Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[nightrider]

Hasn't Mann's hockey stick been disproved? In geoplogical terms I reckon 1000 years isn't enough to get any context..

 

Well depends who you ask. But in my mind it has after seeing the tree ring proxy fails to work after 1960.

 

if you believe 1000 years is not enough, then the graph is useless anyway since all it claimed to prove was anomalous warming in the last 1000 years.

 

Anyway what I was asking was why someone posted a graph showing temperature rose since 1925 - so what? That does not prove unusual warming or any correlation to manmade warming on its own.

[JIbbo]

A lot of the "suddens" you are talking about happened over several thousand years - the ice caps melting has happened in less than twenty.

 

Oh and the Artic ' Isn't warm by historical records either.

 

A new Arctic study published by Håkan Grudd, of Stockholm University’s Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, confirms the conclusion that the Arctic is not warmer now than it was previously.

 

He states: “The late twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Torneträsk record. On decadal to centurial timescales, periods around AD750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer.”

 

In addition, Danish Metrological Institute records show that the “Arctic was warmer in the 1940s than now” – this was published May 13, 2009.

 

But when have facts ever stopped the AGW cult ?

 

A

[spindrift]

Jibbo, your opinion rests on your observation that it gets colder at night and warmer by day, with "no problem", in your own words!

 

I fear the rigours of discussing established scientific consensus is beyond your capabilities old son.

 

 

A sim for what maybe in 2040

 

2006 to 2007 what has already happened

 

A slab of ice the 4 times the size of Paris France breaks off of the antarctic in 2008.

 

If anyone is actually stupid enough to think that Global Warming is a myth they need to buy themselves some beach front property. Man made CO2 has had an affect upon climate. Otherwise weather across the planet would not be so extreme from heat waves during winter time to cold and rainy days in the summer to tornado's (off season) to tropical storms in December.

 

What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

Therefore, blaming mythical media monsters does not change the science, nor the review. Many scientist have different theories, but within the scientific community, there is a peer review process that includes supporters and non supporters of different theories, and both sides have one objective, to review the facts and see if they stand up to the arguments or not, and so far the review of the facts and what they stand up to is counter to your opinion.

 

 

I am open minded about global warming, but I concur with current scientific standards, you do not, instead you focus on the minority reports as though they represent the only truth, that means you ignore the science for your personal belief, and that is fine, but not scientific.

[f0rd]

May I suggest you all watch

, it actually puts the emails in context.

[JIbbo]

Jibbo, your opinion rests on your observation that it gets colder at night and warmer by day, with "no problem", in your own words!

 

I fear the rigours of discussing established scientific consensus is beyond your capabilities old son.

 

 

A sim for what maybe in 2040

 

2006 to 2007 what has already happened

 

A slab of ice the 4 times the size of Paris France breaks off of the antarctic in 2008.

 

If anyone is actually stupid enough to think that Global Warming is a myth they need to buy themselves some beach front property. Man made CO2 has had an affect upon climate. Otherwise weather across the planet would not be so extreme from heat waves during winter time to cold and rainy days in the summer to tornado's (off season) to tropical storms in December.

 

What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

Therefore, blaming mythical media monsters does not change the science, nor the review. Many scientist have different theories, but within the scientific community, there is a peer review process that includes supporters and non supporters of different theories, and both sides have one objective, to review the facts and see if they stand up to the arguments or not, and so far the review of the facts and what they stand up to is counter to your opinion.

 

 

I am open minded about global warming, but I concur with current scientific standards, you do not, instead you focus on the minority reports as though they represent the only truth, that means you ignore the science for your personal belief, and that is fine, but not scientific.

 

My facetious comment about it being much warmer during the day than at night is central to the discussion.

 

The sun causes this massive temperature difference, and temperature difference between night & day is much greater than whats being predicted for AGW temperatures

 

Not a SINGLE model of global warming ANYWHERE includes reference to the sun, ive read and understood the code.

 

I've not made any reference to minority reports.

 

The geological data posted is know by ALL geoligists & climate scientists, yet climate scientists ignore it.

 

Your not open minded about global warming, you have no real opinion on the matter other than trolling though this thread, you havn't even bothered to understand the historical climate changes i've posted

 

Ohh some scary predictions.

 

House prices were predicted to continuoulsy rise.

 

Because a trend has occured in the past DOES NOT MEAN it will contunie into the future.

 

every single AGW scientists pror to 1998 was predicting continuous rapidly rising temperatures.

 

Not occured.

 

I'm saying that when placing our current climatic changes in historical perspective they are meaningless and it can't be proved that humans have caused them via CO2 emissions, especially when MUCH greater temperature changes have occured with out ANY human influence on the climate.

 

The changes of 0.2 degrees or less are within historical average for natural variations. Nothing more or less.

[Wildcat]

Nobody is arguing that we aren't affected by weather.

What we are arguing is that AGW does not exist, or at least is unproven and highly speculative. Large temperature variations exist in historical records and the models for climate change appear to be extremely inaccurate.

 

Climate data is all consistent and shows a remarkable rise in temperature over the last 150 years. 2005 was the warmest year on record, with 1998 and 2007 tieing for second place (at a time when the El Nino cycle was cooling surface temperatures!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

Large temperature rises have all had explanations in the past volcanic activity, tectonic activity, orbital variations, solar variations etc etc.

 

The only expalanation that fits the evidence is that a man made rise in CO2 is forcing a rise in temperature.

http://www.desmogblog.com/debunking-joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook-global-warming-real-and-happening

[Wildcat]

 

The changes of 0.2 degrees or less are within historical average for natural variations. Nothing more or less.

 

Where have you got your data from because the normal figure given is 0.7 degree rise? In fact looking at the wiki graph I linked to it shows the ten biggest datasets that measure temperature rise (not including tree rings) all show a 0.7 degree rise in the last 100 years.

 

It does call in to question the research you have done when you appear to have got something so basic wrong.

Edited December 6, 2009 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

May I suggest you all watch

, it actually puts the emails in context.

 

A very good video that says what I have been saying through out the thread.

 

There is however a lot of money behind the deniers and combined with the self interest and willful desire to believe in conspiracies, I am afraid facts are and will continue to fall on deaf ears.

[Lockjaw]

 

A slab of ice the 4 times the size of Paris France breaks off of the antarctic in 2008.

 

Hi Spindrift. What follows isn't a leading question - I too am open minded on this subject - I am genuinely interested in the explanation and you seem to have fully researched all your points and references. So, can you, or anyone else for that matter, let me know how the ice sheets shown on the above clip appear to have broken away in pieces with perfectly straight edges and 90 degree corners?

[truman]

It seems to me that only one side of the discussion gets any press..

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/antarcticas-ice-story-has-been-put-on-ice/