NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

Yep, the 34th coolest February in the US in the last 113 years.

Looks like all those Chicken Littles running around in the '70's might have been onto something, because clearly we're heading for another ICE AGE! :eek:

What? Have you gone stupid again?

What? Have you gone stupid again?"gone"?

What? Have you gone stupid again?

Gone? He wasn't always like this?

Here we go again...

My brain has gone into shock with the stupidity displayed. Brownies are yummy. Go buy brownies. Mmmm... warm with vanilla ice cream. I like a baked ham.

Irony?

I'm sure you just looove smog, radiation, lead poisoning (from friction that causes particles to escape the asphalt, mind you) and a whole bunch of other pollution.

Seriously, this isn't just about climate change.

so we heading to a ice age are we then why in hell was it high of 38°yesterday

this isn't evidence at all, and besides, last year was the hottes since they started recording, wouldn't that be much more evidence of global warming than 1 day?

Erm, Idiotface? Global Cooling is just as much evidence of Climate Change as Global Warming is.

My God, this is the most insipid post I've read since...


Damn, I can't even think of something stupider.

Come on, he's obviously just being sarcastic.

Come on, he's obviously just being sarcastic.

I dunno. This is New Mitanni we're talking about...

My God, this is the most insipid post I've read since...


Damn, I can't even think of something stupider.

Pie is made by gnomes.

Pi was made by lemmings, clever bastards!




Was that stupider?

Come on, he's obviously just being sarcastic.Sadly, that would be a mistaken conclusion.

Come on, he's obviously just being sarcastic.

You apparently do not know this poster's history

Pie is made by gnomes.

Pi was made by lemmings, clever bastards!




Was that stupider?

No.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

Yep, the 34th coolest February in the US in the last 113 years.

Looks like all those Chicken Littles running around in the '70's might have been onto something, because clearly we're heading for another ICE AGE! :eek:

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/aktion/action-smiley-060.gif

Hey! Lookee what happens when you look at the three month period which includes February over the years! http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl

As you can see from the green line we're actually gonna get frozen which means my warm brownie will grow cold but the vanilla ice cream should be just as spectacular as the day it was made.

I dunno. This is New Mitanni we're talking about...

Sadly, that would be a mistaken conclusion.

You apparently do not know this poster's history

If you say so. I'm sorry to hear that.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/aktion/action-smiley-060.gif

you need a bigger hammer there LG

pi = 3

Alabama Pi!!

Pie is made by gnomes.

Pi was made by lemmings, clever bastards!




Was that stupider?

pi = 3

you need a bigger hammer there LG

It's not the size of your hammer, it's how you swing it that counts. :)

I dunno. This is New Mitanni we're talking about...
From what I've seen, New Mitanni == Troll.

Would Sarcasm apply then? After all, deliberate trolling to portray one's political opponents as ignorant could potentially be seen as a form of dry cynicism bordering on mocking. Hmm...

Pie is made by gnomes.

Pi was made by lemmings, clever bastards!




Was that stupider?

No not really.
I'll give it a go.

"These damn terrorist Muslims are taking our jobs with their heathen ways! I think we should nuke the middle east and replace it with US colonies. Any who do not willingly subvert to Christianity will be killed."

I really miss MTAE...

It's not the size of your hammer, it's how you swing it that counts. :)

true and :eek: to myself for what i change that into in my mind

No not really.
I'll give it a go.

"These damn terrorist Muslims are taking our jobs with their heathen ways! I think we should nuke the middle east and replace it with US colonies. Any who do not willingly subvert to Christianity will be killed."

I really miss MTAE...

Ann, is that you? (http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml)

No not really.
I'll give it a go.

"These damn terrorist Muslims are taking our jobs with their heathen ways! I think we should nuke the middle east and replace it with US colonies. Any who do not willingly subvert to Christianity will be killed."

I really miss MTAE...

How about this: "Terrorists won't be happy until Americans eat poop and cry themselves to sleep."

don't feed the troll

The UK's Channel 4 is running a documentary thet "lifts the lid" on the "myths" that surround climate change. They've got a panel of at least three "scientists", too.
I would kill myself or something, but... nah, I'll just sit on a beach and wait instead.

Erm, Idiotface? Global Cooling is just as much evidence of Climate Change as Global Warming is.

"Climate Change"?!

What?! You mean to tell me that climate actually changes over time?!

OK, Idiotface, listen up. Nobody--nobody--denies that climate changes. But the Inconvenient (Un)Truth crowd isn't talking about "Climate Change." They are arguing that "Global Warming" is occurring and that it is largely a result of man-made greenhouse gas, specifically CO2, emissions.

The cited reference is evidence against "Global Warming".

The fact is, the science is not "settled." There is no consensus on the issue, and science doesn't operate by consensus in any event. On the basis of the evidence and arguments I have seen, I support the dissenting view on the issue. If you don't, that's your right. The truth will eventually be determined on the basis of facts, not emotion, ideology or political expediency.

Now try actually thinking about the issue. And you can start by accepting the fact that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2, that there is far more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2, and that almost all atmospheric water vapor is due to natural sources.

"Climate Change"?!

What?! You mean to tell me that climate actually changes over time?!

OK, Idiotface, listen up. Nobody--nobody--denies that climate changes. But the Inconvenient (Un)Truth crowd isn't talking about "Climate Change." They are arguing that "Global Warming" is occurring and that it is largely a result of man-made greenhouse gas, specifically CO2, emissions.

The cited reference is evidence against "Global Warming".

The fact is, the science is not "settled." There is no consensus on the issue, and science doesn't operate by consensus in any event. On the basis of the evidence and arguments I have seen, I support the dissenting view on the issue. If you don't, that's your right. The truth will eventually be determined on the basis of facts, not emotion, ideology or political expediency.

Now try actually thinking about the issue. And you can start by accepting the fact that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2, that there is far more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2, and that almost all atmospheric water vapor is due to natural sources.
So, you are saying that because there is more water vapor, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has zero effect on Climate Change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJuaZKBABO0

70th percentile? That is hardly proof.

So, you are saying that because there is more water vapor, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has zero effect on Climate Change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJuaZKBABO0

The phrase "zero effect on Climate Change" appears nowhere in my post. Try responding to what's actually written instead of telling me what I'm saying, because clearly you don't know what I'm saying.

For those who actually understand written English, when I wrote "that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2, that there is far more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2," I was advocating that the effect of the greenhouse gas water vapor is much more significant than that of the greenhouse gas CO2, and thus that the relative impact of CO2 on global climate is much less than that of water vapor. Accordingly, even a substantial increase in atmospheric CO2, from any source, man-made or natural, will have a relatively minor impact on global climate.

Try Googling "greenhouse gases water vapor" and do your own reading. You will probably learn a few things that aren't commonly reported. Some may agree with the foregoing, some may disagree. The important thing is that the issue is not settled.

The phrase "zero effect on Climate Change" appears nowhere in my post. Try responding to what's actually written instead of telling me what I'm saying, because clearly you don't know what I'm saying.

For those who actually understand written English, when I wrote "that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2, that there is far more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2," I was advocating that the effect of the greenhouse gas water vapor is much more significant than that of the greenhouse gas CO2, and thus that the relative impact of CO2 on global climate is much less than that of water vapor. Accordingly, even a substantial increase in atmospheric CO2, from any source, man-made or natural, will have a relatively minor impact on global climate.

Try Googling "greenhouse gases water vapor" and do your own reading. You will probably learn a few things that aren't commonly reported. Some may agree with the foregoing, some may disagree. The important thing is that the issue is not settled.

What about positive feedback of increased water vapor due to increased man-made CO2?

Personally, I find the disparity between the two arguments hilarious...

The world's top climatologists: "The last decade was the hottest decade in human history!"

New Mitanni: "Last February was the 34th-coolest February in the last 113 years!"

The cited reference is evidence against "Global Warming".

Did you say you went to law school? I suggest you review your rules of evidence. An average is just that, an average. A coin flipped 10,000 times will on average have 5000 heads and 5000 tails. The fact that you might have a streak of 10 heads in a row in no way changes that.

Global warming posits that temperatures ON AVERAGE are rising. The fact that one month in one year was somewhat colder than normal does not, in any way, discount that.Now try actually thinking about the issue. And you can start by accepting the fact that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2, that there is far more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2, and that almost all atmospheric water vapor is due to natural sources.

And water vapor is caused by evaporation. Evaporation caused by heat.

If the cycle continues naturally then the content of water vapor remains reasonably constant. Increasing temperatures due to man made effects skews that cycle. Increasing global temperatures results in higher water vapor than their naturally is, causing a spiral effect.

Yeah, that does make sense.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

Yep, the 34th coolest February in the US in the last 113 years.

Looks like all those Chicken Littles running around in the '70's might have been onto something, because clearly we're heading for another ICE AGE! :eek:

Ugh. Do you ever find it difficult to breathe?

Global warming is just that, global - it refers to the rise of average temperatures across a global medium. As average temperatures in rise, the environmental factors involved can play havoc with certain parts of the world. Doesn't matter if the US has had it's coolest winter in however long, but the global average temperature is rising, does it? The latter circumstance is going to affect you sooner or later.

And in any case, we're facing possibly the worst drought in our history down here and our drinking water reserves are starting to run low. Ponder that, if you can shift your mind outside of the US for just a second.

One year doesn't make a trend. Hell it wasn't even a year, it was a month. And the month prior was on the warm side of the average. Neither mean a thing except that weather can change a lot in a short period of time.

So, you are saying that because there is more water vapor, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has zero effect on Climate Change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJuaZKBABO0

Someone wanna point out to him that water vapor is a greenhouse gas? Or does your vid do that?

Someone wanna point out to him that water vapor is a greenhouse gas? Or does your vid do that?

My vid does that in ridiculously simple to understand ways.

My vid does that in ridiculously simple to understand ways.

Ah. Still you may want to dumb it down.

Ah. Still you may want to dumb it down.

You ask for too much and I gain nothing from the effort. I demand a cheeseburger with fries.

So, if a colder month than average is proof that the Earth is cooling, doesn't that mean that a warmer than average month is proof of global warming?

January was a lot warmer than average and February was a lot colder than average. That means we have both global warmingand global cooling going on at the same time. OH SHIT TIME PARADOX!

Up is down, down is up, dogs and cats living together, total anarchy!

edit: even replies showing up before the post it is replying to!

January was a lot warmer than average and February was a lot colder than average. That means we have both global warmingand global cooling going on at the same time. OH SHIT TIME PARADOX!

And that is clearly conclusive evidence that the fabric of reality itself is being interfered with by the liberal environmentalist propaganda machine.

So, if a colder month than average is proof that the Earth is cooling, doesn't that mean that a warmer than average month is proof of global warming?

January was a lot warmer than average and February was a lot colder than average. That means we have both global warmingand global cooling going on at the same time. OH SHIT TIME PARADOX!

So, if a colder month than average is proof that the Earth is cooling, doesn't that mean that a warmer than average month is proof of global warming?

January was a lot warmer than average and February was a lot colder than average. That means we have both global warmingand global cooling going on at the same time. OH SHIT TIME PARADOX!

Which only goes to prove that the Earth's environment is being run on these very same Jolt servers! :eek:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

Yep, the 34th coolest February in the US in the last 113 years.

Looks like all those Chicken Littles running around in the '70's might have been onto something, because clearly we're heading for another ICE AGE! :eek:

Why do I even bother opening these threads? I know teh stupid is going to burn, but I can't help myself. It's like touching the wet paint next to the sign or something. Ugh.

