Global warming???
 

:confused: What do you think about "Global Warming"?

My thoughts in a nutshell are I tend to think its a big red herring.
Maybe we are warming the planet slightly, but I also know anything man does is dwarfed by nature. Think about the massive volcanoe eruptions in the 19th century, like Krakatowa. It actually caused a "nuclear winter" for several months world wide. (known as "The Little Ice Age")Thankfully, man hasn't even come close to doing that. According to some scientists, some volcanoes spew more gases and debris in a few days than man has in 10,000 years.
In my fairly short life span, I have heard scientists warning about "global cooling", and then "global warming" and saying that the coastal areas were going to flood in just a few years. (this was back in the late 70's!)
Maybe the world is warming, maybe its not. Maybe its the sun.
To me, the interesting thing is that most scientists and climatologists seem to agree that the earth is actually in a fairly temperate and calm period between major ice ages. So even if we are warming the planet slightly, aren't we actually helping forestall the eventual and inevitable next ice age?

(I'm not saying man has no effect, obviously we do, but in the case of Global warming, I'm not sure we are the sole or even main culpret-)
Thoughts?

Face it, it is just another get richer quicker scam by crooked people with no regards of how much fear they instill. Al Bore still stands to reap hundreds of millions of dollars through his 'Carbon Credit' ponzi scam. All those 'scientists' reap in the same for their "research". And the crooks at the UN take the same also all on the backs of American tax payers. The whole sad thing is, they KNOW it's a lie, and like every scam artist, these people have no conscience or regrets. They only see what's in it for themselves.
If it were real, then EVERY country should pay per population per square mile and also upon their industries. That would make China paying over half the cost.

pollution
 

China is probably the worlds biggest polluter. With all their factories spewing un filtered smoke into the atmosphere. Look at how bad their air was during the Olympics. People think they are helping the environment by driving hybrid cars. Guess what? The special batteries they use are made in China. The lead they smelt to make them(through unfiltered smokestacks naturally) pollute the earth more then my fossil fuel burning vehicles ever will. I use to get really POed when the motor vehicle inspections would fail my vehicle for emmisions Some say it is rigged. I do believe that. Took my car to inspection knew it needed a tuneup. It had a digital dash giving average MPGS and such. It failed ok. Tuned it up put in new plugs air filter spark plug wires , fuel filter pcv valve, checked timing etc. Miliage jumped up from 16 average to 21. Engine running better cleaner smoother more efficient right? No they are telling me my emmisions tripled! I had a fit. I use to work at a major airport for 10 years as a mechanic. I'd be on the ramp(air operations area) jets running all over the place. I figured they burned more fuel and put out more pollution leaving the gate and taxiing out then my car ever would if it ran 24 hours a day for years. Not to mention when it flies away either.

rambling
 

Damn I think that was the longest post I ever made here lol

Man-caused global warming is hippie propaganda for the sole reason that humans haven't been recording temperatures long enough to determine whether or not the Earth is going through heating and cooling cycles and whether or not we actually have any part in it(and even if we do, it is most probably very minimal at best).

Stick it to the hippies; burn a tire in your backyard. :yes:

damn hippies!

There is plenty of real data out there for anybody to look at if they are interested in more than spouting uninformed opinions. :yes:

But randolph. How can we be sure that we are the cause of the warming? Or could the Earth naturally be going through a warming cycle? I do believe that the Earth is getting warmer, but can it be proven without a doubt, that humans are the cause of said warming?

This is where things get sticky. GW proponents blame much of the warming trend on the steady increase in CO2 levels produced by the burning of fossil fuels. There is solid physics behind this view. However, the warming trend is not following the rise in CO2. In fact, GW peaked in 1998 in many areas of the earth and has stabilized at about one degree above the long term average.
Mother nature is far more complicated than we are able to understand. The computer modeling going on is, I believe, very dubious. To predict what is going to happen ten years or fifty tears from now based on computer models is, I believe, ridiculous. However, pouring vast amounts of hydrocarbon gases into the atmosphere is asking for trouble. We don't really know what that is going to do to the climate.
What is ironic, is that after WWII there was a cooling trend until the mid seventies. What happened then? There was a concerted effort to clean up smog and smoke. This had no effect on CO2 output, however. So the smoke and smog emissions that suppressed the warming effect of CO2 were reduced allowing the CO2 to warm the air.
So unless we know what we are doing, the safest thing to do is cut back on burning oil and coal. Its not going to last forever anyway.

I am all for alternative/renewable energy resources. I just hate it when hippies try to make me feel guilty for driving a car and try to push unproven technology onto me because they think they have some enlightened view. That's my only gripe about the GW crowd; some of them mind you, not all of them.

Well, I have several cars and my favorite is my GMC Yukon. It's comfortable and fast and can get twenty MPG if I am careful. I don't care for hybrids because of the battery. Full electric has limited range, I think the best current alternative is diesel. They are just as efficient as hybrids and don't require expensive batteries. Also, diesels can run on vegetable oil. Producing vegetable oil makes far more sense than making alcohol from food (corn).

Yeah. Diesels are pretty good. They also don't pollute as much as gasoline because the combustion and power strokes are alot longer and the fuel stays in the cylinder longer which allows it to be burned more completely. Plus it burns hotter because of the higher compression of a diesel engine.

Diesels also burn JP8 but this is riskier as jet fuel burns way, way hotter.

I remember seeing in Popular Mechanics an article about Bio-Diesel. It was pretty interesting.

spouting
 

I only spout when I get excited:coupling:

Your "spouting" would be most welcome!

:inlove::turnon::coupling:

I'd definetly want some "fuel injection". :drool: Can you fit your piston into my cylinder, or would it need to be bored oversive?

fuel injection lol
 

My hot rod has a stroker crank lol

I have some Tranny Honey for your stroker when needed. ;):lol::turnon::inlove:

Hi there.

