Global Warming, just a hoax?

[beej]

I wonder when humanity has succeeded in wiping itself off the earth (and of course assuming there is still an earth left) who will takeover. Richard Dawkins reckons it will be rats. I have always thought that ants are so busy they must be planning something big. And cats always look at you in a 'one day I will be running this place' kind of way. Maybe they are, they seem to have a very good life.

Cockroaches.

They can survive nuclear radiation.

They can survive intense cold, intense heat and almost anything else you can throw at them. Except a shoe.

Global Warming is just another mechanism for the DNC and leftist anti-everything generation to control the general populace of idiots on the planet. lol

Well Dawkins did see it as almighty battle between cockroaches and rats, he just thought rats would win in the end. (the Ancestors Tales)

ptfff Robbie, Quoting anything other than ''Gun Monthly'', ''Maw and Paws Farm Yard Fun'' and ''Red Neck Weekly'' will just fall on def ears.

[Scuba_Referee]

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com

[Neo]

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com

I'd love to read some solid disproof, or even a vaguely decent argument against AGW. But this isn't it.

They feature a paper by Dr Leonard Weinstein, who is an Engineer not a climatoglogist. He talks about recent cooling which he calls a trend, but it's too short to be significant and does not so far contradict AGW claims. He also uses the favourite hack of quoting 1970 and 1941. Boring. He talks about changes in temperature from 1000's of years ago without talking about their causes. So we're meant to conclude that temperature increases just happen for no reason? This is pseudo science, complete hack material from an amateur climatologist with no qualifications.

They talk about accidentally causing an ice-age by trying to avert global warming! It's clear at this point that these people are idiots.

Antarctic sea ice again. Yes it's thicker in places, it's colder in places. It's also warmer in places, and it's thinner than it's been for 1000's of years in places. This has zero effect on AGW credibility.

Predictions of a new ice age because of a slight 4 year drop (although still high temprature during the last few years). And they call the GW scientists alarmists!

A weather man called Mark Johnson wrote some incredibly weak propaganda based on local minima and the fact that CO2 isn't a pollutant. Sad.

That's it for the 1st page. I gave up after that. Just weak propaganda from people who don't understand what they're talking about unfortunately.

[warren]

Very scary

With apologies to Max Born and Niels Bohr, we now have the Copenhagen Interpretation of Global Warming. It is, in a shallow sense, like the original Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanical formalism from the 1920s, establishing, beyond immediate doubt, that the observer is an essential and irreducible feature of any scientific research. A very shallow sense. In fact, I am joking, in my usual rather arcane way.

So now I can start explaining my joke.

Thanks to unprecedented international funding, all kinds of studies are now washing in about the effect of rising temperatures on everything from polar ice caps to tropical rainforests, all of them commissioned on the dubious premise that man-made global warming is "settled science."

Studies of whether the premise itself was true have gone begging, and indeed, anyone applying to do such research will by now have found himself unwarmed, and at best skulking around the New York conference of climate-change skeptics earlier this week, with 600 underfunded colleagues, mostly highly qualified scientists.

Whereas 2,000 of the world's best-funded elite were meeting in Copenhagen -- the number of scientists fleshed out with large packs of politicians, bureaucrats, and corporate poseurs. The purpose of that conference was to "move beyond" the 2007 report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It was to harvest the more recent studies for material to support even grander predictions of doom if the IPCC's 192 sovereign sponsors do not immediately create a global green dictatorship.

With the public at large, the skeptics are obviously winning. Polls show increasing general indifference to global warm-mongering, compensated by increasing worry about the state of the world economy. This does not, of course, mean the doom-sayers are wrong -- in democracies, the people are often wrong -- but it does help explain the volume and pitch of the Copenhagen pronouncements. On the other hand, we are told by the old-fashioned press that many of the delegates expressed concern that the level of shrieking had become self-defeating.

The problem, for the purveyors of global environmental doom, is one that emerges in any system of scientific inquiry when it becomes self-referential. The academics who thrive in such an environment may actually believe in the cause they espouse; but they are also paid to believe in it. The various systems of peer-review -- which emerged with a vengeance after the Second World War, and have continued to mutate into something that would have sunk almost every major scientific advance in previous history -- have themselves become deeply corrupted. What was intended at first as an administrative mechanism to reduce the amount of sheer flakery in scientific journals has become a policing system to enforce scientific orthodoxy.

