NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

Interesting article here. Question here is what would 10 years of no significant temperature increases do to the "Global Warming" movement? Is the current "Global Warming" movement done for? Or do you even believe this story? If not why?

I don't think it should affect anything one way or another, we all need to reduce our carbon footprint regardless.

Idk, they come up with some new prediction all the time, it seems like theyre trying to set it up so that no matter What the temp is the Global Warming advocates can say that they had it right...

But, thats not to say i dont think Global Warmings real, just that people should stop using it to fuel their Political and Economic ambitions...

But, if it does prove to be true, then thats at least an extra Decade to hopefully get off Fossil Fuels and switch to alternative renewable Energy...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

Interesting article here. Question here is what would 10 years of no significant temperature increases do to the "Global Warming" movement?

Not much, because as the article says, the temeperature would only stay the same because of a cyclical and predictable global cooling cycle will offset the rise. Which if anything helps the global warming awareness movement, since the only reason temperatures will remain stable is a once a century cycle.

And considering the next line of your article says:

However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say.

I'm curious why you would even ask that question, or whether you even read your own article.

sweet 12 more years of burning fossil fuels

Everything we are told we ought to be doing to help stem 'global warming', which I consider overhyped and overemphasized are things we ought to be doing to improve our environment anyway. Remember the rain forest? Biodegradable materials? Recycling?

Remember the rain forest? Biodegradable materials? Recycling?

Those are just Commie Conspiracies anyway...Fucking Commies...

Reminds me ... where's the good news about Fe seeding for the oceans again?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

Interesting article here. Question here is what would 10 years of no significant temperature increases do to the "Global Warming" movement? Is the current "Global Warming" movement done for?

No, not at all. Since it says temperature will increase after those 10 years...

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44617000/gif/_44617158_global_mean_temps466.gif

I'm curious why you would even ask that question, or whether you even read your own article.

I'm curious why you would even ask this question here. Of course I read my own opening article. As for them they are speculating what the temperature will do in 10 years. Who is to say it will even go up at that point.

Reminds me ... where's the good news about Fe seeding for the oceans again?

To lazy to look it up but I remember hearing something like that. Who's bright idea was it?

Everything we are told we ought to be doing to help stem 'global warming', which I consider overhyped and overemphasized are things we ought to be doing to improve our environment anyway. Remember the rain forest? Biodegradable materials? Recycling?

Of course we should be doing everything to reduce our so called "footprint". Just makes enviromental sense. Hell I think they should bring back the crying Native American. Remember that one?

I'm curious why you would even ask this question here. Of course I read my own opening article. As for them they are speculating what the temperature will do in 10 years. Who is to say it will even go up at that point.

Experts in the field, perhaps. You know, those scientist looking chaps in the white coats.

Experts in the field, perhaps. You know, those scientist looking chaps in the white coats.

You completely believe everyone in white coats? Even the ones that demand you take your medicine?

Experts in the field, perhaps. You know, those scientist looking chaps in the white coats.
It's nice to see smugness is alive and well. I sort of missed that while I was out of range of the internet.

This is just one of a number of articles by 'men in white coats' that run counter to the demagogue's litany of man-made global warming. It's cyclic. Get over it.

This is pretty much missing the point. Global warming isn't the issue - it is the pretext. The issue is our mentality of economic growth at any cost, which is unsustainable due to excessive dependency on limited resources.

I trully believe that global warming wouldn't kill (1000 years ago the temperature of the Earth was much higher than today and the planet was pretty much better off for it), but running out of energy and food resources would. The fact that the two correlate is but a fortunate accident to get people off their behinds and to tackle the larger problems, with a global mindset.

You completely believe everyone in white coats? Even the ones that demand you take your medicine?
Of course not, I was just trying to remind you who scientists are. It seemed that you had forgetton who they were, since you couldn't think of who might be weighin in on what the climate will be like after 2020.
It's nice to see smugness is alive and well. I sort of missed that while I was out of range of the internet.
:fluffle:

This is just one of a number of articles by 'men in white coats' that run counter to the demagogue's litany of man-made global warming. It's cyclic. Get over it.

I wouldn't know, I'm not a climatologist. And as far as I know you aren't either, so I'll just go right ahead and not take your word for it. But if you do have some convincing evidence that supports your hypothesis then go right ahead and post it.

And I don't see how this is running counter to 'man-made global warming'. The article suggests that a natural cooling period will, for about 10 years, offset the affects(or is it effects? I can never remember) of anthropogenic climate change.

This is pretty much missing the point. Global warming isn't the issue - it is the pretext. The issue is our mentality of economic growth at any cost, which is unsustainable due to excessive dependency on limited resources.

I trully believe that global warming wouldn't kill (1000 years ago the temperature of the Earth was much higher than today and the planet was pretty much better off for it), but running out of energy and food resources would. The fact that the two correlate is but a fortunate accident to get people off their behinds and to tackle the larger problems, with a global mindset.


