Climate Change

[jockser]

Are you actually suggesting that the industrial revolution and it's subsequent fallout have not had any effect on the warming process?can you expain why in medieval times the earths temperature and climate was warmer than today? Were they running around then charging everyone for carbon taxes?? No it was due to solar output.

[jebus]

can you expain why in medieval times the earths temperature and climate was warmer than today? Were they running around then charging everyone for carbon taxes?? No it was due to solar output.

Output that increased over a longer period of time than our own, they never had as sharp a jump in temperature as we have had, that's the difference between then and now, not if they ever had climate change or not

[jockser]

Lads youre getting confused between climate change, which is a natural occurance and MAN MADE climate change which is a myth. The earths temperature and climate is dictacted by the sun.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Read the credentials of these guys and compare them to say Al Gore who they disagree with.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4940.3199.0.0


We are now going into a phase of Global Cooling .... hence the record breaking winter this year

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

http://www.jbs.org/node/7062

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175


http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/Earth_recovering_from_LIA_R.pdf (http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/%7Esakasofu/pdf/Earth_recovering_from_LIA_R.pdf)

http://thenewamerican.com/node/6973

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3

Man Made Global Warming Hoax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY

Man Made Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (1/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro&feature=related

Another Man Made Global Warming Hoax exposed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAC4kfHruQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZA99luseAg

some of those links might get the brain thinking as to the real reason behind man made gloabl warming push.


Output that increased over a longer period of time than our own, they never had as sharp a jump in temperature as we have had, that's the difference between then and now, not if they ever had climate change or notnever? incorrect. the earths temperature went form -50c to +50 in 100 years granted it was a few million years ago but never is a false statement. Also the fact that it was warmer back then and the human race is still around and hasnt been destroyed makes a mockery of the latest fear mongering

[John83]

can you expain why in medieval times the earths temperature and climate was warmer than today? Were they running around then charging everyone for carbon taxes?? No it was due to solar output.
Why do you think it was warmer in 'medieval times'? Which medieval times are these? There's a well known and oft quoted 'medieval warm period', but the science behind it is pretty poor. At best, it's a regional warm period, which is far from the same thing. Even so, even the most generous estimates of temperature in that period put it as cooler than the current global average.

Solar output is interesting, oscillating on a whole pile of different cycles. It explains some of the variations on global temperature over time. It's certainly taken account of in the climate prediction models, which means that it's already been discounted as wholly causing current temperature changes.

[GavinZac]

Why is it that some people can't grasp that 'global warming' doesn't mean "everywhere will get warmer"

[jebus]

never? incorrect. the earths temperature went form -50c to +50 in 100 years granted it was a few million years ago but never is a false statement. Also the fact that it was warmer back then and the human race is still around and hasnt been destroyed makes a mockery of the latest fear mongering

In medieval times they never had that jump was what I was saying, as you well know

[jockser]

Why do you think it was warmer in 'medieval times'? Which medieval times are these? There's a well known and oft quoted 'medieval warm period', but the science behind it is pretty poor. At best, it's a regional warm period, which is far from the same thing. Even so, even the most generous estimates of temperature in that period put it as cooler than the current global average.
ok this is incorrect, have you anything to back this statement up? the links i provide to peer reviewed scientific research explains why.



Why is it that some people can't grasp that 'global warming' doesn't mean "everywhere will get warmer"
Learn the difference between climate change, and man made global warming


In medieval times they never had that jump was what I was saying, as you well know You missed my point. My point was the earth climate amd average temperature was warmer than today. Did they have to pay extra taxes for it? Was there world devestation? This jump in temperature you talk about over the last 100 years and just been totally wiped out by last years average temperature which had a huge drop (jump) downwards. How did this happen??? Was this MAN MADE?? No it was solar output

[GavinZac]

protip hotshot: when you're posting "proof" or references, use Google Scholar rather than Youtube.

[monutdfc]

the links i provide to peer reviewed scientific research explains why.
I clicked on a couple of your links - one was a blog, one was an opinion piece. Peer reviewed scientific research?