Well about the global warming thing, then there was the global cooling, but when i was a kid, living in Canada and in the winter at night i would look at the skies and if ther was a good cloud cover the next day was mild, but if it was free of clouds the next day was COLD, so global warming? i'm not so sure, and as it was stated before who knows what the "normal" temperature change is over centuries or mileniums so it is all pretty much theoretical, but polution is a real problem that has to be addressed the sooner the better, and if the threat of global warming does that, then it is not a bad thing.

JohnDowe.

A nuclear winter is caused by many detonating nuclear weapons and not a volcano. This would be a volcanic winter. Also the climatic effects are comparable.
The little ice age was from 16th century to the mid 19th century as cause of less sun activity and more volcano activity.

There are indicators that mankind has warmed the last Ice Age (not the Little Ice Age) that should have happened so that the temperature didn't fall.
Isn't it alarming that an Ice Age is coming and temperature is significant rising.
There is no question that Steam, Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide and Halocarbon cause a Greenhouse effect. Ice cores show us that these compounds had a constant value in the atmosphere for min. 800.000 to 20 Million years, maybe much longer. 8.000 years ago (start of farming) this changed slightly. But with the industrial revolution the atmosphere change significant. In 2 hundred years the Carbon Dioxide value has risen about 40%, and the other greenhouse gases have risen comparable.

I don't think it's a good idea to burn over hundred of million year's stored fossil carbon in 300 year's. This must have an effect on the climate.
And it's not only the gases we produce, there is a massive methane production by mass animal husbandry, man burned and chopped forests for farming land and other need. We pollute more and take nature capacitate to compensate it.


Bio Diesel sound good but has worse effect on climate than fossil Diesel. There is not enough cheap useable space for the plants that are needed to make Bio Diesel. So poor countries burn down forests to get mono plant farming land to get money without taken care of nature. And the process of making Bio Diesel out of plants is not very effective by now.




A Question, why do we burn an amazing unlasting resource we are addicted to? Just one example what can be made of oil is plastic. What would life be without plastic?
Do you own a single pair of shoes without plastic in the sole? How many of your clothes are made with plastics? What is the isolator around almost every electric wire or electronic chip? In what is your food packed? Most that is used to seal (or gasketed) like windows or fridges. Nearly everything that is glued i.e. Plywood or Fiberglass. And everything else you could easily see made of plastic if you look at it with full awareness.

Anthropocentric global warming
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.
The Sun (BBC)
Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.

Pacific ocean (BBC)
In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
Iceberg melting (BBC)
The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

We just had our coldest summer anyone can remember and you STILL believe in global warming?

You can't say something about a huge global slow reacting system by only one summer.

Do I believe in GW? Yes. The Earth has warmed significantly in the past 100 years and there is data to prove it. However, there has been a noticeable cooling trend within the past decade and there is also data to prove this too.

Do I believe that humans are the cause of GW? No. We haven't been keeping temperature records and other forms of data long enough to come to an accurate conclusion about our role in temp. changes. There are too many things to factor in like volcanic eruptions and forest fires that can produce significant amounts of CO2 and other pollutants.

I believe that what most people refer to as "Global Warming" is actually a natural warming cycle of the globe which will inevitably be followed by a natural cooling cycle.

Fran, read the article from Angry Postman. It talks about how ocean temperatures influence climate over 30 year cycles. Currently we're on the way down. It was a good article. What people, especially politicians and pundits like Gore & Limbaugh need to understand is that climate is not political. Gore had no business making a movie about a scientific topic like global warming. You read articles like the one above and see what scientists are saying or at least scientifically trained writers.

The evidence is obvious that climate does change and is still changing. The overall trend since the last several thousand years is up. Whether humans are accelerating it is still unclear, because we are still learning to understand the natural cycles that come into play.

But let's at least put an upper limit on the problem. Can humans influence climate if they really tried? Absolutely. If we wanted to we could carpet bomb the planet with nukes. I bet that would have an effect don't you think? And the lower limit. Can we have zero effect? We make more waste than breathing and shitting, so no, we do have some effect. Then the answer is that we have some effect. Therefore we should think about what affect our activities could have on the climate as scientists, not politicians, try to determine how much effect we really have on the climate.

And if it is determined that humans negatively affect the climate, I certainly wouldn't trust a politician to make laws to protect the climate. There's too much special interest BS that gets in the way, and too much potential for politicians to manufacture evidence that says some activity we do is harmful - so create fines and taxes on those activities, because I've already seen speed limits get set back down to 55 mph on freeways a few years ago, in the name of clean air. Thankfully reason prevailed and a few months after they spent money to lower all the signs to 55 mph, they raised them back up again to 65 mph. Why not 70 like it was? I don't know. Probably some political BS. Either way, I typically drive at least 80 on freeways in my 16 mpg Mustang.

1880...?
 

130 years, (the amount of time man has been keeping meteorlogical/climate data- and the timespan on the 3 graphs you show) is virtually a speck in the geological and climactic history of the Earth.
They have taken ice core samples I believe, that go further back, but I don't have that data.

LIke others have said, I do believe man certainly can and does have an effect on our environment. (extinction of species, nuclear waste, deforestation, etc), but I'm not sure about "planetary effects".
Far better it seems, is to focus back on pollution, deforestation, (which can cause climate change) and resource management. Things we do know are happening, have a definite cause and which are detrimental to man and the environment.

:D Also, I know nuclear winter is from a nuclear exchange. I used the term as a comparison with volcanos, as I have heard several scientist do. The similarities are the amount of debris and smoke they both toss up into the upper atmosphere, resulting in a loss of sunlight and cooling temperatures.

Good discussion and many good points on all sides.

The three graphs posted were simply examples of data available to anyone who wants to see for themselves what is going on climatically.

Sorry, you second paragraph makes no sense to me.

