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

[andysstuff]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/gaps-in-data-on-arctic-temperatures-account-for-the-pause-in-global-warming-8945597.html

 

Study suggests goobal temperatures have in fact been rising over the last 15 years after all

[aintforever]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/gaps-in-data-on-arctic-temperatures-account-for-the-pause-in-global-warming-8945597.html

 

Study suggests goobal temperatures have in fact been rising over the last 15 years after all

 

Only people with no understanding of the science or with an agenda have been quoting that "no rise for 15 years" b*ll*x anyway.

[Window Cleaner]

We've just had a 2 ft snow dump, pretty exceptional for mid-November.

[Saint George]

"That much-vaunted “pause” in global warming can be largely explained by a failure to record an unprecedented rise in Arctic temperatures over the past 15 years, a study has found."

 

LOL...More blundering incompetence from the warming brigade.........Hardly a year goes by without them having to admit another huge **** up with their figures/research/models/data/findings..... and to think there are peeps out there who still put trust in these incompetents and hang off their every word......

 

Of course....this could be just yet another exercise in attempting to make the science fit the theory....Big bucks in that these days...and way too many red faces around at the moment

[andysstuff]

To be fair, they had no accurate records of Arctic temperatures and they made assumptions based upon the evidence they had at the time. Now science has moved on and developed ways of accurately measuring the temperature in the Arctic.

 

Personally can't see anything wrong with their methods or conclusions.

[Sheaf Saint]

"That much-vaunted “pause” in global warming can be largely explained by a failure to record an unprecedented rise in Arctic temperatures over the past 15 years, a study has found."

 

LOL...More blundering incompetence from the warming brigade.........Hardly a year goes by without them having to admit another huge **** up with their figures/research/models/data/findings..... and to think there are peeps out there who still put trust in these incompetents and hang off their every word......

 

Of course....this could be just yet another exercise in attempting to make the science fit the theory....Big bucks in that these days...and way too many red faces around at the moment

 

Spectacularly wide of the mark as usual George. Your condescending attitude towards that which you blatantly do not understand is getting very tedious now.

 

It has long been known that the lack of accurate temperature data for the Arctic region was a problem for climate-modelling. The simple reason being that the Arctic was a notoriously difficult area to place recording equipment. It is the drastic loss of ice (caused by - guess what.... yep, you guessed right: global warming) that has now made it much easier to access the region and put the necessary equipment in place to gain more accurate readings.

[Guided Missile]

It is the drastic loss of ice (caused by - guess what.... yep, you guessed right: global warming) that has now made it much easier to access the region and put the necessary equipment in place to gain more accurate readings.

Go easy on George, Bexy. He obviously doesn't have access to the information on which you base your expert analysis. Let me help him:

 

[Sheaf Saint]

Go easy on George, Bexy. He obviously doesn't have access to the information on which you base your expert analysis. Let me help him:

 

 

And so you provide a graphic from a completely discredited article in the Mail which has already been dissected and debunked a few pages back? Good for you

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html

[buctootim]

Go easy on George, Bexy. He obviously doesn't have access to the information on which you base your expert analysis. Let me help him:

 

Help him by quoting from the Daily Mail? Makes total sense to you and St George the 'challenged' duo. Heres the easy guide. Every year the Greenland ice sheet partially melts in the summer and expands in the winter. The trend is down. The summer of 2012 saw the least ice cover ever recorded due to an extremely warm Arctic summer. Inevitably, unless 2013 was also a record breaking year, the ice cover will be more in 2013 than 2012. That doesn't alter the downward trend. Clear?

[Sheaf Saint]

Help him by quoting from the Daily Mail? Makes total sense to you and St George the 'challenged' duo. Heres the easy guide. Every year the Greenland ice sheet partially melts in the summer and expands in the winter. The trend is down. The summer of 2012 saw the least ice cover ever recorded due to an extremely warm Arctic summer. Inevitably, unless 2013 was also a record breaking year, the ice cover will be more in 2013 than 2012. That doesn't alter the downward trend. Clear?

