Climate Change

[osarusan]

"global warming" stopped in 1998.

Global Warming was and is a fraud.

Did you read this post I wrote on the first page. I quoted the IPCC's you respect so much.

I'll quote them again.
(Here's the link to the IPCC reports - http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Temperature Extremes
It is very likely that heat waves will be more intense, more
frequent and longer lasting in a future warmer climate. Cold
episodes are projected to decrease signifi cantly in a future warmer
climate. Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are
projected to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures,
leading to a decrease in diurnal temperature range. Decreases
in frost days are projected to occur almost everywhere in
the middle and high latitudes, with a comparable increase in
growing season length.

Cold episodes are projected to decrease signifi cantly in a future warmer
climate. Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are
projected to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures,
leading to a decrease in diurnal temperature range. = The world will get hotter.

Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750),
the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming
influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly
exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as
solar changes and volcanic eruptions.

Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750),
the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming
influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly
exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as
solar changes and volcanic eruptions. = the world is getting hotter and we're causing most of it. But even though you say you've read the IPCC's you encourage us to read to find the truth, you say this in your opening post in this thread -

It has got to the stage now where if I hear another gob****e warning about "Man Made Global Warming" I just have to laugh.

And finally, on your claim that we're talking about 'climate change' and you're talking about an unrelated thing called 'global warming' -

Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the
observed global warming over the last 50 years.

They even use the words "Global Warming".

[kingdom hoop]

Yeah just on the semantics, the two terms are half synonymous. Basically global warming is the general phenomenon, with climate change more about the ramifications.

In other words, climate change is the more embracing term. I wouldn't be too fussy over which is used, but if the dim-witted think global warming will solely result in a few more nice summer days then I'd favour propagating climate change so as to plant a little seed of doubt in their minds about the potential changes. Global warming just sounds a little benign. Climate change on the other hand!

Problem is, our weather system is a complex, interwoven fabric. Snag one little thread and the whole thing could spectacularly unravel. We really don't know what will happen. That's why it's so important to mitigate the effects as much as possible. The 'funny' thing is that a lot of the issues are kind of virtuous, and not so virtuous as the case may be, circles. Like where you save money by using less power, which is good. Or when you spew tonnes of carbon into the air while cutting swathes of the forests that devour so much of the nasty carbon, which is not so good.

I find the whole debate a bit over-whelming to be truthful. Can anyone comfort me and say 'yes, we're doing ok, cutting the Amazon rainforest down for profit is a good idea'?

[dahamsta]

Let's be honest, the phrase "climate change" was invented specifically to deal with people that are unable to grasp the complexities of the problem.

And by complexities I mean "slightly more difficult than 2+2". And by people I mean "morons".

adam

[Boh_So_Good]

quoted the IPCC's you respect so much.

Respect the ICPP, moi? Nope.

They are a politically motivated club of data-cherry pickers. Even their leader who flies from New York to Mumbai to watch cricket matches accepts that Global Warming ceased in 1998. However the facts do matter. Its the dogma which determines the "truth".

Last week, I watched a BBC documentary on Jim Jones "socialist, sustainable
paradise" and the appalling loss of life which it resulted in back in
1979 and it was an incredible piece of television. Compelling and very
upsetting. What it also brought home was that the most pro-Jones fanatics tended to be middle-class and above, college educated types who enforced this lifestyle using dreams of utophia first, paranoia secondly, then murder later when followers began to question the cult.

So much of the same psychological dynamic at Jonestown, you can
clearly see it again with the Al Gore/Global Warming folks. But this is even more frightening as mass media allows this to happen on a global scale
these days and people in the West are even more stupid and sheep-like
than there were back in the 1970's.

As long as there are people who want some uthopian dream and there is
a leader to exploit them it will always happen. Matters not what their
education level is. In fact, I would say the more educated a person
is, the more they are likely to lack real social intelligence and
therefore more more prone to be taken in by cult leaders types.

You can manipulate just about anyone with a false promises which play
on their insecurities, and then later paranoia.

I would not be surprised if any of the eco-projects around the world
don't end up like Jonestown. Watching the Jonestown story at the
begining it was just like these "sustainable" communities with
socialist ideals we see springing up all over with civil servants and
other middle-class easily manipulated types being controlled as soon
as their dream starts to wobble.

The whole Global Warming crowd are all potential Jonestowns in the
making.

