Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[trousers]

I still think the original purpose of the human race was to destroy the planet. Can't think of any other reason why we're here.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

One would be more comfortable embracing the concept of global warming if those that put forward the concept ever predicted anything correctly. Do you remember the BBQ summer that never was - it happened to be after we had a hot summer the year before. Then we had a couple of wet summers and this year they confidently predicted that wet summers were a key symptom of global warming and we better get used to it. Cue the scorching summer. My children were also told they would never see snow!!

 

We now discover that in the last 15 years global warming has not been happening after all. Now as soon as anybody even dares question global warming, then one is jumped upon as some kind of idiot just like they were when the shrinking Ozone layer was going to give us all skin cancer. The use of the word denier has some sort of sinister association with those that questioned the holocaust designed to sort of shame people out of questioning it.

 

What also worries me is that as Tim Yeo has shown, global warming is also an industry and it is in the interests of many people to influence policy. This accusation is always being levelled at those that doubt global warming but increasingly applies to the green industry.

 

I genuinely would like the case for global warming to be put forward competently so that I can judge whether it is indeed happening but with so many projections going astray it dilutes the argument. I happen to be a big advocate of 'green' energy anyway because anything that is renewable will help maintain dwindling resources. These resources will dwindle further and further due to the rising population. As Richard Attenborough says, our biggest issue as a planet is the rising population but this seems to be politically incorrect to discuss so it is ignored.

[View From The Top]

I still think the original purpose of the human race was to destroy the planet. Can't think of any other reason why we're here.

 

Let's hope we don't screw it up too badly for our kids sakes.

[aintforever]

We now discover that in the last 15 years global warming has not been happening after all.

 

If you actually read up on the science you would realise how retarded that comment is.

[Sheaf Saint]

We now discover that in the last 15 years global warming has not been happening after all.

 

Wrong wrong wrong. The no warming since 1998 argument is a complete fallacy presented using cherry-picked data...

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

 

 

I genuinely would like the case for global warming to be put forward competently

 

It is, if you know where to look. Try actual scientific journals instead of the sensationalist reporting you see in the tabloid media.

 

 

As Richard Attenborough says, our biggest issue as a planet is the rising population but this seems to be politically incorrect to discuss so it is ignored.

 

I think you mean David Attenborough, the world-famous naturalist, not the bloke from Jurassic Park.

[Wurzel]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ipcc-report-scientists-are-95-certain-humans-causing-climate-change-8843573.html

..............At more than 3,000 pages, the report is so big that it will be released in three parts over the next 14 months. The first part, released today, covers the physical science of climate change. The second instalment will concentrate on the impacts of climate change and how to adapt to them, while the third will examine ways to curb the warming.............

 

If the evidence is really that overwhelming shouldn't the third instalment be the one with the highest priority?

[Minty]

If the evidence is really that overwhelming shouldn't the third instalment be the one with the highest priority?

 

In an ideal world, yes, absolutely, but as this thread has shown, if the third part were released first, there would be many asking for the physical science (first part) and proof/detail of the impacts (second part) before accepting the need to curb it... so they want to ensure the background is clear and doubt is removed (as far as is reasonably possible) before getting to the point of taking action.

[buctootim]

I still think the original purpose of the human race was to destroy the planet. Can't think of any other reason why we're here.

 

I wouldn't feel so bad if it was some kind of clever conspiracy. Getting screwed through rank stupidity will be worse.

[Lord Duckhunter]

How do the tree huggers explain climate change before industrialisation, or even before man walked on the earth?

 

 

 

No doubt they'll be a explanation for this, and a Guardian article posted. I expect millions of pounds of money has been poured into this "science" which will explain how man made the climate change without even being on earth. Are the tree huggers trying to tell us they know what the climate on earth would be if man had never existed? Are people seriously trying to tell us that if we all followed the Caroline Lucas manifesto and all lived in wind farms, rode round on penny farthings and rowed to our seaside holiday destinations, the climate would stay the same?

 

Thank god there weren't people like Lucas around at the end of the ice age, they'd be issuing dire warnings about ice caps melting and man made destruction of the planet.

[buctootim]

How do the tree huggers explain climate change before industrialisation, or even before man walked on the earth?