Yes the earth was warmer then, but mankind creates the atmosphere of then and let less woods grow. At a single spot nature dwarf's man, but global it's not the case.

The biggest extinction of species after the mass mortality at the end of Cretaceous. I think this, the massive dispersion of foreign species at places they don't belong, farming, animal husbandry are a global effects. The planet earth will be there until the sun absorb it. Not sure what you mean by "planetary effects", but climate is part of the of our environment.

That is right, nature don't need us, but we need nature. Such massive and complex system can't do it in a few years, but even in this short time reactions are visible. The question is how much is mankind the cause. And as Randolph said:

Time for the religious angle.
 

Perhaps it is like in some of the Sci-Fi literature. Maybe our planet, and I use the term "our" loosely, is sentinent to an extent. Maybe someday, if she feels threatened by us humans, she will just shrug us off, so to speak. Tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions galore!

Yup, maybe "the music of the spheres" is various celestial bodies complaining about what those damn fleas are up to now.:lol:

Hey Babe
 

Hey babe, it's already happening. fires, floods, earthquakes, tsunami's, record breaking cold weather, a massive early storm in California.
What we have been doing is poking mother nature with sticks and she is getting fed up. :yes:

Pollution or Population ?
 

I can't say I'm impressed by any of the Pro-Gobal-warming brigade.

Much has already been said in this thread debunking the so-called ' evidence '

• Volcanic Activity
  One eruption produces massive amounts of CO2 and SO2 gases together with miscellaneous complex gaseous and residual hydrocarbons
• Pathetically short periods of recorded climatological data

Whe the major planetary cycles can be as long as 1500 years ( ask the Mayas )

1. CO2 ? Try SO2 for a real Planet-killer !

Anybody fancy living on an ageing version of Venus ?

Yes. Pollution by excess production of Chemicals ( atmospheric or otherwise ) IS a Planet-killer in the Long Term, maybe even in a geologically-short time-span. So is Over-population, Over-grazing. Soil-nutrient Depletion,
Man-made Soil Erosion, Over-harvesting - the list of mankind's follies goes on and on.

But for my two main Horses of the Apocalypse I would choose Over-population and Greed ( with its ever-attendant Wars )

No. our only hope is to be invaded by superior benevolent beings from another Galaxy ( Ours won't do as we'll have infested is with population by then )

Meanwhile, let's all have non-productive Sex and wait for the invasion. . . .

:turnon::turnon::drool:

Randolph! So maybe you had best heed those warnings ( omens, portents, signs, etc) and get the hell out of Kookyfornia before it slides into the Pacific.

No use waiting for rescue - Prime Directive remember? The Galactic council already have obtained enough people, animals, plants, etc for seed stock on a new planet and most likely won't bother obtaining any more, so that hope is out also. It's pretty much up to us to get ourselves out of any jam we get into.
As far as the global warming issue goes; I think there are a lot of coastal areas that need a good wash anyway.

No way! I am expecting to have waterfront property! ;):lol:

Man-made G.W. is a religion. There is no SOLID proof of man causing any global warming trends. The earth is far too big of a place to be altered by anything man could produce, baring a nuclear war. Those who believe that man is causing some kind of climate change are too self-loathing of man-kind to pull their heads out of their asses. Why is it that the only time the activist come out of the woodwork is on hot days? They only see the light of day when it suits their personal agenda. I didn't see or hear ONE TRACE of any of them when it was snowing in Malibu a few years ago!

Do you really think that this people did?
bullcrap - it is normal to nature - changing climate...
GW - fucking propaganda.
Turn into history, Ice age, Warm, Ice age, Warm.
So kick your TV.

Bunny Body Bio-energy
 

This oughta piss off PeTards and Greenpeace: Using dead bunnies to heat your house!

http://www.thelocal.se/22610/20091012/

Rex Murphy on ClimateGate
 

I find it interesting that Jon Stewart was the only person in the mainstream media to report on this...

'appears'
 

that's the key word,,,, serious and global in scope temp monitoring is at best 50 yrs old. I'm not a rocket scientist,,, but near certain no global ANYTHING changes in that small a time frame. Also and this I find near hiliarious,,,, back in the 70's the 'global threat' was global COOLING. Tons of psuedo science 'data' which supposedly proof positive of that being fact.
oh and btw Algore holds a degree in Theology. I doubt he can even spell 'science',,, lol

Of course humans can alter the earth (and we're just talking about the crust here really). Don't be naive. How much we're altering it is debatable, but make no mistake, we're having some kind of effect.

I meant to add a link to this previous post, but it won't let me now.

Here is what I was going to link about: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578990,00.html

and

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...l-warming-data


And the original ClimateGate story:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

Global Warming?
 

The skeptics need to look at the data on the internet rather than relying on Fox news to do their thinking. Lots of people deny evolution in spite of the fact that all science and common sence supports the fact of evolution. The burning of fossil fuels is stressing the climate, that is well documented by science. What we don't know is what mother nature is going to do about it. After raping her for years, the consequences for our energy based society will be dire, there is little doubt about that.
Skeptics are yacking about "cooling" but the following chart shows the "cooling" is mainly in the US, most of the world is continuing to warm especially the arctic. Glaciers are melting and the arctic ice is melting those are facts. We need to develop alternative energy sources soon. Otherwise we may see our demise :eek:

Who stands to benefit from ' Global Warming ' hysteria ?
 

Oh Dear. The less we know, the more we ' invent ' and speculate !

I find much in common between Angry Postman's views and my own.
The list of ' Beneficiaries ' from continued promotion of the Global Warming theory is yards long.

The politicians and ' Green-slanted Politics ' would almost certainly head the list.

It's a common political ploy to make a statement about which few would disagree, and then, when they're still mumbling their agreement, to make a suggestion which has no provable direct link with the first assertion made.