And the problem with that is, there can be no such thing as scientific orthodoxy. Free empirical enquiry includes testing the premises as well as the results; and for skeptics, a perpetual open season on both.

Nor was science traditionally the monopoly of a credentialed class. Once again, it must be stressed that major advances in all the sciences have as often come from rank amateurs as from seasoned professionals.

Nor is it surprising that this should be so, for the ability to see questions whole, to apply logic and even common sense dispassionately, is hardly restricted to those who are coagulated into the specialized details of a subject.

I have recently seen four "major studies" expressing tremendous alarm about the rate at which ice may be melting towards the earth's poles. I do not have to doubt the actual findings, which are in several cases quite interesting (about things like underlying water strata, that help skid ice sheets out to sea, the effects of which are only now being measured), in order to doubt the use to which these studies are put.

I merely observe that, depending on the study, large gaps exist in the reasoning. Things like, 1) the non-existence of historical comparisons; 2) the persistent focus on non-representative, but most easily accessible, coastal localities in Greenland and Antarctica; 3) an under-appreciation of seasonal fluctuations; 4) the non-correlation with human activity, or worse, whimsical correlations. Et cetera.

But the main point is much simpler than that. Of course the ice is melting, and of course sea levels are rising. They have been doing so continuously for the last 18,000 years -- since the maximum glaciation towards the end of the last Ice Age. Leave out the context (as journalists well know) and you can make almost anything look Very Scary.

David Warren

[grezzzy_greer]

The chap who wrote that article quoted above is David Warren, and a quick search to establish his credentials and the expertise upon which he bases his views turned up a Wikipedia entry (about to be deleted I must admit) that was less than a glowing reference...I quote:

"According to autobiographical information provided on his website, Warren is a Canadian of Anglo-Celtic origins. He left school after tenth grade and pursued self-directed studies and travels in Asia in the early 1970s. He has two sons, one born with Down syndrome.

Writings

Warren writes two international-affairs columns and a general essay per week for the Ottawa Citizen, which he joined in late 1996. His writings on international affairs are strongly supportive of the war in Iraq and U.S. president George W. Bush. He often writes about the West's response to Islamic terrorism and Islam in general. He has stated that several years spent as an elementary school student at an international school in Pakistan in the 1960s give him some insight into Islam.

Warren is a recent convert to Roman Catholicism and a social conservative; his columns frequently discuss issues of social policy, such as Canada's endorsement of same-sex marriage. He is argueably the most socially conservative collumnist currently active in Canada, representing an ideology that can be summarized as neo-falangist. He has expressed qualified support for the Conservative Party of Canada[1]Warren has written a series of columns in The Ottawa Citizen contesting the theory of evolution. He has argued that Darwinism, Marxism, and Freudian psychology are self-referential and the root of many social problems in the modern world.

Warren was founder and editor of The Idler, a conservative Canadian magazine that existed from 1984 to 1993."

I am not sure, but I tend to side with the climatologists and the observed facts re Global Warming and Climate Change. To me it is pretty irrelevant as to who caused it - but of much greater relevance is the fact that it is happeneing - the nay-sayers seem to be happy to decry any involvement by mankind and say this is all a natural cycle...

Oh...well I will be much happier knowing that my world is being destroyed by a natural cycle instead of a man-made one...thats OK then...

[robbie36]

I have never found weather forecasters much good. Some tell us the world will warm up while others that as global warming will melt into the gulf stream it will turn the UK into a major skiing destination.

Anyone can read the winds and workout that humanity will succeed in destroying itself one way or another within the next few hundred years, so I doubt this will be much of an issue. It irritates me slightly that whoever succeeds in destroying the world will be related to ancestor of mine who lived probably a maximum of 3,000 years ago.

At least the dinosaurs had the decency to leave everything in tact after the meteor hit. I doubt we will be as generous.

[zeusbheld]

Very scary

With apologies to Max Born and Niels Bohr, we now have the Copenhagen Interpretation of Global Warming. It is, in a shallow sense, like the original Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanical formalism from the 1920s, establishing, beyond immediate doubt, that the observer is an essential and irreducible feature of any scientific research. A very shallow sense. In fact, I am joking, in my usual rather arcane way.

the author of that rant gives himself far too much credit. i'd have used "predictable" and "ham-handed" instead of "arcane."

