Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[truman]

It certainly conflicts with allocating limited resources to deal with the perceived threat of AGW in the most efficient manner.

 

I don't believe that you have an open mind on this subject at all. You dismiss every counter argument as being that of a snake oilsmen, whilst accepting any supporting argument and ignoring the irregularities in the 'research' that supports your preconceptions.

I haven't cited anything, certainly not posts by any bloggers, I have looked at the released source code and emails and I find them to be disturbing.

 

The sooner you realise it's all about control and wealth redistribution the sooner you'll realise why Wildcat is all for it..

[JIbbo]

I reject claims made by snake oil salesmen that don't have any qualifications in the subject they are talking about.

If you and others on this thread were interested in evidence you would cite some academic reports rather than desperately spamming it with right wing sceptical bloggers more often than not backed by fossil fuel companies spreading rubbish about the subject that is easily and explicitly refuted by websites set up by experts about the myths they spread about. It doesn't take long with an open mind to sift through the rubbish and work out what is easily discounted.

 

Whether you like it or not, there is a scientific consensus on greenhouse gases and for good reasons. Trying to pretend there isn't or that political bloggers carry equal weight in a scientific argument is not seeking the truth it is avoiding it.

 

Like the Railway Engineer whome is the head scientist of the IPCC ?

 

Rajendra Pachauri

 

Pachauri was awarded an MS degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, in 1972, as well as a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974.[5]

 

Some background.....

[Greybeard]

Just found this on the BBC website, describing "climate change deniers"

 

There is quite a difference between climate change 'deniers' and AGW 'septics' but of course it doesn't suit the BBC's Marxist agenda to make the distinction. Their job, by fair means or foul, is to persuade as many people as possible to the govt's way of thinking about the issue.

 

And they have to to do the govt.'s bidding if they're to continue unhindered with their annual increases in demands of money with menaces.

 

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

[Berberis]

Can anyone answer this question with a straight answer please?

 

The topic of climate change was sparked by the heat waves felt in many countries in the 80's. The consensuses then were that the world was heating up due to greenhouse gases such as CO2 and that man made CO2 emissions where to blame.

 

The world has not slowed in its levels of CO2 emissions, in fact they have been accelerated by growing economies.

 

Back in the 80's CO2 was the cause of global warming, but we have not headed this advise, CO2 levels are higher than in the 80's but the world has cooled over the last 10 or so years.

 

And to my question: How is it that we have continued to emit CO2 at levels far beyond that of the 80's and the planet has not risen in temperature for the last 10 or so years?

 

If we are to believe the original consensus we should all be living in a post apocalyptic "Mad Max" style world by now. Is the spectre of Global Warming not another of the countless end of the world theories that has been part of the humankinds psyche through out history?

[Br8inend]

But you're aware of the global energy budget?

 

The one where you count the amount of sunlight hitting the planet, what that sunlight heats (atmosphere, ocean, land) and how much is reflected back, and how much is radiated back as heat, and the rates at which all these things happen, and the net effects of, for example, pumping more and more energy into a complex system like the global climate.

 

Obviously the Greenhouse effect is a metaphor, so that simple minded souls like us can get a handle on a deeply complex problem. But you're right to show that even that doesn't always work.

 

Carbon dioxide is 0.003 of the earths atmosphere , doubling it can not account for the predicted rise of temperature.

Global warming is the elites way of taking over the world and just like all the wars the elite have led us into , its all bogus. Wake up..

[Br8inend]

More research on soot is definitely worthwhile, the research is definitely interesting.

 

It doesn't however conflict with the desires to deal with greenhouse gases, they are both generated by burning fosssil fuels I see no reason why the two shouldn't go hand in hand, the same as the researcher in the article recommends.

 

So in effect you can melt glaciers by spraying coal dust on them. Easily done!

[Br8inend]

Can anyone answer this question with a straight answer please?

 

The topic of climate change was sparked by the heat waves felt in many countries in the 80's. The consensuses then were that the world was heating up due to greenhouse gases such as CO2 and that man made CO2 emissions where to blame.

 

The world has not slowed in its levels of CO2 emissions, in fact they have been accelerated by growing economies.

 

Back in the 80's CO2 was the cause of global warming, but we have not headed this advise, CO2 levels are higher than in the 80's but the world has cooled over the last 10 or so years.

 

And to my question: How is it that we have continued to emit CO2 at levels far beyond that of the 80's and the planet has not risen in temperature for the last 10 or so years?

 

If we are to believe the original consensus we should all be living in a post apocalyptic "Mad Max" style world by now. Is the spectre of Global Warming not another of the countless end of the world theories that has been part of the humankinds psyche through out history?

 

There's a 33. Year oscillation between warming in the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere . this with the high activity of the sun caused the warming between 1980 and 1998. what climate scientists omit to include is that ice at the south pole has actually increased over the last 30years or so.......

The proof is in the pudding , record snows last year, and seen as I'm always right in the end, I predict winters worse than the 70's over the next 3 years.......

[llamatron]

Can anyone answer this question with a straight answer please?

 

The topic of climate change was sparked by the heat waves felt in many countries in the 80's. The consensuses then were that the world was heating up due to greenhouse gases such as CO2 and that man made CO2 emissions where to blame.

 

The world has not slowed in its levels of CO2 emissions, in fact they have been accelerated by growing economies.

 

Back in the 80's CO2 was the cause of global warming, but we have not headed this advise, CO2 levels are higher than in the 80's but the world has cooled over the last 10 or so years.

 

And to my question: How is it that we have continued to emit CO2 at levels far beyond that of the 80's and the planet has not risen in temperature for the last 10 or so years?

 

If we are to believe the original consensus we should all be living in a post apocalyptic "Mad Max" style world by now. Is the spectre of Global Warming not another of the countless end of the world theories that has been part of the humankinds psyche through out history?

 

 

Thats the other thing I don't get. I know from personal experience that the UK is getting warmer and wetter. There is rarely snow now and I haven't seen icicles for years.

 

wiki shows a sudden increase in temp for the 1900s onwards (for the northern hemisphere, why do people think it isn't getting warmer? I can vaguely understand the its a natural change argument but definitely not the its not happening argument

[JIbbo]

Thats the other thing I don't get. I know from personal experience that the UK is getting warmer and wetter. There is rarely snow now and I haven't seen icicles for years.

 

wiki shows a sudden increase in temp for the 1900s onwards (for the northern hemisphere, why do people think it isn't getting warmer? I can vaguely understand the its a natural change argument but definitely not the its not happening argument

 

It hasn't been getting warmer since 1998.

 

The increase from the 1900 was as a result of natural warming from the little ice age.

 

The graphs shown in the WIKI are the outdates hocket stick ones.

 

Last year saw the earliest recorded snowfall in the south in a decade.

[llamatron]

It hasn't been getting warmer since 1998.

 

The increase from the 1900 was as a result of natural warming from the little ice age.

 

The graphs shown in the WIKI are the outdates hocket stick ones.

 

Last year saw the earliest recorded snowfall in the south in a decade.

 

a decade is not really enough time to base a judgement about global warming on-no warming could be a blip and the earliest snowfall is a pretty poor measure as well. We should be looking at long term trends. Selecting ridiculously small time windows is a fabulous way of fixing data!