For example : Yes, Global Warming exists. The fossil record shows that without a doubt. Next proposition : We are here, therefore we must be a significant factor in the existence of this phenomenon today. NO ! THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW AT ALL ! Let's face it, In Gaia terms we are like ants crawling on the floating masses of this earth's crust. We are clearly an irritant, but I would be very surprised if we are much more than that - unless, of course we explode Plutonium Bombs and contaminate the planet's atmosphere for millenia to come, or explode so many nuclear devices that we affect the tilt of the Earth's axis in some way.

Let's face it, aren't we deluding ourselves with man's endless desire to be in God-like control of our environment, master of all living things and masters of our own destiny ? Why, we can't even control ourselves ! !

OK Then when was the last time a known living organism affected the temperature of the Earth ? And we are so presumptuous to think that we are the chosen ones ?

YES, by all means respect the planet that we live in and which supports us, but don't assume that we control its destiny by our puny activities.
YES, take in moderation, harvest and recycle, renew resources, and then both the planet and ourselves will benefit.

And those factors that are the MAJOR promotors of Global Warming and Cooling. Do we really know it all ? Or are we simply playing a guessing game about those factors way back in the geological record which brought about such profound changes that Life itself was eradicted from huge tracts of the Earth ?

I think the Jury is very much out on this, and will remain so for a long time to come. OK, let's keep our planetary ' garden ' tidy, nourished and watered as far as is within our power to do so, and trust in Gaia to do the right thing ( and, sadly, not necessarily by us ! )

Some excerpts from the climate software model...

etc etc...

I never listened to Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh and others like them about global warming because they have no idea what they're talking about. I figured the scientists were the ones to listen to. I hope these bullshit "scientists" are thrown in jail.

Randolph! I wasn't relying on Fox news for my info. It was relevant to what I was trying to get across which was that other than them and Jon Stewarts little show, no one else in the Mainstream Media reported on how the scientists were making GW more of a problem than it actually is. If you looked at the 3rd link of my previous post, you would have seen that a hacker got into the emails of the scientists who are in charge of GW research and spread their emails on the net. Through their correspondence, the scientists were admitting that the original raw data on which they had based their "evidence" had been lost and that the GW issue was more hyped up than it actually is.

More links on Climategate
 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...-warming/:says

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009

673 Comments Comment on this article

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” - CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled ‘Barbecue the Polar Bears’ in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility from which it is never likely to recover.

UPDATE: I write about this subject a lot and the threads below my posts often contain an impressive range of informed opinion from readers with solid scientific backgrounds (plus lots of cheap swipes from Libtards – but, hey, their discomfort and rage are my joy).

Here are a few links:

Interview in the Spectator with Australian geology Professor Ian Plimer re his book Heaven And Earth. Plimer makes the point that CO2 is not a pollutant – CO2 is plant food, and that climate change is an ongoing natural process.

An earlier scandal at the Climate Research Unit, this time involving “cherry-picked” data samples.

A contretemps with a Climate Bully who wonders whether I have a science degree. (No I don’t. I just happen to be a believer in empiricism and not spending taxpayers’ money on a problem that may well not exist)

59 per cent of UK population does not believe in AGW. The Times decides they are “village idiots”

Comparing “Climate Change” to the 9/11 and the Holocaust is despicable and dumb

Copenhagen: a step closer to one-world government?

UK Government blows £6 million on eco-propaganda ad which makes children cry

and a very funny piece by Damian Thompson comparing the liberal media’s coverage of Watergate with its almost non-existent coverage

And some more
 

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Clim...hange-Examiner

http://www.ecofactory.com/news/clima...ulation-112009

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/...ming-alarmism/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHHsithnEf8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNbxYVa2VjA

Make no mistake, I'm all for renewable energy, but the whole issue of Man-Made Global Warming is just as I suspected. As the wise men of Public Enemy once said:" Don't believe the hype".

anthropogenic
 

The actual raw field data supports anthropogenic warming, regardless of all the huffing and puffing rhetoric. However, the "modeling" of future warming is, in my opinion, bullshit. One computer climate modeler when asked about the future of climate stated "my best guess is its going to get warmer". I suggest anybody interested in this issue read "The Black Swan" by Nicolas Taleb.
He points out the futility of making long term projections about anything. Something always screws up the works. Nerveless, we have a problem, we have too many people on the planet consuming not only fossil fuels but all of the useful resources of the planet. Our current system is not sustainable.
Someone accused the people concerned about warming as making it a religion, well how about the skeptics who grab every bit of contrary information to hype up that warming does not exist? Sounds like religious fervor to me.:frown:

Yes, nobody knows how the complete global climate system works, but all data and calculations show we have an effect, the question is how big it is.
Only because there are a few black sheep under scientists does not mean all climate data that is recorded is invented. The global climate models, with data from the past, get very close to the climate at that time. The problems with the future data is how we behave further, the atmosphere and what randolph posted. From the industrial revolution to now the CO2 has risen exponential and is twice as it was before. Such a high vale is million years ago, and it was warmer then, even the sun had a lower sun radiation.

I would say the list of financial interests against global warming is even higher. Short-sighted everyone would have to pay for climate friendly behaviour, that is connected with costs for everyone, but most for the industry, and for politicians with bad financial statements in their time of power.
On a longer sighted it saves money and we have to change our behaviour anyway, so why not now?

The significant factor is not because we are here, it is more how we treat our environment and our recourses.

To stay in your Gaia dimensions, bacteria could not be more than an irritation to a human. They could never harm us seriously, nor do we need them for, i.e. digestion!? They are just too small.

I'm against controlling nature, but that doesn't exclude a responsible treatment to nature.

The last time? Every live form with a working metabolism does it, some more some less. We use fossil fuels and acting a lot faster than any organism on earth before.
Very important ones are algae, trees and plants. Without them the atmosphere would change drastic and it would get warmer.