So now I can start explaining my joke.

any joke that needs explaining is already an epic failure. best to move on to the next joke rather than sink further into a crash-and-burn, especially if not trying to actually make a funny, but grind an axe.

[Stramash]

We all find ourselves asking what we can do to help combat global warming and climate change. We try to use less electricity, drive our cars less and generally attempt to minimise our "eco-footprint". Well we can all breathe a little easier now that an Austrian mining engineer has come up with the answer: Personal Carbon Sequestration.

Geosequestration for the mining industry has been in the news during the last few months as a means to lessen the CO2 released into the atmosphere.

The process involves pumping the waste gasses back into the Earth, filling up the cavities left by resource extraction and trapping harmful gasses under the proverbial rug for ever. There?s no chance of the gasses ever escaping again or causing any problems in the future. No chance at all.

While mining processes makes up a substantial portion of global green house gas emissions, a greater percentage is composed of human exhalation. When we breathe out, we exhale large amounts CO2. There are more than six billion humans all exhaling thousands of times a day, producing hundreds of tons of carbon per person every year.

Thankfully Professor Helmut Grossbatten of the Austrian mining company Masse-Raub has come up with a simple version of geosequestration that we can all use.

As you can see above, the process involves digging a small hole before each exhalation and burying the CO2-heavy breath in the hole before covering it up again.

Using a drinking straw to sequester your carbon emissions can allow smaller holes in the ground for inner-city-living spaces.

If governments spend money on providing populations with hole-diggers and drinking-straws, billions of dollars will be saved that would otherwise be wasted on ridiculous pie-in-the-sky energy concepts such as solar power, clean nuclear technology and wind turbines.

[warren]

The sky is falling

from The Chicago Sun-Times, April 23rd 2006

Do you worry? You look like you do. Worrying is the way the responsible citizen of an advanced society demonstrates his virtue: He feels good by feeling bad.

But what to worry about? Iranian nukes? Nah, that's just some racket cooked up by the Christian fundamentalist Bush and his Zionist buddies to give Halliburton a pretext to take over the Persian carpet industry. Worrying about nukes is so '80s. Back then it was just crazies like Reagan and Thatcher who had nukes, so you can understand why everyone was terrified. But now Kim Jong-Il and the ayatollahs have them, so we're all sophisticated and relaxed about it, like the French hearing that their president's acquired a couple more mistresses.

So what should we worry about? How about - stop me if you've heard this one before - "climate change"? That's the subject of Al Gore's new movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth.'' Like the trailer says: "If you love your planet - if you love your children - you have to see this movie." Even if you don't have any children because it's environmentally irresponsible, even if you were planning to kill yourself to reduce your carbon footprint, see this movie first. The mullahs won't get a chance to nuke us because, thanks to rising sea levels, Tehran will be under water. The editor of the New Yorker, David Remnick, says the Earth will "likely be an uninhabitable planet." The archbishop of Canterbury, in a desperate attempt to cut the Anglican Communion a slice of the Gaia-worship self-flagellation action, demands government "coercion" on everything from reduced speed limits to ending cheap air travel "if we want the global economy not to collapse and millions, billions of people to die."

Environmentalism doesn't need the support of the church, it's a church in itself - and furthermore, one explicitly at odds with Christianity: God sent His son to Earth as a man, not as a three-toed tree sloth or an Antarctic krill. An environmentalist can believe man is no more than a co-equal planet dweller with millions of other species, and that he's taking up more than his fair share and needs to reduce both his profile and his numbers. But that's profoundly hostile to Christianity. Oh, and here's my favorite - Dr. Sue Blackmore looking on the bright side in Britain's Guardian:

"In all probability billions of people are going to die in the next few decades. Our poor, abused planet cannot take much more. . . . If we decide to put the planet first, then we ourselves are the pathogen. So we should let as many people die as possible, so that other species may live, and accept the destruction of civilization and of everything we have achieved.

"Finally, we might decide that civilization itself is worth preserving. In that case we have to work out what to save and which people would be needed in a drastically reduced population - weighing the value of scientists and musicians against that of politicians, for example."