 

 

 

No doubt they'll be a explanation for this, and a Guardian article posted. I expect millions of pounds of money has been poured into this "science" which will explain how man made the climate change without even being on earth. Are the tree huggers trying to tell us they know what the climate on earth would be if man had never existed? Are people seriously trying to tell us that if we all followed the Caroline Lucas manifesto and all lived in wind farms, rode round on penny farthings and rowed to our seaside holiday destinations, the climate would stay the same?

 

Thank god there weren't people like Lucas around at the end of the ice age, they'd be issuing dire warnings about ice caps melting and man made destruction of the planet.

 

There is a clue is in the IPCc saying that since 1950 humanity is clearly responsible for more than half of the observed increase in temperatures. That means some variation is natural some isnt. You should read it, its not joined up writing or anything.

[aintforever]

How do the tree huggers explain climate change before industrialisation, or even before man walked on the earth?

 

 

 

No doubt they'll be a explanation for this, and a Guardian article posted. I expect millions of pounds of money has been poured into this "science" which will explain how man made the climate change without even being on earth. Are the tree huggers trying to tell us they know what the climate on earth would be if man had never existed? Are people seriously trying to tell us that if we all followed the Caroline Lucas manifesto and all lived in wind farms, rode round on penny farthings and rowed to our seaside holiday destinations, the climate would stay the same?

 

Thank god there weren't people like Lucas around at the end of the ice age, they'd be issuing dire warnings about ice caps melting and man made destruction of the planet.

 

Try reading the scientific papers on the subject, it's not that hard to understand if you do. Go on, give it a go.

[View From The Top]

It would appear most sane people accept that global warming is a combination of man made and natural events. Those who don't appear to be Tories who'd prefer to believe what big oil tells them.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

If you actually read up on the science you would realise how retarded that comment is.

 

Thank you for reiterating my point about the abuse.

 

How would interpret would you interpret 'warming' then Aintforever? I would say it means getting hotter - maybe a misread this but I think the report said the surface has not warmed up. A year ago you would have called me a retard if I said that the surface temperatures were not rising, telling me 'read the science'. Now you call me a retard when it is proved that temperatures have not risen saying - you guessed 'read the science'. Science should be questioned and people have a right to do this.

 

Did you know that some scientists wanted the stalling in global warming to be omitted from the report?

[buctootim]

How would interpret would you interpret 'warming' then Aintforever?

 

 

I think by warming he meant the planet getting warmer.

 

[aintforever]

Thank you for reiterating my point about the abuse.

 

How would interpret would you interpret 'warming' then Aintforever? I would say it means getting hotter - maybe a misread this but I think the report said the surface has not warmed up. A year ago you would have called me a retard if I said that the surface temperatures were not rising, telling me 'read the science'. Now you call me a retard when it is proved that temperatures have not risen saying - you guessed 'read the science'. Science should be questioned and people have a right to do this.

 

Did you know that some scientists wanted the stalling in global warming to be omitted from the report?

 

1998 was a freak year, yearly measurements will not rise in a uniform a manner there are too may factors in play.

 

Like I said, just read the science. If you remain ignorant of the science you are not really in a position to disprove it are you?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Wrong wrong wrong. The no warming since 1998 argument is a complete fallacy presented using cherry-picked data...

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

 

 

 

It is, if you know where to look. Try actual scientific journals instead of the sensationalist reporting you see in the tabloid media.

 

 

 

 

I think you mean David Attenborough, the world-famous naturalist, not the bloke from Jurassic Park.

 

Sorry I must have misunderstood the term stalling

 

By argument I meant one where they get their predictions correct

 

No Richard - I saw him the other day and he said he agreed with his brother

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I think by warming he meant the planet getting warmer.

 

 

Well that would seem to prove your point but when was this graph put together?

[buctootim]

No Richard - I saw him the other day and he said he agreed with his brother

 

That rising population is a problem for the climate and other natural resources? um yes. Easy to say but not easy to solve without forced sterilisation / abortion / Infanticide.

 

Climate change isnt the only problem but its one which is relatively easily and cheaply solved.

Edited 27 September, 2013 by buctootim

[Lord Duckhunter]

Try reading the scientific papers on the subject, it's not that hard to understand if you do. Go on, give it a go.

 

You should read "The Emperor's New Clothes" .

