument against it. Yet you called it strawman.8O???

You must have a problem with comprehension.

Where did I say that was the strawman. My apologies for not being clear. Apparently it isn't a conscious effort on your part to use logical fallacies.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Like it matters what I call it. As a matter of fact, I called it by the same name as the person who referred it to me. Perhaps a more fitting name would be a summary, or report. :roll:

What difference is it what I call it? I could call it Hubert and it would still read the same. And it sure has the scam figured out.

Well, when my professors ask me to cite papers for any work I hand in, they come from peer reviewed journals, where science findings are presented. What you have is an article in a publication that is not peer reviewed. In matters of science, you did call it science, that is about as useful as using the Bible to explain the mechanisms of natural phenomena.

As a matter of fact I did peruse it. I didn't follow all the links, I don't have time for that. I did notice that there was no mention of southern hemispherical weather, which has been quite cold lately. (Did I miss it, is it there?) I offered a link to a sample of one of the weather recording stations in the US, one of many that are similarly badly flawed. And the US recording stations are considered to be among the best in the world! Many scientists believe much of the warming of the last 30 years to be a result of heat islands due to such improper stations.

No, it was concentrated on Northern Hemisphere data. That's what my text which was linked to the study said.

Umm, false on the heat Island. Some stations indeed are not for use, I'm not going to argue against that. Others in urban areas are actually cooler than their rural counterparts. Would these scientists be published in the journals Extra, or is this more fancy hand waving?

In case it was too subtle for you, that was a suggestion of why the report might be inaccurate. Notice I said "might" because until someone like McIntyre checks it out, I won't know for sure, I only suspect.

Very little of what you type is subtle. There are many more apparently than McIntyre, as you yourself said:roll:

Actually, the data shows that changes twice as fast as the current one were common in the past, as well as twice as large.

Not in the last 400,000 years. You can go back to earlier periods of high volcanic activity if you want. But that's just more of your apples and oranges comparisons.

It isn't a tired old mantra, it's a matter of empirical evidence. And yes it is there. Historians call it the medieval climate optimum. I quite realize that there are those who claim that particular warming was not sufficient to explain the current increase in CO2, and that may well be true. And the extra CO2 may well be due to human activity. In fact, some of it most definitely is.

Right, so look at those spikes. The medieval warming was a speed bump compared to the rising emissions we have today. All those graphs show one temperature spike, followed by an emission spike, not a bump followed by a spike.

Strange. The comment was that warming has stopped. You reply that it hasn't (fair enough) but then go on to talk about CO2 increase. I fail to see your point on this last bit, or how it relates to the original comment of warming stopping.

The first paragraph was a response to the cooling. The second was my own comment which relates to the first. There is much you fail to see. Perhaps it's an indictment of my clarity in writing. If so, apologies sir.

 

[Walter]

A superb analysis of weather-related deaths has just been published, the ‘Civil Society Report on Climate Change’ (produced by the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change, November 2007). I would encourage everybody to read this document immediately. It places the forthcoming Bali jamboree in the reality spotlight. The full .pdf version can be downloaded free here (direct .pdf download), or from here, or from here [bottom of page].

This well-researched report throws a gigantic snowball at the claims that ‘global warming’ is causing more weather-related deaths. As I have long suspected, precisely the opposite is the case, with the number of people killed each year by weather-related disasters declining dramatically.

It appears that weather-related deaths peaked in the 1920s, at around 500,000 per annum. In stark contrast, the death toll during the period 2000-2006 averaged only 19,900 (thank goodness, one might add). Indeed, the average annual number of deaths from weather-related events during the period 1990-2006 (when ‘global warming’ is supposed to have been at its most severe) is down by the staggering figure of 87% on the 1900-89 average. Moreover, the mortality rate from catastrophes, measured in deaths per million people, dropped by no less than 93%.

These simple statistics demonstrate all too clearly the nonsensical claims that have been made about the likely impacts of ‘global warming’. The study also shows that the richer a country, the fewer the weather-related deaths. Development, not emission caps, is the way ahead.

Once again, therefore, we see that the true danger of the ‘global warming’ trope is the unscrupulous hype employed to undermine the very economics that are reducing the number of deaths from the weather. The morality stinks.

Weathering this hype should now be our top priority.

‘Blogotariat’ helpfully summarises the main conclusions of the report, as follows:

(a) Kyoto 2 is the wrong solution. Such a treaty would harm billions of poor people, making energy and energy-dependent technologies, such as clean water, more expensive, and would perpetuate poverty by retarding growth;

(b) Mortality from extreme weather events is far more strongly affected by the technologies deployed by humans - such as the construction of houses, roads, and dams - than by climate;

(c) Human ecology and human behaviour are the key determinants of the transmission of infectious diseases. Obsessive emphasis on climate is unwarranted;

(d) If adaptation is not unduly restricted, production of food and other agricultural products, as well as forestry products, will keep pace with growing human demands (so much for the Neo-Malthusian pessimists);

(e) Foreign aid is being used as a ‘carrot’ to induce poor countries to restrict their emissions. But aid has mostly been wasted, or even counterproductive; and,

(f) The stick of trade sanctions has been threatened as a means of enforcing global emissions caps [see also: ‘Kyoto Cant’, December 1] - yet such sanctions harm both parties - a clear ‘lose - lose scenario’.