Hmm. On the one hand, Dr. Sue Blackmore and the bloke from Coldplay. On the other, **** Cheney. I think we can all agree which people would be "needed" - Al Gore, the guy from the New Yorker, perhaps Scarlett Johansson in a fur-trimmed bikini paddling a dugout canoe through a waterlogged Manhattan foraging for floating curly endives from once-fashionable eateries.

Here's an inconvenient truth for "An Inconvenient Truth": Remember what they used to call "climate change"? "Global warming." And what did they call it before that? "Global cooling." That was the big worry in the '70s: the forthcoming ice age. Back then, Lowell Ponte had a huge best seller called The Cooling: Has the new ice age already begun? Can we survive?

The answer to the first question was: Yes, it had begun. From 1940 to 1970, there was very slight global cooling. That's why the doom-mongers decided the big bucks were in the new-ice-age blockbusters.

And yet, amazingly, we've survived. Why? Because in 1970 the planet stopped its very slight global cooling and began to undergo very slight global warming. So in the '80s, the doom-mongers cast off their thermal underwear, climbed into the leopardskin thongs, slathered themselves in sun cream and wired their publishers to change all references to "cooling" to "warming" for the paperback edition. That's why, if you notice, the global-warming crowd begin their scare statistics with "since 1970," an unlikely Year Zero which would not otherwise merit the significance the eco-crowd invest in it.

But then in 1998 the planet stopped its very slight global warming and began to resume very slight global cooling. And this time the doom-mongers said, "Look, do we really want to rewrite the bumper stickers every 30 years? Let's just call it 'climate change.' That pretty much covers it."

Why did the Earth cool between 1940 and 1970?

Beats me. Hitler? Hiroshima? Maybe we need to nuke someone every couple of decades.

Meanwhile, Blackmore won't have to worry about whether to cull Jacques Chirac in order to save Sting. Given the plummeting birthrates in Europe, Russia, Japan, etc., a large chunk of the world has evidently decided to take preemptive action on climate change and opt for self-extinction.

Pace the New Yorker, much of the planet will be uninhabited long before it's uninhabitable. The Belgian climate specialist will be on the endangered species list with the spotted owl. Blue-state eco-bores will be finding the international sustainable-development conferences a lot lonelier.

As for the merits of scientists and artists over politicians, those parts of the world still breeding are notable for their antipathy to music, haven't done much in the way of science for over a millennium, and politics-wise incline mostly to mullahs, nuclear or otherwise. Scrap Scarlett Johansson's fur-trimmed bikini and stick her in a waterlogged burqa

[Neo]

The sky is falling

from The Chicago Sun-Times, April 23rd 2006

Do you worry? You look like you do. Worrying is the way the responsible citizen of an advanced society demonstrates his virtue: He feels good by feeling bad.

...

I would expect that the journalist that wrote that meandering anti-science embaressment 3 years ago is now hoping that everyone has already forgotten that piece of misinformed incontinence.

[Sathorn]

Geez you guys are sad fx... The OP was just wanting to have a bit of a discussion on something that was interesting.

Soooooo...

Along comes Mister Know-It-All, I'm a Journalist, Told-You-So Loburt (I believe it's actually Robert, but the said expert has been in Thailand too long and forgotten how to say his own name...) and offers a typically condescending and superior outburst.

A few other sexperts thrown in, contradicting each other and jostling for attention...

In fact, the only intelligent thing stated here was by one 'Iain_D' ... "sigh..." (if I remember rightly - because it is the only thing that was worth remembering apart from mis-spellings and scientific inaccuracies...).

Sorry, OP, but you are surrounded by dKhDs that have little better to do than put words together in combinations that continue to confound and contort the mind of the occasionally sane reader that may be found in this country.

Go and have a beer and don't give a Fk. The world is damned whichever way you look at it - by Global Warming, by the Good Book, or by the fact that there are just too many of these weird people still being allowed to BREED!!!!!

:twisted:

[Mister Moobs]

Global Warming is a positive for the planet.

Eventually, it will solve itself.

Humanity will not destroy the planet. The planet will destroy humanity. At least, it will rid itself of a goodly portion of us through natural catastrophe. After that, the earth will go about repairing itself.

Humans will remain. There will simply be a lot fewer of us.

[Neo]

Geez you guys are sad fx... The OP was just wanting to have a bit of a discussion on something that was interesting.