Creating a global mindset as you say is a good thing. If anything good comes out of the scaremongering it is this. Question really is how long is that global mindset going to last when we have a 10 year period or longer of no real significant temperature change?

I thought the planet was supposed to be dead by 2020 anyway, according to the environuts? I've given up keeping track of the apocalypse now anyway, it moves faster than technology.

Anyway, if you really want to stop global warming, kill all the politicians to shut them up. According to scientific studies which I conducted by myself, with no support or endorsement by any officially recognised scientific body*, the resultant reduction in hot air emissions would quell man's impact on the environment by a whopping 78%. When you also factor in how much politicians use electricity and transportation, that would not only halt global warming in its tracks, but actually reverse it! A cause worth fighting for, I reckon.

Plus our airwaves and newspapers would be a lot less hectic, reducing pollution by a further 10% (roughly).

* Please do not use this as a reason to disregard the findings of my intensive and highly accurate study. Thanks.

I thought the planet was supposed to be dead by 2020 anyway, according to the environuts? I've given up keeping track of the apocalypse now anyway, it moves faster than technology.

Anyway, if you really want to stop global warming, kill all the politicians to shut them up. According to scientific studies which I conducted by myself, with no support or endorsement by any officially recognised scientific body*, the resultant reduction in hot air emissions would quell man's impact on the environment by a whopping 78%. When you also factor in how much politicians use electricity and transportation, that would not only halt global warming in its tracks, but actually reverse it! A cause worth fighting for, I reckon.

Plus our airwaves and newspapers would be a lot less hectic, reducing pollution by a further 10% (roughly).

* Please do not use this as a reason to disregard the findings of my intensive and highly accurate study. Thanks.

Careful with that joke, it's older than you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

Interesting article here. Question here is what would 10 years of no significant temperature increases do to the "Global Warming" movement? Is the current "Global Warming" movement done for? Or do you even believe this story? If not why?

It shouldn't do anything to the movement. All its saying is that there is a natural climate cycle whose upcoming cooling phase will counteract global warming for about a decade.

This is just one of a number of articles by 'men in white coats' that run counter to the demagogue's litany of man-made global warming.

How does this article do that, exactly?

How does this article do that, exactly?

I'm thinking because it says so in the thread title, tbh.

Careful with that joke, it's older than you.

Who's joking? :confused:

No, not at all. Since it says temperature will increase after those 10 years...

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44617000/gif/_44617158_global_mean_temps466.gif

I'd also point out that so far every predicted temperature raise has been off the mark. Scientists usually predict too small an increase.

Who's joking? :confused:

Ah right, act as thought you were serious in an effort to make it funnier. Gotcha.

I'd also point out that so far every predicted temperature raise has been off the mark. Scientists usually predict too small an increase.

That certainly doesn't seem to be the case with this graph...

That certainly doesn't seem to be the case with this graph...

You didn't notice where the prediction is far below actual for the last 20 years?

Of course we should be doing everything to reduce our so called "footprint". Just makes enviromental sense. Hell I think they should bring back the crying Native American. Remember that one?

I laughed at him and call him a pansy.

The curse on my family has been going on for awhile now...

It is interesting that some of you believe that alarmism and scare tactics have an upside. What the AGW alarmists are attempting to do is change the scope of the issue. Doesn't anyone find it interesting that a natural cycle of cooling is "masking" a warming trend that could very well be another natural cycle? There has been no warming since 1998 and with things going into a cooler cycle everyone is scrambling to convert the message to either:

a) AGW is happening, you just can't tell.

b) It's climate change, not Global Warming. THAT is what we were really talking about silly.

c) All of our unscientific ranting and scaring of school children created awareness for the environment. And that's good.

The AGW movement has caused harm to the scientific method by injecting non-scientific concepts, such as consensus and proof through unverifiable computer models, into the process.

Anyone want to tell me the science is settled? Here are a few peer-reviewed scientists who doubt various claims of the AGW alarmists:

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

I am pretty sure not all of these scientists are employed by Big Oil(!).

I grew up in a time when I was being told that my family would have to move from Northern Wisconsin because the coming Ice Age would render it uninhabitable. I also heard that, by now, the population of the world would be past 20 billion.

Please excuse me if I view science riding on the back of politics with skepticism.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled fear mongering.

I'm curious why you would even ask this question here. Of course I read my own opening article. As for them they are speculating what the temperature will do in 10 years. Who is to say it will even go up at that point.

So you believe them when they say the temperatures will not go up for about ten years. But you believe they're lying or confused when they say it will subsequently go up again.

Nice cherry-picking.

The AGW movement has caused harm to the scientific method by injecting non-scientific concepts, such as consensus and proof through unverifiable computer models, into the process.