Everyone thinks a nuclear war can affect the world, but many think everything else we do are puny activities.
Mankind has 23300 nuclear bombs. The smallest is 0,3kT and the biggest was 60MT. I didn't looked up much so calculated with 30MT in the middle (must be way over a realistic value).
If all bombs (30MT in middle) are detonating the energy would be 2796*10^18J (2796EJ (Exa Joule)).
The word energy use is nearly 500EJ per year and still fast rising.
Over 70% of it is produced with fossil recourses.
The energy of a nuclear war is deadly but the world energy use has no effect on it?

We may not the biggest promoter of global climate (I think I heard guesses around 15-20%), but even a small amount could have bad effects for us.

Why keeping the planet tidy, if Gaia does the right things for us?

And the scientists that derived their positions from this raw data admitted that they had actually lost it and that their findings were somewhat fudged.

Just saying...




Correlation does not equal causation.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

What is a harmful warming?
Global climate is a big slow reacting system. The graphics in your Link show the massive increased use of fossil fuels. Such a fast and massive change of atmosphere CO2 has never happened before.
So what makes you belief someone can predict that it don't warm climate, but at the same time say we don't know much enough to say man has a significant effect on climate?

A lot of this is based on the US and not global. What uses a accelerated growth of plants, when at the same time the space that is available for plants is shrinking?

It's a stupid assumption that more CO2 will increases the diversity of plant and animal life. Man destroy the diversity faster than nature could regenerate (not to speak of increasing) it.

Global Warming? A lot of hot air?
 

I am in the fossil fuel business and I really believe that we had better get our shit together because we are running out of easily exploitable resources here on this planet. Some years ago, some caps with the logo:

Earth First We'll drill the other planets later

were popular in the oilfield. Funny, yes, in a way. But also true. The other planets and the rest of space are going to be our next sources of hydro-carbons. Meanwhile, we had best get with the space program while we still have the resources to get out there. Mankind has a long history of being wasteful and short-sighted and I really don't see that changing much for the better in the near future. I applaud the efforts of the conservation-minded folks out there; but are very many people listening? And how many really give a damn? Where is the motivation to take care of what we have now? What is going to motivate our ruling bodies to make wise rulings when the fact is that money talks loudest of all?

Is global warming a fact? Seems to be a lot of doubt in the media right now. There is no doubt that historically the temperature goes up and down. I think it is good that we are looking at the potential problem, but I don't really believe that we have any solid answers yet, much less, a clear course of action. Something that I think is a much more pressing concern now is WATER. Clean water that is usable. ???????????

An excellent post!
According to the "experts" peak oil was many years ago. We are using oil faster than we can find it. We are finding ways to get gas out of rock layers that was unavailable in the past, this will help for a while. Coal is our most abundant fuel resource and we will have to use it if we want to keep our current wasteful ways (more co2).
We have a stochastic climate system. With our limited knowledge of how climate works we can only guess what will happen in the future. I am very concerned that politics will impose "regulations" that will do no good and likely cause harm. Defining co2 as a pollutant for example. Co2 is the basis for life on this planet Plants cant live without it.

We can do many things to reduce energy use without expensive draconian government regulations.
For example:
Insulate houses and buildings.
In warm climates, paint roof white.
Stop eating beef (50% of greenhouse gases).
Hybrid and diesel cars.
Keep car in garage (walk, bike).
55 MPH limit.
Shop when returning from work.
Stay home and watch porn.
And so on.

The politicians don't want to encourage simple solutions, they want to enhance their power over society and the public does not want to change their energy consuming habits.

Water? Yes indeed, soon there will be violence and even wars over water as populations continue to increase, especially in India where glaciers are melting in the Himalayas (global warming), which are the source of much of India's water.

One thing for sure, the future will be full of news, most of it bad.:frown:

I doubt that cows are more of a polluter than cars. Besides, we all fart methane(cows, humans, cats, dogs etc.) and I guarantee you that a burrito from your local taco joint will have you putting the Hindenberg to shame in the department of volatile gases.


Will the future be like Tank Girl? Will a blonde, half shaven Lori Petty be driving around in a souped up Sherman?

I think the Indians could benefit alot more by purifying the water from the Ganges instead of floating turds and dead bodies down it. I'm all for tradition, but shitting in your own messkit seems a tad counterproductive...

Aw, come on now! 50%?? Where did you pull that from? Even if you add up the methane emissions from their rear ends, the methane emissions from ours after heating a burger, the exhaust from the ranchers truck, the shipping truck, the packing fatory exhausts, the delivery truck, etc, and the hot air from the auctioneer at the sale ring.....you are still several magnitudes off from 50%. Seems like I heard that your friends and ours, the termites, produce more methane than cattle.
Give up our burgers?!? No way!!

Methane
 

Well, we are not ready to go vegan or even to eliminate all meat, but we have pretty much eliminated beef particularly hamburger. Hamburger is nasty stuff anyway, often contaminated with salmonella.:eek:

Randolph. I'm pretty sure that you seen the cracking towers at an oil refinery right? The flames that jutt up from the tops of the towers are burning off methane as there is just way too much of it to be captured and be effectively stored. They are burning 24/7, 365 days a year and it is logical that they empty more methane into the air than cow doodie.

Natural gas(Methane) is being used as fuel to power vehicles, heat homes and is considered to be alot more environmentally "friendly" than gasoline.

If anything, eating more beef would result in less cattle. Just like if you leave an animal population alone, it explodes. Therefore, harvesting more of them will result in a decrease of the animal population. :yes:

I love your amazing logic! Your joking of course. :lol:

No I was not joking.

The whole cow poo affecting the climate thing is preposterous. It is just a ploy by vegans to make others feel guilty for eating beef by claiming that the beef that they eat somehow contributes to GW.

Here are a few of the websites pointing out the contribution of agricultural methane to global warming.

It has an effect, but even the entire, no matter it comes from, methane in the atmosphere can't be 50%.
CO2: 385 ppm; least 120 years
Methane: 1,75 ppm; least 9-15 years (I found it has a 25 times bigger effect than co2.)

This had to be a joke.



But if cattle don't eat the grass, something other will do. And in the end it's bacteria that decompose it, no matter if they live in earth, in cattle, in termites, or what else. That's part of the natural circles.
More problems occur in perma frost soil and methane hydrate stores that release methane every bit it gets warmer. And indirectly by over fishing, that end up in more released methane on the sea ground.

The problems occur when we don't act in circles like the entire nature. We are releasing gases that don't belong in the present circles and producing waste that can't be decomposed by nature or even harm nature. And we are violating the ecological balance. So the environment/climate will change, and not to our benefit.

What I meant was that the effect of methane in the atmosphere is near 50% of the warming contributed by greenhouse gases not the amount of methane in the atmosphere.

From The Telegraph UK.
"Methane is mostly emitted by agriculture, most famously from cows burping Photo: PAUL WINTER/GETTY IMAGES

Already, scientists consider methane as the second most damaging greenhouse gas produced by human activity after carbon dioxide. It is mostly emitted by agriculture, most famously from cows burping but also from ploughing soil and allowing vegetable matter to rot. Landfill is also a major cause of methane and the burning of coal and natural gas.

Before it was thought every tonne of methane was around 25 times more damaging to the atmosphere than every tonne of carbon dioxide.

Related Articles

*
EU summit: climate change and presidency top agenda
*
Britain will not sign up to a weak deal at Copenhagen
*
Putting biomass into the equation
*
Obesity threat to individuals and planet
*
Amazon rainforest at risk of ecological 'catastrophe'
*
Barack Obama 'must act now' to tackle climate change

However a new study by the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies has found methane is 33 times more damaging if the effects of interaction with other airborne pollutants is included.

The report, published in Science, found that the warming effects of methane are increased through its interaction with aerosols like sulphate molecules.

The finding has implications for any climate change deal decided by the UN in Copenhagen in December.

At the moment targets are focused on cutting carbon dioxide but scientists are now arguing for more emphasis on cutting other greenhouse gases as well -especially because methane breaks down more quickly in the atmosphere so cuts will have a more immediate effect.

Dr Chris Huntingford, of the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, said the study could influence climate change negotiations."

"This is an excellent analysis demonstrating that methane emissions have the potential to add more future warming than hereto realised. This new research complements the well-established result that carbon dioxide emissions have been responsible for a large fraction of the global warming observed since pre-industrial times," he said.

"There is a requirement to distil this more complete understanding of how the many different atmospheric gases interact, both between themselves and with humans. Policy decisions must account for such interactions and links to emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and atmospheric aerosols."

What I wanted to say is that there is 225 times more co2 in the atmosphere than methane. Methane has 25 times greenhouse effect of co2. Methane can't reach the co2 effect and if methane would causes 50% we had far over 100%.

But it is a significant factor in the atmosphere beside steam, co2, n2o (laughing gas), Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and aerosols.

This quote might give a better idea of the contribution of various gases to warming. As shown, the contributions of methane relative to co2 is highly variable. 50% methane contribution is to high based on this data, ranging from 34% to 44% compared to co2

From Wikipedia.
"The contribution to the greenhouse effect by a gas is affected by both the characteristics of the gas and its abundance. For example, on a molecule-for-molecule basis methane is about eight times stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide[6], but it is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total contribution is smaller. When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[7]

* water vapor, which contributes 36-72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9-26%
* methane, which contributes 4-9%
* ozone, which contributes 3-7%

It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect. This is because some of the gases absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies as others, so that the total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of each gas. The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for each gas alone; the lower ends account for overlaps with the other gases.[8][7] The major non-gas contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the greenhouse gases."

Those websites are pandering to the GW theory, not legitimate scientific sources.

OK you want to get technical?

"Ann. Zootech. 49 (2000) 231-253

Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming

Angela R. Mossa - Jean-Pierre Jouanyb - John Newboldc

aADAS Nutritional Sciences Research Unit, Alcester Road, Stratford Upon Avon, Warwickshire CV37 9RQ, UK
bINRA, Centre de Recherches de Clermont-Ferrand-Theix, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
cRowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, AB21 9SB, UK

(Received 15 November 1999; accepted 5 April 2000)

Abstract:
The aim of this paper is to review the role of methane in the global warming scenario and to examine the contribution to atmospheric methane made by enteric fermentation, mainly by ruminants. Agricultural emissions of methane in the EU-15 have recently been estimated at 10.2 million tonnes per year and represent the greatest source. Of these, approximately two-thirds come from enteric fermentation and one-third from livestock manure. Fermentation of feeds in the rumen is the largest source of methane from enteric fermentation and this paper considers in detail the reasons for, and the consequences of, the fact that the molar percentage of the different volatile fatty acids produced during fermentation influences the production of methane in the rumen. Acetate and butyrate promote methane production while propionate formation can be considered as a competitive pathway for hydrogen use in the rumen. The many alternative approaches to reducing methane are considered, both in terms of reduction per animal and reduction per unit of animal product. It was concluded that the most promising areas for future research for reducing methanogenesis are the development of new products/delivery systems for anti-methanogenic compounds or alternative electron acceptors in the rumen and reduction in protozoal numbers in the rumen. It is also stressed that the reason ruminants are so important to mankind is that much of the world's biomass is rich in fibre. They can convert this into high quality protein sources (i.e. meat and milk) for human consumption and this will need to be balanced against the concomitant production of methane.


Keywords: methane / ruminants / global warning / reduction strategies "

Methane is a non-issue for GW.