And that is clearly conclusive evidence that the fabric of reality itself is being interfered with by the liberal environmentalist propaganda machine.
No, though it may seem that way to the untrained toe (mine is named Tim). It's actually a diversion by the vast right-wing conspiracy to make it appear as though the liberal environmentalist propaganda machine is interfering with the fabric of reality to turn everyone against it.

And Nazz, I think he may have been trying to be just a tad bit sarcastic, though it's really hard to tell.

Personally, I find the disparity between the two arguments hilarious...

The world's top climatologists: "The last decade was the hottest decade in human history!"

New Mitanni: "Last February was the 34th-coolest February in the last 113 years!"

seconded, especially because it's the "34th-coolest February in the last 113 years!". come on, not even THE coolest februari?
besides last winter was actually THE hottest ever (since they started measuring). flowers start appearing a month early (with potentially disastrous effects on insects, birds and crops).

And Nazz, I think he may have been trying to be just a tad bit sarcastic, though it's really hard to tell.
This is the same guy who started a thread a few days ago claiming that there were significant dissenters from global warming theory, when in fact the article he quoted was from a guy who was saying "it's a problem, but not the biggest problem." He's serious about this shit.

Whatever the climate problem it is clearly the resault of a decline in pirates...

As the the program on channel 4, called "the great global warming swindle"; I'll watch it tonight and see what its like.

And realy, the 34th coldest in 133 years, come back with several in the top 5 consecutivly.

NO all of you don't understand. Global WARMING, get it? WARMING. It means that temperatures are rising. It's WARMING UP. Which means it can't be cold, ever, at all, not at all.

And hey, it's cold in february! In fact it's so cold that it's the 34th coldest february in the last 113 years. THE THIRTY FOURTH COLDEST!

That means that this february is so cold that only 30% of rebruaries are colder. ONLY THIRTY PERCENT! In the last 33 years only nine or so februaries have been colder. ONLY NINE OUT OF THIRTY THREE! 10 tops.

We haven't had a february this cold since like....2003. Maybe even as far back as 2001. Do you know what this means? It means a 75 year old man was only about 70 the last time we had a february THIS COLD.

A february like this only happens like...once every 3 or 4 years. DONT YOU UNDERSTAND? The next time we have a february colder than this it will be maybe...2011. 2011! A child born today will be almost FOUR when that happens!

NO all of you don't understand. Global WARMING, get it? WARMING. It means that temperatures are rising. It's WARMING UP. Which means it can't be cold, ever, at all, not at all.

And hey, it's cold in february! In fact it's so cold that it's the 34th coldest february in the last 113 years. THE THIRTY FOURTH COLDEST!

That means that this february is so cold that only 30% of rebruaries are colder. ONLY THIRTY PERCENT! In the last 33 years only nine or so februaries have been colder. ONLY NINE OUT OF THIRTY THREE! 10 tops.

We haven't had a february this cold since like....2003. Maybe even as far back as 2001. Do you know what this means? It means a 75 year old man was only about 70 the last time we had a february THIS COLD.

A february like this only happens like...once every 3 or 4 years. DONT YOU UNDERSTAND? The next time we have a february colder than this it will be maybe...2011. 2011! A child born today will be almost FOUR when that happens!

You win!

Ann, is that you? (http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml)

I dunno, that's usually New Mitanni's dribble here on NSG. :D

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

Yep, the 34th coolest February in the US in the last 113 years.

Looks like all those Chicken Littles running around in the '70's might have been onto something, because clearly we're heading for another ICE AGE! :eek:
This morning, playing Bridge, I only got one point. This is therefore proof that the average card deck has less picture cards in it than last week.

This morning, playing Bridge, I only got one point. This is therefore proof that the average card deck has less picture cards in it than last week.

I can hook you up with some highly placed liberals. Want your own documentary?

I'm used to February being cold. It's a bloody fact of life. If it got warmer, I would worry. And besides, just because it's cold doesn't mean global warming isn't happening.

So it was "colder" than usual? Well... big deal! I live in Canada and if it wasn't cold, I'd be worried.

*sigh*

Remember kids: Education is your friend. Stay in school :)

God is fucking with the thermostat for shits and giggles.

I thought that much at least was clear.

"Climate Change"?!

What?! You mean to tell me that climate actually changes over time?!

OK, Idiotface, listen up. Nobody--nobody--denies that climate changes. But the Inconvenient (Un)Truth crowd isn't talking about "Climate Change." They are arguing that "Global Warming" is occurring and that it is largely a result of man-made greenhouse gas, specifically CO2, emissions.

The cited reference is evidence against "Global Warming".

The fact is, the science is not "settled." There is no consensus on the issue, and science doesn't operate by consensus in any event. On the basis of the evidence and arguments I have seen, I support the dissenting view on the issue. If you don't, that's your right. The truth will eventually be determined on the basis of facts, not emotion, ideology or political expediency.

Now try actually thinking about the issue. And you can start by accepting the fact that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2, that there is far more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2, and that almost all atmospheric water vapor is due to natural sources.

Tell you what, son -- you admit that citing a study about February being 34th coldest out of 113 is about as compelling (and relevant) as a day-old dog turd, and I'll listen to you. When you open a thread with faux-alarmist ice-age crap about 34th of 113 being even remotely significant, you seriously undermine anything else htat follows.

34th of 113 means that fully 30% of (RECORDED) Februaries have been COLDER than last month. You're off your nut if you think that means a damned thing.

NO all of you don't understand. Global WARMING, get it? WARMING. It means that temperatures are rising. It's WARMING UP. Which means it can't be cold, ever, at all, not at all.

And hey, it's cold in february! In fact it's so cold that it's the 34th coldest february in the last 113 years. THE THIRTY FOURTH COLDEST!

That means that this february is so cold that only 30% of rebruaries are colder. ONLY THIRTY PERCENT! In the last 33 years only nine or so februaries have been colder. ONLY NINE OUT OF THIRTY THREE! 10 tops.

We haven't had a february this cold since like....2003. Maybe even as far back as 2001. Do you know what this means? It means a 75 year old man was only about 70 the last time we had a february THIS COLD.

A february like this only happens like...once every 3 or 4 years. DONT YOU UNDERSTAND? The next time we have a february colder than this it will be maybe...2011. 2011! A child born today will be almost FOUR when that happens!

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b324/ninebucks/satirelol.jpg

This can't even be serious.

New Mitty is the result of a night of binge drinking and a broken pair of condoms.

Whatever the climate problem it is clearly the resault of a decline in pirates...

As the the program on channel 4, called "the great global warming swindle"; I'll watch it tonight and see what its like.

And realy, the 34th coldest in 133 years, come back with several in the top 5 consecutivly.

Well so far its putting the boot into the global warming theory

CO2 level are a result of global temps .... theres an 800 yr lag between CO2 levels and temps... if CO2 was responsible, CO2 levels would lead temps.

IPCC report says Mosquitos need temps of at least 16-18C to survive.... my canadian friends have 2 seasons... winter and mosquito season... hmmm

Whether the theory is correct or not, surely we should be saying
"can we disprove it? can we find flaws?" by which we can say that the theory is correct or not.

600 years ago the theory about the shape of the world said the world was flat, and the sun went round the earth
But dissenting scientists proved that the world was round and the earth went round the sun despite the best efforts of the inquestion and the church
If we say 'global warming is proved' we are little better than the same people who said the world was flat

El-Presidente Boris

Well so far its putting the boot into the global warming theory

CO2 level are a result of global temps .... theres an 800 yr lag between CO2 levels and temps... if CO2 was responsible, CO2 levels would lead temps.

IPCC report says Mosquitos need temps of at least 16-18C to survive.... my canadian friends have 2 seasons... winter and mosquito season... hmmm

Whether the theory is correct or not, surely we should be saying
"can we disprove it? can we find flaws?" by which we can say that the theory is correct or not.

600 years ago the theory about the shape of the world said the world was flat, and the sun went round the earth
But dissenting scientists proved that the world was round and the earth went round the sun despite the best efforts of the inquestion and the church
If we say 'global warming is proved' we are little better than the same people who said the world was flat

El-Presidente Boris

Nobody expects the Spanish In Question!

600 years ago the theory about the shape of the world said the world was flat, and the sun went round the earth
But dissenting scientists proved that the world was round and the earth went round the sun despite the best efforts of the inquestion and the church
If we say 'global warming is proved' we are little better than the same people who said the world was flat

El-Presidente Boris

Actually, nobody really seriously believed the Earth was flat 600 years ago, most people knew it was round(Albeit the common thought was that it was much, much smaller). Hell, by that time the Church acknowledged this. The main reason the Atlantic wasn't explored much was due largely to not having the right types of technology to explore it, and trying to aquire funding to do such an expedition. Nobody really wanted to spend the huge amount of money needed on a trip that MIGHT lead to a quicker, and easier, way to the east. As for the celestial objects going around the earth, that was largely due to religious ideaology and the strangle-hold that the Catholic church had on almost all parts of society. In truth, there were many whom knew otherwise, but due to religious pressure, they were forced for other explanations(Infact the concept wasn't all that terrible new in that time, as mathematicians and astronomers of the time were able to prove this concept for a great many years-but once again religious dogma kept most of them from reporting such).

What about positive feedback of increased water vapor due to increased man-made CO2?

I am well aware of the positive feedback issue. I'm sure you are also aware that the response is highly model-dependent, and that some models predict much lower positive feedback than others, depending on a large number of factors such as the amount of water vapor in drier regions of the planet.

My point remains: the issue isn't settled, the models aren't perfected, and there is plenty of reason not to blindly enroll in the Al Gore Kyoto-mania school of climatology.

I am well aware of the positive feedback issue. I'm sure you are also aware that the response is highly model-dependent, and that some models predict much lower positive feedback than others, depending on a large number of factors such as the amount of water vapor in drier regions of the planet.

My point remains: the issue isn't settled, the models aren't perfected, and there is plenty of reason not to blindly enroll in the Al Gore Kyoto-mania school of climatology.

I agree there are plenty of valid reasons to not fall into that alarmist camp ... though none of them validly supported in this piece of trash thread

I agree there are plenty of valid reasons to not fall into that alarmist camp ... though none of them validly supported in this piece of trash thread

QFT

My point remains: the issue isn't settled, the models aren't perfected, and there is plenty of reason not to blindly enroll in the Al Gore Kyoto-mania school of climatology.

Here's my question. If we do follow enviornmentally good practices, and he's wrong, what harm has been done.

If we don't follow enviornmentally good practices, and he's right, what harm has been done? While the issue has not been proven 100% there is certainly enough evidence to demonstrate that it is POSSIBLE.

So if it is POSSIBLE that we ae causing harm to the enviornment, shouldn't we do something about that just in case, rather than go "he might be wrong", not change anything, and hope to god he's not right?

Here's my question. If we do follow enviornmentally good practices, and he's wrong, what harm has been done.

If we don't follow enviornmentally good practices, and he's right, what harm has been done? While the issue has not been proven 100% there is certainly enough evidence to demonstrate that it is POSSIBLE.

So if it is POSSIBLE that we ae causing harm to the enviornment, shouldn't we do something about that just in case, rather than go "he might be wrong", not change anything, and hope to god he's not right?
Because that would cost money, durr. :rolleyes:

Because that would cost money, durr. :rolleyes:

of course, after all, that's more important.