 

Crystal clear to you and me buctootim. Maybe this will help him...

 

[Hokie]

Go easy on George, Bexy. He obviously doesn't have access to the information on which you base your expert analysis. Let me help him:

 

 

GM, here's an even better image that proves your point! From http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

 

Oh.

[aintforever]

Help him by quoting from the Daily Mail? Makes total sense to you and St George the 'challenged' duo. Heres the easy guide. Every year the Greenland ice sheet partially melts in the summer and expands in the winter. The trend is down. The summer of 2012 saw the least ice cover ever recorded due to an extremely warm Arctic summer. Inevitably, unless 2013 was also a record breaking year, the ice cover will be more in 2013 than 2012. That doesn't alter the downward trend. Clear?

 

The problem is that unless there is a uniform, linear year on year decline in sea ice mongs like Guided Missile will never understand.

[Viking Warrior]

Okay heres a laymens take on this

 

If the environmentalists are saying (and I dont know which group) that Cattle are responsible for a vast percentage of methane entering the atmosphere

 

and they only thing they eat is grass, hay, barley . then this must be the prime cause of methane .

Thereore in stead of killing all cattle world wide, why do they not feed cattle some genetically modifed grass hay etc that stops them farting

 

Either that and we kill all cattle and laws are passed that we are only allowed to eat vegatarian food,

But then we would have to be culled as we would then be producing more methane

less cattle = less people + reduced green house gases, Simples

 

Oh if life was so simple;)

[OldNick]

GM, here's an even better image that proves your point! From http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

 

Oh.

if the pictures were the other way around, I suspect the global warming lobby would be over it like a rash. Am I right saying that the ozone layer has now repaired? Something. I was under the impression that was irreparable. Ps all the global warming camp On here I assume will not be flying abroad on holiday and walking/cycling to work everyday

[buctootim]

Am I right saying that the ozone layer has now repaired? Something. I was under the impression that was irreparable.

 

Not sure where you got that impression - the whole point of changing the propellants in aerosols and refridgerants in air con / fridges was in order to repair the hole - which is starting to happen.

 

 

The demonstrable fact that man can cause atmospheric damage on a global scale and that the damage can be reversed by changing behaviour just a little is a really uncomfortable fact for climate change deniers.

[Sheaf Saint]

if the pictures were the other way around, I suspect the global warming lobby would be over it like a rash.

 

I suspect not. Mainly because the majority of people who are concerned about global warming are so inclined because they are, in the main, capable of appreciating the difference between good science and bad science, such as a long-term trend versus a single year-on-year comparison.

[Whitey Grandad]

To be fair, they had no accurate records of Arctic temperatures and they made assumptions based upon the evidence they had at the time. Now science has moved on and developed ways of accurately measuring the temperature in the Arctic.

 

Personally can't see anything wrong with their methods or conclusions.

 

There's a lot of assumption in these measurements. I would prefer to see some accurate verification from ground-based devices.

[Sheaf Saint]

Okay heres a laymens take on this

 

If the environmentalists are saying (and I dont know which group) that Cattle are responsible for a vast percentage of methane entering the atmosphere

 

and they only thing they eat is grass, hay, barley . then this must be the prime cause of methane .

Thereore in stead of killing all cattle world wide, why do they not feed cattle some genetically modifed grass hay etc that stops them farting

 

Either that and we kill all cattle and laws are passed that we are only allowed to eat vegatarian food,

But then we would have to be culled as we would then be producing more methane

less cattle = less people + reduced green house gases, Simples

 

Oh if life was so simple;)

 

Funny you should mention that...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norwegian-army-placed-on-strict-vegetarian-diet-8951722.html

[Verbal]

Am I right saying that the ozone layer has now repaired? Something. I was under the impression that was irreparable.