 

How do you explain the extreme climate swings prior to man? Ah yes that's right , it's now a mixture of man made and natural causes.

 

Of course this "man made & natural" causes is a win-win. I remember all the dire warnings from 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, and they'll keep on coming year after year after year, getting it wrong, but explaining it perfectly. Until someone points out that the Emperor Lucas is bolloko (god forbid, I bet she doesn't shave her bits).

[buctootim]

Well that would seem to prove your point but when was this graph put together?

 

March 2012. The paper is here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf

[alpine_saint]

I think by warming he meant the planet getting warmer.

 

 

Is this the famous Phil Jones "hockey stick" ?

 

[buctootim]

Is this the famous Phil Jones "hockey stick" ?

 

 

No its not. Ordinarily the lack of hockey stick shape to the graph would give that away quite quickly.

[Guided Missile]

I think by warming he meant the planet getting warmer.

 

 

I think you're confusing heat content (or enthalpy when I was at school) with temperature. The actual temperature measurements from which some of the data above was derived is shown below.

 

The volume calculations for the oceans are not measured, but assumed and give very large heat content values in joules, even when derived from the tiny variations in measured ocean temperatures measured at depth, with, I hope, extremely accurate thermometers.

 

 

In summary, more of the Michael Fish school of climate change forecasting, total bollx...

 

I wonder how long it will take for this climate change scare to be revealed to all for the crock of sh 1t it is. Is reminds me of the 2K computer disaster that never happened.

[alpine_saint]

No its not. Ordinarily the lack of hockey stick shape to the graph would give that away quite quickly.

 

Dunno. If these guys can mistake (or misrepresent) short-term temp variations for apocalyptic man-made global warming, they can probably mistake (or misrepresent) a squiggly-wriggly line for a hockey stick.

 

 

Scientist = dishonest w*nker

[buctootim]

What happens to water temperature when you melt a lot of ice into it GM? Up or down? If it goes up, even by a little bit what does that tell you? That's rhetorical btw,(I already know it wont tell you anything).

[buctootim]

Dunno. If these guys can mistake (or misrepresent) short-term temp variations for apocalyptic man-made global warming, they can probably mistake (or misrepresent) a squiggly-wriggly line for a hockey stick.

 

 

Scientist = dishonest w*nker

 

Individual ****s exist everywhere in the world.

[aintforever]

You should read "The Emperor's New Clothes" .

 

How do you explain the extreme climate swings prior to man? Ah yes that's right , it's now a mixture of man made and natural causes.

 

Of course this "man made & natural" causes is a win-win. I remember all the dire warnings from 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, and they'll keep on coming year after year after year, getting it wrong, but explaining it perfectly. Until someone points out that the Emperor Lucas is bolloko (god forbid, I bet she doesn't shave her bits).

 

It's always been a mixture of man made and natural causes, if you read the scientific papers and not the Daily Mail you would already know that.

 

Scientists have been warning about global warming since the 70's and the ten warmest years on record have all been since 1998 onwards - maybe they were psychic?

[Viking Warrior]

Im still not convinced by all the so called experts that spout off accordingly about global warming.

 

I never here them going on about the China's , Indias, Russia's et al and indonesias constanley polluting the atmosphere

 

Another reason there is no climate change, in Orkney m the gulf stream is just as warm as it has always been > It rains a lot , we get snow. lots and lots of Gales and occassionally sunshine like today. But the weather patterns up here have never changed. Being interesting to see if and when tidal and renewable energy goes on line to see what happens up here,

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

March 2012. The paper is here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf

 

This graph is showing growth for the surface of the earth in the last 15 years does this contradict the report? Anyway the point I am making is not that I am saying there is no global warming I merely expect for the argument to be convincing for predictions to should ring true. If the argument is that convincing then they should be able to forecast to a reasonable extent what will happen in the next ten years and they cannot. It is not just that they cannot they are often spectacularly wide of the market.

[Guided Missile]

What happens to water temperature when you melt a lot of ice into it GM? Up or down? If it goes up, even by a little bit what does that tell you? That's rhetorical btw,(I already know it wont tell you anything).

I can't possibly join a debate which you are attempting to reduce to a level that would embarrass a 10 year old. What is amusing is that you are attempting that, after posting a graph which you obviously don't understand, in support of your belief.