Tread, firearm suppressor regulations were originally started in the 1920's. Why? Because when the Great Depression hit America and it was too costly to buy food, people started to hunt deer. Overharvesting put deer populations in the red because people would hunt them after the season ended and they would use suppressors on their rifles so as not to attract the attention of the game warden.

If you kill an animal before it can procreate, you will start lowering its overall population. If methane coming from a cow's ass is a problem, kill the cows.

Haha! The thought that cows produce more methane than an oil refinery is laughable. Decomposition of organic materials(bodies, vegetation etc.) produces more methane for the simple fact that necrosis covers the whole earth compared to the small area of a cows insides where enteric fermentation takes place!

Consider that there are only 150 operating oil refineries in the US and there are on average over 100 million cattle in the US. So we have some 670, 000 cows for every refinery. Now let's look at other countries. India has over 250 million cows and less than 30 refineries. Worldwide we are looking at about 1.2 billion moo cows. Now to be honest, there are other places besides refineries that have flare stacks, such as; treatment plants, pumping stations, production centers, etc. The important point is that the gas is mostly being burned there and most of what is released to the atmosphere is not methane but rather CO2 and water vapor. Both, of course, are greenhouse gases and thus contribute to global warming.

Have we all lost sight of the fact that the same gases and the global warming effect they produce is what keeps this planet livable for us. If we didn't have them, it would be a damn cold place on this old dirt ball.

The most cattle are domestic cattle. They are not wild animals and are breaded for meat and milk. They are produced on demand. They are not allowed to procreate their self. This over breaded cattle have not the best changes against food competitors and predators (as long as they live anymore near them).
As long someone pays for cows, they will "produce" cows.

No, too much and too less is not good for us. Nature has created a balance in witch we developed, and we don't care about this balance, changing it and could harm ourselves.

Sigh
 

Hey Jenae and Tread, do you think it is worth our time to continue to try to get through to these no boys?
I think its time to go back to dreaming about cute trannys. :yes::turnon::inlove:

I'm just trying to get the point across that the whole cattle contributor of methane in the atmosphere is more of just a ploy to get people to stop eating beef than it is to actually do anything of any worth to the environment.

Personally I'm not for a vegetarian diet (maybe you can remember our early posts in another thread), but there is more behind this that is worth for the environment.
Beef and milk products are not very effective as nutrient supply. A lot of space must be used to get enough food for the huge amounts of cattle. In many countries they use also artificial fertilizer to get better grows and fight at the same time some other herbs and trees to get only cattle food.
Fertilizer is responsible for 1/3 of N2O worldwide.
A natural grassland bind more greenhouse gases than a full deplete agriculturally use.
And the immense water use, it sounds unbelievable, but it's true. 1kg (2.205 pound) beef needs 15000l (3958.5 gallons) water and 1000l water for 1l milk.

Humans don't need much meat, and herbal food would usually be more effective (as long they don't farm water hungry fruits in deserts as some do).




randolph: I don't want to get through and build their opinion, I want to animate to think self, and asking their self questions if it works like they think. (Maybe not successfully)

Hot stuff, this thread
 

Thanks for the dissection and commentary, Tread.
One simple question which very few Western Politicians will face up to and give a straight answer ( without tacking on their own particular slant, that is )
Jenae has fingered it : Isn't it true that Western Politicians are shit scared to admit that the West ( in particular ) has overused fossil fuel resources to such an extent that they are in very real danger of being held to extortionate fuel prices by the OPEC cartel and other contollers of pertroleum products less than friendly to the West ? And that so as not to trigger this extortion, Global Warming is being trumpeted as the one thing to fear, taking the heat ( no pun intended ) off themselves as having promoted for years the abuse of finite resources. You see if they made an all out drive to develop non-carbon bases sources of electricity ( the widespread Nuclear power issue still being very contentious after Chernobyl ), then other Global producers of Oil would be quick to try to discourage such initiatives, as their source of Livelihood would be severly dented as a result. How would they do it ? Why, by putting up the price of oil ! Would the West have the political will to prevent this ? I think not.

I think the West has shot itself in the foot through sheer greed and rampant consumerism, and it will be made to pay the price.

Quite true. However, as I drive around the freeways of S. California the possibility of an alternative to fossil fuels seems remote indeed. Our entire infrastructure is based on consuming fossil fuels. It seems impossible to maintain this level of activity with any other alternative. Ultimately, we will be forced into a very different lifestyle.
It all boils down to world population. If the world population was a tenth of what it now is, oil would last for centuries and the natural environment would survive. We are literally eating and consuming ourselves out of house and home.
So, what politician is going to advocate and what government is going to enforce what china has done, limit children to one per family?:frown:

I'm just waiting for a plague to annihilate us. We are overdue for the next bubonic plague or spanish influenza or zombie virus. Hopefully zombie virus...

Am I bad for wishing for a zombie apocalypse?

Well, either way we are in deep s--t. We need to stock up on food and have our weapons ready. We need to close down Sacramento and Washington and send the politicians to Gitmo. Needless to say I am totally pissed. :censored:

Heads on pikes!

Advice Dog says:

Ila on the Thames.;)

The mini ice age starts here

By David Rose
Last updated at 11:17 AM on 10th January 2010

Well, looks like we are getting a reprieve from "global warming". Mother nature loves to make us look foolish.

I believe this to be more likely than GW. Global Cooling...

Global cooling? Well not really, the unusual cold weather is a temporary respite to the relentless warming.

I dunno. It seems like things have stayed warm all year round. It seemed like December was the only month I really had to bundle up and I didn't really have to put on much. The nice weather seems to be shifting to an annual occurence rather than a seasonal one, but that's just me.