Anyone want to tell me the science is settled? Here are a few peer-reviewed scientists who doubt various claims of the AGW alarmists:

"Scientific consensus is bullshit!"

"Look, there's no scientific consensus! ZOMG!"

Make up your mind.

I grew up in a time when I was being told that my family would have to move from Northern Wisconsin because the coming Ice Age would render it uninhabitable. I also heard that, by now, the population of the world would be past 20 billion.

Oh is this strawman burning day? I forgot mine at the barn.

Why people like you constantly have to bring up this same strawman is beyond me. Seriously, I see it all the time. "I was told something wrong by a scientist once... SCIENCE IS WRONG! THERE IS NO SPOON! WHOA MATRIX!"

Please excuse me if I view science riding on the back of politics with skepticism.

You're excused.

Why people like you constantly have to bring up this same strawman is beyond me. Seriously, I see it all the time. "I was told something wrong by a scientist once... SCIENCE IS WRONG! THERE IS NO SPOON! WHOA MATRIX!"
I think you totally missed the point.

The point is not that one incorrect theory is being used as a strawman to attack all science, it is that you are refusing to admit the possibility that this theory could be wrong as well (unless I have misinterpreted as well).

You cannot just say "though every previous prediction of cataclysm I have ever made has turned out to be completely wrong, trust me this time, the world will end in a fiery cataclysm unless you cut off your genitals with a seashell" and be surprised when nobody wants to do it.

Not much, because as the article says, the temeperature would only stay the same because of a cyclical and predictable global cooling cycle will offset the rise. Which if anything helps the global warming awareness movement, since the only reason temperatures will remain stable is a once a century cycle.
No, it will definitely harm the "awareness", since the denialists will not believe that "the only reason temperatures remain stable is a once a century cycle" but will be saying "See? See? I told you there was no such thing as global warming!" So we will keep burning up the oil, all decade long, with no effort to change anything, until in the 2020's the problem comes back with a vengeance and it's too late to do anything remedial anyway.

a natural cooling period will, for about 10 years, offset the affects(or is it effects? I can never remember) of anthropogenic climate change.
The "effects" are the physical results. The "affects" are the emotional responses. Both will probably be offset :p

It is interesting that some of you believe that alarmism and scare tactics have an upside. What the AGW alarmists are attempting to do is change the scope of the issue. Doesn't anyone find it interesting that a natural cycle of cooling is "masking" a warming trend that could very well be another natural cycle? There has been no warming since 1998 and with things going into a cooler cycle everyone is scrambling to convert the message to either:

a) AGW is happening, you just can't tell.

b) It's climate change, not Global Warming. THAT is what we were really talking about silly.

c) All of our unscientific ranting and scaring of school children created awareness for the environment. And that's good.

The AGW movement has caused harm to the scientific method by injecting non-scientific concepts, such as consensus and proof through unverifiable computer models, into the process.

Anyone want to tell me the science is settled? Here are a few peer-reviewed scientists who doubt various claims of the AGW alarmists:

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

I am pretty sure not all of these scientists are employed by Big Oil(!).

I grew up in a time when I was being told that my family would have to move from Northern Wisconsin because the coming Ice Age would render it uninhabitable. I also heard that, by now, the population of the world would be past 20 billion.

Please excuse me if I view science riding on the back of politics with skepticism.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled fear mongering.
I like this guy.

I'd also point out that so far every predicted temperature raise has been off the mark. Scientists usually predict too small an increase.
That demonstrates their models are faulty.

I don't think it should affect anything one way or another, we all need to reduce our carbon footprint regardless.
If carbon doesn't have negative effects, why should we bother?

as I have always said the easiest way to fight global warming is require jet liners to carrier aluminum oxide in their fuels. Comes out in exhaust and reflects solar energy back out to space. Bam no more global warming.

If carbon doesn't have negative effects, why should we bother?

If CO2 doesn't have any negative effects, then our entire models of thermodynamics are heavily flawed and we're all fucked beyond all comprehension.

Although I don't deny man-made global warming, I am skeptical of it.
My main problems with Man Caused Global Warming are these:

1. The earths climate is in constant flux. It has never been and never will constant.
2. The earth has been warmer in recorded history (both the Roman and Medieval warming periods).
3. Historically there doesn't seem to be a correlation between CO2 and temperature. When there is a relation it is in fact the opposite of what you would think. ie The rise in CO2 follows a rise in temperature.
4. The temperature has risen AND fallen in the last century alone even as man caused CO2 output has increased.
5. There is a much stronger correlation between solar activity and Temperature.
6. The man caused global warming theory tends to ignore any other possible causes.
7. The percentage of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is so small compared to the total amount of greenhouse gases as to not be able to create the difference in temperature that we are supposedly causing.
8. The earth is NOT warming up all over as one would expect if greenhouse gases were the main cause. It is in fact warming more in the Northern Hemisphere than in the south.
9. Oh, and there is NO consensus among scientists about the cause of climate change. That is just a lie.