Actually I'd welcome an interesting discussion on the subject. Sadly, most of the comments that attempt to write off the global warming theories are repeats of a handful of un-scientific misleading silliness. I'd genuinely like to see some decent disproof of global warming theory instead of more repeats of this kind of nonsense:

"It got cooler for a bit so everything's ok and the scientists know less than I do about their jobs"

"It got cooler a long time ago and we don't know why, so everything will be ok"

"CO2 is not a pollutant" (?!?!)

"In year x it was hotter than year y so we're headed for an ice-age"

"Parts of Antarctica are slightly colder than a while ago so global warming must have been made up by money hungry evil scientists working for electric car manufacturers"

"people don't generate much CO2"

"solar flares cause global warming"

"there are seashells on the mountain tops"

And some people beligerently post this kind of snore inducing mindlessness in the hopes of instilling their particular infliction of ignorance on the rest of us. If the naysayers can't come up with something vaguely plausible or worthy of discussion, then please at least come up with something original or entertaining.

[Mister Moobs]

DAMN THAT GLOBAL WARMING!!!

[Sathorn]

Geez you guys are sad fx... The OP was just wanting to have a bit of a discussion on something that was interesting.

Actually I'd welcome an interesting discussion on the subject. Sadly, most of the comments that attempt to write off the global warming theories are repeats of a handful of un-scientific misleading silliness. I'd genuinely like to see some decent disproof of global warming theory ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

www.john-daly.com

...

[English_Bob]

Geez you guys are sad fx... The OP was just wanting to have a bit of a discussion on something that was interesting.

Actually I'd welcome an interesting discussion on the subject. Sadly, most of the comments that attempt to write off the global warming theories are repeats of a handful of un-scientific misleading silliness. I'd genuinely like to see some decent disproof of global warming theory instead of more repeats of this kind of nonsense:

"It got cooler for a bit so everything's ok and the scientists know less than I do about their jobs"

"It got cooler a long time ago and we don't know why, so everything will be ok"

"CO2 is not a pollutant" (?!?!)

"In year x it was hotter than year y so we're headed for an ice-age"

"Parts of Antarctica are slightly colder than a while ago so global warming must have been made up by money hungry evil scientists working for electric car manufacturers"

"people don't generate much CO2"

"solar flares cause global warming"

"there are seashells on the mountain tops"

And some people beligerently post this kind of snore inducing mindlessness in the hopes of instilling their particular infliction of ignorance on the rest of us. If the naysayers can't come up with something vaguely plausible or worthy of discussion, then please at least come up with something original or entertaining.

You always say this...

You purport to read the stuff then pooh-pooh it. There's plenty of peer-reviewed stuff out there written by Nobel Prize winning scientists.

But you choose to belittle it.

The IPCC is not trustworthy. They manipulate facts and figures to suit their hypotheses. Don't ask me to quote... look 'em up yourself. There's dozens of them.

Now IF Global Warmi... oh sorry Climate Change is real, why do they need to fudge anything?

The last 100 years have shown a temperature rise of 0.74 degrees celsius.

Well, **** me!

[Stramash]

Geez you guys are sad fx... The OP was just wanting to have a bit of a discussion on something that was interesting.

Actually I'd welcome an interesting discussion on the subject. Sadly, most of the comments that attempt to write off the global warming theories are repeats of a handful of un-scientific misleading silliness. I'd genuinely like to see some decent disproof of global warming theory ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

www.john-daly.com

...

ffs mate, quoting a right wing newspaper which in itself quotes a semi-discredited Swedish academic who was elected 'deceiver of the year' by a Sweish scientific assosciation for trying to organise university courses on dowsing, as well as some 'teacher' (presume you quoted him just cos he lived in Tassie) rather than an actual scientist, is hardly going to win the argument...

[Neo]

Geez you guys are sad fx... The OP was just wanting to have a bit of a discussion on something that was interesting.

Actually I'd welcome an interesting discussion on the subject. Sadly, most of the comments that attempt to write off the global warming theories are repeats of a handful of un-scientific misleading silliness. I'd genuinely like to see some decent disproof of global warming theory ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

You are kidding, I hope.

Nils-Axel Morner Ph.D. is a geologist and geophysicist, not a climatologist. He was elected "Deceiver of the year" by Foreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995. His book is the flimsiest piece of attention seeking I've ever seen (ok Cherie's dress at her birthday party was perhaps a little flimsier).