 

Let me explain the problem I have with a graph that you think proves global warming. It is all about the accuracy of the measurements of ocean temperature, in which a public body in the US drops shedloads of expendable bathythermograph into various points in the Gulf of Mexico. They've been doing this since the late sixties and used millions of them. They then take the temperature readings using the data and tack them on to the readings taken in the 50's, presumably using bi-metallic thermometers on a chain. The advantage of a chain is you know the depth you are measuring. With an expendable bathythermograph you have to time its descent to get the depth reading, based on an equation. For a considerable time, these equations were relatively well-established, however in 2008 a meeting of experts exposed a systematic bias in the fall-rate equations. A major implication of this is that the bias in these equations lead to a warm bias in the heat content estimations. You should read more about the scientific basis for the graphs you present. It's not joined up writing or anything...

[Sheaf Saint]

Sorry I must have misunderstood the term stalling

 

You clearly posted that "We now discover that in the last 15 years global warming has not been happening after all." That statement is completely false as evidenced by all available data. The rate at which the global temperatures has been increasing has slowed from earlier predictions, but the overall trend is still upwards. At the moment it is unclear as to the cause of this slow-down. As with all predictions of this kind, they are based on models which will never be 100% accurate as there will always be unforeseen factors.

[Sheaf Saint]

You should read "The Emperor's New Clothes" .

 

How do you explain the extreme climate swings prior to man? Ah yes that's right , it's now a mixture of man made and natural causes.

 

Of course this "man made & natural" causes is a win-win. I remember all the dire warnings from 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, and they'll keep on coming year after year after year, getting it wrong, but explaining it perfectly. Until someone points out that the Emperor Lucas is bolloko (god forbid, I bet she doesn't shave her bits).

 

What extreme climate swings? If you have some evidence of earlier instances where temperatures have risen as rapidly as they have over the last century then please share it with us.

[badgerx16]

Is reminds me of the 2K computer disaster that never happened.

 

The year 2000 computer meltdown didn't happen because thousands of people like me, around the world, spent months upgrading and patching systems before the deadline date. Even so, some things did go wrong. It was real, it was managed - MMCC is real, but there is still time to manage the situation.

[Sheaf Saint]

This graph is showing growth for the surface of the earth in the last 15 years does this contradict the report? Anyway the point I am making is not that I am saying there is no global warming I merely expect for the argument to be convincing for predictions to should ring true. If the argument is that convincing then they should be able to forecast to a reasonable extent what will happen in the next ten years and they cannot. It is not just that they cannot they are often spectacularly wide of the market.

 

Models can never provide completely accurate predictions. Every scientist who works with them knows this, and an estimated amount of uncertainty will be allowed for when presenting findings. Even these estimates can be misleading because there will always be unforeseen factors. When dealing with something as dynamic and complex as the Earth's biosphere, there could never be a computer model developed that could take into account all of the possible influencing factors.

 

Unfortunately what tends to happen is the mainstream media reads the findings of these scientists and then prints some sensationalist nonsense based on the worst-case scenario in the predictions, and the ignorant masses lap it up as if it is fact. Then when these 'predictions' fail to materialise, the same ignorant masses scream "See, they don't know what they're talking about. The whole thing is a hoax!"

[Lord Duckhunter]

It's always been a mixture of man made and natural causes, if you read the scientific papers and not the Daily Mail you would already know that.

 

Scientists have been warning about global warming since the 70's and the ten warmest years on record have all been since 1998 onwards - maybe they were psychic?

 

The old Daily Mail, rebuttal. Anyone who disagrees with you, must read The Daily Mail.

 

 

There has been no global warming for 15 years. Nobody predicted this , but instead of holding their hands up and saying "we were wrong", it's now called it a pause. When all these predictions of Armageddon were being delivered, it was done with certainty, no caveats. All of a sudden when proved wrong by events, all sorts of excuses are made. The gravy train keeps on running, earth warms up, it's man made. Earth cools down, it's man made. Earth stays same, it's a pause. For something to be scientific the outcome has to prove your theory. In the weird and wonderful world of climate change, the tree huggers ensure that any outcome proves their theory.

[aintforever]

The old Daily Mail, rebuttal. Anyone who disagrees with you, must read The Daily Mail.