 

You are wrong on both counts.

 

I happen to have known one of the scientists who discovered the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica (and also much of the southern tip of South America). The late Joe Farmer of was one of three atmospheric scientists at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge whose experiments in 1985 proved that the ozone layer in the stratosphere was thinning and that this was due to the release of man-made chemicals known as chlorofluorocarbons. He was no political campaigner but simply pointed out that by continuing to produce these chemicals, the thinning of the ozone layer would worsen - but also that by banning their production there was a good chance that the ozone layer would repair to some extent.

 

The mid-eighties were simpler times - fortunately not plagued, as we are today, by the irrational conspiracy theorists who rant about a corrupt, craven scientific "hoax". And unlike today, CFCs were phased out internationally under an agreement reached in Montreal less than two years after Farmer's discovery. The hole is not fully repaired but the layer is thicker than it was.

 

The problem today is that the manipulation and heavy promotion of denier opinion by petrochemical multinationals and their political allies (a provable, real conspiracy if ever there was one), as well as obstruction by some states, has prevented similarly effective measures being agreed internationally.

 

I'd have another think about your "impressions". The ozone layer problem and partial solution are both a warning from recent history, and also a damning lesson for the profoundly corrupted denial movement.

[Guided Missile]

GM, here's an even better image that proves your point! From http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

 

Oh.

 

Here's another couple for you, this time Arctic and Antarctic:

 

 

 

 

So, in other words, don't fall for the nutters looking for research dollars to support their wacky global warming, now called climate change bullsh !t. It just costs us more money in taxes and energy prices.

 

If you don't believe the graphs above, ask your self why no government, company or organisation is planning on making billions in transport savings on the imminent year round opening of the Northwest passage.

 

The reason is that they know, like windmills, it makes absolutely no economic sense because it isn't going to happen....

[Viking Warrior]

Bexy that's spooky . I was being semi serious about my theory as I had discussed it earlier with some work colleagues some saw my point and agreed but one thought I was off my trolley re cattle and modified grass . I was unaware of the independent article

[buctootim]

,,,

Edited 21 November, 2013 by buctootim

[SW5 SAINT]

Only people with no understanding of the science or with an agenda have been quoting that "no rise for 15 years" b*ll*x anyway.

 

To be fair the term "climate change" is the one used nowadays, not global warning.

[Hokie]

Here's another couple for you, this time Arctic and Antarctic:

 

(Images deleted for brevity. See original post.)

 

So, in other words, don't fall for the nutters looking for research dollars to support their wacky global warming, now called climate change bullsh !t. It just costs us more money in taxes and energy prices.

 

If you don't believe the graphs above, ask your self why no government, company or organisation is planning on making billions in transport savings on the imminent year round opening of the Northwest passage.

 

The reason is that they know, like windmills, it makes absolutely no economic sense because it isn't going to happen....

 

GM, I agree. Anyone looking to make bread on research dollars in climate sciences is a nutter. If it's about the money, do you really think the petro-companies pay less than governmental research councils? Honestly, to claim that researchers are going green for the financial benefit makes me think you are a fool that will believe anything. Please educate me otherwise.

 

Thanks for the two more graphs. The arctic one is largely refuted by my earlier graph, and those posted by others. The antarctic one is more complex. (Your original post had me confused as most deniers go to antarctic sea ice, not arctic.) Anyhow the antarctic sea ice paradox is an interesting case. What do you think about this explanation? http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-expands-antarctic-sea-ice-1.12709 Do you even accept Nature as having authority, or are they part of the nutters?

 

Are the Royal Society nutters? (http://royalsociety.org/policy/climate-change/) "It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years." Name a scientific society that refutes, or is even agnostic about, anthropogenic climate change. (Hint, I have found one. Can you?)