If CO2 doesn't have any negative effects, then our entire models of thermodynamics are heavily flawed and we're all fucked beyond all comprehension.

How so? I have yet to hear this defense.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

Interesting article here. Question here is what would 10 years of no significant temperature increases do to the "Global Warming" movement? Is the current "Global Warming" movement done for? Or do you even believe this story? If not why?

It doesn't say anything of the sort. I wish people would truly read articles like this in-depth instead of skimming them--or worse, like Myrmi, just read the title and interpret what they want out of it.

Essentially, what this is saying is that a cycle--currently NOT FULLY OR EVEN PARTIALLY UNDERSTOOD MAY place a TEMPORARY HOLD on temperature rises for TEN YEARS. Furthermore, it also says that all of the climatologists are loving what this new research is showing. (See, shockingly, they're acting like scientists are supposed to be acting, rather than taking a position and defending it despite evidence to the contrary, a la laymen on both sides of the issue.)

Furthermore, it urges caution about making assumptions from this data. As they said, they don't fully understand what this cycle even really does. It may be that they're wrong about its effects.

In other words, I find this very interesting information and I will keep an eye on what the climatologists--the people who actually know what they're talking about--say and accept what they have to say rather than forming my own opinions. I'm not a climatologist and I thusly have no right to form an "opinion" when said opinion would be highly misinformed at best and dangerously mistaken at worst.

How so? I have yet to hear this defense.

That carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas is based on our current understanding of both thermodynamics and its chemical composition. If CO2 does not act as a greenhouse gas, either one or both would be wrong, and in either situation that'd mean that most of physics and chemistry is wrong as well. And since so much of our technology is based on the assumption that our understanding of physics and chemistry is correct...

How so? I have yet to hear this defense.

Well ,we know that the sun's radiation hits earth mostly as visible light, and it is mostly lost back into space as infrared radiation.

Therefore, because CO2 absorbs Infra-red radiation (to a small degree), the energy leaving the earth will stay around longer because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

That is the jist of the greenhouse gas theory. IMO it is very crude because it ignores sun activity, apogee, perigee and nutation of the earth's orbit, clouds, winds, and lot of other things.

From what I understand, an increase in CO2 will change the pH of the ocean before it raises the temperature of the earth to any alarming levels. That is a bigger threat IMO.

It is interesting that some of you believe that alarmism and scare tactics have an upside. What the AGW alarmists are attempting to do is change the scope of the issue. Doesn't anyone find it interesting that a natural cycle of cooling is "masking" a warming trend that could very well be another natural cycle? There has been no warming since 1998 and with things going into a cooler cycle everyone is scrambling to convert the message to either:

a) AGW is happening, you just can't tell.

b) It's climate change, not Global Warming. THAT is what we were really talking about silly.

A cooling cycle that doesn't result in actual cooling, ie having the temperature drop, would seem to suggest that global warming is happening. Also the article presumes that temperatures will continue to rise after the decade.


The AGW movement has caused harm to the scientific method by injecting non-scientific concepts, such as consensus and proof through unverifiable computer models, into the process.

Scientific consensuses exist. This does not mean the consensus is correct. Does this mean we should we teach creationism along with evolution in schools? Of course not. Einsteins theory of relativity may be proved to be faulty but the general consensus among scientists, for the time being, is that it is correct.

Also about the computer models, the weather and thus climate is inherently chaotic. There are so many variables that its impossible to predict what will happen to near 100% accurately. We listen to weathermen because they are generally better than random guesses. Models that are more accurate predictors will gain ascendescy over less accurate models.



Anyone want to tell me the science is settled? Here are a few peer-reviewed scientists who doubt various claims of the AGW alarmists:

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

I am pretty sure not all of these scientists are employed by Big Oil(!).

It is not settled that entropy is irreversible because science is never fully settled. So what? Given the evidence most climatologists believe Global Warming occurs. I'm pretty sure that few of them are Green leftists.


Please excuse me if I view science riding on the back of politics with skepticism.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled fear mongering.

The science that supposedly disproves or casts skepticism on global warming is also science riding on the back of politics. Forgive us when we view it with skepticism

"Scientific consensus is bullshit!"

"Look, there's no scientific consensus! ZOMG!"

Make up your mind.

The point, which you missed, is that consensus has no place in science and, even if it did, it does not exist. I will try to write more clearly next time. I am also quite certain that you never checked out a single one of those links on that page I posted. You already believe in AGW and refuse to put that belief to the test.

Oh is this strawman burning day? I forgot mine at the barn.

Why people like you constantly have to bring up this same strawman is beyond me. Seriously, I see it all the time. "I was told something wrong by a scientist once... SCIENCE IS WRONG! THERE IS NO SPOON! WHOA MATRIX!"