Our rich Northern ecochondria is a neo-colonialism too far. Let’s hope that the developing world put the cap on Bali.
Weathering ‘Global Warming’





http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/iWeb/G...log/226DE111-6522-453F-8A63-B24A4D314015.html

 

[Walter]

From The Sunday Times
December 2, 2007


Fall in weather deaths dents climate warnings




David Smith


GREEN scientists have been accused of overstating the dangers of climate change by researchers who found that the number of people killed each year by weather-related disasters is falling.
Their report suggests that a central plank in the global warming argument – that it will result in a big increase in deaths from weather-related disasters – is undermined by the facts. It shows deaths in such disasters peaked in the 1920s and have been declining ever since.
Average annual deaths from weather-related events in the period 1990-2006 – considered by scientists to be when global warming has been most intense – were down by 87% on the 1900-89 average. The mortality rate from catastrophes, measured in deaths per million people, dropped by 93%.
The report by the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change, a grouping of 41 mainly free-market bodies, comes on the eve of an international meeting on climate change in Bali.
Indur Goklany, a US-based expert on weather-related catastrophes, charted global deaths through the 20th century from “extreme” weather events.
Compared with the peak rate of deaths from weather-related events in the 1920s of nearly 500,000 a year, the death toll during the period 2000-06 averaged 19,900. “The United Nations has got the issues and their relative importance backward,” Goklany said.
The number of deaths had fallen sharply because of better warning systems, improved flood defences and other measures. Poor countries remained most vulnerable.
Greenpeace attacked the International Policy Network, one of the Civil Society organisations, which is publishing the report in Britain.
“The International Policy Network is known for being in the pay of the world’s biggest oil company,” a spokesman said.
The network said: “Funding for this project has come entirely from private individuals and foundations.”

Goklany's full research report on climate change

 

[Walter]

A blast of hot air at Bali's climate conference



Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 03/12/2007



It's not the waste that rankles so much as the hypocrisy. Some 15,000 politicians, officials, quangocrats and assorted busybodies are descending on Bali for a jamboree that will produce more than 100,000 tons of CO2 emissions. The purpose of their trip? To discuss how to reduce CO2 emissions.
We wonder whether there would be so many observers and hangers-on if the venue were, say, Düsseldorf. For many of those attending have no direct involvement in the talks.
For example, 19 MEPs, accompanied by advisers and staff, are in Bali, staying at a luxurious spa hotel. Not only will their fares, meals and accommodation be paid for by the rest of us, but they will also claim a further £95 per day.
Our purpose is not just to mock the attendees. No, we have a deeper objection.
The Bali summit represents much of what is wrong with the green movement, in that it elevates intentions over results. The supposedly ethical aims of the conference are presumed to render irrelevant the pollution engendered by its delegates.
Euro-MPs, and politicians generally, often behave this way. When Indonesia was devastated by the 2004 tsunami, MEPs cheerfully voted millions of their constituents' euros in aid.
But when it was suggested that they might contribute a single day's attendance allowance - around £190 - to the relief effort, they were horrified.
They demand green taxation, yet many of them fly to Strasbourg by the most environmentally unfriendly routes, thereby pocketing higher mileage allowances.
The Kyoto agenda is not principally about affecting climate change. Even if we accept all its proponents' figures, we would succeed in reducing the projected temperature rise by just 0.3F over the next century (at a cost of an almost unbelievable £3 trillion).
No, the Bali meeting is not really about doing anything. It is about feeling smug; and getting paid for it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/03/dl0302.xml

 

[Extrafire]

The strawmen was the station recorder. I argue your points. I don't need to make up ones to argue.

Oh please!!! Go back to that thread about the health effects of climate change being edited and refresh your memory of how you distorted my words repeatedly, and when I insisted on sticking to my point, you accused me of backpedaling, and never did actually argue my point.

The station recorder was used as an example of the problem with weather records in the US. I could go on at length on the inaccuracies and incorrect settings for thousands of them. I used it as a reason why I am skeptical of the study you presented. I made no strawman argument, or any argument of any kind. Your statement indicates that you do not actually know what a strawman arguement is.

A strawmen is establishing a position in debate and attributing it to the other person. It's a position that I never claimed to support. It's called a straw man because it is a position that is easy to refute, like knocking over a scare crow.

And this indicates that you do indeed know what a strawman is. Hmmm.....what am I to deduce from these conflicting statements? The only conclusion must be that you do know what it is but accuse me of it when inappropriate in order to avoid an argument you can't win. The same reason you employ it yourself so frequently.