If you listen to how Al Gore slowly and patronisingly speaks on TV or
in public, and then Jim Jones at Jonestown on the speaker system. It
is spine-chilling.

Like the Global Warming the henchmen in Jonestown (and all other
cults) was white, suburban, middle-class, college educated idealists
who were cultivated from the Hippy movement in San Francisco while
Jones was based there.

The profile of the average climate activist is the same as the average
cult member in Western societies. ie: white, suburban, middle-class,
college educated idealist.

More interestingly, and tragic (but equally typically) is that these
white kids whom Jim Jones recruited were walking around San Francisco
going on about "peace love, understanding and getting back to nature
and away from 'the Man'. These same white, suburban, middle-class,
college educated idealists last act on this earth was to slaughter
hundreds of poor inner-city African Americans with poisioned Kool-Aid
made by "the Man'.

It is quite possible, that Jim Jones eco-socialist, organic veg
growing white, suburban, middle-class, college educated idealists
slaughtered more African-Americans in a couple of hours than the KKK
did in a century. Likewise climate activist are trying to stop people
in the third world for enjoying a white, suburban, middle-class,
college educated idealists lifestyle.

Ironic isn't it.

The same people who go around looking for an ideal world, are always
driven by a deep rooted need to control others. Be it though statutory
enforcements, cults and as seen at Jonestown, mass murder in order to
maintain their self-delusion as saviours of others. Hence why so many
civil servants tend to involved in these "climate crisis"
organisations they form.

Like I said, only matter of time before we hear about a mass murder at
some eco-sustainable project populated by white, suburban, middle-
class, college educated idealists. Cults always end up like this.

Living in Ireland I would love some mild winters and even warm
summers. Problem is we have been promised "balmy Irish winters" by the
AGW brigade for about 5 year now and we just got through our coldest,
most frosty and snowy winter in the years. Seems to be happening in
most other countries as well this winter.

So who is taking the ****? People like me who say the AGW stuff is
hysterical hype, or the great AGW minds who are tell me I do not need
a winter coat anymore when I have bought 3 since the first IPCC
report? Maybe if I was a climate change activist jet setting to Bali
to 'save the earth' I might need less winter wear, but that's not my
reality most winters.

There is no proof of either god or global warming. Both are faith
based notions. Forcing AGW dogma on society is just as bad as forcing
religion on them. Without the tangible proof, leave people to insulate
their own homes, install solar panels, change to the horrible CFC
bulbs and drive hybrids if THEY CHOSE TO DO THIS. This should be a
personal choice.

Anyways a western family saving money on energy is fallacy as they
will just spend the money they saved on something else which uses
energy. So the whole concept of saving energy at the micro level is
pointless and it is in reality just transferring energy usage from
your own home to something else. This is not science. This is not
energy conservation. This is not even common sense. It's a feel-good
"eco-confessional" which superficially cleanses the carbon sins.

It's the creepy control-freak nature of the Global Warmers which
****es me off. I saw the same mentality among the catholic church big-
wigs in this country up until the 1980s. It's the same bull**** and
it's the same folk who are drawn to this notion of using AGW to
control society in the same way the catholic bishops did in the past.

Oh and like the catholic bishops, double-standards and hypocracy
appears to be a concept completely lost on the AGW crusaders. (see jet
setting to Bali in order to tell the rest of us not to fly)

To be honest, I am looking forward to a world were the weather will be
more of less what it has been for hundreds of years with normal
fluctuations and cycles. Because that's what we are getting regardless
of human or divine intervention.

[dahamsta]

You're copying and pasting your posts now? Are you copying and pasting your own content, or someone elses?

It's "IPCC" btw. It's right there in the text you quoted, like 5 or 10 words back.



adam

[Boh_So_Good]

[You'll need to type that again without the language and the personal stuff, sorry. --adam]

[osarusan]

how about posting some links to back up your claims?

[Boh_So_Good]

[You'll need to type that again without the language and the personal stuff, sorry. --adam]

I can't recall what I posted. But no doubt it was absolutely brilliant.

The gist of it being... that the day I see a Farmer driving his tractor through Clones with his nuts half-hanging out of a thong while drinking Pina Coladas then I'll believe in Global Warming.

Is this acceptable?

[dahamsta]

It's acceptable if you want to continue looking like you don't comprehend the problem in any way, shape or form, certainly. Well done on missing the point of the debate entirely.

adam

[osarusan]

The gist of it being... that the day I see a Farmer driving his tractor through Clones with his nuts half-hanging out of a thong while drinking Pina Coladas then I'll believe in Global Warming.