 

 

There has been no global warming for 15 years. Nobody predicted this , but instead of holding their hands up and saying "we were wrong", it's now called it a pause. When all these predictions of Armageddon were being delivered, it was done with certainty, no caveats. All of a sudden when proved wrong by events, all sorts of excuses are made. The gravy train keeps on running, earth warms up, it's man made. Earth cools down, it's man made. Earth stays same, it's a pause. For something to be scientific the outcome has to prove your theory. In the weird and wonderful world of climate change, the tree huggers ensure that any outcome proves their theory.

 

Predictions will never be 100% accurate but the last decade was still the warmest on record despite the sun going through a cooling period.

 

If you can come up with a good scientific reason for the recent warming trend then I could take you scepticism a bit more seriously, unless you do you just look like a complete fool for arguing against a science you know precious little about.

[Sheaf Saint]

The old Daily Mail, rebuttal. Anyone who disagrees with you, must read The Daily Mail.

 

How is that any different from your labelling of anybody who disagrees with you a tree-hugger?

[solentstars]

Predictions will never be 100% accurate but the last decade was still the warmest on record despite the sun going through a cooling period.

 

If you can come up with a good scientific reason for the recent warming trend then I could take you scepticism a bit more seriously, unless you do you just look like a complete fool for arguing against a science you know precious little about.

i would not worry..he belongs to that group if you told him 2 +2 =4 he will swear its 5 and call you a tree hugger or lefty:) daily mail says it all really,its not what you call a paper for the open minded is it used to be hitlers favorite paper in the war years.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Predictions will never be 100% accurate but the last decade was still the warmest on record despite the sun going through a cooling period.

 

If you can come up with a good scientific reason for the recent warming trend then I could take you scepticism a bit more seriously, unless you do you just look like a complete fool for arguing against a science you know precious little about.

 

Clearly nobody knows very much about it, seeing as nobody predicted a "pause". Difference is , I'm not part of a billion dollar gravy train. Just a bloke who thinks the climate will continue to change (as it always has done) regardless what man does. We are being told today, that islands will dissapear, that this will happen and that will happen. When it doesn't, there will still be tree huggers moralisng and anyone who dares point out that they're in the altogether, will be labelled a daily mail reader.

[buctootim]

I can't possibly join a debate which you are attempting to reduce to a level that would embarrass a 10 year old. What is amusing is that you are attempting that, after posting a graph which you obviously don't understand, in support of your belief.

 

Let me explain the problem I have with a graph that you think proves global warming. It is all about the accuracy of the measurements of ocean temperature, in which a public body in the US drops shedloads of expendable bathythermograph into various points in the Gulf of Mexico. They've been doing this since the late sixties and used millions of them. They then take the temperature readings using the data and tack them on to the readings taken in the 50's, presumably using bi-metallic thermometers on a chain. The advantage of a chain is you know the depth you are measuring. With an expendable bathythermograph you have to time its descent to get the depth reading, based on an equation. For a considerable time, these equations were relatively well-established, however in 2008 a meeting of experts exposed a systematic bias in the fall-rate equations. A major implication of this is that the bias in these equations lead to a warm bias in the heat content estimations. You should read more about the scientific basis for the graphs you present. It's not joined up writing or anything...

 

I know. I work for a marine conservation agency. You work as a pesticide salesman. The bias was inherent in the technique used then, but since the same equipment had been used for decades the bias in the data could be accounted for and corrected retrospectively. It also had zero effect on the trends. Incidentally the words you used in your post are almost identical to a wiki entry. How odd.

Edited 27 September, 2013 by buctootim

[badgerx16]

There has been no global warming for 15 years.

 

But that is not what the IPCC reports says - it says the rate of increase over the last 15 years is less than predicted.

 

"Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850"

 

"...the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951..."

 

"The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880–2012, when

multiple independently produced datasets exist."

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Predictions will never be 100% accurate but the last decade was still the warmest on record despite the sun going through a cooling period.

 

If you can come up with a good scientific reason for the recent warming trend then I could take you scepticism a bit more seriously, unless you do you just look like a complete fool for arguing against a science you know precious little about.

 

One would acknowledge that forecasting is not a precise science but they seem to be totally off the mark and that is the issue. If I could feel the symptoms then I would be the first to go to the Doctor. It is idiots like me that need to be persuaded and that is the problem; the symptoms we are told are not evident at a local level. This is not a right and left issue or should not be.

