At the deathbed of global warming...what rubbish

[Tonington]

Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Anthropogenic Global Warming has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of AGW, they will confess that the years between 1980 and 2008 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel.

From the account which Henrik Svensmark, Richard Lindzen, and Patrick Micahaels gives of the present status of AGW we may safely conclude that AGW had entered upon a period of decay; it is in the third stage of a development through which many a scientific doctrine has already passed.


The four stages of this development are the following:

1. The incipient stage: A new doctrine arises, the older representatives of the science oppose it partly because of keener insight and greater experience, partly also from indolence, not wishing to allow themselves to be drawn out of their accustomed equilibrium; among the younger generation there arises a growing sentiment in favor of the new doctrine.
2. The stage of growth: the new doctrine continually gains greater favor among the young generation, finding vent in bursts of enthusiasm; some of the cautious seniors have passed away, others are carried along by the stream of youthful enthusiasm in spite of better knowledge, and the voices of the thoughtful are no longer heard in the general uproar, exultingly proclaiming that to live is bliss.
3. The period of decay: the joyous enthusiasm has vanished; depression succeeds intoxication. Now that the young men have themselves grown older and become more sober, many things appear in a different light. The doubts already expressed by the old and prudent during the stage of growth are now better appreciated and gradually increase in weight. Many become indifferent, the present younger generation becomes perplexed and discards the theory entirely
4. The final stage: the last adherents of the "new doctrine" are dead or at least old and have ceased to be influential, they sit upon the ruins of a grandeur that even now belongs to the "good old time." The influential and directing spirits have abandoned this doctrine, once so important and seemingly invincible, for the consideration of living issues and the younger generation regards it as an interesting episode in the history of science.

With reference to AGW we are in the third stage which is characterized especially by the indifference of the present middle-aged generation and by growing opposition on the part of the younger coming generation. This very characteristic feature is brought into prominence by the discussion of those skeptical. If all signs, however, are not deceptive, this third stage, that of decay, is drawing to an end; soon we shall enter the final stage and with that the tragic-comedy of AGW will be brought to a close.

If some one were to ask me how according to the count of years, I should determine the extent of the individual stages of AGW, this would be my answer:

1. The incipient stage extends from 1981 (the year during which James Hansen's principal work, Climate impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 appeared, followed by testimony before congress) to the end of the decade.
2. The stage of growth: from that time, for about 15 years, to 2005.
3. The stage of decay: from that time on to about the year 2015.
4. The final stage: the cooling period which begins thereafter.

I am not by choice a prophet, least of all regarding the weather. But I think it may not be doubted that the fine weather, at least, has passed for AGW. So having carefully scanned the firmament of science for signs of the weather, I shall for once make a forecast for AGW, namely: Increasing cloudiness with heavy precipitations, indications of a violent storm, which threatens to cause the props of the structure to totter, and to sweep it from the scene.

Eberhard Dennert

That's chutzpah! What a load of crap.

 

[#juan]

This is a major first It certainly suggests that global warming is real.

The Canadian Coast Guard has confirmed that in a major first, a commercial ship travelled through the Northwest Passage this fall to deliver supplies to communities in western Nunavut.

The MV Camilla Desgagnés, owned by Desgagnés Transarctik Inc., transported cargo from Montreal to the hamlets of Cambridge Bay, Kugluktuk, Gjoa Haven and Taloyoak in September.

"We did have a commercial cargo vessel that did the first scheduled run from Montreal, up through the eastern Arctic, through the Northwest Passage to deliver cargo to communities in the west," Brian LeBlanc of the Canadian Coast Guard told CBC News.
Rayes, who was on the vessel during its trip through the Northwest Passage, said the company informed the coast guard, which put an icebreaker on standby.

"They were ready to be there for us if we called them, but I didn't see one cube of ice," he said.

 

[gopher]

Global warming is real. Even Bush believes it!

 

[Lineman]

Well, if George W Bush believes it it must be real! He's such an expert at so many things isn't he...

 

[Praxius]

That's chutzpah! What a load of crap.

Load of crap?

I've been telling you all this since I came here and I have been telling everyone else this was the case for a lot more years past.

The funny thing about the report is that it seems like whoever wrote it used to believe in Global Warming, know realizes that it's a load of garbage and always was, and attempted to gracefully and with as many fancy words as possible, say that the whole concept was wrong, everybody bought into the fearmongering, the hype in wanting to make sure we don't go and boil ourselves and run out of water..... and that Al Gore is as I have always said..... full of sh*t and will sell his voice to the highest bidder when he needs a bit of pocket change.

So in other words, yet again, I am right and everybody else was wrong.

Yeah, I know, sucks to be me these days :twisted:

And yet, I have never won on a lottery ticket in my entire life..... go figure. I guess it's the little things in life that make ya think.

 

[Tonington]

On what basis do you think the author used to believe in Global warming?

In other words, you're still Narcissistic and your talking out your ass!

 

[Praxius]

On what basis do you think the author used to believe in Global warming?

Well if it was someone who never believed in it, they probably wouldn't go through such a detailed breakdown as to why the concept didn't fail, but rather will evolve into a "new doctrine."

Reading it through, perhaps he could be taken as someone who never believed in it either (My first read through was quick) but going through the cycles of decay like some 12 step drinking program, seems like he's trying to find a logical justification for why people ever bothered to believe in it in the first place, which led me to the conclusion that he probably used to believe in it at one time.

If he never did, then I feel the document may have been written a bit differently.

Then again if he never believed in it before, why did he take so long to write this in the first place? From the get go, basically back when I was a wee lad, I knew, through common sense, that global warming was a sham. And now things are shifting around as I predicted, seasons are getting colder, and if anything is coming our way, it's the ice age / global cooling (still climate change mind you) rather then global warming (still a part of climate change)

But of course this guy makes this report of course predicting this time (2008 ) as he has, probably long after a bunch of other big brains already claimed this was going to be the case..... he's leeching off of this theory, just like he probably used to leech onto the Global Warming crap.

But in the end, it's all crap anyways because nobody knows what's going to happen until it does happen.

In other words, you're still Narcissistic and your talking out your ass!

Well if I'm talking out of my ass, and it's still right, what does that say about you?

That you're not as smart as my ass? ;-)

 

[Tonington]

Who said you were right? :lol: You yourself just said knowbody knows what's going to happen. It says you're still Narcissistic.

About Mr. Dennert you're quite wrong about what he probably leached onto...:smile:

 

[Praxius]

Who said you were right? :lol: You yourself just said knowbody knows what's going to happen. It says you're still Narcissistic.

About Mr. Dennert you're quite wrong about what he probably leached onto...:smile:

I'm right on the fact that Global Warming is a joke and never was a threat in the first place, and that whatever is going to change or have an effect on us, isn't going to be Global Warming, but a regular cycle of Climate Change.

What climate change may bring us is the unknown, but what is known is that Global Warming is a joke.....

I never claimed anything that I don't know of yet, therefore I'm right in what I have been claiming thus far.

Sucks but it's true.

And in regards to whatever he leeched onto, doesn't really matter because that was a suspicion not a factual claim.

Not like it's a big deal, I used to believe in Global Warming too..... when I was 11.

 

[Tonington]

No, you're delusional and full of yourself, knowing that it's a joke and never was a threat in the first place, that's delusion. I fully admit the projections are probably wrong. I don't admit that the physics is wrong. I'd have to be delusional to say something like that. Or a believer in miracles...

I'll let you in on a secret Prax, I started this thread as a joke...on folks like you. Though I had hoped a few more of the resident contrarians would have responded first. You still haven't clued in on my comments about the author, Mr. Dennert. I assume you know how to use Google? I'll lay it out for you regardless.

Mr. Dennert is a real person, or rather was a real person. He happened to believe at the turn of the century that Lamarckian evolution was going to win out against Darwin's theory. He wrote this treatise, I simply rearranged some dates, people, and words after reading it somewhere else.

Back when Darwin's theory was stacking up evidence, there were still the few stalwarts still clinging to something more politically palatable. In the end they were wrong, we know that acquired traits aren't genetic heirlooms.

The same framing that those convinced by good and thorough science must be caught up in some crazy fad. The same delusional likening to Gallileo. Only better than a century later, and with a different branch of science.

 

[Praxius]

No, you're delusional and full of yourself,

Now now, there's no need to start getting more personal then you already have.... we already know where this leads to..... which is usually me unleashing the demon all over the place.

You need to lighten up, cripes, you can't even know when to take a joke anymore.

Here's a Hug *hugz*

knowing that it's a joke and never was a threat in the first place, that's delusion.

No, it's called common sense. Look at the information..... the information not dished out by the corrupt global warming groups which are specifically designed to make themselves sound right in order to get more funding.

This past summer was supposed to be the first ice free artic..... before that it was supposed to be the summer before...... now they're pushing it to what? 2015?

Do you at least see what I have been explaining this whole time?

They had all of this stuff predicted to occur at the turn of the 90's and by 1996 the coasts of North America were supposed to be under 7 metres of ocean.

Then 2000 came around and they pushed it later on, but still the same predictions..... now the clocks crunching on those predictions and so they bump it up again for another 5-15 years..... then again..... then again.

This is what I am talking about. I would be more believing about the global warming crap if they actually provided new information that actually explained why they kept getting it wrong and have to keep bumping it up..... but they don't.

I'm not someone who knows everything, and I sure as heck ain't full of myself, but I do know when I am right and I am right about this. The GW groups are Bullsh*tting every last one of us based on assumptions they've collected from thousands of computer simulations in which they picked only the ones which support their claims.

That's it..... if they have no other evidence or proof other then that, then why should I or anybody else believe them, esspecially when they have been continually wrong and now we're hitting continuing years of colder temps?

Seriously?

How is that being full of myself? It's common sense.

I fully admit the projections are probably wrong. I don't admit that the physics is wrong. I'd have to be delusional to say something like that. Or a believer in miracles...

I'll let you in on a secret Prax, I started this thread as a joke...on folks like you.

Oh wow, I feel ever so special now don't I?

A joke on me huh? We'll I'm not the one who's submitting reports that counter-act my own beliefs in a semi-logical manner and who hasn't submitted anything worthwhile towards proving global warming is a real factor of concern.

Unfortunatly, the jokes on you this time and you've created it.

Though I had hoped a few more of the resident contrarians would have responded first. You still haven't clued in on my comments about the author, Mr. Dennert. I assume you know how to use Google? I'll lay it out for you regardless.

Mr. Dennert is a real person, or rather was a real person. He happened to believe at the turn of the century that Lamarckian evolution was going to win out against Darwin's theory. He wrote this treatise, I simply rearranged some dates, people, and words after reading it somewhere else.

Back when Darwin's theory was stacking up evidence, there were still the few stalwarts still clinging to something more politically palatable. In the end they were wrong, we know that acquired traits aren't genetic heirlooms.

The same framing that those convinced by good and thorough science must be caught up in some crazy fad. The same delusional likening to Gallileo. Only better than a century later, and with a different branch of science.

I got what you were saying about the author as being full of crap or along those lines, and I see you related this article in a manner in which you would have hoped other global warming supporters would have come along and agreed with you.....

...... but unfortunatly, here I am first.

Although the author's explainations may be on the odd side even for me, his final conclusion is still correct and along the lines of what I believe, in that the Global Warming fearmongering is failing and will eventually fail, exposing itself for the sham it always was.

There are plenty of problems around the world in regards to the environment and much of it all does relate directly to human's, and all of those problems should be addressed and corrected...... but Global Warming leeched onto those problems to make it appear that there is an even bigger problem that we all need to control, when it is for the most part, completely out of our control and should never be in our control in the first place.

And for Global Warming to be continually proven wrong and continually have the dates pushed back further and further by the GW supporters...... clearly something is a foot.

 

[Mongul]

though i haven't been here that long, so my opinion of global warming isn't known to any of you. but i've always been disturbed at the fervency that people like Suzuki promote the idea of global warming. Indeed, as a occasional reader of geologic history i've noticed that the Earth has undergone many cycles of warmth and ice ages. Since This was all before the advent of industry and carbon pollution, it lead me to be naturally suspicious of global warming and its proponents. After doing research, i am firmly convinced that the doom prophecized by enviromentalists is an overreaction to a rise in temperature.

This wouldn't be the first time a scientific consensus was wrong, and i'm damn sure it won't be the last.

 

[Praxius]

though i haven't been here that long, so my opinion of global warming isn't known to any of you. but i've always been disturbed at the fervency that people like Suzuki promote the idea of global warming. Indeed, as a occasional reader of geologic history i've noticed that the Earth has undergone many cycles of warmth and ice ages. Since This was all before the advent of industry and carbon pollution, it lead me to be naturally suspicious of global warming and its proponents. After doing research, i am firmly convinced that the doom prophecized by enviromentalists is an overreaction to a rise in temperature.

This wouldn't be the first time a scientific consensus was wrong, and i'm damn sure it won't be the last.

Agreed, and that's one of the main points of why I am at the position I am in this topic of GW. Nothing I have seen thus far in regards to global warming actually matches to what they predict compared to obvious other explinations which explain even better, such as natural cycles. We may have an effect on the Earth's environment, but it's certainly not to the level of what GW supporters are claiming it to be.

Then what is the motive? Well one thing is to start living healthier and having less pollution in our world..... anybody can agree on that without having to attempt to exaggerate and lie to the global community..... so what then?

Profit and Marketing. Has anybody actually noticed just how many "Green" products are out there now a days? All kinds of things are now shoved in our faces that we're told are good for the environment, that they reduce greenhouse gases, that they clean better without all the harsh chemicals and the sort.

But now we're having some big investigations into many of those products and seeing if they are truly what they claim to be and we're finding that most of them are no more safer for the environment then the old products we all trusted and relied on.

And not to mention the GW spokesman, Al Gore, flying all over the world to promote global warming and living a green life in a private jet that burns more fuel per month for him and his group then most families burn in their cars per year....... a bit of a contradiction..... but I guess people have to get around somehow :roll:

If I was trying to promote living green, I wouldn't be flying around in a jet to speak about it, I'd go on the internet and avoid any form of travel in the first place.

 

[Mongul]

I agree wholeheartedly, case in point fluorescent lighting. There are governments mandating that fluorescent lights replace our normal incandescent lightbulbs, under the belief that it is healthier for the envrionment as it consumes less electricity. This is despite the fact that fluorescent lights are not easily disposed and are actually hazardous to the environment if disposed of improperly. But here we are, lulled into a false sense of comfort that using fluorescent lighting is good for the environment, without understanding the importance of proper disposal of the toxic fluorescent lamps

 

[Tonington]

You need to lighten up, cripes, you can't even know when to take a joke anymore.

I'm quite light. I know when to take a joke, and I know when I'm making a joke it's quite funny that you provide the replies I was aiming for...

I hope the hug was as good for you as you needed it to be...

No, it's called common sense, and I wish I had more.

Yah, I can change your words too... Perhaps it's best if we don't?

Look at the information..... the information not dished out by the corrupt global warming groups which are specifically designed to make themselves sound right in order to get more funding.

So, in your eyes Praxius which "group" out there does pure and applied science, without grants? Who studies things which have made your life more comfortable, without grants? That is a red herring argument that is favoured by the ignorant.

My fourth year project requires money too. It's C$280 for one cortisol test kit. I'm pooling my data so I don't need as many kits and to still maintain my statistical power.

This past summer was projected by some to be the first ice free artic..... before that it was supposed to be the summer before...... now they're pushing it to what? 2015?

I fixed the first part for you. Who is they? All scientists who study climate issues?

Do you at least see what I have been explaining this whole time?

I certainly get parts of it. Others are not so clear cut. If you'd read the threads that pre-date your time here, you can find many instances where I've agreed with other posters on things like blatant media hype, for just one example.

You're in a whole other field though. You're convinced it's wrong, and the reasons you know this are: because Al Gore is ______, because the media bloats information, because....well you've not once ever discussed the primary information. That's why I call you delusional for believing you are right, when you don't know the difference between noise and signal...

They had all of this stuff predicted to occur at the turn of the 90's and by 1996 the coasts of North America were supposed to be under 7 metres of ocean.

Always this ambiguous they...who said that? Was it opinions in the media? It certainly wasn't published. So why would I care if it hasn't been published in the proper channels?

Peer review exists solely for that purpose. If there wasn't, then we would have numbskulls saying ridiculous things like that, and science would be much poorer for it.

Then 2000 came around and they pushed it later on, but still the same predictions..... now the clocks crunching on those predictions and so they bump it up again for another 5-15 years..... then again..... then again.

Should I repeat my previous points?

This is what I am talking about. I would be more believing about the global warming crap if they actually provided new information that actually explained why they kept getting it wrong and have to keep bumping it up..... but they don't.

I know what your point is on that. I explained above I don't have issue with your take on that, I do have issues with your take on the science. They're two completely different things, and that's not always obvious to people who aren't immersed in the rigors of scientific investigations.

That's it..... if they have no other evidence or proof other then that, then why should I or anybody else believe them, esspecially when they have been continually wrong and now we're hitting continuing years of colder temps?

You're making the mistake of thinking what you hear in the media is an accurate portrayal of the reality of the situation, or in this case the knowledge. You ought to know better. You post media pieces all the time and are critical of what they write. Only when it comes to this subject, you're not critical of the media, but what the media says about the science. That is called missing the boat.

Do you see my point now? Do you see how what you're doing is similar to the crusade against Darwinism?

If you can't, there's not much else to discuss unfortunately.

 

[gopher]

'' Bush believes it it must be real! He's such an expert at so many things isn't he... ''


Republicans certainly think so.

 

[GreenFish66]

Michio Kaku and many prominent scientists believe global warming is occuring...Whether we are influencing the heating, or it is a natural occurance, is the real question!.There is little doubt Global warming exists!!...Michio a theoretical Physicist , the Author of "Visions" , and many other great books, believes Global warming is an undebatable fact(me too)...Although he feels it is probably too late to turn back the clock now...He has claimed that even if we stopped harmful emmisons now..It will take 15 yrs before the pollutants reach their peak!...Don't take my word for it ..Read his stuff..

Although I find his predictions a little too negative for my taste..He writes a good book!...Global warming will prove itself whether people believe or not!..Just visit the north eh!...I myself hold a diploma in wildlife/ ecology studies...I believe in Global warming.Shows in weather patterns..Migratory flight patterns and many other areas ...Just have to look out your little bubble at the bigger bubble(if you like bubble theories).,,We definetly affect this earth...The earth will naturally balance itself as much as it can..But when the tides turn..When the extremes become unstable..It is us who will suffer , not the earth(regardless of who we blame)...We have got to find ways, not only to live "GREENER" in a more sustainable fasion..We have to use our technological tools , and our collective minds, to solve the problems we help create . Not only for ourselves, but also for the lives of those, who live as one, with us , on this one, and so far , only living planet!!...Earth!! ...


Although I know the aliens are out there somewhere!..lol

I like to believe we can be part of the cure, not the virus!!...We are here to ensure our mother earth (Gia, if you will)and all that inhabit it, have a positive future..In the hopes that 1 day , we will be able to leave this planet to explore other planets.. possibly other worlds..and still come home for supper during the holidays!!..!!...Bring our Little green friends for a visit !!

Peace!...

So keep your environment clean..We all have to live in it!

P.E.U.......Person..Earth and the universe

Over and out there from here