My "strawman" has nothing on your hysterics. One wonders if you understand the concept. What I see all the time are people such as yourself who believe that capital letters, or shouting, somehow give your words validity.

I guess the fact that the mechanisms of our climate are little understood and vastly complex and that the current spasms of fear are based on computer models alone is beyond your grasp. The past should be a good guide as to how well science is at predicting doom decades away.

But hey, let's vastly change our lifestyles and economies because they got it all down pat now. Right?

Science is wrong all the time. When errors and uncertainties are uncovered you refine your theory to fit your data and observations. You are supposed to be skeptical if you are a scientist. AGW alarmists are True Believers and accept no infidels. A point you make nicely.

You're excused.

You're not.

I am also quite certain that you never checked out a single one of those links on that page I posted.
I did. I did not actually find those peer-reviewed articles to be "doubting global warming", as was claimed about them.

I would respond to the article but, frankly, I don't feel like reading it and this conversation about AGW is much more interesting. :)

First of all, I will separate AGW from environmentalism and good treatment of the environment. I enjoy the environment and think we should keep it around, and I live in places where I can enjoy it and wish to continue enjoying it. I even believe that the world has recently been gradually warming, as it is undeniable; I do not, however, believe in AGW, which is nothing more than a belief. And now I will make several arguments as to why...

The planet has been in existence for approximately 4 billion years, and I seriously doubt that major human involvement in climate cycles for a mere 2000 years is capable of setting that of. It is nothing but base human arrogance to believe such.

An increase in the CO2 levels of the atmosphere has been definitively shown to increase the growth of biomass, especially the algae that live upon the surface of the oceans. These algae are responsible for the vast majority of all CO2 removed from the atmosphere. As the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase, so will the growth of the biomass, which will counteract the CO2 levels and bring the temperature to a stable maximum.

Ice core samples in the past have shown that, in nearly half of all past rises in temperature, A rise in CO2 has occurred after the rise in temperature. That shows a reasonable doubt as to the effect of CO2 on the temperature at all.

We cannot accurately predict the temperature one day from now. The climate is an accumulation of weather trends, and climate temperature is an accumulation of temperatures on many past days or, in this case, future days. Because we cannot predict the temperature tomorrow, I doubt that we can predict the temperature years in the future as the necessary effort increases exponentially as time goes on; this makes it difficult for me to believe that global warming is a reasonably predictable certainty.

Climate cycles are still not well understood, as the presented article shows. It is quite possible that this is nothing but yet another climate cycle we do not understand but, on top of that, have not yet recognized.

Just as you make the argument that oil companies sponsor the scientists who counter global warming arguments, I give to you the proposal that many of the scientists on the global warming bandwagon are sponsored by companies who make environmentally friendly products, whose profits have gone up many thousands of percents since global warming became such a popular belief. I dare to say that the AGW scare is one of the best orchestrated marketing schemes in the history of business. If you wish to contradict me, I dare you to look up, for instance, those who assisted Al Gore in the production of his movie, or who it was that paid for the Bali Conference.

Are those enough arguments for you to spend your time refuting?

Conservatives should be the ones pushing for conservation. Your Bible tells you to. :p


In a world of LIMITED RESOURCES and unlimited population growth, wouldn't constantly working towards conservation of these resources be important?

Conservatives should be the ones pushing for conservation. Your Bible tells you to. :p


In a world of LIMITED RESOURCES and unlimited population growth, wouldn't constantly working towards conservation of these resources be important?

The rapture's coming in a few years anyways. Why should we care?

The rapture's coming in a few years anyways. Why should we care?

The raptures ALWAYS coming in a few years. :D

besides - then conservatives should be MORE worried about following their bibles if the rapture is soon to be upon us.

The raptures ALWAYS coming in a few years. :D

Well obviously it's going to happen this time. All the other times were just practice.

Conservatives should be the ones pushing for conservation.

I would consider myself a traditional conservative, as it is understood in the United States, and I would agree that conservatives should be pushing for conservation. That does not mean, however, that conservatives need to buy into the AGW hysteria. The two are separate and distinct issues, with the term issue being used loosely when it comes to AGW.

Well obviously it's going to happen this time. All the other times were just practice.

for realsies? :eek:


I would consider myself a traditional conservative, as it is understood in the United States, and I would agree that conservatives should be pushing for conservation. That does not mean, however, that conservatives need to buy into the AGW hysteria. The two are separate and distinct issues, with the term issue being used loosely when it comes to AGW.

I'd rather talk about how delicious A&W is.

Many of you who are speaking out against human-caused global warming are pointing out things like climate cycles and whatnot. It's very interesting information, which has been gathered by climatologists and is based on data collection along with computer models and other forms of experimintation.

Here's a question: Why are you only accepting the information that fits your point of view? Why are you only accepting what the climatologists say that supports how you want to see it and ignoring the rest? You do realize it's the same people who told you about climate cycles and how they work that are also telling you that global warming is human caused?