[aintforever]

One would acknowledge that forecasting is not a precise science but they seem to be totally off the mark and that is the issue. If I could feel the symptoms then I would be the first to go to the Doctor. It is idiots like me that need to be persuaded and that is the problem; the symptoms we are told are not evident at a local level. This is not a right and left issue or should not be.

 

How can they possibly be way off the mark when they were warning about it back in the 70's and here we are in 2013 and each of the last three decades has been successively warmer.

 

The problem we have had is unless the possible worst case scenario is rammed down the throats of the general public nothing will ever get done. There is still a lot we don't know but if you read up enough about what we do, it is reason to be very concerned. We are basically carrying out one big experiment and the planet that sustains us is what is at stake.

[Dark Munster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/world/americas/1600-years-of-ice-in-perus-andes-melted-in-25-years-scientists-say.html?_r=0

 

Glacial ice in the Peruvian Andes that took at least 1,600 years to form has melted in just 25 years, scientists reported Thursday, the latest indication that the recent spike in global temperatures has thrown the natural world out of balance.

 

Glaciers are disappearing all over the world. Good job it's not because of global warming, because that's just a hoax.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

How can they possibly be way off the mark when they were warning about it back in the 70's and here we are in 2013 and each of the last three decades has been successively warmer.

 

The problem we have had is unless the possible worst case scenario is rammed down the throats of the general public nothing will ever get done. There is still a lot we don't know but if you read up enough about what we do, it is reason to be very concerned. We are basically carrying out one big experiment and the planet that sustains us is what is at stake.

 

Back in the seventies they were telling us we were entering a new ice age. Over population and our national debt are at present a far more serious threats to our children and grand children way of life. That said, if the predictions were more accurate then I would demand action and would be more inclined to worry.

[solentstars]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/world/americas/1600-years-of-ice-in-perus-andes-melted-in-25-years-scientists-say.html?_r=0

 

Glacial ice in the Peruvian Andes that took at least 1,600 years to form has melted in just 25 years, scientists reported Thursday, the latest indication that the recent spike in global temperatures has thrown the natural world out of balance.

 

Glaciers are disappearing all over the world. Good job it's not because of global warming, because that's just a hoax.

 

Some people just bury their head in the sun and pretend it's not happening plus.you have powerful groups who it's in interest to rubbish reports.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[Saint86]

I think by warming he meant the planet getting warmer.

 

 

Graph proves warming is happening... If data is reliable, I am yet to see truly reliable data put forward that supports man made global warming.

 

The graph however shows **** all to do with man made global warming. A theory that is not widely accepted by many well regarded scientists who unfortunately have better things to do with their time than dither over the subject. They leave that for the climate, cough, scientists, cough cough.

 

Yes I am that skeptical because any set of scientists who aggressively deny, slam and tarnish any voice who speaks out against them is akin to the church vs gallileo. They should welcome scientists to disprove their theory. They don't... They do the exact opposite. There is hardly a shred of evidence for man made global warming that can not be disproved, they were caught lying and manipulating the data red handed (which should have ended their careers) but instead they hushed it up and carried on.

 

The simple facts are that co2 levels follow temperature change... In addition, bristol university released a recent study showing that co2 levels have remained broadly constant but that the proportion of man made co2 had gone up. I.e. natural equilibrium is occurring but that we are currently producing and increasing amount... If this holds true it totally anihlates the link between co2 emmisions and recent temp changes...

 

At to that the striking correlation between the strength of the suns magnetic field and global temperature throughout geological history couple with the sinusoidal position of the sun in the galactic plane and as we move through star formation regions.... Oh wait, hush up that theory cos it means we can't get paid to manipulate data any longer.

 

Do people actually believe that mankinds recent stint has caused global warming, if the opposition arguments were clearly reported, without bias, people could make a far clearer judgment. The standard of science used by the driving bodies is poor... It is not an accepted theory amongst serious interlectuals with decent scientific backgrounds and by that I mean research level physics or astrophysics etc.