 

Oh, and the Northwest passage? Good question. I googled it. Lo and behold,... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/bulk-carrier-capitalizes-on-arctic-shortcut/article14405743/

[Lord Duckhunter]

Shame there weren't these wonderful graphs around at the end of the ice age, it would be interesting how the "man made " lobby would explain the climate change that occurred then.

[Saint George]

Only just a few months ago the alarmists came up with the theory that all that nasty heat had gone off and hid in the oceans for the last 15 years...Now they're saying it really ran off and hid in the Arctic right under the noses of all those research stations and satellites and things......Naughty heat...when is it going to learn to do what the alarmists tell it to do......

 

Naughty heat's disobedience is starting to make a more than a few peeps look incompetent......At this rate their tax dollar funding could well dry up.....That wouldn't do at all.

[Saint George]

GM, I agree. Anyone looking to make bread on research dollars in climate sciences is a nutter. If it's about the money, do you really think the petro-companies pay less than governmental research councils? Honestly, to claim that researchers are going green for the financial benefit makes me think you are a fool that will believe anything. Please educate me otherwise.

 

Thanks for the two more graphs. The arctic one is largely refuted by my earlier graph, and those posted by others. The antarctic one is more complex. (Your original post had me confused as most deniers go to antarctic sea ice, not arctic.) Anyhow the antarctic sea ice paradox is an interesting case. What do you think about this explanation? http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-expands-antarctic-sea-ice-1.12709 Do you even accept Nature as having authority, or are they part of the nutters?

 

Are the Royal Society nutters? (http://royalsociety.org/policy/climate-change/) "It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years." Name a scientific society that refutes, or is even agnostic about, anthropogenic climate change. (Hint, I have found one. Can you?)

 

Oh, and the Northwest passage? Good question. I googled it. Lo and behold,... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/bulk-carrier-capitalizes-on-arctic-shortcut/article14405743/

 

It's always a "special case" when the figures don't fall in line with the alarmist's mantra....Just another case of trying to force the science into the theory

[Guided Missile]

Thanks for the two more graphs. The arctic one is largely refuted by my earlier graph, and those posted by others. The antarctic one is more complex.

You just don't understand the Arctic graph. The source of the data is from http://nsidc.org/ , not the Daily Mail and I believe the data rather than your desperate googling to support your case. The Northwest passage has been opened and closed over the last few hundred years more times than Rev. Flowers wallet. As far the Royal Society, their stance on "global warming" shows just how low the media fueled scientists in this former august body have sunk, in continuing to follow the bandwagon that they jumped on. Tell them that bandwagon is now called "climate change", as "global warming" has not happened for the past 15 years.

I believe in climate change. It has happened since the earth formed. In the short term, (I mean hundreds of years), the earths atmosphere and climate is by and large self-regulating, plus or minus 0.75^oC due to the laws of that great member of the Royal Society, Isaac Newton. Any changes caused by mankind are akin to you p!$$ing off Weston Shore and worrying about the rise in sea level.

So, accept the earth's climate is largely beyond our control and far too complex to model accurately. Rather, try to stop the damage caused to our society, by the climate change b0ll0x, spouted by the same bunch that moved us away from nuclear power generation and on to f***ing wind turbines, solar panels in the sunless UK, et al. Frankly, I'm fed up to the teeth of paying for it in my taxes and fuel bills.

[Sheaf Saint]

You just don't understand the Arctic graph. The source of the data is from http://nsidc.org/ , not the Daily Mail and I believe the data rather than your desperate googling to support your case. The Northwest passage has been opened and closed over the last few hundred years more times than Rev. Flowers wallet. As far the Royal Society, their stance on "global warming" shows just how low the media fueled scientists in this former august body have sunk, in continuing to follow the bandwagon that they jumped on. Tell them that bandwagon is now called "climate change", as "global warming" has not happened for the past 15 years.

I believe in climate change. It has happened since the earth formed. In the short term, (I mean hundreds of years), the earths atmosphere and climate is by and large self-regulating, plus or minus 0.75^oC due to the laws of that great member of the Royal Society, Isaac Newton. Any changes caused by mankind are akin to you p!$$ing off Weston Shore and worrying about the rise in sea level.

So, accept the earth's climate is largely beyond our control and far too complex to model accurately. Rather, try to stop the damage caused to our society, by the climate change b0ll0x, spouted by the same bunch that moved us away from nuclear power generation and on to f***ing wind turbines, solar panels in the sunless UK, et al. Frankly, I'm fed up to the teeth of paying for it in my taxes and fuel bills.

 

Something tells me you will be even more fed up in the next few decades as the world's supplies of fossil fuels diminishes further and prices rocket then. Concern over the effect on the climate isn't the only reason to switch to renewable technology you know. The UK is becoming more and more dependent on imported gas, coal and oil as our own resources dwindle, leaving us at the mercy of global market prices.

 

And I'm struggling to work out how your Arctic graph supports your case. To me it shows that while there has been a slight increase in the minimum extent for 2013 (we've already ascertained that 2012 was a record low) the figure is still below the average to 2010.

[Verbal]

Bexy that's spooky . I was being semi serious about my theory as I had discussed it earlier with some work colleagues some saw my point and agreed but one thought I was off my trolley re cattle and modified grass . I was unaware of the independent article

 

Cows no longer farting will henceforward be known as the Viking Warrior Effect. Or Ontrolley for short.

[CB Saint]

Okay heres a laymens take on this

 

If the environmentalists are saying (and I dont know which group) that Cattle are responsible for a vast percentage of methane entering the atmosphere

 

and they only thing they eat is grass, hay, barley . then this must be the prime cause of methane .

Thereore in stead of killing all cattle world wide, why do they not feed cattle some genetically modifed grass hay etc that stops them farting

 

Either that and we kill all cattle and laws are passed that we are only allowed to eat vegatarian food,

But then we would have to be culled as we would then be producing more methane

less cattle = less people + reduced green house gases, Simples

 

Oh if life was so simple;)

 

Give up rib of beef and t-bones?

 

I suggest they start making swiiming lessons mandatory at school and teach them how to build floating houses out of random stuff.

[aintforever]

Shame there weren't these wonderful graphs around at the end of the ice age, it would be interesting how the "man made " lobby would explain the climate change that occurred then.

 

Your statement is meaningless. How does the fact that there are natural variations mean that man cannot influence the climate?

[badgerx16]

So, accept the earth's climate is largely beyond our control and far too complex to model accurately. Rather, try to stop the damage caused to our society, by the climate change b0ll0x, spouted by the same bunch that moved us away from nuclear power generation and on to f***ing wind turbines, solar panels in the sunless UK, et al. Frankly, I'm fed up to the teeth of paying for it in my taxes and fuel bills.

 

How would you keep the lights on when the hydrocarbons run out ?

[buctootim]

How would you keep the lights on when the hydrocarbons run out ?

 

I wouldn't hold your breath for a thought out response from GM Badger. They don't even need to run out. A number of projections show that the increasing demand for hydrocarbons combined with increasing costs of extracting them (as new reserves are ever deeper and more inaccessible) show that wind and solar will be cheaper within 20 years. Since your typical power plant will take 5 years from the drawing board to commissioning and will then have an operational life of 40 years + it doesn't take much to work out which kind of power generation will be cheaper over its whole life.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Your statement is meaningless. How does the fact that there are natural variations mean that man cannot influence the climate?

 

So there have been "variations" in climate before man and during man's period on earth, interesting. If man made global warming prevented another ice age, wouldn't that be a good thing?

[buctootim]

So there have been "variations" in climate before man and during man's period on earth, interesting. If man made global warming prevented another ice age, wouldn't that be a good thing?

 

Its a fair point Lord D. A number of climate scientists think we would now be entering a new mini ice age now if it wasn't for man made climate change. Thats not an argument for relaxing on emissions though since even current attempts are to limit global temperature rises to 2 degrees, and we will likely miss that target. No-one is even talking about reducing temperatures. If anything it underlines the importance of getting a grip on emissions - if we are managing to drive up temperatures despite a falling baseline. Eventually we will be able to get to a Goldilocks balance of emissions - not too warm not too cold - but we are a long way from that now.

[badgerx16]

So there have been "variations" in climate before man and during man's period on earth, interesting. If man made global warming prevented another ice age, wouldn't that be a good thing?

 

It's not about the change taking effect, it's about accelerating the effect, which means that the natural processes that would otherwise modify themselves, can't keep up. Normally species would adapt or migrate over the course of climatic variation, or indeed die if they failed to compensate, but by accelerating the rate of change, mankind is driving so much more of nature to the edge. It isn't just burning fossil fuels; MMCC includes the impact of deforestation and pollution of the oceans - Rain forests and algal/planktonic blooms are important factors in natural compensation mechanisms, and we are rapidly reducing them.

[aintforever]

So there have been "variations" in climate before man and during man's period on earth, interesting.

 

F*ck me, I learned that in GCSE geography.

[Whitey Grandad]

So there have been "variations" in climate before man and during man's period on earth, interesting. If man made global warming prevented another ice age, wouldn't that be a good thing?

 

Yeah, whatever happens there's always somebody trying to take the credit for it.

[Guided Missile]

How would you keep the lights on when the hydrocarbons run out ?

I'd contract the Russians and Chinese to build us new nuclear power plants, as, during the last outbreak of bed wetting, the green lobby and their chums in politics effectively killed an industry the UK pioneered. Who knows what would have happened if the British scientists had been allowed to continue developing the technology. We may even have introduced thorium reactors to replace the uranium based ones we are forced to build as replacements.

 

Might be worth all you beard-strokers reading this.

[buctootim]

Thorium reactors aren't new. There was a test facility in the US in the late 1960s. Part the reason they didn't take off before is because they aren't any good for producing weapons grade plutonium - which was a big factor in the 1960s-80s. I'd be happy to see Thorium reactors produced if the technical difficulties could be overcome. We need investment in renewables - but also need a stable core to generation capacity as part of the mix.

[Sheaf Saint]

I'd contract the Russians and Chinese to build us new nuclear power plants, as, during the last outbreak of bed wetting, the green lobby and their chums in politics effectively killed an industry the UK pioneered. Who knows what would have happened if the British scientists had been allowed to continue developing the technology. We may even have introduced thorium reactors to replace the uranium based ones we are forced to build as replacements.

 

Might be worth all you beard-strokers reading this.

 

What makes you think those of us who are in favour of reducing emissions are beard-stroking, anti-nuclear types? That's a bit of a wild generalisation isn't it?

 

On this subject we are in agreement. I firmly believe that thorium based nuclear reactors are the right way forward a part of a mixed energy policy, and it is to our shame that India is already way ahead of us in this regard. Nuclear energy has a tarnished image thanks to the events at Chernobyl and, more recently, Fukushima. Many people will point to the latter as evidence to oppose the construction of nuclear plants in the UK, conveniently ignoring the fact that it was a 40-year-old facility built on the most tsunami-susceptible coastline in the world and, as such, what happened there could never happen at a modern thorium plant in the UK.

 

The technology exists to move us away from fossil fuel based energy production, but globally the economic conditions and the political will do not.

[Guided Missile]

The technology exists to move us away from fossil fuel based energy production, but globally the economic conditions and the political will do not.

The reason that the development of nuclear power bit the dust in the UK was not for economic or democratic political reasons. It was because the Soviet Union helped fund and support the CND in the UK, which did its best to subvert public opinion. The CND were communist puppets working during the cold war in an attempt to affect the nuclear capability of the UK. What I find laughable is that anyone can argue against nuclear power on the basis of a few accidents that killed a few dozen people.

 

Dr Jim Smith, a radioecologist who has been studying Chernobyl for 20 years, says that the evidence from laboratory studies suggests there is no significant damage to wildlife.

 

Yeah, I know we can carry out cancer death approximations and claim the increased radiation exposure from these accidents might have led to 50 thousand to a million deaths from cancer, but yet again, dubious statistics have been used to suppress technology. My guess is that these nuclear accidents caused about as much cancer globally, as sun beds have. Smoking is estimated to kill 5.4 million people a year and I struggle to see any lobbyists calling for a ban on selling tobacco.

 

One day, the ignorant will allow scientists develop answers to the world's problems and when the technologies that their theories produce, are occasionally proven wrong, trust these scientists to improve them. I'm not holding my breath...

[Hokie]

You just don't understand the Arctic graph. The source of the data is from http://nsidc.org/ , not the Daily Mail and I believe the data rather than your desperate googling to support your case. The Northwest passage has been opened and closed over the last few hundred years more times than Rev. Flowers wallet. As far the Royal Society, their stance on "global warming" shows just how low the media fueled scientists in this former august body have sunk, in continuing to follow the bandwagon that they jumped on. Tell them that bandwagon is now called "climate change", as "global warming" has not happened for the past 15 years.

I believe in climate change. It has happened since the earth formed. In the short term, (I mean hundreds of years), the earths atmosphere and climate is by and large self-regulating, plus or minus 0.75^oC due to the laws of that great member of the Royal Society, Isaac Newton. Any changes caused by mankind are akin to you p!$$ing off Weston Shore and worrying about the rise in sea level.

So, accept the earth's climate is largely beyond our control and far too complex to model accurately. Rather, try to stop the damage caused to our society, by the climate change b0ll0x, spouted by the same bunch that moved us away from nuclear power generation and on to f***ing wind turbines, solar panels in the sunless UK, et al. Frankly, I'm fed up to the teeth of paying for it in my taxes and fuel bills.

 

Oh, now that you put it that way, you've convinced me. Well supported argument. Well done. B*llocks you say. I did not realize that. I wonder if any of the Royal Society have heard that it is b*llocks? Are you looking to publish this in Nature by chance? I do like your research into the p*ssing off Weston Shore. That's the type of good hard scientific thinking that we have not seen in this nation in 800 years. Well-reasoned, and well that's all one needs, isn't it? (Seriously! Convince me, man!)

 

Beating a drum about "global warming" v. "climate change" is a time waster. Either term I can work with. Using one or the other, I don't believe labels one as in one camp or the other. I think climate change is more descriptive (touches on increase in storms, changing precipitation patterns, etc.), although using global warming might be an attempt to communicate to the masses.

 

And yes, I know its from NSIDC, as was my graph. The arctic graph supports a warming hypothesis. Can we agree there? The antarctic graph does not, although one must recognize that looking only at "area of sea ice" is selectively choosing the data. ("Lovely plumage") Antarctic land ice is decreasing, temperatures are rising (both satellite and ground measured). (Yes, Arctic measures support the sea ice up north.) Can we agree the antarctic climate system is more complex, due to the fact that it is a frozen land mass, shedding fresh water and ice into the sea, surrounded by a far more open circulation of wind and ocean currents? Or is any effort a wasted argument.

 

I don't consider "googling" as desperate, rather just looking for good sources that both of us would consider unbiased. Since when is doing research to support your views desperate? You might convince me with a little more of your own.

 

Where is the common ground to have this dicussion, mate? I wouldn't waste our time presenting anything from climateskeptics.com, or the Independent or Guardian for that matter. Honestly, I'd give a jaundiced view of the Telegraph and Mail. Can we agree on Nature, Science, National Geographic, New Scientist, Scientific American being both readable to the educated layman and unbiased?

 

Also, if the Royal Society are a bunch of biased fools, what scientific societies can we trust? Sorry for "desparate googling", but not being a climate scientist, I look to things like this http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php which IMO weigh heavily. What have you got actually?

 

Anyhow, from my "desparate googling"/search for truth over the last several years, I believe that climate is changing, as it has done for the history of the planet. However, it seems to me that 90-99.9% of scientists who study this type of thing believe anthropogenic effects are accelerating this phenomena. I also believe that while some places may benefit, as a whole, climate change has negative effects for humanity, mostly due to the fact that we have largely sorted out where to plant and live that works well for the status quo.

 

Where that leaves me is asking what can be done to mitigate the effects? What is wise, and what is foolish? What role do developed nations have compared to developing nations? I'd love to have that conversation. The problem is, as I see it, that if you begin to talk sensibly about ways to moderate the effect, you get a politically powerful group (or some drunken fool in a a pub) who say its not happening, and that this thing that is not happening anyhow, is not caused by humans.

[Guided Missile]

The problem is, as I see it, that if you begin to talk sensibly about ways to moderate the effect, you get a politically powerful group (or some drunken fool in a a pub) who say its not happening, and that this thing that is not happening anyhow, is not caused by humans.

Some advice, Hokie. As you get older, you will learn that humans are, in general, prone to mass hysteria for no better reason than some loud mouth, or even worse, some group of loud mouths, communicates something that is slightly worrying. It all relates to the fact that by and large, we are all clinging to a decaying planet, a meteor strike away from following the dinosaurs and kept alive by a sun that has a finite life. We get grounded by an erupting volcano in Iceland, the name of which we can't even spell, just as we were about to take the girlfriend off to Majorca for a long weekend. We are worried that next time we step out the front door, we will be over our wellies in water due to a rising sea level. We don't like aerosols because they deplete the ozone layer, we had to replace our fridge and the Met Office, who failed to tell us a tree was falling on our house in 1987, reckons we're killing the planet, but even the scientists can't agree. All we know is that our fuel bills and tax are going up. When you're down the pub, with your drunken mate, have another beer and talk about football, because this thread is seriously affecting your mental health...

 

And believe me, the human race is not destroying the planet. We are no where near important or powerful enough...now go and have a lie down.

[badgerx16]

 

And believe me, the human race is not destroying the planet.......

 

This may be true, but we could well be accelerating our own species' demise.

[aintforever]

It's funny how the people who refuse to believe the science are the same who moan about paying tax.

[Whitey Grandad]

Some advice, Hokie. As you get older, you will learn that humans are, in general, prone to mass hysteria for no better reason than some loud mouth, or even worse, some group of loud mouths, communicates something that is slightly worrying. It all relates to the fact that by and large, we are all clinging to a decaying planet, a meteor strike away from following the dinosaurs and kept alive by a sun that has a finite life. We get grounded by an erupting volcano in Iceland, the name of which we can't even spell, just as we were about to take the girlfriend off to Majorca for a long weekend. We are worried that next time we step out the front door, we will be over our wellies in water due to a rising sea level. We don't like aerosols because they deplete the ozone layer, we had to replace our fridge and the Met Office, who failed to tell us a tree was falling on our house in 1987, reckons we're killing the planet, but even the scientists can't agree. All we know is that our fuel bills and tax are going up. When you're down the pub, with your drunken mate, have another beer and talk about football, because this thread is seriously affecting your mental health...

 

And believe me, the human race is not destroying the planet. We are no where near important or powerful enough...now go and have a lie down.

 

At last! The voice of reason.

[buctootim]

At last! The voice of reason.

 

In the war of credibility between the Royal Society, NASA and NOAA plus dozens more on one side versus GM on the other - you have sided with GM. Oh dear Whitey.

Edited 21 November, 2013 by buctootim

[Verbal]

At last! The voice of reason.

 

Aren't there infractions on here for heavy sarcasm?