Here's a question: Why are you only accepting the information that fits your point of view? Why are you only accepting what the climatologists say that supports how you want to see it and ignoring the rest? You do realize it's the same people who told you about climate cycles and how they work that are also telling you that global warming is human caused?

First of all, not all of them are doing such. Secondly, it is hardly the only evidence. Thirdly, I am merely pointing out the holes in the theory and the absurdity of accepting it as fact rather than putting forth a theory of my own, in which case your objections would be much more founded.

Also, a theory can be right an infinite number of times and still be disproved by a single piece of contrary evidence.

Who's joking? :confused:

Fail troll is fail.

Recipe for life on Present day earth

Water, Oxigen (cant seem to spell it) and CO2 add a little sunlight mix and watch the results.

CO2 as a toxin is as deceptive as H2O being toxic.

Careful not to let anyone start putting taxes on the air you breath.

CO2 as a toxin is as deceptive as H2O being toxic.

If the water was rising, and threatening to flood disastrously, I would appreciate a warning, instead of carping "Oh why should we listen to those alarmists, everybody knows water goes up and down all the time, no big deal..."

So you believe them when they say the temperatures will not go up for about ten years. But you believe they're lying or confused when they say it will subsequently go up again.

Nice cherry-picking.


Nah not cherry picking. I put the article up for discussion. As for real measurements of temperature we only know for sure what it is right now and in the past. Who knows if it is going to continue to level like it did this past year and or cool a bit. They are guessing at what it will do in the future. So I posted this to show the inconsistency in the "Global Warming" argument. I just find it funny that they are saying well it's going to cool down but it's going to warm right back up in 2020. I look at that and say to myself what the hell do they know what is going to happen in 2020. If they know that then I want the picks for the Superbowl for the next 12 years.

Also not denying their is climate change because the past proves it happens all the time. That term is easily acceptable.

Conservatives should be the ones pushing for conservation. Your Bible tells you to. :p


In a world of LIMITED RESOURCES and unlimited population growth, wouldn't constantly working towards conservation of these resources be important?

As for the Bible saying it who gives a shit. Some things are just obvious.

Also who is saying conservation is bad? One would have to be crazy to think it was bad. I personally never heard anyone say we shouldn't be conserving resources.

It doesn't say anything of the sort. I wish people would truly read articles like this in-depth instead of skimming them--or worse, like Myrmi, just read the title and interpret what they want out of it.



The Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted.

Clearly says in the opening of the article that the Earth's temp may stay roughly the same. So I am not sure what you are answering to.

As for my post I put this up as a question based off the fact the Earth does stay at a somewhat stable temp range. The question was would it have an effect on the "Global Warming" movement. My op did not state that I believe this or not. It did not state that I was implying a "In your face Global Warming" attitude. I was simple throwing it up for discussion and asking if it would have an effect on the movement. So please do not interpret anything else than what I actually wrote.

Oh please, using an article that says that the trend of man made warming might, temporarily, be balanced out by a short term cooling period as a suggestion that this is somehow refuting the concept of man-made global warming is like standing in icewater, setting your hair on fire and saying "overall I'm quite comfortable"

Well obviously it's going to happen this time. All the other times were just practice.

The raptures ALWAYS coming in a few years.
Both of you win the thread.

To lazy to look it up but I remember hearing something like that. Who's bright idea was it?I ran across it the other day ...
http://www.planktos.com/educational/news.htm
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/ESD-SOFeX.html
+
http://www.cem.msu.edu/%7Ecem181h/projects/96/iron/cem.html
http://tracer.env.uea.ac.uk/soiree/index.html
http://newscientist.com/ns/19991002/testingthe.html
http://state-of-coast.noaa.gov/bulletins/html/hab_14/hab.html

What the AGW alarmists are attempting to do is change the scope of the issue.
What is the scope of the issue, clever person there?
Does the word "regulation" factor in anywhere?

http://in.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idINN3055006020080430
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL0110951120080501
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080429120817.htm

Pffft, 2020 is eight years longer than we're going to live anyway.
2012, baby! Thats where the apocolypse is at!
Because a bunch of dead Central Americans known for their tendancy to rip the hearts out of large numbers of people to ensure the sun would rise are CERTAINLY the best people to consult when it comes to when the world is going to end.
I'll stick to my old guys on whatever the equivalent of shrooms was back in the dark ages.

I think you totally missed the point.

The point is not that one incorrect theory is being used as a strawman to attack all science, it is that you are refusing to admit the possibility that this theory could be wrong as well (unless I have misinterpreted as well).
except that 1970's ice-age theory wasn't in fact a theory at all and was nothing more than slight conjecture taken out of context which led to Newsweek publishing it as definite proof. Something they came out a couple of years ago and apologised for.
So really, all those people who use it as 'proof' that we don't have GW (that's Global Warming, not George W unfortunately) are basing their entire understanding of science and nature on one Newsweek article written by a journalist who had perhaps even less understanding and acumen than themselves.
If such a thing is possible.