Is this acceptable?

That's far more scientific than the IPCC reports. Thanks.

[Boh_So_Good]

That's far more scientific than the IPCC reports. Thanks.

Actually, it probably is. But Don't take my word for it


Galactic Cosmic Rays and Climate by Charles A Perry from Science Direct
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle...%20Charles.pdf

Long range solar forecast - Science@NASA
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._longrange.htm

Professor Paul Reiter’s testimony to the House of Lords
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../12/12we21.htm

E. Hanna and J. Capellan, “Recent Cooling in Coastal Southern Greenland and Relation with the North Atlantic Oscillation,” Geophysical Research Letters 30 (2003): 10.1029/2002GL015797
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL015797.shtml

Let me know when you read through there and I'll posts hundreds more by other "morons who can't add 2+2"

**************************

IPCC Avoids Scientific Method And Should Be Reformed Or Disbanded

Dec 14 2007

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...t&task=view&id...

The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the claim that "the
globe is warming" and "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are
responsible". Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.

To start with the "global warming" claim. It is based on a graph showing
that "mean annual global temperature" has been increasing.

This claim fails from two fundamental facts

1. No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any
period, has ever been made.

How can you derive a "global average" when you do not even have a single
"local" average?

What they actually use is the procedure used from 1850, which is to make
one measurement a day at the weather station from a maximum/minimum
thermometer. The mean of these two is taken to be the average. No
statistician could agree that a plausible average can be obtained this
way. The potential bias is more than the claimed "global warming.

2. The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth's surface, mostly
near to towns. No statistician could accept an "average" based on such a
poor sample. It cannot possibly be "corrected"

It is of interest that frantic efforts to "correct" for these
uncorrectable errors have produced mean temperature records for the USA
and China which show no overall "warming" at all. If they were able to
"correct" the rest, the same result is likely

And, then after all, there has been no "global warming", however
measured, for eight years, and this year is all set to be cooling. As a
result it is now politically incorrect to speak of "global warming". The
buzzword is "Climate Change" which is still blamed on the non-existent
"warming"

[monutdfc]

Professor Paul Reiter’s testimony to the House of Lords
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../12/12we21.htm
[/url]

Let me know when you read through there and I'll posts hundreds more by other "morons who can't add 2+2"

Ok, you do that and I'll discredit your sources one-by-one.
Here's one for starters:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/per...eet.php?id=421

[monutdfc]

Actually, don't do that. If you want to believe crackpots on the net you do that. I'll stick to believing peer-reviewed scientists (ie the IPCC).
BTW your 4th link above is consistent with climate change theory and the observed slowing of the gulf stream/north atlantic drift.

Ha ha, just spotted the google-ad on this page:- a link to the Smithsonian Ecocentre, presented by ConocoPhillips!

[pete]

Sure we recycle or reuse, we get energy saving bulbs & such but does any one actually sacrifice anything for "the environment"? Take public transport & leave car at home, cancel foreign holiday etc...?

[monutdfc]

Sure we recycle or reuse, we get energy saving bulbs & such but does any one actually sacrifice anything for "the environment"? Take public transport & leave car at home, cancel foreign holiday etc...?

Good question. I just had a big crisis of conscience with the wife over a foreign holiday we just booked (last one I reckon!) She shares an office with a climate change scientist who laughed at her even giving it a second thought, which amazed me.
I cycle to work (and I have a car space), and holidayed in the UK for the past 2 years travelling by boat (although I have since checked out fast ferry emission figures which aren't great). Take the train or bus whenever possible. It's ****ing against the wind though - individual actions of course help, but without political will for wholesale change meaningful changes won't happen - the plastic bag tax, drink driving, speeding, etc the general mass of Irish people just won't stop doing things without rules and enforcement. Also, and this is understandable, the general public sees climate change as just another Y2K or the threat of nuclear war - 'they' will fix it before it happens; there is no tangible effects in the western world (or no uncomfortable ones anyway). It's like telling teenagers not to smoke, and it is understandable.
Problem is, it could be too late when it is evident - if the permafrost melts and releases millions of tonnes of CO2 this causes a feedback loop and the process accelerates.

There are many ways for a country to reduce its emissions without impinging greatly on quality of life. Proper planning is one. Higher building standards is another. But the government delayed on that one until after the building boom. Decent public transport is a third.

[Boh_So_Good]

Ok, you do that and I'll discredit your sources one-by-one.
Here's one for starters:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/per...eet.php?id=421

Ah so it all funded by Big Oil companies and every single scientist who rejects the Al Gore matra is either working for Bush or is an internet crackpot.

Thanks for your balanced view on the matter. Now go buy some persil in the Green container so you can save polar bears.

PS: The Chinese New Year celebrations today all over China were cancelled during to the worst snowfalls in generations. But they must all be working for big oil and internet crackpots as well. Here is a thing. I guess the reason why the world is recording unusually old temps north of the tropics this winter is that the Earth itself is being paid off by Exxon. There ya go.

How much longer before the famers in Cavan start buying thongs is it now?

[dahamsta]

Just the ones you point out Bohs_So_Good. Pretty much everything you've posted so far has been refuted. You're on a hiding to nothing my good man, give up while you're... behind.

[pete]

I don't think I do anything to help lessen fossil fuel emissions that inconveniences me. I think anything I do is not by design. I would not think of cancelling a foreign holiday as good for my mental health

[rebs23]

Since the beginning of time we have been listening to people telling us that the end of the world is nigh such as the second coming of christ, the nuclear bomb and now climate change/global warming. All the efforts to alter/affect climate change seem to be proscriptive and seek to control ones liberty which is why people like Boh so good immediately write off the arguments as just another piece of crackpot nonsense.

However no matter whether you believe in climate change or not the general direction that the proponents of climate change believe we should be going in are very worthwhile/neccessary and will need to happen anyway. eg reduce, reuse and recycle (stop wasting our natural resources, oil won't last forever, cutting down our oxygen supply in the amazon, less pollutants in the atmosphere, alternative fuels for transport, more public transport, etc).

I cannot think of a single reasons why these are not good things so for me the argument about whether it is happening or not are irrelevant. The argument for me is how we go about getting these things to happen. Nuclear power, hydrogen fuel cells (stroage problems), bio fuels, etc. For me economic incentives is the way forward, punative measures just won't work in the long run.

[Boh_So_Good]

Since the beginning of time we have been listening to people telling us that the end of the world is nigh such as the second coming of christ, the nuclear bomb and now climate change/global warming. All the efforts to alter/affect climate change seem to be proscriptive and seek to control ones liberty which is why people like Boh so good immediately write off the arguments as just another piece of crackpot nonsense.

Also there is a very real commercial engine behind these Endtime hysterias. It sells newspapers, documentaries, books and DVDs. Look how fantastically rich Al Gore has become since he became an 'evironmentalist' by living in a house which uses the same electricity as a factory and flies all over the world telling the rest of us we cant.

However no matter whether you believe in climate change or not the general direction that the proponents of climate change believe we should be going in are very worthwhile/neccessary and will need to happen anyway. eg reduce, reuse and recycle (stop wasting our natural resources, oil won't last forever, cutting down our oxygen supply in the amazon, less pollutants in the atmosphere, alternative fuels for transport, more public transport, etc).

I absolutely agree 100% that protecting the environment is something we have to do. But for real reasons and not crazy fraudulent ones like AGW. The Global Warming stuff is only being embraced by politicians because it allows all kinds of juicy revenue oppertunities through Carbon Taxation and major corporations love it because they can flog all kinds Low-Carbon products. That the irony of all this. The pro AL Gore types are just being suckered in by mass media, to buy into mass consumerism. This is not how we should go about protecting the environment.

I cannot think of a single reasons why these are not good things so for me the argument about whether it is happening or not are irrelevant. The argument for me is how we go about getting these things to happen. Nuclear power, hydrogen fuel cells (stroage problems), bio fuels, etc. For me economic incentives is the way forward, punative measures just won't work in the long run.

Well you can forget Nuclear power for Ireland because the Global Warming brigade here are all against it cos they got their science on the issue from Christy Moore in the same way they get their Climate science from Al Gore. you would have to deliver it wrapped in some pop culture or hollywood manner for the Global Warming types to accept it. They need a Manchester United type hype of any issue before they can grasp it.

Nuclear power is far too sensible an option for the Global Warming shower to either understand nor accept. They prefer to feel ethical by buying the consumer product which has a photo of a polar bear on it. Cos, ya know, they are loike sooooooooooooooo enlightened.