Is Gobal Cooling a Continuing Threat?
no, but evidently it will be a continuing thread.......
no, but evidently it will be a continuing thread.......
- Status
H3ad you have failed to address the points made here:
Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann - for years a leading light in the IPCC, and the author of the infamous 'hockey stick graph' showing flat temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying increase - made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had indeed been a ' medieval warm period' around 1000 AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now.
Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water vapour - a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide - may account for much of the 20th Century warming.
Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.
Why should we listen to skepticalscience.com rather than wattsupwiththat.com?
It even lists the pro-warming sites on the side bar so you can easily access them... seems there are way more sites on the 'skeptics' side...
Your site is also just a blog yes?
Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann - for years a leading light in the IPCC, and the author of the infamous 'hockey stick graph' showing flat temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying increase - made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had indeed been a ' medieval warm period' around 1000 AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now.
Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water vapour - a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide - may account for much of the 20th Century warming.
Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.
Why should we listen to skepticalscience.com rather than wattsupwiththat.com?
It even lists the pro-warming sites on the side bar so you can easily access them... seems there are way more sites on the 'skeptics' side...
Your site is also just a blog yes?
sac beh
Member
I can't make assumptions about anyone personally because I don't know anyone here, but its as if you're all teenagers who haven't received any education in critical thinking and research skills. No one is able to discern the difference between "just a blog" or media soundbites and conclusions from scientific method.
As for Mann's views, read this article from 2 months ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705484.html
As for Jones, well, since giving links doesn't work because we lack sufficient research skills to follow them and conduct searches of the relevant scientific data....
But of course no one will understand that quote because the concepts of statistical significance and calculations of short and long-term trends are not understood.
The situation is not blog vs. blog. The situation is: a political anti-science sentiment expressed in media, blogs, and congressmen vs. scientific consensus.
As for Mann's views, read this article from 2 months ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705484.html
As for Jones, well, since giving links doesn't work because we lack sufficient research skills to follow them and conduct searches of the relevant scientific data....
But of course no one will understand that quote because the concepts of statistical significance and calculations of short and long-term trends are not understood.
The situation is not blog vs. blog. The situation is: a political anti-science sentiment expressed in media, blogs, and congressmen vs. scientific consensus.
I have already addressed the MWP. Please stop with the lies.
And please show us the Mann quote which that article mischaracterizes.
You should listen to scientists regarding science, not political pundits... That's why.
Until you look at the information (which it is obvious you have not) Then your repeated rehashing of old dead denier propaganda (which the site I pointed you to would educate you about) is beneath response...
ALL your questions are answered there and discussed at length BY BOTH SIDES...
That's one thing that makes it better... Lack of bias toward anything but verifiable evidence.
No... it is not "just a blog"... but you would know that if you would bother to read there...
It is a situation of multiple independent lines of verifiable irrefutable evidence that all point at the same thing, all of which are observation based NOT MODELED...
vs.
Red Herring distractions
Ad Hominem irelevancies
Cherry Picking insignificant details while ignoring the big picture
Outright Lies
and Stubborn Ignorance.
he types on his COMPUTER and posts to the INTERNET... neither of which would exist if science really knew nothing.
Climate cycles take thousands of years it's a fact.
there are groups that have been studying weather and documenting what they see for extremely long periods of time. I am talking over hundreds of years.
There is no immediate threat from any such global disaster relating to climate,
All you suckers need to know that all this climate shit is a push for CARBON CREDITS
and who posed this idea at first. The Rockafellar Bank, dumb asses
argue all you want I am done
Grat3 listens to whatever is rumor is most popular at the time. Say hello Bill Mahar for me.
Its all just blah blah if you cant explain. In laymens terms. How the climate could have been warmer in the medievil period. With no factories, power plants or SUV's putting out the c02. Because co2 is the main driver to climate right?
Have humans changed the climate? Yes.
Is the change statistically significant compared to earths heating in past millenia? No.
You are the victims of mind control. I could list 10 much more urgent and real threats to the natural order of our planet.
1. Nuclear waste and depleted uranium from war zones, weapons testing and reactors
2. Genetically modified plants, trees and animals entering the food chain and crossing/mutating such things as mosquitos or salmon
3. Mercury poisoning from heavy industry and now thanks to global warming zealots in light bulbs. These energy saving bulbs all contain mercury.
4. Deforestation
5. Fluoride in the water supplies. The fluoride used is an industrial waste with radioactive isotopes, heavy metals and damages bone structure and brain development in humans. See 1 and 3.
6. The chem trails and other weather manipulation such as HAARP. Trails containing high amounts of aluminium and barium. Contaminating the water table and earth. Unproven as yet but lots of research in this field. Also a UN enforced moratorium on chemtails recently passed. Ignored by USA. o
7. Oil spill in Gulf of Mexico. The vast amounts of oil and much worse a cocktail of highly toxic chemicals called 'corexit' have been sunk directly into the gulf stream. A disruption of which will send europe and possibly the world into a new ice age. Record low temps accross UK. Just a coincidince
8. Toxic plastics in our oceans, food supply and landfill
9. Methane gas from animal production and possibly undersea deposits. The oceans warming, if true. May trigger more methane. I dont subscribe to c02 warming the oceans.
10. Global warming zealots passing crazy legislation to kill our freedoms and energy use. This would allow the corporations and elite to keep on their crazy path to destruction by destroying the middle class and any effective opposition to their madness.
Prove me wrong.
Have humans changed the climate? Yes.
Is the change statistically significant compared to earths heating in past millenia? No.
You are the victims of mind control. I could list 10 much more urgent and real threats to the natural order of our planet.
1. Nuclear waste and depleted uranium from war zones, weapons testing and reactors
2. Genetically modified plants, trees and animals entering the food chain and crossing/mutating such things as mosquitos or salmon
3. Mercury poisoning from heavy industry and now thanks to global warming zealots in light bulbs. These energy saving bulbs all contain mercury.
4. Deforestation
5. Fluoride in the water supplies. The fluoride used is an industrial waste with radioactive isotopes, heavy metals and damages bone structure and brain development in humans. See 1 and 3.
6. The chem trails and other weather manipulation such as HAARP. Trails containing high amounts of aluminium and barium. Contaminating the water table and earth. Unproven as yet but lots of research in this field. Also a UN enforced moratorium on chemtails recently passed. Ignored by USA. o
7. Oil spill in Gulf of Mexico. The vast amounts of oil and much worse a cocktail of highly toxic chemicals called 'corexit' have been sunk directly into the gulf stream. A disruption of which will send europe and possibly the world into a new ice age. Record low temps accross UK. Just a coincidince
8. Toxic plastics in our oceans, food supply and landfill
9. Methane gas from animal production and possibly undersea deposits. The oceans warming, if true. May trigger more methane. I dont subscribe to c02 warming the oceans.
10. Global warming zealots passing crazy legislation to kill our freedoms and energy use. This would allow the corporations and elite to keep on their crazy path to destruction by destroying the middle class and any effective opposition to their madness.
Prove me wrong.
I
In~Plain~Site
What a dooshnozzle you are
Since the "it's only a model" crowd refuses to read the information which would clear up that particular delusion... Here's a couple of pictures summarizing the non-modeled evidences.
Because CO2 isn't the only driver of climate. But is it verifiably a major driver of climate and is observably driving the current warming.
educate yourself... ALL your questions have ALREADY been answered.
www.skepticalscience.com
stop being a brainwashed oil company dupe.
educate yourself.
ahahahaha you'll fall for buying water in the future also. lol
this guy loves whatever science tells him, stop worshipping science.
Follow the money, not the propaganda
lol. Amazing how people can get obsessed over something as trivial as the weather. There's much more important things going on.
You buy water already, unless you have your own well.
Follow the verifiable, not the rhetorical.
Amazing how many people confuse climate and weather.
The oil companies stand the most to gain from a carbon tax.
Wakey wakey voice of the silly season.
Wakey wakey voice of the silly season.
So... we already know that the oil companies have a mutli-trillion dollar vested interest in the status quo... Exactly who do you imagine stands to make money off of AGW? Small business alt energy startups?
follow the money, indeed... If you were doing that you'd see the huge investment Energy CO.s are making in denial propaganda.
follow the money, indeed... If you were doing that you'd see the huge investment Energy CO.s are making in denial propaganda.
ROFLMAO... you gotta be kidding me...
I'm in no way advocating a Carbon Tax, first off... dunno how you managed to remain ignorant of that fact.
Recognizing the reality of AGW ≠ advocating carbon taxes or cap'n'trade.
You guys should really stop pushing your politics... we're trying to discuss verifiable evidence... politics is a red herring distraction, and intentional TOU violation.
second...
Wake UP.
Follow B.Friendly's advice and Look into who is funding the denial.
sac beh
Member
These are all very interesting comments. Unfortunately, none of them address the scientific verifiability of changes in climate and their causes.
The policy/political/moral question of priorities is interesting, but doesn't address the scientific verifiability of changes in climate and their causes. Different topic.
Weather is indeed trivial in the larger topic of global climate change.
Who is talking about carbon tax? I thought we were talking about the fact that no one can present evidence for either a climate science conspiracy or the incorrectness of the scientific conclusions.
All of these are what are called strawman arguments. They don't address the argument of the opponent, but they address a separate topic in an attempt to gain the upper hand in the discussion because the strawman arguers have nothing interesting to say about the topic or they simply can't follow.
You are confusing politics with liberty and freedom.
You will be signing up for your carbon ration card?
What do your eminent scientists say we should do to fix the co2 'problem'?
You will be signing up for your carbon ration card?
What do your eminent scientists say we should do to fix the co2 'problem'?
- Status