Here's a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article) to what I'm talkin' bout.

Oh please, using an article that says that the trend of man made warming might, temporarily, be balanced out by a short term cooling period as a suggestion that this is somehow refuting the concept of man-made global warming is like standing in icewater, setting your hair on fire and saying "overall I'm quite comfortable"
That should read, "Statistically, I'm of average temperature". I use it in maths class sometimes to show the absurdity of basing one's conclusions on the mean.

They are guessing at what it will do in the future.

no, they aren't.

I grew up in a time when I was being told that my family would have to move from Northern Wisconsin because the coming Ice Age would render it uninhabitable.
It's amusing because, IMS, we are in an Ice Age. Geographers define an ice age as any period in which earth has polar ice caps.
The "effects" are the physical results. The "affects" are the emotional responses. Both will probably be offset :p

Gotcha.

Although I don't deny man-made global warming, I am skeptical of it.
My main problems with Man Caused Global Warming are these:

5. There is a much stronger correlation between solar activity and Temperature.
hmmm...that would be the correlation that doesn't actually exist then, would it?
http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_738.jpg
climate myths (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650)
'No Sun link' to climate change (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm)
6. The man caused global warming theory tends to ignore any other possible causes.
really? Mind pointing out those theories which don't include all other possible causes? Cause I haven't seen any that state this period of warming is due solely to humanity.

Doesn't anyone find it interesting that a natural cycle of cooling is "masking" a warming trend that could very well be another natural cycle?

what is the non-anthropogenic mechanism for this 'natural cycle'? see, the proposed cooling has a mechanism which describes how it works and why we should expect it. what is yours?

There has been no warming since 1998

gee, that sure doesn't look like willful misrepresentation. not at all!

a) AGW is happening, you just can't tell.

except that you can, and nobody sane and informed denies it.

b) It's climate change, not Global Warming. THAT is what we were really talking about silly.

ipcc, formed in 1988. what, pray tell, do those letters stand for?

Anyone want to tell me the science is settled? Here are a few peer-reviewed scientists who doubt various claims of the AGW alarmists:

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

it is settled and those articles don't seem to say what you or that guy think they say.

granted, i didn't look through all of them, but the ones i did didn't turn up much useful to creationists.

Nah not cherry picking. I put the article up for discussion.

...and you seemed to side with the point in the article that appealed to your bias, and ignored the point in the article that contradicted it. That's cherry picking, dude.

As for real measurements of temperature we only know for sure what it is right now and in the past. Who knows if it is going to continue to level like it did this past year and or cool a bit.

Yeah, let's just toss out the ability of valid science to provide predictions and fling up our hands and say "who knows." Well shit, science tells me that gravity is a constant force, but we only know for sure that it was in the past, so who knows if I jump off this cliff, maybe I'll fall upwards! Who knows! Science is malarky!

They are guessing at what it will do in the future. So I posted this to show the inconsistency in the "Global Warming" argument.

You posted to show what you thought was an inconsistency in an argument you thought someone made. You were wrong on both thoughts. Stop burning strawmen. It's an environmental hazard.

I just find it funny that they are saying well it's going to cool down but it's going to warm right back up in 2020. I look at that and say to myself what the hell do they know what is going to happen in 2020. If they know that then I want the picks for the Superbowl for the next 12 years.

I find it funny you think being able to model climate change is actually equivalent to magical powers.

Also not denying their is climate change because the past proves it happens all the time. That term is easily acceptable.

I really have no idea what you're trying to say here...

Yeah, let's just toss out the ability of valid science to provide predictions and fling up our hands and say "who knows." Well shit, science tells me that gravity is a constant force, but we only know for sure that it was in the past, so who knows if I jump off this cliff, maybe I'll fall upwards! Who knows! Science is malarky!

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Motivational-gravity.jpg

ipcc, formed in 1988. what, pray tell, do those letters stand for?

International Panel on Cglobal Cwarming.

International Panel on Cglobal Cwarming.

ah yes, it's all so clear now

Personally, I'm of the opinion that we should prepare for the worst anyway. If these ten years are years of natural cooling, that might just be the window we need to make much of the move to a post-fossil fuel economy.

except that you can, and nobody sane and informed denies it.
Didn't we already discuss that excellent APEGGA poll of geologists and geophysicists?

That carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas is based on our current understanding of both thermodynamics and its chemical composition. If CO2 does not act as a greenhouse gas, either one or both would be wrong, and in either situation that'd mean that most of physics and chemistry is wrong as well. And since so much of our technology is based on the assumption that our understanding of physics and chemistry is correct...
But that's not really relevant. The question was whether carbon has a net effect on the actual global climate, not whether it causes warming in a theoretical model.

I don't think it should affect anything one way or another, we all need to reduce our carbon footprint regardless.

If you notice, the oil is running out pretty fast. With oil going over 200 dollars a barrel in just two years, we're going to reduce the carbon footprint whether we like it or not.

I also believe this will plunge the world into catastrophic world war in just a few years. NSGers will be killing each other for oil, food, and the last trappings of civilization.

I also believe this will plunge the world into catastrophic world war in just a few years. NSGers will be killing each other for oil, food, and the last trappings of civilization.

And I do believe you are looking forward to this. You'd get to kill EBIL MUSLOMES and feel like a real man for once.

Didn't we already discuss that excellent APEGGA poll of geologists and geophysicists?

what exactly do the confusions of albertan fossil fuel extraction engineers have to do with anything? less than a quarter of the respondents claimed to work with climate change professionally.

also, the creators of that survey are apparently rather ridiculously confused about the subject. for fucks sake, they stuck a rush limbaugh-based idiocy into the thing.

as I have always said the easiest way to fight global warming is require jet liners to carrier aluminum oxide in their fuels. Comes out in exhaust and reflects solar energy back out to space. Bam no more global warming.

Ahh, but then how much energy can be reflected back out into space before that starts causing problems?

what exactly do the confusions of albertan fossil fuel extraction engineers have to do with anything?

Why would anyone listen to an Albertan about climate change anyway? :p

14% by 2050!

I doubt it. The global warm is a natural process that was gonna happen anyway. We're just making it harsher than it should be. The planet needs it in order to through the glacial periods again and renew it's life. Linking or not the global warm will continue it's growth until all the ice in the poles becames water again. After that all the water in the world will vaporize and the new glacial era will start again. All that should take a few thounsad of years.
All we can do is try to make this process slower but who are we kidding? Most of the population don't give a damn about the world and that's very unlikely to change.

I guess we'll have to wait until 2020 to see, if their predictions are correct. I have a question, what would be the reaction if the next 10 years were spent in a significant cooling cycle where it did things like snow in Miami or even Puerto Rico?

I guess we'll have to wait until 2020 to see, if their predictions are correct. I have a question, what would be the reaction if the next 10 years were spent in a significant cooling cycle where it did things like snow in Miami or even Puerto Rico?
Basically, if we somehow went through such a cycle (and we wouldn't, because these processes tend not to happen and reverse this quickly), then that doesn't tell us anything about the climate at a given spot, like Miami.

Much like global warming (ie an increase in average global temperatures) is actually expected to cool down Europe at some point because it will shut down the Gulf Stream (which is a sort of conveyor belt of warm water that brings with it warm air into western Europe from the Caribbean) and we'd see temperatures in Europe more similar to the ones we see at similar latitudes in places like Russia, for example (and roughly speaking, I'm not a climate scientist, so I can't tell you about the specifics of the Russian climate...)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Annual_Average_Temperature_Map.jpg/777px-Annual_Average_Temperature_Map.jpg

You can see it on there.

So please stop talking about global warming and expect it to cause everywhere to be warm. "Climate Change" is a much better word.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

Interesting article here. Question here is what would 10 years of no significant temperature increases do to the "Global Warming" movement? Is the current "Global Warming" movement done for? Or do you even believe this story? If not why?

Global warming is just a giant crock of nonsense in the way it's applied. Is the Earth warming? Seemingly yes, seemingly no. Are humans the end all be all of it, if it's happening, as the "activists" want you to believe? Doubtful...Hell the "green crusaders" are some of the biggest polluters out there.

Global warming is just a giant crock of nonsense in the way it's applied. Is the Earth warming? Seemingly yes, seemingly no. Are humans the end all be all of it, if it's happening, as the "activists" want you to believe? Doubtful...Hell the "green crusaders" are some of the biggest polluters out there.This have any links, or are you content with the post for its own merit?
Curious.

Global warming is just a giant crock of nonsense in the way it's applied. Is the Earth warming? Seemingly yes, seemingly no. Are humans the end all be all of it, if it's happening, as the "activists" want you to believe? Doubtful...Hell the "green crusaders" are some of the biggest polluters out there.

I agree, the burning of the "green" homes in Washington state probably caused more pollution from the toxic substances being expelled into the atmosphere than the homes would have produced over the course of their normal life. While I could list the various chemicals expelled during the combustion process, several of them depend on the various products being used, I'll let people look them up for themselves. It's a very long list. I do know most of them are cyanogens (read cyanide.) Great way to save the planet.

The hell with it, here's a link: http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/reference/plambeck/chem1/p01014a.htm

This have any links, or are you content with the post for its own merit?
Curious.

dude, it was totally full of merit

International Panel on Cglobal Cwarming.

I'd love to see what their research on it. Really, I would be ecstatic if there was an international panel on cglobal cwarming. It sounds like a unique pastry chef technique :p.