Can you do any better? Please? Anyone?

[zeusbheld]

Geez you guys are sad fx... The OP was just wanting to have a bit of a discussion on something that was interesting.

Soooooo...

Along comes Mister Know-It-All, I'm a Journalist, Told-You-So Loburt (I believe it's actually Robert, but the said expert has been in Thailand too long and forgotten how to say his own name...) and offers a typically condescending and superior outburst.

A few other sexperts thrown in, contradicting each other and jostling for attention...

In fact, the only intelligent thing stated here was by one 'Iain_D' ... "sigh..." (if I remember rightly - because it is the only thing that was worth remembering apart from mis-spellings and scientific inaccuracies...).

Sorry, OP, but you are surrounded by dKhDs that have little better to do than put words together in combinations that continue to confound and contort the mind of the occasionally sane reader that may be found in this country.

Go and have a beer and don't give a Fk. The world is damned whichever way you look at it - by Global Warming, by the Good Book, or by the fact that there are just too many of these weird people still being allowed to BREED!!!!!

:twisted:

well *you* have certainly guaranteed yourself a spot amongst the dKhDs and weird people with that post, and for better or worse, no one's preventing you from breeding. to be honest you may have already--that little bit of cheerleading sounds suspiciously like your'e the OP's fake profile.

[Sathorn]

Oh, oh, here they come - out of the woodwork again. The sweet little hide-behind-your-monitor forum bashers. Funny thing is that I don't give a damn about it. The whole planet can fry as far as I am concerned, there's not much I can do about it while you all keep breathing out that damn CO2...

Well, so long. Thought it was worth a go. Oh, fake profiles, Zeus - you sad FK! I have never seen your real name and pic on your profile yet.

Oh, and OP: don't let the Save the Iceberg team get you down. They don't really know sh*t, they just dribble it

[zeusbheld]

.... There's plenty of peer-reviewed stuff out there written by Nobel Prize winning scientists.

But you choose to belittle it.

you always say stuff like this yet never bother to cough up links to this veritable cornucopia of peer-reviewed papers.

The IPCC is not trustworthy. They manipulate facts and figures to suit their hypotheses. Don't ask me to quote... look 'em up yourself. There's dozens of them.

hmmmm let's see. *you* make a claim and then *you* tell me i should google it myself? how about i just assume that you won't post links because they'd be flimsy crap? if this is common knowledge, and you're so keen on sharing it, it ought to be easier for you to find than me. if you've even seen it.

as i said i'm not convinced either way--mainly because i don't think it will make one damned bit of difference *what* i believe... but i find the generally ideologically-based and ham-fistedly stupid approach of a lot of the so-called skeptics in the public eye to be doing more to promote belief in AGW amongst non-wingnuts than the IPCC ever did. mainly because they create the impression that "well if this idiot doesn't believe in it then it must be true."

and interwebs skeptics, tbh, are pretty useless. there is at least one highly credible skeptic out there, and you lot completely fail to mention him. i don't necessarily believe AGW (i'm skeptical of post-normal science in general), but i am highly disappointed in the ham-fisted, ideology-based approach of 99 percent of interwebs "skeptics" and even most of the skeptics who poke out their ass for some media attention. the subtext of their claims seems to be "science is bad, ideology is better." **** them ideologue is just a fancy word for idiot.

also, seems to me the more interesting debate isn't the pseudo-intellectual posting of leading questions, as done by the OP, but whether, regardless of cause, anything can be done about climate change, and if it can, will it be worth the cost. yet strangely, nobody in stupid internet forums like TF ever bothers to mention that sort of thing. that is one of the many reasons why threads like this are just a circle-jerk for the ill-informed. anyone whose opinion is worth reading on the matter typically avoids responding ot the sort of drivel posted here. it's all asking the wrong questions and ignoring any sources that might actually be interesting.

[Sathorn]

.... There's plenty of peer-reviewed stuff out there written by Nobel Prize winning scientists.

But you choose to belittle it.

you always say stuff like this yet never bother to cough up links to this veritable cornucopia of peer-reviewed papers.