[John83]

ok this is incorrect, have you anything to back this statement up? the links i provide to peer reviewed scientific research explains why.
You liked to a US senate report, various newspaper articles and a bunch of youtube videos. There isn't a peer reviewed paper among the lot of them. Also, you made the claim, and a vague one at that. You back it up.

[jockser]

ah the good old (and embarrassing) "Youtube" rebuttal. 15 non youtube links and 4 youtube links.

Care to comment on the other 15 non youtube links ? Have you read any of them? Have you any scientific peer reviewed papers to present or just your sarcy remarks?

[GavinZac]

ah the good old (and embarrassing) "Youtube" rebuttal. 15 non youtube links and 4 youtube links.

Care to comment on the other 15 non youtube links ? Have you read any of them? Have you any scientific peer reviewed papers to present or just your sarcy remarks?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+change&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,630,000 for climate change. (0.14 seconds)

Google Scholar is fantastic, you can look up millions of peer-reviewed facts in moments, rather than relying on youtube attention seekers, 'edgy' blogs and republican "news" sites. As for your '15 links', the majority of them relate to last years temperature which clearly belies your complete ignorance of the topic.

[John83]

can you expain why in medieval times the earths temperature and climate was warmer than today? Were they running around then charging everyone for carbon taxes?? No it was due to solar output.
You make a bold claim, failing to back it up.


Why do you think it was warmer in 'medieval times'? Which medieval times are these? There's a well known and oft quoted 'medieval warm period', but the science behind it is pretty poor. At best, it's a regional warm period, which is far from the same thing. Even so, even the most generous estimates of temperature in that period put it as cooler than the current global average.

Solar output is interesting, oscillating on a whole pile of different cycles. It explains some of the variations on global temperature over time. It's certainly taken account of in the climate prediction models, which means that it's already been discounted as wholly causing current temperature changes.
I reply in kind.


ok this is incorrect, have you anything to back this statement up? the links i provide to peer reviewed scientific research explains why.
I need peer reviewed science?


You liked to a US senate report, various newspaper articles and a bunch of youtube videos. There isn't a peer reviewed paper among the lot of them. Also, you made the claim, and a vague one at that. You back it up.


ah the good old (and embarrassing) "Youtube" rebuttal. 15 non youtube links and 4 youtube links.

Care to comment on the other 15 non youtube links ? Have you read any of them? Have you any scientific peer reviewed papers to present or just your sarcy remarks?
Again, I need peer reviewed science? Your non-youtube links are newspaper articles and blogs. Back up that first claim, mister Pot.

[jockser]

You liked to a US senate report, various newspaper articles and a bunch of youtube videos. There isn't a peer reviewed paper among the lot of them. Also, you made the claim, and a vague one at that. You back it up.
You abviously have not read all the links, there are peer reviewed papers in there. Im not your secretary go and have a look yourself. (hint link with pdf in it is a start)Or dont as the case may be and focus on what i claim. But above all avoid what the scientists are claiming in the links.

Im not going to be replying to all these smart comments individually, that dont address the articles and research presented but are aimed at the messenger. I have presented to you papers and research and artices from scientists that are not been reported about in the main stream irish media. Read them. If you think its bull**** and believe Al Gore then so be it. Explain where and why the scientists are wrong and we can have a debate.


http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+change&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,630,000 for climate change. (0.14 seconds)

Google Scholar is fantastic, you can look up millions of peer-reviewed facts in moments, rather than relying on youtube attention seekers, 'edgy' blogs and republican "news" sites. As for your '15 links', the majority of them relate to last years temperature which clearly belies your complete ignorance of the topic.again learn the difference between climate change and man made global warming. Ignorance is bliss isnt it

[GavinZac]

If you think its bull**** and believe Al Gore then so be it. Explain where and why the scientists are wrong and we can have a debate.Al Gore is not the one doing the scientific research, he used his high profile to attempt to dispell some of the myths around it. The 1.6 million papers on it are by scientists or researchers - it would be interesting to see what percentage of them are disbelieving.

One or two papers disbelieving something is not a basis to call everything else bull****. David Irvining doesn't get away with it, Gavin Menzies doesn't get away with it and string theorists did not get away with it; something passing peer review needs to be taken in context of consensus; When one or two papers on something disagree with the rest, its an even surer acknowledgment that they are incorrect than if there were no papers on it at all; if they had made quality papers there would be thousands of people looking to 'expand' upon their research for their own purposes. There are not.

[jockser]

Al Gore is not the one doing the scientific research, he used his high profile to attempt to dispell some of the myths around it. The 1.6 million papers on it are by scientists or researchers - it would be interesting to see what percentage of them are disbelieving.

One or two papers disbelieving something is not a basis to call everything else bull****. David Irvining doesn't get away with it, Gavin Menzies doesn't get away with it and string theorists did not get away with it; something passing peer review needs to be taken in context of consensus; When one or two papers on something disagree with the rest, its an even surer acknowledgment that they are incorrect than if there were no papers on it at all; if they had made quality papers there would be thousands of people looking to 'expand' upon their research for their own purposes. There are not.
I somewhat agree and what you say here.

But here is your AL GORE hi profile presentation ripped apart
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Despite Al Gore and the UN’s claim that the case is closed on global warming, there are dissenting voices! Besides last week’s conference in New York, besides the 400 skeptical scientists that signed the U.S. Senate minority report released a few months ago, countless other studies show dissent in the scientific community over man’s role in global warming. One Canadian survey of 51,000 earth scientists and engineers by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (apegga), released last week, showed that 68 percent disagreed with the statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.”

Near-unanimous?

Why wasnt this on your TV?

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=1d688937-54b7-48f4-a4be-d6979dada5df&k=65311

edited.

[jmurphyc]

Most of the links you've posted are not peer reviewed. I only counted one. Four of them are from the national post, a newspaper which has been proved to write articles which don't have any facts to back up what they're writing:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post
One of the daily post links is merely a list of the signatories at a climate change conference; how the **** does that back up your article. Did you just google climate change and pick the first few links that came up?

[GavinZac]

I somewhat agree and what you say here.

But here is your AL GORE hi profile presentation ripped apart
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Despite Al Gore and the UN’s claim that the case is closed on global warming, there are dissenting voices! Besides last week’s conference in New York, besides the 400 skeptical scientists that signed the U.S. Senate minority report released a few months ago, countless other studies show dissent in the scientific community over man’s role in global warming. One Canadian survey of 51,000 earth scientists and engineers by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (apegga), released last week, showed that 68 percent disagreed with the statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.”

Near-unanimous?


Of course its "not settled". Scientists aren't theologians, they generally don't accept anything as finalised knowledge unless its a tested physical fact. It would be wrong to say the case is closed as to what exactly is causing climate change but the idea that CO2 emissions have nothing to do with it contradicts decades of research and is further sullied by coming from Republican sources.

In relative terms, 400 scientists believing something does not mean its even a recognisable minority. I'm fairly certain you could find 400 US scientists that believe 9-11 conspiracy theories, 400 scientists that believe man never reached the moon, and a fairly easy job finding 400 scientists that believe the earth is no more than 8000 years old. Unfortunately, by linking to sources like blogs and youtube videos, you place your arguments firmly in this category.



Why wasnt this on your TV?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.htmlEven the first point is full of weasel words and twisting. When you have sentences like "Though Gore does not say that the sea-level rise will occur in the near future, the judge found that, in the context, it was clear that this is what he had meant, since he showed expensive graphical representations of the effect of his imagined 6 m (20 ft) sea-level rise on existing populations, and he quantified the numbers who would be displaced by the sea-level rise" you know people are grasping at straws. He used pictures and an absolute minimum estimation of the population in future times (hint: population goes up in the long run), so this means he's talking of The Day After Tomorrow?

I have no wish to experience another Loose Change.

[jockser]

Most of the links you've posted are not peer reviewed. I only counted one. Four of them are from the national post, a newspaper which has been proved to write articles which don't have any facts to back up what they're writing:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post

you do know how wiki[edia works right?


One of the daily post links is merely a list of the signatories at a climate change conference; how the **** does that back up your article. Did you just google climate change and pick the first few links that came up?Those signatures come from this open letter.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
Now if you had actually read the links you would have known that instead of that embarrassing comment

[jmurphyc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post[/url]

you do know how wiki[edia works right?
Those signatures come from this open letter.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
Now if you had actually read the links you would have known that instead of that embarrassing comment

Well perhaps you should have linked to that instead of the signatories page, otherwise it makes you look stupid. I'm going to read your peer reviewed link later, but the fact that you've only provided one and the rest is all blogs is a lot. I don't really pay too much attention to climate change, but a lot of the articles that you've linked to (I've read a few of them) seem to be based purely on assumption.

[GavinZac]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post[/url]

you do know how wiki[edia works right?Yeah, you can add anything you like - but if its not got a (reputable) source, its freely removable by anyone who disagrees.

[jmurphyc]

Yeah, you can add anything you like - but if its not got a (reputable) source, its freely removable by anyone who disagrees.

Exactly. The wiki article that I posted was actually sourced. I'm not going to read links to articles from a paper that has shown to have a biased agenda.

[jockser]

In relative terms, 400 scientists believing something does not mean its even a recognisable minority. I'm fairly certain you could find 400 US scientists that believe 9-11 conspiracy theories, 400 scientists that believe man never reached the moon, and a fairly easy job finding 400 scientists that believe the earth is no more than 8000 years old. Unfortunately, by linking to sources like blogs and youtube videos, you place your arguments firmly in this category.god you are getting lazy resorting to this kind of a comment. read the credentials of those scientists and present to me a list of 400 scientists with similar credentials who say that gloabal warming is man made. You say its a fairly easy job off you go


and a fairly easy job finding 400 scientists that believe the earth is no more than 8000 years old i call you on this. do it! get me those names Scientists with credentials like the 400 scientists mentioned above. you see you wont will you? but youll make stupid lazy comments and with nothing to back them up. what a waste of time!


Even the first point is full of weasel words and twisting. When you have sentences like "Though Gore does not say that the sea-level rise will occur in the near future, the judge found that, in the context, it was clear that this is what he had meant, since he showed expensive graphical representations of the effect of his imagined 6 m (20 ft) sea-level rise on existing populations, and he quantified the numbers who would be displaced by the sea-level rise" you know people are grasping at straws. He used pictures and an absolute minimum estimation of the population in future times (hint: population goes up in the long run), so this means he's talking of The Day After Tomorrow?

I have no wish to experience another Loose Change.
why just pick that arguement , continue and comment on the other 34 arguements. we look forward to your insight.

[John83]

jockser, I've picked one of your links at random. I've no intention of spending all day reading the others, as you've a tendency to meet a rebuttal of something with twenty new links of similar quality.

The link I picked, using the uber-scientific "eeney-meeney-miney-moe method"
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
This is a newspaper article by a journalist with no science qualifications he's publicly admitting to. That's okay. What's in the article? Some peer reviewed science, perhaps? Let's take a look.

The first half of the article is given over to anecdotes about the severity of the winter this year. "OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades." So far, so good. I'm actually impressed - for a journalist, it's pretty reasonable.

Then he discusses some work by Toggweiler and Russell, which suggests that the Gulf stream depends more on some cyclical wind currents than water temperature gradients. Interesting. Then,

Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt. What? No. That's not what their result said at all. It says nothing about manmade warming. It said nothing about polar ice melt. It says that melting polar ice won't stop the Gulf stream after all. Nothing else. There's no link to the work though. Maybe they said that, but the journalist felt he could put it better. It's shoddy journalism, but it's possible. So I looked up their work, and found the relevant paper http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/full/nature06590.html (published in Nature, no less; impressive). It doesn't say anything about manmade climate change either. In fact, it basically says what I was interested in, and nothing of the rest. So, either these prominent scientists were speaking beyond the evidence, or a journalist who regularly writes opinion pieces against anthropological global warming and who has no science training is talking out of his ass. Either way, I'm not so impressed with this quarter of the article.

The article is rounded off by some more anecdotal stuff, including two indirect quotes from scientists.

Finally, to wash off the nasty unscientific feeling to my post, here's some science, as reported by the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm on this peer reviewed academic paper http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf. Just to quote from the news report,

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.
"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.
"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.And the bit you won't like, from a third party

"This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity" - Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.

[jockser]

Well perhaps you should have linked to that instead of the signatories page, otherwise it makes you look stupid. nah just read the links before commenting. That link is included in the links i posted.Your comment was the stupid one not mine.[/QUOTE]


but a lot of the articles that you've linked to (I've read a few of them) seem to be based purely on assumption.you mean like global warming is man made?

[GavinZac]

i call you on this. do it! get me those names Scientists with credentials like the 400 scientists mentioned above. you see you wont will you? but youll make stupid lazy comments and with nothing to back them up. what a waste of time!
You're seriously asking me to 'prove' something which is common knowledge? Young Earth Creationists are 2-a-penny in the USA, and its even quite a burgeoning business market too.

http://www.answersingenesis.org

[jockser]

jockser, I've picked one of your links at random. I've no intention of spending all day reading the others,
id urge you to read them over the next week and then decide on whether global warming is man made.

Qouting someone from the UN's IPCC is like me quoting George Bush to prove there were WMD in Iraq. How manny Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary?
Read what 400 earth and weather scientists say about the IPCC
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

e.g.
Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."


OK here is my point. In my opinion and of others in here is that the debate on " global warming is man made " is not over. Right? It may be proven in the future that this indeed is fact and all scientists agree. But these guys have gone full steam ahead with new carbon taxes on everything and charges that effect all of us even though there is no consensus. Thats what ****es me off.


You're seriously asking me to 'prove' something which is common knowledge? Young Earth Creationists are 2-a-penny in the USA, and its even quite a burgeoning business market too.

http://www.answersingenesis.orgthats your proof of 400 scientists with credentials??? ok i see

[GavinZac]

But these guys have gone full steam ahead with new carbon taxes on everything and charges that effect all of us even though there is no consensus. Thats what ****es me off.Do you see though, regardless of climate change, that a civilisation like our own should no longer be reliant upon non-renewable power sources? Irrespective of whether you believe the earth was created in 6000BC or that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere has no effect on the earth, simple economics should point out that building markets upon scarcity is fairly silly in the long run.

Continuing with the bizarre anti-environmentalism/pro-israel axis, unsuprisingly "Science and Policy" turns out to be a particularly right wing group in a particularly right wing country.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/worse_than_global_warming_8_14_2007/

[jockser]

Do you see though, regardless of climate change, that a civilisation like our own should no longer be reliant upon non-renewable power sources? Irrespective of whether you believe the earth was created in 6000BC or that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere has no effect on the earth, simple economics should point out that building markets upon scarcity is fairly silly in the long run.agree 100%

my arguement is on all these new taxes due to man made global warming which is not a concensus in the scientific community

[Boh_So_Good]

my arguement is on all these new taxes due to man made global warming which is not a concensus in the scientific community

Well the only reason politicians have embrace Global Warming from Bush to Brown to Bertie is that it finally gives the means to tax the weather.

The Canadian provience of Quebec already has a carbon tax to fight global warming. However look at the current news from there:




Quebec children get holiday as snow piles on roofs
Reuters - Tuesday, March 18

MONTREAL - Several dozen schools were expected to remain shut this week in
the Canadian province of Quebec over fears their roofs may collapse under
the weight of near record amounts of snow, officials said on Monday.Four
people have been killed in the mainly French-speaking Canadian province of
7.6 million after roofs collapsed under the weight of accumulated snow,
though none of the incidents involved schools.

To date, some 350 centimetres of snow has fallen in the Montreal area,
approaching a record level of 383 centimetres set in 1971.


How can Quebec continue to justify taxation measures related to global warming when their school children are in danger from being crushed by record snows.

According to Al Gore we should of been feeling the first noticeable effects of a "balmy Northern winters in 2008".

[dahamsta]

Enough.