Which you did with the station recorder. That served no useful purpose to the debate, unless you've found evidence that that particular station was used in the study.

Since I wasn't participating in any debate on that particular paste, I only used the recorder (one of thousands such) as one example why I am extremely skeptical of it. As has been explained clearly already.

Where did I say that was the strawman. My apologies for not being clear. Apparently it isn't a conscious effort on your part to use logical fallacies.

Quote: "No, it's not Mann. Believe it or not Extra there are many other paleo-climate researchers, whose independent studies have yielded similar results. This isn't even paleo-climate.

Still with the straw men eh?"

Well, when my professors ask me to cite papers for any work I hand in, they come from peer reviewed journals, where science findings are presented. What you have is an article in a publication that is not peer reviewed. In matters of science, you did call it science, that is about as useful as using the Bible to explain the mechanisms of natural phenomena.

I'm glad to hear your profs require you to stick to proper scientific procedures (although in this forum you did bring up Mann et al and the hockey stick, which wasn't peer reviewed but was enthusiastically accepted by many in the scientific community and the IPCC). What I presented is a summary of a lot of works that exposes the situation as it really is.

No, it was concentrated on Northern Hemisphere data. That's what my text which was linked to the study said.

Hardly a definitive study then, is it?

Umm, false on the heat Island. Some stations indeed are not for use, I'm not going to argue against that. Others in urban areas are actually cooler than their rural counterparts. Would these scientists be published in the journals Extra, or is this more fancy hand waving?

Nope, true on the heat island. Very few of the stations have been properly maintained or sited (they're not supposed to have been moved over their lifetimes). Someone from the IPCC claimed that some of their records were from stations that were known not to have been moved, but investigation revealed that they were deliberately lying. I'll see if I can find more about that for you.

Very little of what you type is subtle.

Ahhh, then your distortions are deliberate

Not in the last 400,000 years. You can go back to earlier periods of high volcanic activity if you want. But that's just more of your apples and oranges comparisons.

Yes, even in the last 10,000 years. I'll get more specific dates for you when I have more time. As for high volcanic activity, that was partly responsible for the very swift drop in temps from the MCO to the Little Ice Age. Volcanoes don't cause increases, but rather cause drops.

Right, so look at those spikes. The medieval warming was a speed bump compared to the rising emissions we have today. All those graphs show one temperature spike, followed by an emission spike, not a bump followed by a spike.

Somewhat exaggerated, but not all that different from what I said.

The first paragraph was a response to the cooling. The second was my own comment which relates to the first. There is much you fail to see. Perhaps it's an indictment of my clarity in writing. If so, apologies sir.

I see a lot, but I still fail to see your point. CO2 is rising. How does this relate to climate change?

 

[Tonington]

Since I wasn't participating in any debate on that particular paste, I only used the recorder (one of thousands such) as one example why I am extremely skeptical of it. As has been explained clearly already.

One of thousands yes, one of thousands placed like that, well one station doesn't prove that.

Quote: "No, it's not Mann. Believe it or not Extra there are many other paleo-climate researchers, whose independent studies have yielded similar results. This isn't even paleo-climate.

Still with the straw men eh?"

Who brought Mann into this again? Oh that's right it was you:roll:

I'm glad to hear your profs require you to stick to proper scientific procedures (although in this forum you did bring up Mann et al and the hockey stick, which wasn't peer reviewed but was enthusiastically accepted by many in the scientific community and the IPCC). What I presented is a summary of a lot of works that exposes the situation as it really is.

What you presented is fringe work, which hasn't passed the litmus test. I could actually post some studies that are legitimate if you'd like. That would be better suited for a discussion on the process of peer review.

Hardly a definitive study then, is it?

It's reporting. Not a study. I never claimed it was a study. The aim wasn't a new investigation, it's the data from temperature measurements. Take that for what it's worth. It does discuss the Southern Hemisphere as well.

Yes, even in the last 10,000 years. I'll get more specific dates for you when I have more time. As for high volcanic activity, that was partly responsible for the very swift drop in temps from the MCO to the Little Ice Age. Volcanoes don't cause increases, but rather cause drops.

Yes, I know they cause drops. They can also cause increases. In the past when there were faster rises and falls, like you said,but they were conditions which aren't comparable to ours. Active volcanism, changes in Milankovitch cycles, and solar activity. They do not compare to our present situation. There is very little volcanism, we're in between the extreme ends of the Milankovitch cycles, and solar activity has had a negligible effect since the 50's. So unless there is some other cause to the large swings in the past, that we don't know about, the science leads us to what we know currently. Greenhouse gases increase temperature. Greenhouse gases are increasing. The Earth doesn't have the capacity to remove all of our emissions. The result is warming.

I see a lot, but I still fail to see your point. CO2 is rising. How does this relate to climate change?

It's a positive forcing. That's straight physics, and has been around for well over a hundred years, going all the way back to Tyndall.