 

The biggest sole impact on our climate is the sun, solar system and galactic neighbourhood..... How can you predict long term trends and patterns if you ignore the principal driver... In addition, the scientists behind climate change had no theory for cloud formation prior to mid nineties. These control the level of energy absorbed to a degree and crucially the level that the earth re-emits... The discovery for the process of cloud formation does not, how shall I say, support man made global warming.... When it was announced it almost ruined his career and he has only in recent years recovered to have a long running experiment on the LHC. His theory however does hold, and when explored provides a far higher and crucially far simpler model for global climate trends. Yet it was snubbed by the populist media and climatologists... Even some that worked on the discovery... That is terrible science and coupled with the fact that all MMGW theories I have seen can be disproved or have holes shot in the is why I remain a skeptic.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Some people just bury their head in the sun and pretend it's not happening plus.you have powerful groups who it's in interest to rubbish reports.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

In the old days people blindly followed what their religious leaders told them. Today people seem to be blindly following what scientists are telling us. As with religion I generally ere in the sceptical camp but still respect the motives of both religious leaders and scientists but recognise there is always some self interest present.

[buctootim]

Graph proves warming is happening... If data is reliable, I am yet to see truly reliable data put forward that supports man made global warming.

 

The graph however shows **** all to do with man made global warming. A theory that is not widely accepted by many well regarded scientists who unfortunately have better things to do with their time than dither over the subject. They leave that for the climate, cough, scientists, cough cough.

 

Yes I am that skeptical because any set of scientists who aggressively deny, slam and tarnish any voice who speaks out against them is akin to the church vs gallileo. They should welcome scientists to disprove their theory. They don't... They do the exact opposite. There is hardly a shred of evidence for man made global warming that can not be disproved, they were caught lying and manipulating the data red handed (which should have ended their careers) but instead they hushed it up and carried on.

 

The simple facts are that co2 levels follow temperature change... In addition, bristol university released a recent study showing that co2 levels have remained broadly constant but that the proportion of man made co2 had gone up. I.e. natural equilibrium is occurring but that we are currently producing and increasing amount... If this holds true it totally anihlates the link between co2 emmisions and recent temp changes...

 

At to that the striking correlation between the strength of the suns magnetic field and global temperature throughout geological history couple with the sinusoidal position of the sun in the galactic plane and as we move through star formation regions.... Oh wait, hush up that theory cos it means we can't get paid to manipulate data any longer.

 

Do people actually believe that mankinds recent stint has caused global warming, if the opposition arguments were clearly reported, without bias, people could make a far clearer judgment. The standard of science used by the driving bodies is poor... It is not an accepted theory amongst serious interlectuals with decent scientific backgrounds and by that I mean research level physics or astrophysics etc.

 

The biggest sole impact on our climate is the sun, solar system and galactic neighbourhood..... How can you predict long term trends and patterns if you ignore the principal driver... In addition, the scientists behind climate change had no theory for cloud formation prior to mid nineties. These control the level of energy absorbed to a degree and crucially the level that the earth re-emits... The discovery for the process of cloud formation does not, how shall I say, support man made global warming.... When it was announced it almost ruined his career and he has only in recent years recovered to have a long running experiment on the LHC. His theory however does hold, and when explored provides a far higher and crucially far simpler model for global climate trends. Yet it was snubbed by the populist media and climatologists... Even some that worked on the discovery... That is terrible science and coupled with the fact that all MMGW theories I have seen can be disproved or have holes shot in the is why I remain a skeptic.

 

That graph in and of itself doesnt prove very much because the series is too short - but its just a tiny fragment of the whole.

 

 

Yes there are many many variables which will affect rate of increase and make predictions hard. Solar activity, the fact that when more co2 is in the air plants grow faster, ice reflects heat melted ice doesnt, warming permafrost releasing methane, el nino / la nina etc etc. The fundamental fact is though that more co2 traps more heat - whether in double glazing or in the atmosphere. As co2 ppm continues to go up then man made climate change will continue - regardless of what the natural cycles do independently.

Edited 27 September, 2013 by buctootim

[Chicken With A Banjo]

It's always been a mixture of man made and natural causes, if you read the scientific papers and not the Daily Mail you would already know that.

 

[\QUOTE]

 

I am interested to learn more about these scientific papers you have read. Please would you be so kind as to post the names of the 5 most influential science papers you have read in this field ideally with open access download links. I would also be interested in a brief description for each paper detailing why you have chosen the paper and why you believe the authors claims to be credible. Many thanks.