I'm used to February being cold. It's a bloody fact of life. If it got warmer, I would worry. And besides, just because it's cold doesn't mean global warming isn't happening.

So it was "colder" than usual? Well... big deal! I live in Canada and if it wasn't cold, I'd be worried.

being a veteran of some horrendous Canadian winters I can only roll my eyes and laugh when I hear people go on about how cold the weather is.....winters in the last ten years are the mildest I've ever experienced, -40 temps of winters past are stories I use to impress my kids with....

I wonder why he even wastes his time when no one responds seriously anymore.

of course, after all, that's more important.
Well, even if the world's crops are ruined and low-lying countries submerged, we'll still have our low, low taxes through not having to pay money to these ridiculous environmentalist hippie schemes. We can cover our things in plastic money to protect them from flooding!

I wonder why he even wastes his time when no one responds seriously anymore.
Because he's the global warming version of a creationist. His threads tend to follow the exact same pattern as the normal evolution threads here.

Think about it, he points out ONE thing that he says shows us all up, we point out the flaws in that argument, he points out one scientist who disagrees, we show the flaws there, he claims bias and leaves, just to start all over again.

It's the exact same thing as the IDers/creationists. The only thing he hasn't done is quote Bible verses at us... yet.

Because he's the global warming version of a creationist. His threads tend to follow the exact same pattern as the normal evolution threads here.

Think about it, he points out ONE thing that he says shows us all up, we point out the flaws in that argument, he points out one scientist who disagrees, we show the flaws there, he claims bias and leaves, just to start all over again.

It's the exact same thing as the IDers/creationists. The only thing he hasn't done is quote Bible verses at us... yet.

"And the good Lord said, let there be H3s. And Lo, there were. And He looked upon these and said 'Ye shall be my gas guzzlers, that ye might spread the good word of Christ at 1 mile per gallon.'"
-Stupidity 1:6

"And the good Lord said, let there be H3s. And Lo, there were. And He looked upon these and said 'Ye shall be my gas guzzlers, that ye might spread the good word of Christ at 1 mile per gallon.'"
-Stupidity 1:6

This was an enjoyable read :D

Here's my question. If we do follow enviornmentally good practices, and he's wrong, what harm has been done.

If we don't follow enviornmentally good practices, and he's right, what harm has been done? While the issue has not been proven 100% there is certainly enough evidence to demonstrate that it is POSSIBLE.

So if it is POSSIBLE that we ae causing harm to the enviornment, shouldn't we do something about that just in case, rather than go "he might be wrong", not change anything, and hope to god he's not right?

There's a difference between following environmentally good practices, which makes sense in a lot of ways, and imposing economically harmful environmental practices on certain countries, such as the US, while ignoring others such as China, India, Brazil etc. That's one reason why the US Senate (under the Clinton Administration ) unanimously (97-0) refused to accept Kyoto, and why we continue to do so.

BTW: A good alternative to Kyoto is the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (2005), which includes both China and India and thus has a realistic chance of actually doing some good.

Because he's the global warming version of a creationist. His threads tend to follow the exact same pattern as the normal evolution threads here.

Think about it, he points out ONE thing that he says shows us all up,

I couldn't have characterized the mentality of the global warming Chicken Littles better: "we all" know the truth, and anyone who cites contrary evidence is reduced to relying on lone, stray facts--or should I say "inconvenient truths"?

we point out the flaws in that argument,

Perhaps your arguments are unpersuasive to those who aren't already convinced.

he points out one scientist who disagrees,

Far more than one. As far back as 1998 there were over 15,000 scientists who has publicly disagreed with Kyoto:

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/Publications/pressrel/petition.html

Then there was another "one" recently, Dr. Claude Allegre. But of course, he really wasn't criticizing "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters" and suggesting that the whole issue has been exaggerated. "You all" clearly deconstructed his position and told us what he really meant, which of course was that "you all" are actually right after all. :rolleyes:

BTW: when the "one" scientist who disagrees is one of the original leading advocates of the man-made global warming theory, then I certainly will cite him, and his credibility on the subject is considerably greater than yours or any other Kyoto-phile on this board.

we show the flaws there, he claims bias and leaves, just to start all over again.

See above.

It's the exact same thing as the IDers/creationists. The only thing he hasn't done is quote Bible verses at us... yet.

Nor do I intend to.

FYI: I am neither an ID'er nor a creationist. Nice try :p

I couldn't have characterized the mentality of the global warming Chicken Littles better: "we all" know the truth, and anyone who cites contrary evidence is reduced to relying on lone, stray facts--or should I say "inconvenient truths"?
Nice try, you STILL haven't shown anything in ANY thread that I have read that hsn't been ripped to pieces, leaving you saying "I don't believe..."

Which, I think cuts to the heart of the matter.

Perhaps your arguments are unpersuasive to those who aren't already convinced.
I haven't been arguing.

Far more than one. As far back as 1998 there were over 15,000 scientists who has publicly disagreed with Kyoto:

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/Publications/pressrel/petition.html

Then there was another "one" recently, Dr. Claude Allegre. But of course, he really wasn't criticizing "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters" and suggesting that the whole issue has been exaggerated. "You all" clearly deconstructed his position and told us what he really meant, which of course was that "you all" are actually right after all. :rolleyes:
Thanks for proving my own point for me.

BTW: when the "one" scientist who disagrees is one of the original leading advocates of the man-made global warming theory, then I certainly will cite him, and his credibility on the subject is considerably greater than yours or any other Kyoto-phile on this board.
And again.

FYI: I am neither an ID'er nor a creationist. Nice try :p
You DO know the meaning of comparison, don't you?

Global Warming debates are like the egg debates

One week the Earth is going to cool and we'll be in an ice age because the polar ice caps are going to melt and cause a massive global cooling.

Next week the Earth is going to turn into a greenhouse and cook us all.

One week eggs are bad for you, the next they are good..

Meh...when they actually agree on something come get me...

Here is something to add to the global cooling story...

Winter in Switzerland was warmest on record, experts say

Published: February 24, 2007

ZURICH, Switzerland: This winter was the warmest in Switzerland since measurements began more than 140 years ago, climate experts said Saturday.

Average temperatures across the alpine republic were 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) higher this winter than during the reference period between 1961 and 1990, the Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology said on its Web site.

Switzerland, which is famed for its picturesque snow-covered landscapes that draw tens of thousands of skiers to its mountains every winter, has seen a steady rise in average monthly temperatures since the mid-1970s, the report said.

"This development is consistent with the predictions made in global climate models which take into account the effect of man-made greenhouse gases on the climate," it said.

Low-lying areas such as the financial capital Zurich were most affected, with only two days of snowfall all winter, according to the report.

Basel, which is located on the border with Germany and France, saw mean temperatures of 5 Celsius (41 Fahrenheit). This is the highest winter average since records began in 1864-65.

The figures come after a report by the University of Zurich last month predicted glaciers in the Alps would melt away by 2050.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/24/europe/EU-GEN-Switzerland-Warm-Winter.php

Britain experiencing its second warmest winter on record
28 Feb 07

The Central England Temperature Record, the world’s oldest continuous database for temperatures going back to January 1659, recorded a mean temperature of 11.22C (52.20F) for the 12-month period from March 2006 to the end of February 2007, which was the warmest year-long period on record.

Meteorologist Wayne Elliot said the five warmest years on record are the five past years, and this matched the sort of conditions that the UK is expected to experience as a result of climate change.

"The winter we have just seen is consistent with the type of weather we expect to see more and more in the future."
http://www.desmogblog.com/britain-experiencing-its-second-warmest-winter-on-record

Shanghai has Warmest Winter on Record
CHINA: March 2, 2007


SHANGHAI - Shanghai, China's largest city, has experienced its warmest winter since records began in 1873, the official Xinhua news agency reported on Thursday.


The average temperature over the past three months was 8.1 degrees Celsius (46.6 Fahrenheit), 2.6 degrees warmer than the previous average, Xinhua quoted the Shanghai Meteorological Bureau as saying.

Lei Xiaotu, director of the bureau's climate centre, attributed the record temperatures to global warming.

The warmer weather cut energy consumption in some parts of Shanghai, home to about 18 million people. It also helped the growth of vegetables, pushing down their prices, Lei said.

The warming trend could also have negative effects on human health and the environment, he said.

Earlier this week, Shanghai authorities said a particularly serious plague of mosquitoes was expected this summer after the warm winter helped them breed.

The winter was unusually warm for China as a whole, with an average temperature of minus 2.6 degrees, 1.8 degrees higher than normal, Xinhua said. Last year was the country's warmest in more than half a century.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/40628/story.htm

Meteorologists say Germany experiencing warmest winter on record

BERLIN: Germany has experienced its warmest winter since records began in 1901, with temperatures averaging 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.3 Fahrenheit) higher than in previous record years, the German Weather Service said Tuesday.

The average temperature in the December-February period was 4.3 degrees Celsius (39.7 Fahrenheit), the weather service said.

That was 4.1 degrees Celsius (7.4 Fahrenheit) higher than the 0.2 degree Celsius (32.4 Fahrenheit) long-term average for Germany's normally cold, dank winters, it added.

Steady winds from the south and west helped push up temperatures, the weather service's president said.

"Cold air masses had no chance this time to win the upper hand in central Europe," the official, Wolfgang Kusch, said in a statement. "There were no sustained periods of frost."

The previous record winters were those of 1974-75 and 1989-90, when temperatures averaged 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.3 Fahrenheit) below this year's.

The weather service said December was the warmest in 32 years, January set a record for the month, and February is set to be among the top 10 on record.

Russian Winter Warmest On Record

Moscow (RIA Novosti) Jan 23, 2007
Russia has never had such a warm winter. This is the opinion of Vladimir Klimenko, Ph.D., who heads a laboratory of global problems at the Moscow Energy Institute. He thinks that this winter the average temperature in European Russia is eight degrees higher than in the 1990s. Is it good or bad for the economy?

When asked recently whether he liked the unusually warm Russian winter, Minister of Industry and Energy Power Viktor Khristenko did not give a direct answer. He said: "Well, Russia is a big country, and it is not warm everywhere, although the savings on all fuels are considerable. But on the other hand, prices on Russian hydrocarbons are falling...." So, are there more pluses or minuses in this weather aberration?

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Russian_Winter_Warmest_On_Record_999.html

snip
Only the USA counts, silly. :rolleyes:

^^^ lol of course

Japan has warmest winter ever, no snow in Tokyo

TOKYO, March 2 (Reuters) - Japan has had the warmest winter ever and central Tokyo has seen no snow so far -- the first time since records began, the official weather forecaster said on Friday.

"We have never seen a year without snow in the central Tokyo area. We started taking snow records in 1877," an official with Japan's Meteorological Agency said. "If central Tokyo does not see snow before long, it will be for the first time since then."

The agency said nationwide average temperatures for the three months from December 2006 to February 2007 matched the previous highs in the December 1948-February 1949 period. It started recording nationwide average temperatures in 1899.

"Behind the record high temperature in the 2007 winter in Japan, there might be an impact of global warming due to an increase in (emissions of) greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide," the agency said on its Web site.

Northern Japan, where skiers are used to see mountains packed high with snow, had just a light sprinkling this winter.

Temperatures are likely to stay normal or higher than usual next week in most of Japan and then might drop to normal March levels the following week, the agency forecast.

Far more than one. As far back as 1998 there were over 15,000 scientists who has publicly disagreed with Kyoto:

1998!:rolleyes:

Dr. Claude Allegre.

BTW: when the "one" scientist who disagrees is one of the original leading advocates of the man-made global warming theory, then I certainly will cite him, and his credibility on the subject is considerably greater than yours or any other Kyoto-phile on this board.


Claude Allegre-expert? claims an increase of snow in antarctic is proof of global cooling....any prairie boy from the cold white north could give Mr Allegre a few lessons on weather, it snows more when it is warmer than when it is cold....so Antarctica getting more snow is due to warming .....so much for Allegre credibility....

maybe Allegre should take a trip to into the arctic and explain to the Inuit that they're just imagining that the winters are getting shorter and warmer...I have feeling he'll come back with his all degrees shoved his arse...

^^^ lol of course

Japan has warmest winter ever, no snow in Tokyo

TOKYO, March 2 (Reuters) - Japan has had the warmest winter ever and central Tokyo has seen no snow so far -- the first time since records began, the official weather forecaster said on Friday.

"We have never seen a year without snow in the central Tokyo area. We started taking snow records in 1877," an official with Japan's Meteorological Agency said. "If central Tokyo does not see snow before long, it will be for the first time since then."

The agency said nationwide average temperatures for the three months from December 2006 to February 2007 matched the previous highs in the December 1948-February 1949 period. It started recording nationwide average temperatures in 1899.

"Behind the record high temperature in the 2007 winter in Japan, there might be an impact of global warming due to an increase in (emissions of) greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide," the agency said on its Web site.

Northern Japan, where skiers are used to see mountains packed high with snow, had just a light sprinkling this winter.

Temperatures are likely to stay normal or higher than usual next week in most of Japan and then might drop to normal March levels the following week, the agency forecast.

Climate change is one thing. Temperatures may have reached local highs in certain parts of the world. They were lower in other parts of the world, as my citation show.

The reasons for climate change are another thing. Therein lies the disagreement. I remain unconvinced that climate change, to the extent it's been demonstrated, is either solely or primarily anthropogenic rather than due to natural causes or a result of natural temperature cycles. Saying "CO2 levels have increased, then temperatures have increased, therefore the CO2 increase caused the temperature increase" is nothing but the logical fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc".

And as for all the new temperature records (such as they are) that you mention, how many of them have been, e.g., corrected to account for heat retention in urban areas?

Pound the table all you want, but the evidence to date simply doesn't conclusively establish your case.

is nothing but the logical fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc".

another fallacy...that using quaint Latin quotes win you debating points ...it doesn't disguise the weakness of your argument....

Well, gee willickers. The US has had the 34th coolest month in the last 113 years.
wow.
This obviously means there's no global warming, and everywhere is facing the same cold temperatures, right NM?

Like Beijing:
Beijing witnesses warm winter, breaks record since 1840

Beijingers are experiencing an unusually warm winter with the capital's temperatures breaking all records since 1840, which experts have attributed to global warming.

The mercury reached 14.5 degrees celsius on Friday, the warmest February nine since at least 1949.

The warm weather in Beijing has forced lakes to close their skating activities and affected the operation of ski resorts, while prices of many vegetables dropped slightly due to better supply.

Yesterday's 12.8 degrees was also a post-1949 record. The temperature rose to 16 degrees last Monday, topping all records for that date since 1840.

Experts say the current mild temperatures are a rare event in the city's meteorological history and attribute them to global warming.
Warmest February on record in Beijing (http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=353582&sid=ENV&ssid=26)

Shanghai:
Warmest winter on record for Shanghai

Shanghai has experienced its warmest winter on record, but the global warming-induced phenomenon had some unexpected positive spin-offs for China's economic hub, state press said Friday.
Average temperatures were 8.1 degrees Celsius (46.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a dramatic 2.6 degrees warmer than in previous years and the highest since records were first taken in 1873, Xinhua news agency reported.
Warmest winter on record for Shanghai (http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/03/02/warmest-winter-on-record-for-shanghai/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fnews%2Fna%2F070302074550.kmn5qc2f.html&frame=true)

Or anywhere in China, for that matter:
China Sweats In Warmest Temperatures On Record
...
Other reports flooded in on Tuesday showing the impact of global warming across the nation.

January-December average temperatures were the highest in 56 years in both the eastern province of Jiangsu and the remote western region of Xinjiang, 3,000 kilometres (1,800 miles) apart, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

The mercury in the normally frigid far northeastern province of Heilongjiang had also hit 40-year highs and 300,000 people were suffering from a drought in Shaanxi province after January rainfall was 90 percent below average, it said.

Warmest Winter on record (http://www.terradaily.com/reports/China_Sweats_In_Warmest_Temperatures_On_Record_999.html)

Or Japan:
Japan has warmest winter ever, no snow in Tokyo

Japan has had the warmest winter ever and central Tokyo has seen no snow so far -- the first time since records began, the official weather forecaster said on Friday.

"We have never seen a year without snow in the central Tokyo area. We started taking snow records in 1877," an official with Japan's Meteorological Agency said. "If central Tokyo does not see snow before long, it will be for the first time since then."Japan has warmest winter ever (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/T293180.htm)

Or the Netherlands:
January 2007 warmest in Netherlands in 300 years
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - This month has been the warmest January in the Netherlands since temperatures were first measured in 1706, the Dutch meteorological institute KNMI said on Wednesday.

The average temperature in January was about 7.1 degrees Celsius, 2.8 degrees more than the usual for the month and significantly exceeding a previous record of 6.2 degrees reached in 1921, 1975 and 1983, KNMI said in a statement.
January 2007 warmest in Netherlands in 300 years (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2007-01-31T144322Z_01_L31738684_RTRUKOC_0_US-DUTCH-WEATHER.xml&src=rss)

NSW, Australia:
New South Wales in February 2007
El Niño releases it's grip on NSW

Summary
Average rainfall returns to much of the state
Equal 4th warmest February on record for statewide average maximum temperatures
6th warmest February on record for statewide average minimum temperatures
5th consecutive February on record with above average statewide maximum temperatures
NSW warm February (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/nsw/summary.shtml)

The UK:
Winter second warmest on record

This winter is the second warmest on record in the UK, provisional figures from the Met Office have revealed.

All three winter months – December, January and February – recorded above average temperatures, with January the second warmest on record at 6C.

Overall, the average temperature this winter was 5.47C, which represents the second warmest since UK figures were first collated in 1914.

In England the mean temperature was 6.77C, which would place it at fifth or sixth place in the table of warm winters since 1659, when the Central England Temperature (CET) method of measuring English weather was first started.
Winter second warmest on record (http://news.viewlondon.co.uk/Winter_second_warmest_on_record_18073187.html)

And let's not forget Germany:
Winter in central Europe warmest on record, met office says
Berlin - This winter in central Europe has been the warmest on record, the German Weather Service DWD said Tuesday as meteorologists around Europe compiled final data for the season.

Average temperatures in Germany alone were 4.1 degrees higher than the long-term average since scientific recordings began in 1901, the DWD said, exceeding two previous very warm winters in 1974/75 and 1989/90.
Winter in central Europe warmest on record (http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/news/article_1270074.php/Winter_in_central_Europe_warmest_on_record_met_office_says)

Russia:
Russia has unprecedented warm winter
European Russia is experiencing an unprecedentedly warm winter, the chief of the country's meteorological service said in Moscow Tuesday.

Roman Vilfand, head of the Hydrometeorological Center, told the Novosti news agency the first two weeks of January are normally the coldest time of year in Moscow, but this year temperatures rarely fell below freezing -- a first in 130 years.

December was also several degrees above average, which Vilfand said was part of a broader system affecting much of Western Europe.
Russia's warm winter (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20070116-12315800-bc-russia-warmwinter.xml)

Switzeland:
Swiss confirm warmest winter on record

Swiss meteorologists said Tuesday they had recorded the warmest winter on record for the Alpine country, with average temperatures of three to four degrees celsius above the seasonal norm.
MeteoSuisse said that after cold snaps in the two previous years, this season's high temperatures, which have reduced the snow cover on the plains and the northern slopes of the Alps, show no signs of falling.


For the period from early December to February 22, new records were established in Ajoie (Jura mountains), on the Swiss Plateau, in Engadine (to the east) and in the biggest part of the southern Alps.

For the other regions, namely the Alps, the Jura peaks and the area around Geneva, this winter was the second hottest since records began in 1864.

In Zurich, MeteoSuisse only recorded two days of snow, to a total of 12cm, compared to the average of 16 days, and 70cm. It is only the second time since 1931 that such little snow has fallen, the last time being in 1989/90.

The agency said there has been a clear shift towards milder winters since the mid-1970s, adding that this development fits with climate models on global warming.
Wamrest winter in Switzeland (http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/070227200717.qg3kwt9e.html)
or indeed, all of Europe:
Warmest European winter for 1300 years
IT was warmer in Europe's Alpine region now than at any time in the past 1300 years, the head of a wide-ranging climatic survey said today.

From Ottawa to Moscow, temperatures generally have been way above average at the start of winter in the northern hemisphere, with flowers blooming on snow-starved slopes of Alpine ski resorts and bears struggling to hibernate.

"We are now experiencing the warmest period (for this season) in the past 1300 years,'' said Reinhard Boehm, chief climatologist at Austria's Central Institute for Meteorology and Geo-Dynamics in Vienna.
Warmest European winter for 1300 years (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20880736-401,00.html?from=public_rss)

Do you have anything more you wish to add, New Mitanni?

And as for all the new temperature records (such as they are) that you mention, how many of them have been, e.g., corrected to account for heat retention in urban areas?
You DO know that UHI have been shown to have negligble effects on the whole of global warming, correct?

Do you have anything more you wish to add, New Mitanni?
You missed him moving the goalposts, DH. Now it's "I don't deny the temperatures are going up, just that humans are causing it," even though his opening post was very much an "eat it, global warmers--cold month! cold month!"

There's a reason I lump global warming deniers in with young-earth creationists, after all.

1998!:rolleyes:



Claude Allegre-expert? claims an increase of snow in antarctic is proof of global cooling....any prairie boy from the cold white north could give Mr Allegre a few lessons on weather, it snows more when it is warmer than when it is cold....so Antarctica getting more snow is due to warming .....so much for Allegre credibility....

maybe Allegre should take a trip to into the arctic and explain to the Inuit that they're just imagining that the winters are getting shorter and warmer...I have feeling he'll come back with his all degrees shoved his arse...

Dr. Allegre's qualifications are extensive and internationally recognized:

http://www.fofweb.com/subscription/Science/Helicon.asp?SID=2&iPin=azearth0002

Choosing between Dr. Allegre's credibility and that of a grammatically-challenged smart-ass threatening assault by means of Eskimo is like choosing between a Caribbean cruise with Scarlett Johansson and a year on a desert island with Rosie O'Donnell. Far beyond a no-brainer, clearly.

You DO know that UHI have been shown to have negligble effects on the whole of global warming, correct?

The question was whether the measurements have been corrected to account for the phenomenon. I'm still waiting for an answer.

Well, gee willickers. The US has had the 34th coolest month in the last 113 years.
wow.
This obviously means there's no global warming, and everywhere is facing the same cold temperatures, right NM?

Like Beijing:

Warmest February on record in Beijing (http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=353582&sid=ENV&ssid=26)

Shanghai:

Warmest winter on record for Shanghai (http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/03/02/warmest-winter-on-record-for-shanghai/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fnews%2Fna%2F070302074550.kmn5qc2f.html&frame=true)

Or anywhere in China, for that matter:

Warmest Winter on record (http://www.terradaily.com/reports/China_Sweats_In_Warmest_Temperatures_On_Record_999.html)

Or Japan:
Japan has warmest winter ever (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/T293180.htm)

Or the Netherlands:

January 2007 warmest in Netherlands in 300 years (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2007-01-31T144322Z_01_L31738684_RTRUKOC_0_US-DUTCH-WEATHER.xml&src=rss)

NSW, Australia:

NSW warm February (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/nsw/summary.shtml)

The UK:

Winter second warmest on record (http://news.viewlondon.co.uk/Winter_second_warmest_on_record_18073187.html)

And let's not forget Germany:

Winter in central Europe warmest on record (http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/news/article_1270074.php/Winter_in_central_Europe_warmest_on_record_met_office_says)

Russia:

Russia's warm winter (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20070116-12315800-bc-russia-warmwinter.xml)

Switzeland:

Wamrest winter in Switzeland (http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/070227200717.qg3kwt9e.html)
or indeed, all of Europe:

Warmest European winter for 1300 years (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20880736-401,00.html?from=public_rss)

Do you have anything more you wish to add, New Mitanni?

Eurasia experiences local temperature increases. The US experiences a local temperature decrease. Global warming? Not unless you mean, "global except where it didn't occur."

And once again, it is not established whether these are man-made or due to natural causes. So until your global climatological model is perfected such that it can exclude natural phenomena as the primary causes to a scientific certainty, you will not have made your case.

Dr. Allegre's qualifications are extensive and internationally recognized:

http://www.fofweb.com/subscription/Science/Helicon.asp?SID=2&iPin=azearth0002

Choosing between Dr. Allegre's credibility and that of a grammatically-challenged smart-ass threatening assault by means of Eskimo is like choosing between a Caribbean cruise with Scarlett Johansson and a year on a desert island with Rosie O'Donnell. Far beyond a no-brainer, clearly.

oh yeah, keep deflecting the obvious....the brilliant scientist with degrees comin' out his arse doesn't know that it snows more when it's warm than when it's cold....oh that Allegre is smart one, brilliant climotologist:rolleyes: ...and you totally devoid of explanations to counter it.....do you want to use another quint Latin quote to impress everyone?.....

Eurasia experiences local temperature increases. The US experiences a local temperature decrease. Global warming? Not unless you mean, "global except where it didn't occur."
What part of global are you not understanding here? Or do you really think that the US is all there is in the world?

And once again, it is not established whether these are man-made or due to natural causes. So until your global climatological model is perfected such that it can exclude natural phenomena as the primary causes to a scientific certainty, you will not have made your case.
Well, one, there is no such animal as "scientific certainty", but since the current report has it at over 90% sure that humans are contributing...

And 2. Here is your 'proof'
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/460.htm

Eurasia experiences local temperature increases. The US experiences a local temperature decrease. Global warming? Not unless you mean, "global except where it didn't occur."

And once again, it is not established whether these are man-made or due to natural causes. So until your global climatological model is perfected such that it can exclude natural phenomena as the primary causes to a scientific certainty, you will not have made your case.

Do you ever pull your back out, what with uprooting and replanting those goalposts every few minutes? It's got to be tiring. Well, at least you're not expending any mental energy in the thread, so you've got that working for you.

Pound the table all you want, but the evidence to date simply doesn't conclusively establish your case.

"Giving many examples of winters being the hottest on record doesn't prove your case, but giving one example of one month of one winter being somewhat colder than the norm SEALS THE DEAL! YOU'RE ALL STUPID AND WRONG!"

:confused:

Eurasia experiences local temperature increases. The US experiences a local temperature decrease. Global warming? Not unless you mean, "global except where it didn't occur."


One swallow does not make a summer.

One decrease in tempreture does not mean that generally tempreture across the world is increasing

If you have five boxes suspended on ropes and those ropes have a pully system and you pull four of the boxes up higher and lower the other one box, you have, on avarage, raised the boxes

One swallow does not make a summer.


"One swallow doesn't make her my girlfriend." Steve, from Coupling.

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

Eurasia experiences local temperature increases. The US experiences a local temperature decrease. Global warming? Not unless you mean, "global except where it didn't occur."
wow.
Russia, Europe, Asia, and Australia combined have record temperatures. But, apparently this is just "local" warming. (Bearing in mind we are talking about 62 million sq km of landmass here - close to 50% of the World's total).
But the US (9 million sq km - 6% of the World's total landmass) having slightly lower than average temperatures in one month 'proves' that GLOBAL warming ain't happening.
You should become a contortionist. Really, you should. You're a natural at it.


Well then, if you won't accept that stuff previously posted, then how about this:
GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR JANUARY HIGHEST ON RECORD
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the highest for any January on record, according to scientists at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

Global Temperatures
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.53 degrees F (0.85 degrees C) warmer than the 20th century average of 53.6 degrees F (12.0 degrees C) for January based on preliminary data, surpassing the previous record set in 2002 at 1.28 degrees F (0.71 degrees C) above the average.

The presence of El Niño, along with the continuing global warming trend, contributed to the record warm January. Monthly mean temperatures more than 8 degrees F above average covered large parts of Eastern Europe and much of Russia, and temperatures more than 5 degrees F above average were widespread in Canada. The unusually warm conditions contributed to the 2nd lowest January snow cover extent on record for the Eurasian continent.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2798.htm

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif

Taken from the same site you got your info from, incidently.
Just to save you the trouble of dismissing it as unsubstantiated.


Here's a cool little mpeg from NASA, showing the increase in annual mean temperatures GLOBALLY from 1880 to 2006. Warmest temperatures are in red.
Increase in annual mean temperature from 1880 through 2006 (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/mpg/169068main_temp_anom_w_date_320x240.mpg)
If you can't be bothered clicking here's a gif of GLOBAL mean temperatures for 2006:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/169052main_temp_anom_06.jpg
Image above: The upper graph shows global annual surface temperatures relative to 1951 to 1980 mean, based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements for sea surface temperature. Over the past 30 years the Earth has warmed by about 0.6°C or 1.08°F. The lower image is a color map of temperature anomalies in 2006 relative to the 1951 to 1980 mean. Areas that were warmest in 2006 are in red, and areas that have cooled are in blue. Note that the Arctic has warmed significantly. These temperatures are for the calendar year 2006.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/2006_warm.html

Finally, here's something quaint:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg
1950's version of 'An Inconvenient Truth'.

Well done you've just proved man made global warming is causing the temps to go up.:)

except you have'nt:eek:


What you've shown is that average temps since 1850 have gone up and that 2006's winter seems to be the warmest on record (except if you live in large areas of the US)

So what mechanism caused the rise in temp from 1850 to 1940?
What mechanism caused the almost flat line from 1940 to 1975?
What mechanism caused the warm period in the middle ages when temps were higher than today?
What mechanism caused the little ice age?
Did man have anything to do with the above and in what way?

Unless you can answer those fundemental questions in climate science, how can you prove that man made CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the collapse of the earths ecosystem within 10 years.

El-Presidente Boris

Ugh. Do you ever find it difficult to breathe?

Global warming is just that, global - it refers to the rise of average temperatures across a global medium. As average temperatures in rise, the environmental factors involved can play havoc with certain parts of the world. Doesn't matter if the US has had it's coolest winter in however long, but the global average temperature is rising, does it? The latter circumstance is going to affect you sooner or later.

And in any case, we're facing possibly the worst drought in our history down here and our drinking water reserves are starting to run low. Ponder that, if you can shift your mind outside of the US for just a second.

The thing is it's really not the coolest. It's the 34th coolest. That's like saying, "mom, I came in 34th place out of 114 students at the science fair." I'd expect her to say, "uh that's great honey, now let's shoot for the top three so I don't have to claim we're not related when I go to PTA meetings." I suppose that's what New Mitanni's mom said frequently.

Well, gee willickers. The US has had the 34th coolest month in the last 113 years.
wow.
This obviously means there's no global warming, and everywhere is facing the same cold temperatures, right NM?

Like Beijing:

Warmest February on record in Beijing (http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=353582&sid=ENV&ssid=26)

Shanghai:

Warmest winter on record for Shanghai (http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/03/02/warmest-winter-on-record-for-shanghai/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fnews%2Fna%2F070302074550.kmn5qc2f.html&frame=true)

Or anywhere in China, for that matter:

Warmest Winter on record (http://www.terradaily.com/reports/China_Sweats_In_Warmest_Temperatures_On_Record_999.html)

Or Japan:
Japan has warmest winter ever (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/T293180.htm)

Or the Netherlands:

January 2007 warmest in Netherlands in 300 years (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2007-01-31T144322Z_01_L31738684_RTRUKOC_0_US-DUTCH-WEATHER.xml&src=rss)

NSW, Australia:

NSW warm February (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/nsw/summary.shtml)

The UK:

Winter second warmest on record (http://news.viewlondon.co.uk/Winter_second_warmest_on_record_18073187.html)

And let's not forget Germany:

Winter in central Europe warmest on record (http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/news/article_1270074.php/Winter_in_central_Europe_warmest_on_record_met_office_says)

Russia:

Russia's warm winter (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20070116-12315800-bc-russia-warmwinter.xml)

Switzeland:

Wamrest winter in Switzeland (http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/070227200717.qg3kwt9e.html)
or indeed, all of Europe:

Warmest European winter for 1300 years (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20880736-401,00.html?from=public_rss)

Do you have anything more you wish to add, New Mitanni?

Pwnage.

Well done you've just proved man made global warming is causing the temps to go up.:)

except you have'nt:eek:


What you've shown is that average temps since 1850 have gone up and that 2006's winter seems to be the warmest on record (except if you live in large areas of the US)


So what mechanism caused the rise in temp from 1850 to 1940?
What mechanism caused the almost flat line from 1940 to 1975?
What mechanism caused the warm period in the middle ages when temps were higher than today?
What mechanism caused the little ice age?
Did man have anything to do with the above and in what way?

Unless you can answer those fundemental questions in climate science, how can you prove that man made CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the collapse of the earths ecosystem within 10 years.

El-Presidente Boris
rigghttt.....Mean annual Global temperatures have increased markedly over the last 160 years, but this doesn't prove the World has gotten warmer.
'Cause, y'know, to prove Global warming, you'd need to show...oh, I don't know...that Mean annual Global temperatures have increased markedly over the last 160 years, wouldn't you?

As for the mechanism caused the rise in temp from 1850 to 1940 - maybe it had to do with a little thing called THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. perhaps you've heard of it.
As for the levelling of temperatures during the 40s and 50s - putting aside the fact that statistical analysis showing annual mean increase doesn't mean that there has to be a rise each and every year (it's the trend we're looking at, ok?) I can think of a couple of reasons:
1. The Depression of the 20's and 30's shut down a lot of industry. THis would have had a flow-on effect on Global temperatures 20-30 years later. It takes about that long for any change to have an affect.
2. During the little skirmish of the 1940's, one could well imagine that comprehensive data gathering would have been difficult in many places. So any data gathered during that period is incomplete.

As for the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age, why don't you tell me. Since you wish to use these to explain why Global Warming today is not serious, the onus is on you, not me, to show why.

One thing about the MWP - most theories now accept that it was localised, not a global event. Which makes it harder for you to use as an example against todays' Global warming trend.
Here's a graph of the last 1000 years, using tree rings and ice cores:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/nhemmill.gif

The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.
...
records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periodswhen global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century.
...
This reconstruction suggests that the 1998 annual average temperature was more than two standard deviations warmer than any annual average temperature value since AD 1,000.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

Impossible to compare the two eras (MWP & recent history). Unless of course, you so far into denial that you're willing to manipulate and distort anything and everything in an effort to prevent reality intruding on your life.
You might like to check this set of data out as well:
Causes of Climate Change over the Past 1000 Years (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html)


Feel free to show where I, or anyone else for that matter, has ever suggested that the Earth's ecosystem is going to collapse within the next 10 years.
Or is this, as I expect, more fudging on the part of someone so desperate to ignore reality and facts that they take the opposing view to a ludicrous extreme and then deride that extreme as 'proof' of it's falsehood?

As for the mechanism caused the rise in temp from 1850 to 1940 - maybe it had to do with a little thing called THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. perhaps you've heard of it.
As for the levelling of temperatures during the 40s and 50s - putting aside the fact that statistical analysis showing annual mean increase doesn't mean that there has to be a rise each and every year (it's the trend we're looking at, ok?) I can think of a couple of reasons:
1. The Depression of the 20's and 30's shut down a lot of industry. THis would have had a flow-on effect on Global temperatures 20-30 years later. It takes about that long for any change to have an affect.
2. During the little skirmish of the 1940's, one could well imagine that comprehensive data gathering would have been difficult in many places. So any data gathered during that period is incomplete.



Ok then, what was the % rise in atmospheric CO2 from lets say 1600 until 1940? does the temp rise there follow any temp rise we are seeing now with regard to the % of CO2?


As for the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age, why don't you tell me. Since you wish to use these to explain why Global Warming today is not serious, the onus is on you, not me, to show why.

One thing about the MWP - most theories now accept that it was localised, not a global event. Which makes it harder for you to use as an example against todays' Global warming trend.
Here's a graph of the last 1000 years, using tree rings and ice cores:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/nhemmill.gif

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

Impossible to compare the two eras (MWP & recent history). Unless of course, you so far into denial that you're willing to manipulate and distort anything and everything in an effort to prevent reality intruding on your life.
You might like to check this set of data out as well:
Causes of Climate Change over the Past 1000 Years (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html)


Feel free to show where I, or anyone else for that matter, has ever suggested that the Earth's ecosystem is going to collapse within the next 10 years.
Or is this, as I expect, more fudging on the part of someone so desperate to ignore reality and facts that they take the opposing view to a ludicrous extreme and then deride that extreme as 'proof' of it's falsehood?

Some nice links there, combined with some not so nice personal attacks:( ,

Who said I was in denial about man made CO2 ?
I wanted to know about the causes of the little ice age /mwp, and whether these events have any relevance to the current warming trend vs CO2% in the atmosphere
I'm skeptical because the climate models from when I grew up (an age ago) were all on about global cooling and a coming ice age.
However , being skeptical does'nt mean denial, it means I want somebody to come up with a better model than the one in use today, that answers questions like "Does the sun's magnetic field have an effect on high energy cosmic rays?" and " Does the interaction of comic radiation with the lower atmosphere produce seeding particles for cloud condensation?" " Does CO2 levels in the atmosphere lag behind temperature rise or lead in front?"

Why is this important? because I want to know before my money is spent on a bunch of windmills and banning cars if CO2 is the cause of the current warming or the result of the current warming.
If its the cause I want my money spent on reliable power generation that does'nt put out CO2, as power generation puts out about 35% of man's CO2 For Europe this means 2 systems: Nuclear and wind powered pumped storage hydro, anything else is just fiddling round the edges without facing upto the elephant in the room.

El-Presidente Boris BSc(Hons)(open) Dip.Comp.(open)

Ok then, what was the % rise in atmospheric CO2 from lets say 1600 until 1940? does the temp rise there follow any temp rise we are seeing now with regard to the % of CO2?

1) There were no personal attacks, unless you take someone attacking your position personally.
2) CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, it's not the most powerful greenhouse gas.

1) There were no personal attacks, unless you take someone attacking your position personally.
2) CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, it's not the most powerful greenhouse gas.

I don't argue that there's warming. I'm just not convinced that humans are the sole cause.

Sure, we contribute, but what controls are in this experiment to show that we are the sole cause?

Eurasia experiences local temperature increases. The US experiences a local temperature decrease. Global warming? Not unless you mean, "global except where it didn't occur."No, the term global means encompassing the whole globe. Hence, it doesn't check where the temperatures increase, but only by how much they increase or decrease overall. Hence, the US having a cold month is easily balanced out by the fact that it's been warmer in Europe and Asia, considering that Europe and Asia cover a heck of a lot more land than the US. In all, the globe is warmer, even if small patches are colder for a small time.

Claiming that your little evidence of a colder February disproves global warming could easily be disproven by finding one town or state in the US where the temperatures were higher than average during that month, by your logic.

Likewise, February is just as relevant as December, in which is was pretty darn warm all over the East Coast of the US.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

Yep, the 34th coolest February in the US in the last 113 years.

Looks like all those Chicken Littles running around in the '70's might have been onto something, because clearly we're heading for another ICE AGE! :eek:

I find it amusing that you're talking about 34th of 113. Does anyone else find that laughable? It's in the top third of coolest februaries, one month or one year, and the rest of the world records the warmest winter on record and this is evidence that global warming is wrong?

Anyone remember which country came in 34th in the last Olympics? Since when is 34th even worth noting. Did you know today is the third hottest day in this March in Texas? I guess that negates your little claim about cold Februaries.

I don't argue that there's warming. I'm just not convinced that humans are the sole cause.

Sure, we contribute, but what controls are in this experiment to show that we are the sole cause?

But surely you must agree that even if we aren't the sole cause, steps should be made to limit our impact and contribution to the problem, right?

But surely you must agree that even if we aren't the sole cause, steps should be made to limit our impact and contribution to the problem, right?

Sure, but I'm not sure how much good it will do us unless we know exactly what all the contributors are.

Let's say that warming the oceans during this interglacial period releases CO2 from the oceans.

How much CO2 is that? Can we stop that from happening?

Sure, even if we stop our own CO2 release, that's nice. But in the long run, will it change anything?

I think we know next to nothing about the mechanisms of long term change in our climate.

Sure, but I'm not sure how much good it will do us unless we know exactly what all the contributors are.

Let's say that warming the oceans during this interglacial period releases CO2 from the oceans.

How much CO2 is that? Can we stop that from happening?

Sure, even if we stop our own CO2 release, that's nice. But in the long run, will it change anything?

I think we know next to nothing about the mechanisms of long term change in our climate.

We could get hit by a comet tomorrow and die out as a species. We know the world has been relatively stable for millions of years. There have been shifts but for the most part it's system that by the very nature of it tends to equalize. That is, until we start messing with it. Are we the only things involved in any process. Of course not, but limiting our footprint, i.e. garbage, emissions of all sorts, destruction of species, desctruction of ecosystems, etc., can only be a positive thing. If we don't know the impact of our actions, the solution isn't to keep acting, but to limit any possible impact until we figure out what our impact is and can be.

What we're doing now is the equivalent refusing to stop firing our gun in the air and saying "until you can prove I'm actually hitting anyone why should I stop firing." How about we stop firing until we have evidence that the range we're firing on is clear?

The channel 4 program was interesting, it raised some questions; for example, the ice core data seems to show that CO2 concentration goes up AFTER temperature.

The problem with the global warming skeptics is that the demands they place on our consideration are huge.

To believe their position you'd have to accept the following:

1) global temperature increases are not occuring despite evidence to the contrary

2) the presence of isolated periods of lower than average temperatures somehow counters the idea of a general warming trend despite the fact that the general warming trend is indicative of an average, and the presence of isolated periods of lower than average local temperatures does not actually disprove the idea that globally average temperatures are rising, for it is an average, and irregular events can still occur and not disprove that average

3) that lower than average local temperatures disproves global warming despite the fact that a change in climate such as an increase in average global temperatures can cause fluctuations in that enviornment including, occassionally, isolated incidents of lower than average local temperatures

4) that if global temperatures are rising on average, that this is merely the result of a natural climate change, which requires us to believe that a climate change can occur so rapidly as to be observable in a single human lifetime and just so happens to correspond to the emergence of our industrial revolution, that this climate change occurs at the same time that humans start, for the first time, releasing greenhouse gasses in bulk is just one huge coincidence.

Sure, but I'm not sure how much good it will do us unless we know exactly what all the contributors are.

Well, here's the thing: we lose nothing by controlling emissions. If it turns out that global warming is beyond our ability to influence, at the very least we will be in a good position to prepare for the consequences, and if we are capable of influencing it we will avert or mitigate a major threat to millions of people and the world economy.

I mean, if we do nothing we lose either way and if we do something we stand a good chance of offsetting the worst effects of what might happen. When given a choice between two bad situations, it makes the most sense to choose the one that is the least bad of them all, and regulating emissions is that option.

What we're doing now is the equivalent refusing to stop firing our gun in the air and saying "until you can prove I'm actually hitting anyone why should I stop firing." How about we stop firing until we have evidence that the range we're firing on is clear?
Because that might mean we'd have to drive smaller cars, or drive less, or conserve energy, or change our lifestyle a small amount--we can't possibly be expected to inconvenience ourselves any, can we?

Because that might mean we'd have to drive smaller cars, or drive less, or conserve energy, or change our lifestyle a small amount--we can't possibly be expected to inconvenience ourselves any, can we?

The market could take care of this problem, but the way it would do it would be so brutal and devastating that no rational person on Earth should even remotely want that to be our only way of combating climate change.

Here's my question. If we do follow enviornmentally good practices, and he's wrong, what harm has been done.

If we don't follow enviornmentally good practices, and he's right, what harm has been done? While the issue has not been proven 100% there is certainly enough evidence to demonstrate that it is POSSIBLE.

So if it is POSSIBLE that we ae causing harm to the enviornment, shouldn't we do something about that just in case, rather than go "he might be wrong", not change anything, and hope to god he's not right?

Aha. A sort or environmental Pascal's Wager.

Aha. A sort or environmental Pascal's Wager.

When faced with two decisions with possibly negative outcomes, it makes sense to choose the one that will harm you the least.

Well, one, there is no such animal as "scientific certainty", but since the current report has it at over 90% sure that humans are contributing...

And 2. Here is your 'proof'
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/460.htm

Once again, not responsive to the original request, which was for exclusion of
"natural phenomena as the primary causes to a scientific certainty." All your cite does is adduce evidence that man-made emissions contribute to the effect. As the authors state, "All new single-pattern studies published since the SAR detect anthropogenic fingerprints in the global temperature observations."

Aha. A sort or environmental Pascal's Wager.

Of a sort, without the glaringly obvious logical defect of the original

Because that might mean we'd have to drive smaller cars, or drive less, or conserve energy, or change our lifestyle a small amount--we can't possibly be expected to inconvenience ourselves any, can we?

Actually, that's the crazy part. It doesn't have to be like that. If we'd simply encourage the government and market to produce more efficient or at least healthy alternatives then we'd have no reason to go smaller or drive less actually. Hell, we already have better alternatives to oil and we still aren't working to use them even though it would provide us no real inconvenience. Even among the more efficient fuels can you explain why we use corn ethanol instead of sugar ethanol in the US? Even if you knew nothing about it I bet you could guess.

Once again, not responsive to the original request, which was for exclusion of
"natural phenomena as the primary causes to a scientific certainty." All your cite does is adduce evidence that man-made emissions contribute to the effect. As the authors state, "All new single-pattern studies published since the SAR detect anthropogenic fingerprints in the global temperature observations."

How is contributing not enough? If you knowingly contribute to my death but aren't the primary cause does that make you NOT a murderer? Legally, the answer is no.

I love the fact that one month that was 34TH, THIRTY-FOURTH, out of 113 was conclusive evidence for you, but the mountains of evidence to the contrary just makes you ho-hum and ask for more conclusive proof. And people think that LG is silly.

Of a sort, without the glaringly obvious logical defect of the original

Yes, in that here there are only two logical outcomes. In the original, obviously, God could exist where believing is a spiritual benefit, God could not exist where believing has no detriment at all, or there could be rules that would make believing in God a spiritual detriment. The third is ignored in the original.

In this version, there are two choices only, continuing to act in a way that contributes or not and only two outcomes that we are destroying the environment and by stopping we protect the environment or we're not and by stopping there is no real effect.

There's a difference between following environmentally good practices, which makes sense in a lot of ways, and imposing economically harmful environmental practices on certain countries, such as the US, while ignoring others such as China, India, Brazil etc. That's one reason why the US Senate (under the Clinton Administration ) unanimously (97-0) refused to accept Kyoto, and why we continue to do so.

BTW: A good alternative to Kyoto is the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (2005), which includes both China and India and thus has a realistic chance of actually doing some good.

So, is this what you want to talk about? The best policy to follow? Or to improve policies? Or to make a new policy?

Or do you want to try to argue that there is not a problem?

Please, I can't begin to fathom how to approach you on this topic unless I know what you are trying to argue.

I can hook you up with some highly placed liberals. Want your own documentary?
Sure. People will believe me if I get Gore.:cool:

Ice age my ass. We didn't even have 3 days in a row with freezing temperatures here and half a day of snow.

I has been the warmest winter since we started taking the temperature in 1901.

Yes, in that here there are only two logical outcomes. In the original, obviously, God could exist where believing is a spiritual benefit, God could not exist where believing has no detriment at all, or there could be rules that would make believing in God a spiritual detriment. The third is ignored in the original.

In this version, there are two choices only, continuing to act in a way that contributes or not and only two outcomes that we are destroying the environment and by stopping we protect the environment or we're not and by stopping there is no real effect.

Correct. The original pascal's wager presented two possible situations, and two possible methods of dealing with each.

Either there is a god, or there is not a god.

if there is a god and you worship, you go to heaven
if there is a god and you do not worship, you go to hell

If there is no god and you worship, you die after mild inconvenience of worshiping a nonexistant god
if there is no god and you do not worship, you die without the mild inconvenience.

Thus his wager was. If you worship, the worst thing that could possibly happen to you is you face mild inconvenience in life, then die with no afterlife, and the best thing was heaven. If you do not worship, the worst that can happen to you is everlasting torment, and the best that can happen to you is death.

so, the wager was, you worship, because the worst possible scenario for worship is mild inconvenience, but the worst possible scenario for not worshipping is everlasting torment.

The problem with pascal's wager is it assumes two, and only two possibilities. A christian god, or no god at all. He did not assume the possibility of god or gods totally different than christian versions, who really don't care if you don't worship them, but take great offense at the worship of a "false" god. He conceeded only the existance of the christian version of god, and concluded that the absolute worst possible outcome of worship is simple death. He did not include the possibility that worshipping the christian god could have detriment. Once you include that element you must concede that both worshipping and not worshipping can have detriments, and thus neither one is a "logical" choice.

Hence the glaring logical defect I refered to.

In this situation it doesn't exist. Either our actions are harming the enviornment, or they are not. If so, conservation will either do nothing, or be helpful. Failure to conserve will either do nothing, or cause harm.

There really is no possible logical argument that conservation could harm the enviornment, thus the defect in the original wager is not present here.

Here's my question. If we do follow enviornmentally good practices, and he's wrong, what harm has been done.

If we don't follow enviornmentally good practices, and he's right, what harm has been done? While the issue has not been proven 100% there is certainly enough evidence to demonstrate that it is POSSIBLE.

So if it is POSSIBLE that we ae causing harm to the enviornment, shouldn't we do something about that just in case, rather than go "he might be wrong", not change anything, and hope to god he's not right?

Well environmental activists have been seriously hindering the developing world in parts of Africa, restricting them from their oil and coal + causing many african communities to be hugely impoverished. A united nations proposal forced an african hospital to use solar pannels on its roof, as a result it only has enough energy for one fridge which they use to store vaccines. etc...

Sure. People will believe me if I get Gore.:cool:

As long as it is something to whine about, I can get any liberal you want. We love to just complain about stuff! Bridge decks have kept the upper hand for far too long!! Make love, not Bridge!

As long as it is something to whine about, I can get any liberal you want. We love to just complain about stuff! Bridge decks have kept the upper hand for far too long!! Make love, not Bridge!
In that case, I'll have Hillary!:p

Well environmental activists have been seriously hindering the developing world in parts of Africa, restricting them from their oil and coal + causing many african communities to be hugely impoverished. A united nations proposal forced an african hospital to use solar pannels on its roof, as a result it only has enough energy for one fridge which they use to store vaccines. etc...

Only if you ignore EVERY other factor in the hinderance of those communities and nations that are more responsible by a far sight. Are you claiming that the only solution to their problems is coal or oil, or is it perhaps that because of greed and the active denial of new technologies any other alternatives are simply too expensive for them to afford?

Only if you ignore EVERY other factor in the hinderance of those communities and nations that are more responsible by a far sight. Are you claiming that the only solution to their problems is coal or oil, or is it perhaps that because of greed and the active denial of new technologies any other alternatives are simply too expensive for them to afford?

And the reason they are too expensive to afford is because their industry can not develop (restricted quite often), causing ecenomic failure.

And the reason they are too expensive to afford is because their industry can not develop (restricted quite often), causing ecenomic failure.

Their industry cannot develop so that's why we haven't developed these various alternatives to the point of affordability? In what kind of rosy logic world does that make any sense? Even without any environmental restrictions these countries are a century away from any kind of competive economy. Countries in that dire of a situation don't just suddenly rise to the top of the world economies on their own. Japan went from economically devestated to a world leader. Any idea how they did it? Hint: It wasn't because they didn't have any restrictions on their industry.

The fact is that the reason that these nations have to essentially end up operating in a fashion similar to the western world's operations at the begining of the industrial revolution is because of political and corporate wrangling stifling affordable technology for countries like these. They keep computer prices inflated. They keep other electronics inflated. They hinder and discourage the development of alternative fuels and technologies.

These aren't secret practices. You can see these things happening at every university across the western world. You can see these things happening in congress and in the various governments in the western world. It's become so acceptable they don't even pretend they're not doing it anymore.

We know they do it. They know they do it. And then they use complaints about the situation in third world countries to claim that environmentalists are the problem, when being environmentally responsible is certainly affordable if it's simply appropriately supported by business and government. Currently, it's artificially unsupported.

Their industry cannot develop so that's why we haven't developed these various alternatives to the point of affordability? In what kind of rosy logic world does that make any sense? Even without any environmental restrictions these countries are a century away from any kind of competive economy. Countries in that dire of a situation don't just suddenly rise to the top of the world economies on their own. Japan went from economically devestated to a world leader. Any idea how they did it? Hint: It wasn't because they didn't have any restrictions on their industry.


I may have used the wrong term, when I say industry I mean even the most basic industrialisation. The coal and oil that africa posses is practically a goldmine, and africa could easily start industrialising it's nation, providing jobs and electricity and in return improving the economy, but they are being restricted. I never said it was a quick process.


The fact is that the reason that these nations have to essentially end up operating in a fashion similar to the western world's operations at the begining of the industrial revolution is because of political and corporate wrangling stifling affordable technology for countries like these. They keep computer prices inflated. They keep other electronics inflated. They hinder and discourage the development of alternative fuels and technologies.


ha! I wish I was talking about goods such as computers, in fact i'm talking about things like electricity, concrete etc... These things do not have an inflated price.


These aren't secret practices. You can see these things happening at every university across the western world. You can see these things happening in congress and in the various governments in the western world. It's become so acceptable they don't even pretend they're not doing it anymore.

We know they do it. They know they do it.


This is irrelevant as you and I are talking about different things.


And then they use complaints about the situation in third world countries to claim that environmentalists are the problem, when being environmentally responsible is certainly affordable if it's simply appropriately supported by business and government. Currently, it's artificially unsupported.

What? These ideas are not coming from corrupt oil companies as environmentalists like to fantasise, and the governments are actually supporting the fight against global warming now. Ironically, one of the key people who mentioned this was a founder of greenpeace.

I don't argue that there's warming. I'm just not convinced that humans are the sole cause.

Sure, we contribute, but what controls are in this experiment to show that we are the sole cause?

How about a little fire scarecrow? These strawmen are so easily taken down. Please point out climatilogists who say they humans are the "sole cause." I belie ve the word you're yearning to avoid is primary. Humans are the primary cause of global warming as they are the only thing on Earth with the ability to create large inbalances in CO2 through their acitivites. The controls are these: comparitive analysis of C02 levels pre-industrialization vs. post and the adjustment of those numbers for population increases and deforrestation (a major contributing factor). Stabilizing those two variables gives you a resonable ability to find how much CO2 is being caused by humans alone. The original posting poster presenting a farcical farking argument claiming that one month, in one reagion of the world, was in the 70th percentile of coldest days in over 100 years. Hell, 70% isn't even a passing score for school children taking standardized testing and his "analysis" falls far below the mark of reliable. So I'll make it clear "we are by far the #1 reason that global warming persists?" That's what scientists have been saying and arguing against your punching bag doesn't make your point more salient.

How about a little fire scarecrow? These strawmen are so easily taken down. Please point out climatilogists who say they humans are the "sole cause." I belie ve the word you're yearning to avoid is primary. Humans are the primary cause of global warming as they are the only thing on Earth with the ability to create large inbalances in CO2 through their acitivites. The controls are these: comparitive analysis of C02 levels pre-industrialization vs. post and the adjustment of those numbers for population increases and deforrestation (a major contributing factor). Stabilizing those two variables gives you a resonable ability to find how much CO2 is being caused by humans alone. The original posting poster presenting a farcical farking argument claiming that one month, in one reagion of the world, was in the 70th percentile of coldest days in over 100 years. Hell, 70% isn't even a passing score for school children taking standardized testing and his "analysis" falls far below the mark of reliable. So I'll make it clear "we are by far the #1 reason that global warming persists?" That's what scientists have been saying and arguing against your punching bag doesn't make your point more salient.

Humans make up a very tiny percentage of Co2 emissions, a fraction of the digits. I debate further the correlation between temperature rise and Co2, if you look at the graphs the temperature rises first and then the Co2 level rises 800 years afterwards. There is a weak correlation, but what is not realised by the media is that the correlation is the other way round. Another thing is, if you compare the correlation of Co2 to temperature change and sun spots to temperature change, the correlation with sun spots is far far greater then Co2 correlation.

I may have used the wrong term, when I say industry I mean even the most basic industrialisation. The coal and oil that africa posses is practically a goldmine, and africa could easily start industrialising it's nation, providing jobs and electricity and in return improving the economy, but they are being restricted. I never said it was a quick process.

It could be. It was for Japan. I guess Africa should attack us. Maybe they could be an economic superpower within 40 years.



ha! I wish I was talking about goods such as computers, in fact i'm talking about things like electricity, concrete etc... These things do not have an inflated price.

I know what you're talking about. And that's the problem. You're complaining that we won't let them pollute in order to have electricity, when they could be first world in a couple of decades if we wanted them to and polluting wouldn't be their only option. You want us to give them a fish, and I want us to teach them to fish.



This is irrelevant as you and I are talking about different things.

We are but only because your argument doesn't stand up unless you consider polluting the only way for them to stand up as a country. It's not and THAT's what I'm talking about. I'm not surprised you want to pretend it's irrelevent. Africa's industry could be electronics like Japan within a couple of decades or workers like India and various other places or numerous other things that would require them to pollute. The problem is it would require us to stop treating them like they don't matter. Interestingly enough your solution requires the same thing, it's just shortsighted and simplistic.




What? These ideas are not coming from corrupt oil companies as environmentalists like to fantasise, and the governments are actually supporting the fight against global warming now. Ironically, one of the key people who mentioned this was a founder of greenpeace.

They've been supporting it for how long? One year. Five years. Where are the effecient solar systems? We've made almost no progress in 30 years. On average, the average automobile is no more economical than forty years ago. Many are less. We've stifled progress in nearly every industry that already had powerful companies in it. Mostly because their is no advantage for them to produce new technologies if they just keep producing the same technologies and making the same money and can just destroy the market for any other technologies.

Companies and governments have been convincing the average consumer, particularly in the US, that the only options are giving up your stuff or polluting when in reality almost everything we have could be more efficient with a little effort, but efficiency has not been a focus for the majority of the last fifty years.

Humans make up a very tiny percentage of Co2 emissions, a fraction of the digits. I debate further the correlation between temperature rise and Co2, if you look at the graphs the temperature rises first and then the Co2 level rises 800 years afterwards. There is a weak correlation, but what is not realised by the media is that the correlation is the other way round. Another thing is, if you compare the correlation of Co2 to temperature change and sun spots to temperature change, the correlation with sun spots is far far greater then Co2 correlation.

Uh-huh. Didn't you just say that governments are fighting global warming and now out of the other side of your mouth, it's not an issue. Amusing.

Or perhaps you're saying that governments are now trying to control the sun.

It could be. It was for Japan. I guess Africa should attack us. Maybe they could be an economic superpower within 40 years.


They need electricity first. Alternative power sources are just too ineficient.


I know what you're talking about. And that's the problem. You're complaining that we won't let them pollute in order to have electricity, when they could be first world in a couple of decades if we wanted them to and polluting wouldn't be their only option. You want us to give them a fish, and I want us to teach them to fish.


How can they progress without electricity and ore resources?


We are but only because your argument doesn't stand up unless you consider polluting the only way for them to stand up as a country. It's not and THAT's what I'm talking about. I'm not surprised you want to pretend it's irrelevent. Africa's industry could be electronics like Japan within a couple of decades or workers like India and various other places or numerous other things that would require them to pollute. The problem is it would require us to stop treating them like they don't matter. Interestingly enough your solution requires the same thing, it's just shortsighted and simplistic.


They still need resources and electricity to set up these factories in the first place.


They've been supporting it for how long? One year. Five years. Where are the effecient solar systems? We've made almost no progress in 30 years. On average, the average automobile is no more economical than forty years ago. Many are less. We've stifled progress in nearly every industry that already had powerful companies in it. Mostly because their is no advantage for them to produce new technologies if they just keep producing the same technologies and making the same money and can just destroy the market for any other technologies.

Companies and governments have been convincing the average consumer, particularly in the US, that the only options are giving up your stuff or polluting when in reality almost everything we have could be more efficient with a little effort, but efficiency has not been a focus for the majority of the last fifty years.

I'm not quite sure if I understand what you are saying.

Uh-huh. Didn't you just say that governments are fighting global warming and now out of the other side of your mouth, it's not an issue. Amusing.

Or perhaps you're saying that governments are now trying to control the sun.

Just because governments are doesn't mean I think it's nescecerry.

They need electricity first. Alternative power sources are just too ineficient.

They needn't be. They do need electricity first. I agree on that count. I don't believe the only options are the ones you suggest.


How can they progress without electricity and ore resources?

They need electricity, but there is no reason their needs cannot be met with the assistance of the western world in much the same way the western world's needs are met. Efficiency is a matter of drive. Alone they have to go through much of the western world went through to get there. With our help they could skip a number of steps much how assisted Japan in doing the fast dance through the evolution of their industries.



They still need resources and electricity to set up these factories in the first place.

Not saying they don't. We're disagreeing on how they get it. It doesn't have to require using methods that are any different than most of the western worlds.


I'm not quite sure if I understand what you are saying.

I'm saying that we actively stifled progress for fifty years and then blame the environmentalists that we don't have options. The options are available. We have to actually develope them. That requires a committment we've yet to show.

Just because governments are doesn't mean I think it's nescecerry.

And you're argument for why we shouldn't bother is because somehow allowing 3rd world countries to pollute like we did for 1000 years will help the problems we currently have in the world? Even if you don't believe in global warming do you deny that smog exists, that pollution exists, the effect we are having on the environment that far outweighs our place in the ecosystem?

It's vaguely saddening that some people think burying your head in the sand - or somewhere else - is not only a viable course of action but a valid argument.

Some nice links there, combined with some not so nice personal attacks:(
apologies for that.
After reading through this thread, I chose to lump you in with the rest of the 'head-in-sand' deniers. But you seem more open-minded than NM, Eve et al.
My bad. One would have thought by my age I'd have learnt not to generalise.

So, is this what you want to talk about? The best policy to follow? Or to improve policies? Or to make a new policy?

Or do you want to try to argue that there is not a problem?

Please, I can't begin to fathom how to approach you on this topic unless I know what you are trying to argue.

Oops. Looks like I inadvertently opened the door and am about to be pulled out of the closet.

Since I'm certain that few on this board listen to the Rush Limbaugh program, let me explain something. There's a concept called "illustrating absurdity by being absurd." The absurdity I assert is the Al Gore school of catastrophism that informs the whole global warming industry. The illustrating absurdity is urging that one unusually cold month is evidence of the opposite catastrophe of another Ice Age. Obviously few on this board figured that out.

That's one part of it. The other part of it is the satisfaction I get from stirring up the inmates in the leftie asylum. That has turned out to be remarkably easy to do. All I have to do is refer to the Fox News Channel, or thumb my nose at some item of leftie orthodoxy like :eek: global warming, and the usual suspects go into spasms like a gerbil up Richard Gere's ass.

There are two points to the post you replied to. First, that I don't find the global warming partisans' hysteria about the world coming to an end due to human activity persuasive. I don't see any convincing evidence that (i) there is a long-term trend in global temperature increase, or (ii) any long-term trend in global temperature increase that may exist isn't due primarily to natural phemonena.

Second, that I agree with responsible environmental measures. I agree with them on the general principle that it's better to engage in practices that have fewer byproducts rather than more, less waste rather than more. A conservative position, in other words.

Thus, for example, for a variety of reasons I have long favored nuclear power, as well as research in other alternatives to petroleum and coal use, such as fuel cells. I favored nukes when another group of Chicken Littles (which probably overlaps quite a bit with the current batch) was running around shrieking about nuclear power being the end of the world. Had they not been allowed to sabotage the nuclear power industry, there would have been 30-40 years' worth of reduced CO2 emissions. I see none of these geniuses taking responsibility for that foolish decision and its consequences.

So to summarize my views:
(a) Arguments for man-made global warming are unpersuasive.
(b) Responsible environmental policies are good.

Oops. Looks like I inadvertently opened the door and am about to be pulled out of the closet.

Since I'm certain that few on this board listen to the Rush Limbaugh program, let me explain something. There's a concept called "illustrating absurdity by being absurd." The absurdity I assert is the Al Gore school of catastrophism that informs the whole global warming industry. The illustrating absurdity is urging that one unusually cold month is evidence of the opposite catastrophe of another Ice Age. Obviously few on this board figured that out.

That's one part of it. The other part of it is the satisfaction I get from stirring up the inmates in the leftie asylum. That has turned out to be remarkably easy to do. All I have to do is refer to the Fox News Channel, or thumb my nose at some item of leftie orthodoxy like :eek: global warming, and the usual suspects go into spasms like a gerbil up Richard Gere's ass.

There are two points to the post you replied to. First, that I don't find the global warming partisans' hysteria about the world coming to an end due to human activity persuasive. I don't see any convincing evidence that (i) there is a long-term trend in global temperature increase, or (ii) any long-term trend in global temperature increase that may exist isn't due primarily to natural phemonena.

Second, that I agree with responsible environmental measures. I agree with them on the general principle that it's better to engage in practices that have fewer byproducts rather than more, less waste rather than more. A conservative position, in other words.

Thus, for example, for a variety of reasons I have long favored nuclear power, as well as research in other alternatives to petroleum and coal use, such as fuel cells. I favored nukes when another group of Chicken Littles (which probably overlaps quite a bit with the current batch) was running around shrieking about nuclear power being the end of the world. Had they not been allowed to sabotage the nuclear power industry, there would have been 30-40 years' worth of reduced CO2 emissions. I see none of these geniuses taking responsibility for that foolish decision and its consequences.

So to summarize my views:
(a) Arguments for man-made global warming are unpersuasive.
(b) Responsible environmental policies are good.

So, what you're telling us is that you were trolling and now that you've admitting your true view rather actually debunk any of the evidence presented you are simply going to call them absurd and call it a day. You are aware that because you made an absurd argument with nothing in common with the argument being made in global warming and then proved it's absurd lends nothing to your argument, no?

Your argument is similar to saying because you can show that labeling a schooling trend on one child on one test is absurd that schooling trends on all data on all children is absurd. Current evaluation of global warming is analyzing all available evidence. Your argument from absurdity was using one month in one area. The relationship just isn't there.

They need electricity first. Alternative power sources are just too ineficient.


I'm lost. You say that Africa has access to huge oil reserves. You say that Africa isn't a victim of artifically inflated electricity prices. You say that Africa can't industrialise efficiently without electricity.

I can't be the only person to see that huge fossil-fuel reserves could be turned into electricity. Thus - the rate determining financial step must be something else.

Or else, your information is just speculation - and contradictory, to boot.

Second, that I agree with responsible environmental measures. I agree with them on the general principle that it's better to engage in practices that have fewer byproducts rather than more, less waste rather than more. A conservative position, in other words.


'Less waste' is only better than 'more waste' when the types of waste are comparable. If the waste product is pure water, more waste is good. If it is a radioactive with a high halflife, less is good.


Thus, for example, for a variety of reasons I have long favored nuclear power, as well as research in other alternatives to petroleum and coal use, such as fuel cells... Had they not been allowed to sabotage the nuclear power industry, there would have been 30-40 years' worth of reduced CO2 emissions. I see none of these geniuses taking responsibility for that foolish decision and its consequences.


The number or capacity of the nuclear industry is not the biggest problem with nuclear energy - it's a combination of factors like the short effective lifespan of the plant, the difficulty efficiently disposing of the waste, and the direct hazard of radioactives.

Wind and wave power. Thermal power. Solar power. There are a whole load of technologies that have been available since the 60's (and long before, really) that have far lower 'risks' than nuclear fuels, and that are cheaper, cleaner and safer than nuclear or fossil fuels.

They haven't been exploited - probably because it is likely no one will get really really rich off of a real clean technology. That's the real crime here - that people are still using fossil fuels, and touting nuclear technology, when we could have been 'clean' for decades.