Well its a good thing those guys didn't make it.:eek:

Whenever I think of dinosaurs, I always envision them with British accents. I don't know why.

sorry to restart an old thread, but it has become a somewhat heated issue in Australia.

recently our government passed a bill that brought in a "carbon tax" that is one of the highest in the world... at a time when we experienced one of our coldest, wettest summers on record.
we have also been hit with a levy to pay for a "desalinization plant" (turns salt water into drinkable freashwater), even when our freashwater dams are so far over maximum that they are over flowing.

personally i believe that global warming has yet to be proven, and even if it is occuring that there are other causes for it other than being influenced by "human development"

recent research into global warming has shown that global temperatures have in fact been steady for a number of years now.

Sadly, Global Warming is real but not necessarily caused by man.

Without Global warming, us humans wouldn't survive. Without the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere the earth would be as cold as the moon.

Water is the biggest green house gas so don't let anyone tell you that carbon emmisions contribute to global warming in any great extent.

What I know contributes to global warming would be:

Deforestation: The release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by the burning or cutting down of trees, and the preventing of the trees absorbing the carbon from the atmosphere.

However, this is mostly countered by the ocean's natural absorption of CO2.

Cows: The methane produced from cow belches is a greenhouse gas.

But enough of the causes. I don't think we can stop any of that.

I care more about the purity of our air rather than the temperature of the earth. I'd prefer if we remove the POLLUTANTS from our air (noxious gasses and particulates). Greenhouse gasses naturally exist in the air, just as bacteria naturally exists in the colon to digest plant food.

But the biggest problem of Global Warming is Green Fascism.

Advocators of a green planet propose that the world population be reduced to 2.5 billion. Killing off the world with starvation, forced sterilization, and the promotion of class gaps.

Also, Windmills cause global warming by mixing the air around the mills, removing the hot air from the earth (cooling the earth) and then heating the air.

Sooooo if it's not man who's doing these things, who is it causing deforestation, green fascism and running windmills?

I wish I had definitive answers, but sadly global warming "science" has become highly politicized. So called scientists have been caught tweaking their numbers to back up global warming theories. There's probably some good scientists out there researching global warming, but without reproducing each of their experiments yourself you'll never know who they are. I do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that has to be controlled. The science is solid on that.

How anyone can be so collossally retarded as to deny a century of observed facts, which show a direct correlating graph between antropogenic carbon emissions and global climate is beyond me. I swear the only possible way is if the individual is Anacephalic (The medical term for being born without a brain).

Okay, so maybe that was a little too much hyperbole there, but seriously, anyone who takes more than a few minutes to look at the accumulated evidence cannot fail to end up agreeing with the consensus of the world's climate scientists. I can however understand the US being the bastion of opposition to reality, when it is the nation renowned for people who regularly view media sources which have been statistically proven to make you LESS well informed about current affairs than someone who gets no news whatsoever.

I direct anyone unfortunate enough to be in this situation to view all of the following:


For an overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

The facts, made easy. A series of videos on the science, and what it undeniably says:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...8&feature=plcp

In easier to digest short videos, every argument ever against the reality, debunked:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...3&feature=plcp

They have not.

The last ice age was indeed natural. Temperatures rose as in line with projections you could have made back then based on the environment at the time, something they are NOT doing at present.


And yet, so far almost 100% of the predictions made int he last 30 years have been correct. That's what we call reliable projections.


Yes, it really is. That's why only the same crank books which publish stories about aliens building the pyramids ever publish anything by opponents of the idea. Most of whom are not scienctists so don't know what they are talking about in the first place.


We began using that term when we realised it was more accurate as it encompasses the changes which occur globally as a result of average global temperature increasing (including certain streams shifting or stopping, which leads to cooling in some areas, and including different environmental effects suh as desertification, flooding, etc)


Like creationism. There is not any evidence for one side, but GAZILLIONS of bits of evidence for the other, ALL of which corroborate each other, from billions of different sources, be it arctic ice cores, south american river mud, directly recorded temperatures across the world, satellite imagery, tree rings, etc...
I fully acept that debate has proven useful, it has led to every possible angle being explored. Now we have the avidence from all the new lines of ingestigation which debate has spurred, and they all confirm each other.


Good, because as soon as you do any research you'll know you have been.
I recommend getting your info from good, solid, respected scientific journals like Nature, rather than from uneducated babbling fools with nothing more than a diploma in journalism, like Christopher Monckton.

Or do it the way we have been doing in Europe for the past 50 years. Reduce poverty and inequality, and as quality of life increases the birth rate naturally declines, because more people simply choose to enjoy life and not have kids. Apply it on a global scale and you get an overall downward trend in population until it hits a sustainable level. The main places globally for population increase are places where traditionally large families are the means used to guarantee survival because infant mortality rates were so high, with better medical access, those mortality rates drop and population explodes. Improve quality of life there to western levels, and you should see birth rates begin to drop off again. All we need is to get it to the level where humans on earth are the equivalent of the bugs in your house. A lot of them, but not on the termite infestation levels we're currently at, where the house is beginning to fall apart.

*EDIT*

Also, that's some pretty impressive conspiracy theory shit right there. Well, except the promotion of income inequality, unfortunately the IMF has in fact been pushing that shit for all too long with all the dictatorships they have propped up, and backed in the overthrow of democratic governments...

although not naure... All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that (global temperature) it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over... an article published in 2008.

projections made by rodent like repltiles that most closely resembled humans at that time?
"correlation does not mean causation"
a simple rise in c02 gases was not to blame for the end of the last ice age (nor the an inverse cause for it).

all global warming :theroies did not put a end date to projections. they were simply that.. projections.

Travesti
 

If it were real, then EVERY country should pay per population per square mile and also upon their industries. That would make China paying over half the cost.

---------------------------------
Travesti.

Whaat? China's CO2 emmisions have only shot up in the past 60 years. Are you going to make everyone else pay who was a part of the industrial revolution centuries ago?

What are we going to have to give up to reduce our effect on global warming? (If there's any significant effect) What is practical without singling out anybody?

And what about that statistics manipulation sham?