The IPCC is not trustworthy. They manipulate facts and figures to suit their hypotheses. Don't ask me to quote... look 'em up yourself. There's dozens of them.

hmmmm let's see. *you* make a claim and then *you* tell me i should google it myself? how about i just assume that you won't post links because they'd be flimsy crap? if this is common knowledge, and you're so keen on sharing it, it ought to be easier for you to find than me. if you've even seen it.

as i said i'm not convinced either way--mainly because i don't think it will make one damned bit of difference *what* i believe... but i find the generally ideologically-based and ham-fistedly stupid approach of a lot of the so-called skeptics in the public eye to be doing more to promote belief in AGW amongst non-wingnuts than the IPCC ever did. mainly because they create the impression that "well if this idiot doesn't believe in it then it must be true."

and interwebs skeptics, tbh, are pretty useless. there is at least one highly credible skeptic out there, and you lot completely fail to mention him. i don't necessarily believe AGW (i'm skeptical of post-normal science in general), but i am highly disappointed in the ham-fisted, ideology-based approach of 99 percent of interwebs "skeptics" and even most of the skeptics who poke out their a*s for some media attention. the subtext of their claims seems to be "science is bad, ideology is better." f*ck them ideologue is just a fancy word for idiot.

also, seems to me the more interesting debate isn't the pseudo-intellectual posting of leading questions, as done by the OP, but whether, regardless of cause, anything can be done about climate change, and if it can, will it be worth the cost. yet strangely, nobody in stupid internet forums like TF ever bothers to mention that sort of thing. that is one of the many reasons why threads like this are just a circle-jerk for the ill-informed. anyone whose opinion is worth reading on the matter typically avoids responding ot the sort of drivel posted here. it's all asking the wrong questions and ignoring any sources that might actually be interesting.

Fk me, Dave, this ***** has YOUR number?

[Sathorn]

Geez you guys are sad fx... The OP was just wanting to have a bit of a discussion on something that was interesting.

Actually I'd welcome an interesting discussion on the subject. Sadly, most of the comments that attempt to write off the global warming theories are repeats of a handful of un-scientific misleading silliness. I'd genuinely like to see some decent disproof of global warming theory ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

www.john-daly.com

...

ffs mate, quoting a right wing newspaper which in itself quotes a semi-discredited Swedish academic who was elected 'deceiver of the year' by a Sweish scientific assosciation for trying to organise university courses on dowsing, as well as some 'teacher' (presume you quoted him just cos he lived in Tassie) rather than an actual scientist, is hardly going to win the argument...

Pretty fair post, dude. But as far as I understand, the deceiving Swede is still recognised as a challenge to the Global Warming bunch of deceivers.

http://rudar.ruc.dk/handle/1800/2876

And I referred to Daly because I know people who have actually seen the tide mark and are convinced...

[Neo]

Pretty fair post, dude. But as far as I understand, the deceiving Swede is still recognised as a challenge to the Global Warming bunch of deceivers.

http://rudar.ruc.dk/handle/1800/2876

And I referred to Daly because I know people who have actually seen the tide mark and are convinced...

Ok.. prepare to have the flimsy Swedish negligee go up in a puff of CO.

His whole theory is based on measurements. He refuses to acknowledge any predictive models. Climate change theory does not depend on currently high sea levels, it predicts increases in sea levels which haven't happened yet. So his claims have absolutely no relevance to the predictions of climate change theory. 100% irrelevant attention seeking.

There. Happy now? Now bring on something for gods sake, I'm actually starting to believe in AGW myself after reading the crap that's written against it.

[LakeGeneve]

Geez you guys are sad fx... The OP was just wanting to have a bit of a discussion on something that was interesting.

Actually I'd welcome an interesting discussion on the subject. Sadly, most of the comments that attempt to write off the global warming theories are repeats of a handful of un-scientific misleading silliness. I'd genuinely like to see some decent disproof of global warming theory ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

You are kidding, I hope.

Nils-Axel Morner Ph.D. is a geologist and geophysicist, not a climatologist. He was elected "Deceiver of the year" by Foreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995. His book is the flimsiest piece of attention seeking I've ever seen (ok Cherie's dress at her birthday party was perhaps a little flimsier).

Can you do any better? Please? Anyone?

Better than Cheries birthday dress? If anyone does, someone pls take a pic and post it so that we can all judge for ourselves. :wink: