NationStates Jolt Archive

Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.

The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.

But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years.

Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the UK team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.
BBC linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm)

Dr Svensmark isn't impressed, of course. I'm a bit curious however - to me it seems like a logical theory and a plausible alternative. Does anybody know more?

Also:
"If he is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal."
I'm a proponent of a "better safe than sorry" doctrine. I think the risks outweigh the costs, and that we should take precautions. But all of that has been said before and will be said again. ;)

So yeah. Enlighten me about the sun!

I've read that changes in the suns activity would take longer than 20 years to affect the earth anyway, which would deem that report irrelevant. But I can't quite remember where I read it, I'll see if I can find it.

But yeah I'm a proponent of better safe than sorry as well, but also propose intense impartial research into this matter to absolutely make sure its worth all that investment, rather than accepting it is or isn't going to happen and selectively researching areas to fit your agenda.

It's the Dutch! They have the most to gain from GW! They are responsible!

I love how science has their shit together. It is funny how people put so much into saying "but the scientists agree" bit. Why don't we collectively admit that we don't know what the hell is going on and admit our stupidity.

Spend more on science research instead of carbon credits I say.

It's the Dutch! They have the most to gain from GW! They are responsible!

It's been well documented that the Dutch are responsible for 99% of what is wrong with the world today. Thank you for reminding us good sir.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_mscFTGp24bs/RrmNJI_R2JI/AAAAAAAAAA4/juFridEa29E/s1600-h/temperature_2000.png

It's been well documented that the Dutch are responsible for 99% of what is wrong with the world today. Thank you for reminding us good sir.

Doing what I can to make the world a safer place.

I have a plan to stop them:
We all drill finger-sized holes in dams all over the world. All Dutch citizens are legally obligated to stick their fingers in them...we'll have them trapped like the dirty dutchies they are!

Regardless of whether or not all the pollution we pump into the air is causing global warming, I would think that cutting it back would be the healthy and sensible choice. o.O

Unless people like sucking in smog. Then really, by all means leave your car running in your garage all night. :p

Regardless of whether or not all the pollution we pump into the air is causing global warming, I would think that cutting it back would be the healthy and sensible choice. o.O

Unless people like sucking in smog. Then really, by all means leave your car running in your garage all night. :p

If Co2 doesn't cause climate change, then it doesn't really do much harm these days.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_mscFTGp24bs/RrmNJI_R2JI/AAAAAAAAAA4/juFridEa29E/s1600-h/temperature_2000.png

Nice graphs, but exactly what aspect of the Sun is plotted in the second graph? Where is the accompanying article?

Nice graphs, but exactly what aspect of the Sun is plotted in the second graph? Where is the accompanying article?

Having seen a documentary on the subject (The Great Global Warming Swindle) the graph is of the sun's activity measured in sunspots.

I read this earlier -- Global temperatures 'to decrease' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm)

It's about how this year's La Nina has cooled the world considerably. Similarly, but not as potently, as the El Nino of 1998 warmed the world.

This is an interesting article on Sun Spots. It is from 2004 but interesting still. Seems that in 2004 the Sun was producing more Sun spots in 8000 years. Ironically that is when the current weather that humans are use to started.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sunspot_record_041027.html

I've read that changes in the suns activity would take longer than 20 years to affect the earth anyway, which would deem that report irrelevant. But I can't quite remember where I read it, I'll see if I can find it.
That would be interesting to see.

I love how science has their shit together. It is funny how people put so much into saying "but the scientists agree" bit. Why don't we collectively admit that we don't know what the hell is going on and admit our stupidity.
Well, as you know, scientific consensus is not the absolute truth, and (most) scientists don't pretend that it is either.

Having seen a documentary on the subject (The Great Global Warming Swindle) the graph is of the sun's activity measured in sunspots.
And since the article is attacing the foundation of that documentary (which I personally find to be lacking in credibility), can you connect the dots for us? How does it invalidate the research mentioned in the OP?

it looks like my plan to blot out the sun will not be having the desired public reaction :(

It's the Dutch! They have the most to gain from GW! They are responsible!

iirc the Dutch can swim before they can walk

iirc the Dutch can swim before they can walk

This is of course because of the webbing between their feet and toes.

This is of course because of the webbing between their feet and toes.

lets not forget the invisible gills

It's the Dutch! They have the most to gain from GW! They are responsible!

Damn the Dutch and their dikes...
:mad:

And since the article is attacing the foundation of that documentary (which I personally find to be lacking in credibility), can you connect the dots for us? How does it invalidate the research mentioned in the OP?

Having not read all of the research involved:
The graph shown is fairly self explanatory. The Great Global Warming Swindle was a response to Inconvenient Truth. The point was that Gore's graph of CO2 and temp is nifty and somewhat correlated, sure, but look at this graph of sunspots to temp: It's ridiculously correlated!

Damn the Dutch and their dikes...
:mad:

And also their very sophisticated genetic engineering, too, apparently.

And also their very sophisticated genetic engineering, too, apparently.

Nah, the webbed toes and gills are simply from selective breeding...

Nah, the webbed toes and gills are simply from selective breeding...

Eugenics! That explains everything.

Having not read all of the research involved:
The graph shown is fairly self explanatory. The Great Global Warming Swindle was a response to Inconvenient Truth. The point was that Gore's graph of CO2 and temp is nifty and somewhat correlated, sure, but look at this graph of sunspots to temp: It's ridiculously correlated!

I agree. Although, even with all the CO2 coming into the atmosphere the problem is its coming in too fast. If we could slow it down, we could adopt to it the same way we adopted to oxygen.

Eugenics! That explains everything.

It usually does...

And you know who else was in favor of Eugenics?



That's right...Woodrow Wilson
Betcha thought I was gonna say something else, didn't ya?

It usually does...

And you know who else was in favor of Eugenics?



That's right...Woodrow Wilson
Betcha thought I was gonna say something else, didn't ya?

Holy shyte! Why didn't I ever see it before!? Dammit, we need to implement operation "Dike Finger Trap" ASAP!

Holy shyte! Why didn't I ever see it before!? Dammit, we need to implement operation "Dike Finger Trap" ASAP!

Already in progress :D

Already in progress :D

Good man! Keep drilling those dikes!

Good man! Keep drilling those dikes!

:D

And you can keep drilling the dykes...
;)

Hopefully those Dutchies will keep sticking their fingers in them!

Hopefully those Dutchies will keep sticking their fingers in them!

In which?

I don't even see this alternative theory, whether it's valid or not, as mutually exclusive. If we're pumping large amounts of carbon dioxide and non-trivial amounts of other gases that have a warming effect, temperatures will go up. Cosmic ray intensity could easily be independent of that, I'd have thought. But I'm not a scientist, so I bow to those who are - and consensus, albeit not universal consensus, points against the theory, and certainly in favour of a need to cut carbon emissions.

And if nothing else, many of the carbon-cutting changes could help produce a more sustainable and livable environment even if the global warming fear is misplaced.

Spend more on science research instead of carbon credits I say.Yep. And burn down the churches.

Yep. And burn down the churches.

Or y'know, do something constructive.

Or y'know, do something constructive.That is constructive. :p

That is constructive. :p

Uh-huh. Have fun with that.

Yep. And burn down the churches.

There would be to much pollutant released. How bout we just burn down Al Gore's house and call it good?

Edit: Little known fact is that statues of Jesus in most churches are made of Arsenic, Lead, and Asbestos. You wouldn't want hundreds and thousands of those burning now would you?

That is constructive. :p

Hardly, but we can all pretend.:D

wolfemastre;13584005']I agree. Although, even with all the CO2 coming into the atmosphere the problem is its coming in too fast. If we could slow it down, we could adopt to it the same way we adopted to oxygen.

I assume you mean adapt, and in that case we can't because A: we're not single-celled organisms and B: we don't have millions of years and can't afford the loss of most if not all of our population.

In which?

The dikes...

The dikes...

Sorry lost track of whether we were supposed to be getting the Dutch to stick their fingers in dikes or dykes. ;)

In which?
http://styletraxx.com/Fergie.jpg
?
*whimpers*

http://styletraxx.com/Fergie.jpg
?
*whimpers*

LOL

Sorry lost track of whether we were supposed to be getting the Dutch to stick their fingers in dikes or dykes. ;)

Should we drill holes in dykes, too?

I say we invade the Dutch, burn down the churches and create a damn large enough to make holes in that will make all the dutch have to stick their fingers there.:mp5::p:

Instead of the churches, let's burn down their windmills!

Hell, why not gather all their clogs in a great big pile and incinerate them too?

Then thrown in Ajax as well...

http://www.friendsofscience.org/

That site links to a interesting site on the climate change issue.

Should we drill holes in dykes, too?

If you want, don't see a reason to put out the effort though, they already have holes...

If Co2 doesn't cause climate change, then it doesn't really do much harm these days.

CO2 isn't the only thing that comes out of a smokestack or exhaust pipe, it just happens to be one of the major greenhouse gases.

If Co2 doesn't cause climate change, then it doesn't really do much harm these days.

Well, Co2, being a metal, probably wouldn't have much effect on the climate. [/pedant]

Incidentally, if CO2 doesn't cause climate change, it means that our entire knowledge of physics is horribly, horribly flawed. In short, we're fucked even worse than if it does.

The problem is that we don't understand all the mechanisms involved in climate change.

We think we do. We thought we did 30 years ago.

The problem is that we don't understand all the mechanisms involved in climate change.

We think we do. We thought we did 30 years ago.

Weren't they heralding the next ice age 30 years ago...?

If you want, don't see a reason to put out the effort though, they already have holes...

Yeah, and the new holes would be all nasty and gory. And I'm not into that shyte.

Damn the Dutch and their dykes...
:mad:

fixed.

Everyone knows that teh gays are causing global warming.

fixed.

Everyone knows that teh gays are causing global warming.

Gay dutchies?

Weren't they heralding the next ice age 30 years ago...?
No.

No.

A few did.

A few did.

The media did. But no one gives a fuck about the media when it comes to science.

The media did. But no one gives a fuck about the media when it comes to science.

Ok, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that one. Half of the GW hype is nothing but media. Now, I'm not trying to argue that it's all media, but damn, they have specific job titles like "Climate Change Journalist" and so on.

So if I'm to understand this all correctly, the floods in New Orleans occured as a direct result of lazy dutchmen.

Additionally is Europeans : Dutch ; Americans : Canadians ??

If only someone can explain how those two solar-powered rovers are causing the warming of Mars, then I can believe that our problems here on Earth are wholly man-made.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

As for Gore's ideas: I think that the new scrubberless coal power plants China brings online at the rate of 2 per month is going to do a lot more damage than my taking a warm shower. Conservation is great, but the First World has really cleaned up it's act since the 70s. The problem is that the Second World is now using a LOT more energy in less effective means... and that means more pollution.

But Global Warming? I still doubt that humans are the major contributor.

If Co2 doesn't cause climate change, then it doesn't really do much harm these days.

Apart from suffocating people, that is.

Ok, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that one. Half of the GW hype is nothing but media. Now, I'm not trying to argue that it's all media, but damn, they have specific job titles like "Climate Change Journalist" and so on.

Right, all those reputable scientific organizations who have agreed that climate change is anthropogenic in origin don't count.

Right, all those reputable scientific organizations who have agreed that climate change is anthropogenic in origin don't count.

I didn't say all. In fact, I specifically said that I was specifically not saying all. I said half. A portion. A good bit. Some of. Etc. etc. etc.

If Co2 doesn't cause climate change, then it doesn't really do much harm these days.

Have you ever been to Los Angeles, or Athens, or Tokyo? Car emissions cause more immediate harm than just global warming.

Have you ever been to Los Angeles, or Athens, or Tokyo? Car emissions cause more immediate harm than just global warming.

Not to mention that these emissions have also caused global warming on Mars! It's true! The ice caps on Mars have been disappearing in a direct correlation with rising emissions here on Earth!

Have you ever been to Los Angeles, or Athens, or Tokyo? Car emissions cause more immediate harm than just global warming.

Car emissions include much more than CO2. CO is the one you have to look out for, actually.

The main problem with GW these days is:

Theres a whole load of money to be made out of it.
You can reap the rewards of peoples votes if you show you can dabble in it.
The media has taken on the GW theories as given and report it as such.

There still isnt ANY conclusive evidence that proves the climate is being altered by human intervention and yet there is a body (the IPCC) that now dictates "global" rules for emission control.

How many times have you heard that:

Sea levels will rise by several metrers enveloping millions of coastal living areas. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
All the glaciers and the Ice Caps are melting.
We all have to reduce our "carbon-fingerprint"...to save the world.

Have you noticed just how many products on TV are advertised using a "green" theme..."Our detergent (which was previously one of the worst products you could use due to its effect on the environment) is now concentrated...and we dont need so many trucks to deliver it..which helps against GW"
"Our car is now produced using less power..which reduces our CFingerprint"

My thoughts on GW are thus:

GW is like the bible...it ought to be listed under fiction...but there will always be people that put it back under fact...the more that do it...the more people believe it.

The media has taken on the GW theories as given and report it as such.

There still isnt ANY conclusive evidence that proves the climate is being altered by human intervention and yet there is a body (the IPCC) that now dictates "global" rules for emission control

so other than that, how are things on parallel earth?

so other than that, how are things on parallel earth?

Feel free to explain the Martian global warming at any time then.

Feel free to explain the Martian global warming at any time then.Feel free to provide evidence for the Martian global warming at any time then.

Feel free to provide evidence for the Martian global warming at any time then.

Last post on page #4 in this thread. :D

The Dutch are on Mars now, too!? Dammit!

Feel free to explain the Martian global warming at any time then.Very well. Page 2 of the source in the last post on page #4.

Very well. Page 2 of the source in the last post on page #4.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

...would this be the mainstream scientific opinion that was promoting Global Cooling in the 80s? ;)

Given that the Earth was much warmer during the Middle Ages (Vikings growing grapes, etc), I remain unconvinced that this isn't just the big orb doing it's own thing. And that our science, while increadibly more advanced than it was 200 years ago, is still relatively primitive in terms of holistic planetary study.

But the point remains: how can there be warming on Mars at the same time if it is not a natural occurance from the sun?

I'm not saying that there is no global warming. I'm not saying that mankind doesn't contribute in some small way. But I *AM* saying that our probable effect would be akin to the difference in carbon emissions if (say) you didn't fly anywhere for 10 years vs. China not opening a new coal-fired power plant (sans scrubbers as usual). Which they do every 15 days... that is, a drop in the bucket.

In other words, it's good to be environmentally conscious and not waste, but let's not get carried away and have enforced cold-showers either.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. Nah, I was looking at the "wobbles", which are far more convincing.
...would this be the mainstream scientific opinion that was promoting Global Cooling in the 80s? ;)Evidence backing up the claim that it was mainstream scientific opinion?
Given that the Earth was much warmer during the Middle Ages (Vikings growing grapes, etc), I remain unconvinced that this isn't just the big orb doing it's own thing. And that our science, while increadibly more advanced than it was 200 years ago, is still relatively primitive in terms of holistic planetary study. Vikings growing grapes is not very representative of global climate. Also, lobsters that have been living comfortably in European waters now dying out because of too high temperatures is as much evidence against said hypothesis as Vikings growing grapes is in its favor. Incidentally, do you have any sources that the Vikings grew grapes outside of Vinland?
But the point remains: how can there be warming on Mars at the same time? I'm not saying that there is no global warming. Read page 2 of your source.
I'm not saying that mankind doesn't contribute in some small way. But I *AM* saying that our probable effect would be akin to the difference in carbon emissions if (say) you didn't fly anywhere for 10 years vs. China not opening a new coal-fired power plant (sans scrubbers as usual). Which they do every 15 days... that is, a drop in the bucket.How exactly do scrubbers prevent CO2 emissions?
In other words, it's good to be environmentally conscious and not waste, but let's not get carried away and have enforced cold-showers either.I suppose that depends on the definition of "carried away".

Pfff.... the dutch invented the USA... so dont get me started ;)

..

(and we still regret it :D )

Feel free to explain the Martian global warming at any time then.

dust storms causing a lower albedo. don't you ever follow up on things? i mean, like literally a month later your same source put up this story:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds

Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
April 4, 2007

Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period due to the action of Martian winds, scientists have found.

New research has shown that dusty tornadoes called dust devils and gusty winds have helped the surface of Mars become darker, allowing it to absorb more of the sun's rays.

and, of course, this has been known to be an important factor on the martian climate for awhile now. see for example, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192, which also notes that mars is cooler than it was in the 70's, and again mentions the greater orbital variation of mars (mentioned in your original article as well).

...would this be the mainstream scientific opinion that was promoting Global Cooling in the 80s? ;)

now you are just making shit up

Given that the Earth was much warmer during the Middle Ages (Vikings growing grapes, etc)

not given. it is warmer now in europe than it was during the so called medieval warm period, and that was a regional phenomena driven.

But the point remains: how can there be warming on Mars at the same time if it is not a natural occurance from the sun?

better question - how can the sun be responsible if its output isn't correlated to our current warming trend. you know that we can and do measure solar output, right? right!?

Read page 2 of your source.

hey, just because his own source say that the ideas he is pushing as fact "contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC report" and aren't "supported by the theory or by the observations" isn't any reason to discount something. equal time for all beliefs, no matter how stupid and unsupported!

now you are just making shit up

Then there were lots of people making the shit up with me. Check out this 1975 article from Newsweek.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

So please be more civil, eh?

not given. it is warmer now in europe than it was during the so called medieval warm period, and that was a regional phenomena driven.

You might find this graph somewhat educational, then:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/nwarm05.gif

...from about 950 to 1400, it was MUCH warmer than the 20th century average!
Yes, it is getting warmer now. But was the 20th century "normal"? Maybe... maybe not!
Note that the first "hockey stick" graph is relative to late 20th century temperatures.

better question - how can the sun be responsible if its output isn't correlated to our current warming trend. you know that we can and do measure solar output, right? right!?

Yes, we do. And that the sun has an 11-year solar cycle. And that right now, we happen to be at a low point in the cycle. If that causes the gravitational wobbles on the planets is an interesting question, right? right!? :)

hey, just because his own source say that the ideas he is pushing as fact "contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC report" and aren't "supported by the theory or by the observations" isn't any reason to discount something. equal time for all beliefs, no matter how stupid and unsupported!I personally think believing there is no Greenhouse effect is the most damning piece of evidence in favor of labelling the guy that came up with that Mars thingy a crackpot. :rolleyes:

hey, just because his own source say that the ideas he is pushing as fact "contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC report" and aren't "supported by the theory or by the observations" isn't any reason to discount something. equal time for all beliefs, no matter how stupid and unsupported!

Yes, including yours, which is a parroting of hysterical "oh noez, it's all our fault!" politically correct party line followed by dullards the world over.

Now, please be more civil.

dust storms causing a lower albedo. don't you ever follow up on things? i mean, like literally a month later your same source put up this story:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

And what is causing the dust storms, then? What is causing the warming of every other body in the solar system, including Neptune?
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/08/neptune-news/

and, of course, this has been known to be an important factor on the martian climate for awhile now. see for example, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192, which also notes that mars is cooler than it was in the 70's, and again mentions the greater orbital variation of mars (mentioned in your original article as well).


Yep. And the variations are caused by... ? Surely, you're not saying that *every* body in the solar system is heating up at the same time and it's all a huge coincidence?

Then there were lots of people making the shit up with me. Check out this 1975 article from Newsweek.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

"our knowledge of the mechanisms of climactic change is at least as fragmentary as our data...not only are the basic scientific questions unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions" = mainstream scientific opinion promoting Global Cooling?

1975 = the 80s?

You might find this graph somewhat educational, then:

...from about 950 to 1400, it was MUCH warmer than the 20th century average!
Yes, it is getting warmer now. But was the 20th century "normal"? Maybe... maybe not!
Note that the first "hockey stick" graph is relative to late 20th century temperatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11644
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/werent-temperatures-warmer-during-the-medieval-warm-period-than-they-are-today/

And what is causing the dust storms, then?

already covered in the sources i linked to (and the sources they cite). i can't read things for you, or even read them to you over the internet.

What is causing the warming of every other body in the solar system, including Neptune?

frankly, it isn't true that all of the bodies in the solar system are warming. and the neptune paper that article is talking about is sort of a joke. it itself says “unfortunately, none of these correlations is statistically significant.” as one science blogger i read put it when that came out, if we know that correlation does not mean causation, then what does a lack of correlation mean? in fact, here's the whole post
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/05/12/poseidons-folly/

Yep. And the variations are caused by... ?

physics

Nah, I was looking at the "wobbles", which are far more convincing.
Evidence backing up the claim that it was mainstream scientific opinion?
Vikings growing grapes is not very representative of global climate. Also, lobsters that have been living comfortably in European waters now dying out because of too high temperatures is as much evidence against said hypothesis as Vikings growing grapes is in its favor. Incidentally, do you have any sources that the Vikings grew grapes outside of Vinland?
Read page 2 of your source.
How exactly do scrubbers prevent CO2 emissions?
I suppose that depends on the definition of "carried away".

I'm still not convinced as to what causes the wobbles... after all, the sun IS the biggest gravitational mass in the solar system.

I posted the 1975 Newsweek article in another reply.

Grapes in Scandinavia isn't a good example of warm weather? :eek: That there were grapes even in Vinland (New Foundland) is a big deal, too.
How long have the lobsters been there? (No, I don't know either.)
Grapes in Scandinavia: http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/resume/worksamples/NorseDrinkingTraditions.pdf.
...so there were some, but either they were unsuitable for wine or they were a small crop, like wine grapes in modern UK.

The scrubbers don't do anything about CO2. However, they DO remove much of the sulfur.

Carried away: I believe it is good to keep one's footprint low. I don't drink bottled water, I don't waste energy. My house is well insulated and I have programmable lights and thermostat to conserve energy. My main lights are CFL or florescent tubes. I do all my errands at once to reduce my time driving.
But OTOH, I'm not about to start taking cold showers or not washing my clothes to "save the environment". :)

Grapes in Scandinavia isn't a good example of warm weather?

http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____15334.aspx

That there were grapes even in Vinland (New Foundland) is a big deal, too.

http://www.dccw.ca/

"our knowledge of the mechanisms of climactic change is at least as fragmentary as our data...not only are the basic scientific questions unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions" = mainstream scientific opinion promoting Global Cooling?

1975 = the 80s?

"our knowledge of the mechanisms of climactic change is at least as fragmentary as our data" -- and this is still the case today.

That's one article. You want one from the 80s? Fine...
http://www.paleofuture.com/2008/03/global-warmingcooling-1982.html
...here I thought giving one that was before that would have been even better, but whatever. I apologise for my memory being a little hazy.

"The temperature records we had at the time showed a very sharp cooling from the mid-'40s to the mid-'70s," Michaels says. "And scientists attempted to explain that as a consequence of the pollution that was preventing solar radiation from reaching the surface.
"At the time, scientists thought the cooling effect of pollution was greater than the warming effect of carbon dioxide," Michaels adds. "They were attempting to explain the dramatic cooling of the '70s."

...gee, which sounds an awful lot like what's going on today in reverse. Yes, I know the article says that global cooling was a minority posistion.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11644
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/werent-temperatures-warmer-during-the-medieval-warm-period-than-they-are-today/

And? You want me to argue against some random links you pulled out of Google without any commentary by you?
Okay: ALL of these assume that the 20th century is a global norm. That's not necessarily true. DONE.

I pointed out the second graph in my example... feel free to say why you think it is not relevant.

Or for that matter:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2008/2191714.htm
Michael Duffy: The conference was virtually ignored by the Australian media, but over the last few days the media here did give a lot of coverage to the thinning of glaciers around the world, and in most cases that story was accompanied by the claim that was caused by the warming of the Earth. However, if we look at the best records we have for the past decade, is the Earth still warming?

Jennifer Marohasy: No, actually there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing, but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last ten years.

REMEMBER: I'm not saying that there is no global warming or cooling. I'm saying that humans don't have as much an effect as is made out vs. natural elements.

http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____15334.aspx



http://www.dccw.ca/

And the point of these random links is?

The first shows that there are wine grapes in Sweden today. As temps were WARMER in the 14th century, that aids my position. The second does likewise in Canada. Thanks.

already covered in the sources i linked to (and the sources they cite). i can't read things for you, or even read them to you over the internet.



frankly, it isn't true that all of the bodies in the solar system are warming. and the neptune paper that article is talking about is sort of a joke. it itself says “unfortunately, none of these correlations is statistically significant.” as one science blogger i read put it when that came out, if we know that correlation does not mean causation, then what does a lack of correlation mean? in fact, here's the whole post
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/05/12/poseidons-folly/



physics

Nor I to you. I'm DEBATING with you, yes? That means I have a contrary position and I don't take your articles as gospel. But don't just assume I don't read them.

Frankly, yes it is.

Physics? You mean like solar gravitation and stuff? :D

The first shows that there are wine grapes in Sweden today. As temps were WARMER in the 14th century, that aids my position. The second does likewise in Canada. Thanks.

learn 2 logic

you claimed that vikings growing grapes was evidence that temps were warmer back then. on top of the fact that you don't actually have any evidence that they did, i provided evidence that grapes are grown and made into wine in those areas now. thus, grape growing cannot be evidence that it was warmer then.

"our knowledge of the mechanisms of climactic change is at least as fragmentary as our data" -- and this is still the case today.

prove it

That's one article. You want one from the 80s? Fine...
http://www.paleofuture.com/2008/03/global-warmingcooling-1982.html
...here I thought giving one that was before that would have been even better, but whatever. I apologise for my memory being a little hazy.

and i take it that you believe the omni future almanac is a scientific document?

"The temperature records we had at the time showed a very sharp cooling from the mid-'40s to the mid-'70s," Michaels says. "And scientists attempted to explain that as a consequence of the pollution that was preventing solar radiation from reaching the surface.
"At the time, scientists thought the cooling effect of pollution was greater than the warming effect of carbon dioxide," Michaels adds. "They were attempting to explain the dramatic cooling of the '70s."

...gee, which sounds an awful lot like what's going on today in reverse.

only now we have more and better data. and it was pollution that was holding back the longer-term warming then.

ALL of these assume that the 20th century is a global norm.

no, they don't. they use an average from then as the 0 mark, but only to aid in understanding changes. but that doesn't change the fact that they directly contradict your outdated claims about the mwp. are you even trying?

I pointed out the second graph in my example... feel free to say why you think it is not relevant.

your graph is WRONG. that was the fucking point.


Jennifer Marohasy: No, actually there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference then temperatures have plateaued.

gee, you mean that longer term trends can be obscured by looking at very short-term samples of the total data? fucking astonishing!

of course, it also just isn't true, what with 2005 being the warmest year on record and 2007 being warmer than 2002 too.

prove it



and i take it that you believe the omni future almanac is a scientific document?



only now we have more and better data. and it was pollution that was holding back the longer-term warming then.



no, they don't. they use an average from then as the 0 mark, but only to aid in understanding changes. but that doesn't change the fact that they directly contradict your outdated claims about the mwp. are you even trying?



your graph is WRONG. that was the fucking point.



gee, you mean that longer term trends can be obscured by looking at very short-term samples of the total data? fucking astonishing!

of course, it also just isn't true, what with 2005 being the warmest year on record and 2007 being warmer than 2002 too.

Dismissal is not a form of debate. you can't say "prove it" in one breath and say "its fucking wrong in another".
I suggest you eat your own dogfood and learn to debate.
Goodbye.

Dismissal is not a form of debate. you can't say "prove it" in one breath and say "its fucking wrong in another".

you can when the thing to be proved is your claim that climate science is in the same position today that it was in the mid 70s (fucking implausible on its face, without any additional information), while the thing that is fucking wrong was already demonstrated to be incorrect in this very thread.

I'm still not convinced as to what causes the wobbles... after all, the sun IS the biggest gravitational mass in the solar system. But a guy that ignores a well documented and pretty much undisputed phenomenon is fair game?
I posted the 1975 Newsweek article in another reply. Oh, boy, Newsweek. Got something peer reviewed that doesn't have the sentence claiming "not all the science is in"? So far, all I see is the media hyping up something, not mainstream science.
Grapes in Scandinavia isn't a good example of warm weather? :eek: That there were grapes even in Vinland (New Foundland) is a big deal, too.
How long have the lobsters been there? (No, I don't know either.)Lobsters been around for a long long time. Vinland... Wineland... I wonder... As to it being a big deal, is that so? (http://www.wine-searcher.com/regions/newfoundland/1)
Grapes in Scandinavia: http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/resume/worksamples/NorseDrinkingTraditions.pdf.
...so there were some, but either they were unsuitable for wine or they were a small crop, like wine grapes in modern UK. And there still are some. (http://www.internetwineguide.com/structure/ww/v&w/europe/scan/scan.htm) So how can grapes back then be proof of it being warmer then?
The scrubbers don't do anything about CO2. However, they DO remove much of the sulfur.Indeed. Currently, CO2 is of greater relevance (it isn't the only one of relevance, but sulphides aren't quite at the top of the list, despite their high GWP).
Carried away: I believe it is good to keep one's footprint low. I don't drink bottled water, I don't waste energy. My house is well insulated and I have programmable lights and thermostat to conserve energy. My main lights are CFL or florescent tubes. I do all my errands at once to reduce my time driving.
But OTOH, I'm not about to start taking cold showers or not washing my clothes to "save the environment". :)Good things, but perhaps you could lay off of the junk science as well.

Dismissal is not a form of debate. you can't say "prove it" in one breath and say "its fucking wrong in another".
I suggest you eat your own dogfood and learn to debate.
Goodbye.You can't just pull a graph from the Daily Telegraph and expect it to carry as much weight as data from a scientific study.

and i take it that you believe the omni future almanac is a scientific document?

this book actually seems sort of interesting. check this blog post about part of it
http://www.chausse.org/2007/12/the-omni-future-almanac-on-inflation/

A while ago, I bought one of the coolest books ever - the Omni Future Almanac. The Omni Future Almanac was written in 1982, and its purpose is to describe what life will be like, well, now.

An entire blog could be devoted to the contents of this book. Sometimes it’s spot on, sometimes it’s way off, but the most interesting parts are the ones where life could easily have turned out they way they describe if a butterfly flapped its wings in just a slightly different way.

I’ve kept this book on a table in my office that I always walk by, and I’m constantly picking it up and perusing a random page. Today, it was about the effects of inflation. So, without further ado, here are the prices we’re looking at in 2010, three years from now (p. 158).

* Hamburger (1 lb.) $22.71
* Dozen Large Eggs: $18.00
* Magazine: $30.00
* Calculator: $50.00 (he he)
* Postage Stamp: $2.25
* Cup of coffee: $4.50 (OK, they kind of got that one right, in a weird way)
* Three Room Apartment Monthly Rent: $10,000
* Three Bedroom House: $1,000,000

Oh, but wait:

* Gallon of Gas: $2.00

Well, the good news is that a factory worker will be making $197,000 a year to help pay for all this stuff (p. 159).

but really, this is what M is offering to show that science had firmly decided that catastrophic cooling was nigh?

You can't just pull a graph from the Daily Telegraph and expect it to carry as much weight as data from a scientific study.

well, to be fair the graph did appear in the very first ipcc report, iirc. back in 1990. but there is no way we could have learned anything since then; we haven't even learned anything since 1975, after all.

You can't just pull a graph from the Daily Telegraph and expect it to carry as much weight as data from a scientific study.

Ah. Even though the "hockey stick" graph has been dismissed as the fraud that it is, and the graph the Telegraph posted is from the data of Christopher Monckton, and that the whole article is sourced?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton%2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

The reference page:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf

Original article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

the "hockey stick" graph has been dismissed as the fraud that it is

stop reading denialist propaganda. this isn't even remotely true.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html

stop reading denialist propaganda. this isn't even remotely true.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html

"To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right)."

We have to stop the Dutch, dammit! They've begun taking Mars apparently! Their Global Warming plot will kill us all!

"To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right)."

oh, sorry about that.

the basic finding is that the study that produced the graph is fine - especially because it was the first attempt - though the graph should have done more to show the uncertainty and the later political uses of it were overblown to a certain extent. later work has backed it up much better now.

it was not a 'fraud' in any sense of the term.

LOL

To paraphrase Cathcart, "Well, we all have to do our part"
*nods emphatically*

Ah. Even though the "hockey stick" graph has been dismissed as the fraud that it is
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646
Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can – and has – been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

But you're an expert, right?

Ah. Even though the "hockey stick" graph has been dismissed as the fraud that it is, and the graph the Telegraph posted is from the data of Christopher Monckton, and that the whole article is sourced?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton%2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

dude, didn't you realize that just reading that page makes him come off as a total fucktard?

dude, didn't you realize that just reading that page makes him come off as a total fucktard?

It does? Hardly. Though this most eloquent reply of yours does display your intolerance of others whom hold ideas or lifestyles you are opposed to.

You're not a debater, just a hater and a zealot. I'm done replying to you, and would not have bothered posting even this but to highlight your poor manners and total lack of civility. Dude.

Dude....where's my car?

Dismissal is not a form of debate.
[shrug] It can be.
you can't say "prove it" in one breath and say "its fucking wrong in another".
Yes I can!

You're not a debater, just a hater and a zealot. I'm done replying to you, and would not have bothered posting even this but to highlight your poor manners and total lack of civility. Dude.

poor baby

are you at least planning on trying to respond to either laerod or straughn, who have said the same things i did? or were they mean to you too?

[shrug] It can be.

Yes I can!

*applauds*

damn guys, ya'll have some pretty strong opinions about this stuff don't ya'll.

damn guys, ya'll have some pretty strong opinions about this stuff don't ya'll.

People tend to be irritated by blatant denials of reality.

Dude....where's my car?

Where's your car dude?

Where's your car dude?

Dude, where's my car?

(The sad thing is, I haven't actually seen this movie)

Dude, where's my car?

(The sad thing is, I haven't actually seen this movie)

You should, its definitely worth watching once...

You should, its definitely worth watching once...

Eh, I'll get around to it someday. Kind of avoided seeing it at the time because of all the one-liners and whatnot people were doing when it came out and shortly after.

Eh, I'll get around to it someday. Kind of avoided seeing it at the time because of all the one-liners and whatnot people were doing when it came out and shortly after.

You've most likely heard all the good lines already, but it is still funny, moronic, but funny...

You've most likely heard all the good lines already, but it is still funny, moronic, but funny...

I'm not really a fan of dumb humor. Slapstick, sure. Dumb, not so much.

I'm not really a fan of dumb humor. Slapstick, sure. Dumb, not so much.

Then wait until you can watch it for free...

Which is exactly what I did.

Then wait until you can watch it for free...

Which is exactly what I did.

Duly noted.


Dude.

Duly noted.


Dude.

Sweet!

Dude, where's my car?
Where's you car dude?

(The sad thing is, I haven't actually seen this movie)
Dude! :eek:

Dude! :eek:

Sweet! :eek:

Sweet! :eek:

Dude! :p

Dude! :p

Sweet! ;)

Dude!

are you at least planning on trying to respond to either laerod or straughn, who have said the same things i did? or were they mean to you too?
Kinda odd, and a little depressing, that Desperate Measures didn't drop in on this one. :(
Kinda makes me wonder how these threads aren't declared zombies almost right off the bat ...

Kinda odd, and a little depressing, that Desperate Measures didn't drop in on this one. :(
Kinda makes me wonder how these threads aren't declared zombies almost right off the bat ...

Zombies? I need to get my shotgun.

I read this earlier -- Global temperatures 'to decrease' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm)

It's about how this year's La Nina has cooled the world considerably. Similarly, but not as potently, as the El Nino of 1998 warmed the world.

From your article:
Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said...

Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."

Slightly /= considerably

I suggest reading the whole text before saying unthruts.

Ah. Even though the "hockey stick" graph has been dismissed as the fraud that it is, and the graph the Telegraph posted is from the data of Christopher Monckton, and that the whole article is sourced?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton%2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
The reference page:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf
Original article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

I always love the way some people give as attendible sources the researches of people that have no science education whatsoever published by news sources that are, at best, suspect.

Monckton was born on 14 February 1952, the eldest son of the 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He was educated at Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge where he read classics and University College, Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in journalism.

I always love the way some people give as attendible sources the researches of people that have no science education whatsoever published by news sources that are, at best, suspect.

So I take it Al Gore's invention of the Internet is all the credentials he needs as a great scientific mind? :rolleyes:

For the nth time: at no point have I said that there is no such thing as global warming. I maintain, however, than mankinds impact on it is minimal and that it is a natural occurance in nature.

poor baby

are you at least planning on trying to respond to either laerod or straughn, who have said the same things i did? or were they mean to you too?

In order to be mean, you'd have to be capable of an emotion other than general anger at anyone that is counter to your own point of view.

I do not dislike you, FS. I pity you. You can't discuss without stooping to foul language, and your debating style has all the deft skill of the average 11 year old. Intellectually, you're the worst sort of dullard: not only do you KNOW you're right, but you seek to extinguish any debate on the matter.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646


But you're an expert, right?

On the second narrative page of the SPM the famous “hockey stick” graph
appeared. The long flat shaft was mostly reconstructed from tree ring proxy data and
the almost upright blade was instrumental temperature. The fact that it was a
composite of two very different data sets spliced together, which is statistically
unsound, was seldom pointed out, let alone made clear.
http://homepages.tesco.net/~kate-and-david/2007/Holland(2007).pdf

For that matter... the hottest year on record is 1938. Is that a fluke, is now a fluke, or are both flukes?

Yes, I'm an expert... just like you.

But a guy that ignores a well documented and pretty much undisputed phenomenon is fair game?
Oh, boy, Newsweek. Got something peer reviewed that doesn't have the sentence claiming "not all the science is in"? So far, all I see is the media hyping up something, not mainstream science.
Lobsters been around for a long long time. Vinland... Wineland... I wonder... As to it being a big deal, is that so? (http://www.wine-searcher.com/regions/newfoundland/1)
And there still are some. (http://www.internetwineguide.com/structure/ww/v&w/europe/scan/scan.htm) So how can grapes back then be proof of it being warmer then?
Indeed. Currently, CO2 is of greater relevance (it isn't the only one of relevance, but sulphides aren't quite at the top of the list, despite their high GWP).
Good things, but perhaps you could lay off of the junk science as well.

You tell me what's undisputed... global warming, or that man is the main cause of it?
I fully agree that there is global warming. I also don't disagree that man is a contributing factor. I just dispute that we're anywhere NEAR being a major factor.

Peer review? You mean like the IPCC, who's peer review endorses those that refuse to publish their data? LOL!!

Again, I point out that there are wine grapes there now is a point that it is warm there now. And I point out that it was warm back in the Viking exploration days, too.
This Weil (now Auk Island?) Winery you cite started up in the early 1990s according to their website. I wonder why there hasn't been a constant winery presence in NF? Could it be because it was too COLD until relatively recently? Hmm... maybe!

It can be proof because grapes do NOT flourish in cold climates. There are no grapes (for example) in Iceland or Alaska. Grapes are marginal in Minnesota or Korea as well, which are similar to Scandinavia in that they suffer cold winters. That there have not been Swedish wine grapes for centuries is a small proof that the temperature fluctuations changed. The same way the same warmer weather can ruin crops in Africa or Southern Europe. In short, I hold this to be a proof that this warming/cooling of the Earth is CYCLICAL.

Yep. IMO, I'd rather have the CO2 than the SO2. Tangible acid rain to me is worse than things getting a little warmer maybe.

Junk science is a term that can be thrown on BOTH sides of the debate.

For that matter... the hottest year on record is 1938. Is that a fluke, is now a fluke, or are both flukes?

Yes, I'm an expert... just like you or Lord Monckton.

you mean 1934. and "in usia".

2005 is the hottest globally. and in any case, single years jump around a lot - trends are what matter.

you mean 1934. and "in usia".

2005 is the hottest globally. and in any case, single years jump around a lot - trends are what matter.

True, typo. Yes, in the USA.

So far, and only since we started tracking... even the NOAA only goes back to 1880 or so. While the trend is above normal for a 20th century average, I still am not convinced that the 20th century *was* average.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html#gtemp

So far, and only since we started tracking... even the NOAA only goes back to 1880 or so. While the trend is above normal for a 20th century average, I still am not convinced that the 20th century *was* average.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html#gtemp

ooh, i know, we could try to figure out some sort of way to extend our data back farther. perhaps some sort of composite of a bunch of proxies for climate from around the world. like, i don't know, tree ring sizes and the ratio of oxygen isotopes in ice cores and stuff. its so crazy that it just might work!

In short, I hold this to be a proof that this warming/cooling of the Earth is CYCLICAL.
While it is true that the Earth goes through a warming cycle, the presence of humans have tipped the balance. In the past, Earth balanced itself out with both its carbon emissions and sinks. However, the extra carbon dioxide we are producing lack the sinks that would take it away as well. Therefore, the net change in carbon dioxide is positive and this just keeps building up.

While it is true that the Earth goes through a warming cycle, the presence of humans have tipped the balance. In the past, Earth balanced itself out with both its carbon emissions and sinks. However, the extra carbon dioxide we are producing lack the sinks that would take it away as well. Therefore, the net change in carbon dioxide is positive and this just keeps building up.

It's not so much the presence of humans. Reason being Earth has a method of keeping us in check. That would be Virus and bacteria causing illness. Problem is that humans have over come most of the natural thinning that occurs with humans. I say get rid of modern day medicine to return the balance to the Earth.

It's not so much the presence of humans. Reason being Earth has a method of keeping us in check. That would be Virus and bacteria causing illness. Problem is that humans have over come most of the natural thinning that occurs with humans. I say get rid of modern day medicine to return the balance to the Earth.

Nah, its all the fault of the Dutch.

Nah, its all the fault of the Dutch.

AIDS was a Dutch creation. ;)

AIDS was a Dutch creation. ;)

Of course, The Dutch have come up with many things in their attempt to wipe out the rest of the world's population, Global Climate Change is just their latest attempt.

Of course, The Dutch have come up with many things in their attempt to wipe out the rest of the world's population, Global Climate Change is just their latest attempt.

How is operation "Finger Dikes" going?

Of course, The Dutch have come up with many things in their attempt to wipe out the rest of the world's population, Global Climate Change is just their latest attempt.

Hopefully it will fall to the wayside as the Ice Age of the 70's did. Glad the US and the rest of the world stepped up greenhouse gas production to avert that planned disaster. Got to be one step ahead of those wooden shoes.

How is operation "Finger Dikes" going?
Slowly, there's a lot of those bastards...
Hopefully it will fall to the wayside as the Ice Age of the 70's did. Glad the US and the rest of the world stepped up greenhouse gas production to avert that planned disaster. Got to be one step ahead of those wooden shoes.

:D

Zombies? I need to get my shotgun.Sometimes 'em is good eatin'.
Or at least, target practice for some.

On the second narrative page of the SPM the famous “hockey stick” graph
appeared. The long flat shaft was mostly reconstructed from tree ring proxy data and
the almost upright blade was instrumental temperature. The fact that it was a
composite of two very different data sets spliced together, which is statistically
unsound, was seldom pointed out, let alone made clear.
http://homepages.tesco.net/~kate-and-david/2007/Holland(2007).pdf
Apparently things need to be bolded for some.
Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can – and has – been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick.

Yes, I'm an expert... just like you.
And you're going to refute the issue here, being representative of "most researchers"? Do you really think you know that much about this issue? Really?

Apparently things need to be bolded for some.


And you're going to refute the issue here, being representative of "most researchers"? Do you really think you know that much about this issue? Really?

It is obvious that Global Climate Change is caused by man, or more specifically, the Dutch.

Junk science is a term that can be thrown on BOTH sides of the debate.
This sounds remarkably like the bullshit republicans have been giving lately given the outstanding performance of fearless leader Dubya. Kinda like the "Clinton did it first!" mentality too.

Question is whether you really are the kind of person who should be making distinctions for other people in regard to what constitutes "junk science". Like, what your credentials might be.
...

...

....


....

:rolleyes:

It is obvious that Global Climate Change is caused by man, or more specifically, the Dutch.
Those clever shoes were a distraction, or an implement? Sometimes i am unable to tell. Too catchy and dancy.

Those clever shoes were a distraction, or an implement? Sometimes i am unable to tell. Too catchy and dancy.

A distraction, so people won't notice the inflatable dikes.

A distraction, so people won't notice the inflatable dikes.

I KNEW it was too good to be true!!!
*sobs*

I KNEW it was too good to be true!!!
*sobs*

You've gotta keep up on these things...

You've gotta keep up on these things...

I can't. I've been hanging out with other posters who are still maintaining the flat earth principle.
:(

I can't. I've been hanging out with other posters who are still maintaining the flat earth principle.
:(

lol

I can't. I've been hanging out with other posters who are still maintaining the flat earth principle.
:(

*sigh* the earth is not flat. It's more like a dish or plate, sort of elevated at the edges. So that in event of earthquake things tend to fall toward the center rather than off the edge.

*sigh* the earth is not flat. It's more like a dish or plate, sort of elevated at the edges. So that in event of earthquake things tend to fall toward the center rather than off the edge.

Probably because of the Dutch...
:mad:

Probably because of the Dutch...
:mad:

The Dutch have been trying to invert the earth for years... with Holland in the center.

The next step would be to re-activate Project Destiny geared toward causing earthquakes so that everything else falls off the earth.

*sigh* the earth is not flat. It's more like a dish or plate, sort of elevated at the edges. So that in event of earthquake things tend to fall toward the center rather than off the edge.

Oh, SNAP!
And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

Apparently things need to be bolded for some.


And you're going to refute the issue here, being representative of "most researchers"? Do you really think you know that much about this issue? Really?

And apparently some forget that one can read something, evaluate it, and decide it is wrong. You know, like how Eugenics was a TRUE science.

Me? I'm pointing out that there is lots of money to be made here, and that the debate is far from over. I remain unconvinced that mankind is the primary (see? in bold for you!) cause of a some VERY LIMITED global warming over a VERY SHORT timeframe.

This sounds remarkably like the bullshit republicans have been giving lately given the outstanding performance of fearless leader Dubya. Kinda like the "Clinton did it first!" mentality too.

Question is whether you really are the kind of person who should be making distinctions for other people in regard to what constitutes "junk science". Like, what your credentials might be.


:rolleyes:

Mmmm. And that sounds remarkably like Global Warming as religion, kind of like how I'm used to dealing with users of Macintosh computers.

My credentials are as good as yours, unless want to state what leading University you recieved your Doctorate of Science in Climatology? I strongly suggest you look in the mirror and don't deny to others what you demand for yourself.

:rolleyes:

And apparently some forget that one can read something, evaluate it, and decide it is wrong. You know, like how Eugenics was a TRUE science.

Me? I'm pointing out that there is lots of money to be made here, and that the debate is far from over. I remain unconvinced that mankind is the primary (see? in bold for you!) cause of a some VERY LIMITED global warming over a VERY SHORT timeframe.

It's the Dutch! The Dutch, dammit! They have the most to gain!

It's the Dutch! The Dutch, dammit! They have the most to gain!

And the least to lose, don't forget that!

And the least to lose, don't forget that!

We'll have to sink their amphibious houses. Destroying their dams may prove impossible...

We'll have to sink their amphibious houses. Destroying their dams may prove impossible...

Watch out for their nefarious allies...

http://www.angryconservative.com/home/Portals/0/Blog/Canadians_For_Global_Warming.jpg

Damn them! They've started recruiting!