Global Warming: Finally dead?

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Justice, Oct 13, 2009.

  1. LyannaWolfBlood

    LyannaWolfBlood Ella Dictadora

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    6,374
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +230 / 0 / -0
    That's people's reactions, nothing else. The evening news needs stories, what's new about that? In the part I bolded you seem to be confusing actual proof with "what the news stories say". I'm not the one that said Katrina had anything to do with global warming; one-off events have no climatological significance. OTOH if Katrina turns out not to be a one-off event, then you can say it's part of a trend, not before.

    It's hard to tell really. Meteorology has come a long way in the last couple of decades, particularly in regard to medium and long-term prediction. I wouldn't consider the fact that something couldn't be predicted 20 years ago to mean that predictions would not be more accurate in the future (not saying they'll be infallible either).

    As regards my statement that it's easier to predict the average climate in 100 years than the weather for next year, I stand by it. That medium-term prediction I talked about above (predicting up to a few months in the future) is apparently the part of meteorology that is improving most rapidly at the moment (this coming from my meteorologist father). It's still virtually impossible to predict next year's weather. OTOH when dealing with climate predictions you're talking about patterns and averages over a period of years, which is entirely different.

    Predicting weather is not an exact science, that doesn't mean it's a guess. There is a middle ground between the two. Any science is based on observation, quantification and analysis; incorrect conclusions can be drawn but that doesn't mean it's guesswork. Your example of one record cold season disproving global warming showed a complete lack of understanding of the difference between weather and climate, that's why I pulled you up on it.
     
  2. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +342 / 1 / -0
    It's not a case of being sheepishly wrong - the long term (that often didn't get published by the media or promoted by government) view has been (for the last good 5 or more years at least) that global warming was the buildup toward a global cooling cycle - called an Ice Age. The fact that gobal warming (which is more correctly not a global warming but a global increase in our heat engery budget retention) starts a global cooling cycle has been known to science since the polar ice records were decoded. The problem is that they never new (or could know) quite what bits start the next phase - they knew that warming lead to cooling, but evidence of the chain of events that links the two was hazy and very hard to establish.

    The leading theory I heard of was that warming lead to ice melt of the polar caps and glaciers (two things no one can deny is occuring) which in turn results in reduced salt densities of the Atlantic and an eventual shutting down/moving/reduction in the Gulf Stream. However its always been accepted that two things are a problem
    1) human influence was never in the equation before
    2) we've no complete record of the ice age and the changes as direct evidence - everything is by proxy and specific triggors for events are not always known.

    red The media is not science it is an organisation that selects, filters, rewrites and presents information to the public at large. Thus as source for reliable and accurate information it is totally uless as far as science goes. Conclusions of reports will be simplified, queries about data ignored etc.... They just want a single fixed answer and specific news groups will even preselect who they interview to ensure that they get the answers they want to print

    green I'll bet you anything someone somewhere within scientific circles predicted this and that the scientific view might be very different than the media view (which can often be very slow to update its status - you see the media don't want to be seen as wrong)

    It's rather like Black Holes - ask any layman about who knows the most of them and Steven Hawking is probably going to be the guy they mention; even though many of his theories have been questioned or even overturned by others within that community. Even the media stick to him as "the black hole guy".
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Alchemist

    Alchemist The Fighters Guide House Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    8,797
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    A Pirate city in international waters
    Ratings:
    +192 / 0 / -0
    My two cents on this topic can be provided by the above quotes from lyanna. -nods-
     
  4. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    For one, I never stated that a single cold season is proof of global cooling, but indeed we have been cooling since 1998, something which the IPCC admits and several people in this thread deny. I stated that a season as cold as we had was extremely unlikely according to all weather data previously written on, and I also stated not a single leading climatologist predicted a 30 year cooling trend. 12 years have gone by of global temperatures decreasing, and despite the evidence temperatures have dropped, the idea the planet was increasingly warming was pushed forth.

    The theory behind global warming, which includes data from vehicle emissions, naturally occurring carbon such as livestock, volcanic eruptions, the cloud layering, ozone, solar flares, wind and ocean currents, urban development, all these things have to be factored into the entire picture of the earths climate. Of course getting accurate numbers on any of that data is tough, and when they can't get that data, they guess, and often times their guesswork is extremely poor ( example, saying the Himalayas have 500,000 square miles of glacier when they only have 34,000). When you say it's easier to predict a hundred years in the future, clearly it's not, because they missed a cooling trend and have fully admitted it. That and the slew of information about falsified data, silencing cooling data, and threatening publications that dare post any reports contradictory to global warming theory is enough evidence to me that they have very little credibility on this very subject.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2010
  5. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Then why are droughts and famine cited as being worries of global warming of we're just going to cool down again and get more rainfall, snowfall, etc?

    And isn't that really just proof of a naturally occurring cycle in the earth since humans weren't an equation then?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1263207/Increase-Arctic-ice-confounds-doomsayers.html

    No, actually ice, and more importantly sea ice for polar bear lovers, has been vastly increasing.


    The media relates stories as scientific institutes present it. Media will always trump doom and gloom scenarios, but global warming scientists sure as hell don't try to fight it.

    The more and more skeptics look into the methods, evidence, and publications of global warming proponents, like the heavily error ridden IPCC report, the more they find errors, miscalculations, and outright fraud. This isn't science at all, it's almost closer to religious dogma than science.
     
  6. LyannaWolfBlood

    LyannaWolfBlood Ella Dictadora

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    6,374
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +230 / 0 / -0
    @ Alch: :D

    @ Justice: I'll leave most of that argument for OR to answer but the Daily Mail is a sensationalist rag full of right-wing propaganda, not a source.

    No, but you stated that a single cold season challenged the idea of global warming (which is not the same thing as proving global cooling; are you always this imprecise?). Was this just a cheap shot because you could, because, as has been pointed out numerous times, it's complete rubbish?
    Are you suggesting that weather prediction in 1910 was anyway comparable to what it is now? If not, then that answers your objection.

    And yes, some idiots have made stuff up although you are vastly exaggerating the scale of this. Plenty of reputable organisations haven't though, and their credibility isn't affected by the actions of a couple of rogues.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2010
  7. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +342 / 1 / -0
    As I said before the global cooling after global warming was part of at least one of the leading theories. Scientists have the ice core records and other proxy data (oceanic cores) which all show evidence of rapid cooling after a peek of global temperatures. The problem (as I said) is that because the image is incomplete they don't exactly know which parts triggor what responces from the Earth's system - they know the results but not quite the method.

    Also the major worry they have (After the ice core records) is that originaly global climatic shifts were seen like a Sin Wave - slow increase followed by a nice steady decrease. The icecore records have shown that conditions can go from current climats through to full ice age climatic conditions within decades to a couple of centuries. Of course growth of the icemasses will take a lot longer than that but you will still have freezing temperatures. (at least for the north)

    Because drought is the responce that is found in the tropical climatic regions to an ice age. The results of early science were restricted to the european regions because that is where most scientists were located for a good number of generations. Thus these areas formed the basis for our understandings. The concept of local changes and the greater study of tropical and other climatic areas is really only very recent.

    However as I said the message they have so far is that the tropics (the forests) contract dramatically around the equator and other honeyspots - whilst the greater masses of the areas suffer a massive lack of water. This is both the result of increased global ice stores (which we don't have yet) and also with shifts in the global distribution of water via things like rainfall.

    The cycle is natural, no one is debating against that - the debate is that human influence has affected the cycle. Specifically how it will affect the cycle won't be known till the cycle is over - but optimistic ideas that the ice age will be reduduce/won't come are countered by the fact that the natural cycle proxy evidence shows that carbon and greenhouse gasses naturally peeked before the cooling cycle - so we might even has speed up the cycle.


    +1 to what Lyanna said - but reading the article its very different from what its title suggests. Its an ice increase over a few months, but not a net gain nor net loss over an annual cycle (which is what is used to determin ice growth/loss). This recent coldsnap could easily be countered by either a global or localised hot snap during summer - where more ice will be melted off than was gained. This is the important thing - even during and ice age you have a summer period, but the net loss of ice through meltwater is less than the net gain of ice through snowfall during cold periods- leading to icecap growth.


    The media reates nothing as it is presented to it. The media does not simply report upon facts it activly sifts through data to ensure that they only select the data that the head office of the media group wish to promote (for whatever reasons). Furthermore even if they do take an article you example above shows how they will manipulate the content - the title of that article is very different from the words written within, but they know that many own't read much more in depth and that the title itself will be what hangs in their mind.
    Even the content can be greatly edited - written documents or even interviews can be chopped and changed (in subtle or not so subtle ways) to ensure that the message the reporter/editor wants is what is told and not essentially the message that the original source told.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2010
  8. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    A season that cold points to forces and circumstances WAY beyond simple greenhouse gas emissions. It's not an imprecise statement, if increasing carbon dioxide is trapped in our atmosphere and is increasing the planet temperature, a single season THAT cold shouldn't be possible under their current models. I'm not using it as proof of global cooling, but by their own logic or instrumentation, it could be used as such, for instance, pointing to high temperatures, hurricanes, droughts, flooding, any aberrant deviation from a homogeneous norm is frequently cited as global warming proof.

    Al Gore has (rightfully) been marginalized these last few posts. Why is he such a problem? Regardless of his factually erroneous "An Inconvenient Truth" film, the vast majority of the global warming believing public feel he is an authority on the subject. He won a best picture and a Nobel prize, along with the IPCC, for their work on global warming.

    So why do I bring up him, the IPCC and this East Anglia Climategate scandal? these three entities all contribute the largest to the public perception of global warming.

    Al Gore is a politician and does not have a scientific background.

    Much of his research was done by the University of East Anglia, which was involved in a scandal when Phil Jones and other members of their climate research department were found to have spent over a decade hiding data that suggested the earth was cooling contradictory to global warming claims.

    The IPCC released a report, the one they won a Nobel Price for, which stated we have 100 years to act before there is widespread and unstoppable climate change. Well, piece by piece their report was unraveled, and shown to have non peer reviewed data that was extremely inaccurate, reports written by advocacy groups like Greenpeace, and reports contradictory to global warming theory were never presented in their findings.

    Global Warming theory is not science in any sense of the word because science does not work towards a preconceived notion. Yet more and more of these institutes and reports have been dead wrong on their predictions. The 30 year cooling trend is the largest proof of that, if ANY of them had predicted it ahead of time, we would have heard about it. Instead all their climate models, with all the data that have collected, predicted an unyielding increase to global temperatures.

    The more and more I read on the methods used by climate researchers in collecting data, like placing weather stations in extremely poor locations like next to electrical wiring and airports, or simply making up numbers when the truth isn't scary enough (like the IPCC stating over 50% of Denmark is under sea level when the actual total is less than half that), the more and more I am convinced that they have no idea the vastness of this planet and how it works, and the idea that a .0000034 percent increase of carbon dioxide in the total earths atmosphere seems very, VERY unlikely to be the cause of any planet temperature increases.



    No, no it doesn't. We are much better now at treating cancer patients than we were a hundred years ago, mostly by bombarding them with radiation, causing all sorts of other health defects and risks. Being better doesn't mean we have it right, and when people act on agenda, the facts always tak a backseat to bias.
     
  9. LyannaWolfBlood

    LyannaWolfBlood Ella Dictadora

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    6,374
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +230 / 0 / -0
    Absolutely. It points to winds blowing from polar regions, long periods of high pressure and a combination of other meteorological phenomena resulting in cold weather. Where did I say it had anything to do with greenhouse gas emissions? I've been pointing out from the start that one-off events don't prove anything.

    My criticism of your imprecision (which, looking back, was probably a little sharper than I should have been) was that I referred to "your example of one record cold season disproving global warming" [post #81] and you said that "for one, I never stated that a single cold season is proof of global cooling" [post #84]. Disproving global warming does not equate to proving global cooling. In most other contexts that would be a nuance but given that global warming is our subject I felt I should point out that they weren't the same. I haven't a clue what you mean by the second part of that sentence (what models? As per the point above, are these models of greenhouse gas emissions or the multitude of other criteria that make up weather?). In any case that's not what I was criticising.

    We've already dealt with this. It's cited as proof of global warming by the media, not by scientists.

    The public perception of global warming is entirely irrelevant to whether global warming is actually occurring. You're confusing the media and reality again. Also, I've no idea why you're talking about Al Gore; I know perfectly well he's not a scientist and I don't get my facts on global warming from him - actually, never having seen An Inconvenient Truth, I don't even know what his precise views on global warming are, other than the fact that he believes it's happening. So why bring him up?

    On the bolded part, you're absolutely right that science doesn't work towards a preconceived notion. I've no reason to believe you're right that climatologists habitually work towards a preconceived notion though.

    On the rest of it, could you provide sources?

    That's assuming that the vast majority of the scientists who work in this area are acting on an agenda.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2010
  10. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    I'll get to the rest when I have more time but I'd like to bring this up for now.

    Public perception of global warming has EVERYTHING to do with the debate. Politicians play to people's fears, constantly finding a need to regulate, control, tax, or outright ban things that we do. Global Warming is one of a host of things politicians use to justify their regulations.

    Why bring up Al Gore? Just because you haven't followed him, that doesn't mean he hasn't had an impact on people. He is constantly honored by environmental groups for spreading awareness of global warming. He makes recommendations that politicians follow, despite not being a scientist himself. Despite the fact he pollutes thousands of times more than the average citizen by flying around in private jets, and makes a living saying we shouldn't, he's considered a respected authority on the subject, mostly by left of center politically minded people. This isn't just a few people, we're talking tens of millions of Americans think he's relevant in the discussion when in fact he's not.

    Al Gore and other left leaning politicians spread doom and gloom about global warming constantly. Bill Clinton said global warming is a bigger threat to the world than global terrorism (though terrorism has killed hundreds of thousands of people in the last decade, global warming has not a single ictim yet...). Barack Obama is promising to increase regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, and yet we're not supposed to car what the public perception is? The public perception is driving the entire debate.

    Let's assume for a minute the media is trumping up global warming fears because that's what the media does. Then I am still not letting climate scientists off the hook because they allow the panic to continue. After all, what better way to make your profession necessary than if people are depending on you for safety? Rather than tamping down fears, more studies get released about how the earth is rapidly changing and we're all at risk to some kind of catastrophe. Even as recent as 2007, which is why I constantly bring up the IPCC which the UN headed, their reports were full of doomsday scenarios which the media picks up on and reports.

    That's when reporters finally started reading these publications, and almost immediately terrifyingly enormous errors were found almost instantly. When you ask me to post sources, I have, just going back to the last few pages I have posted story after story of the IPCC head Rejendra Pachuri having to defend or explain the problems in his massive report.

    People in the US are finally starting to get sick of it. California, proposition AB32. Years ago citizens passed the Global Warming solutions act which forcibly reduces Co2 emissions by regulating business. 2010. With a devastated economy and unemployment teetering at 13%, there is now a ballot initiative to suspend the act as it will have a negative impact on business and possibly cost another 1.1 million jobs due to over regulation. The initiative only needed 430,000 petitions to qualify for the ballot, it got over 800,000.

    So when you say public perception is irrelevant, I completely disagree. Public perception is what drives the entire movement. Public perception is the reason global warming has taken such legs, and why politicians are demanding we make changes that entirely restructures society.

    And if the polls are right, then Americans, along with the British, have finally tired of it.
     
  11. LyannaWolfBlood

    LyannaWolfBlood Ella Dictadora

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    6,374
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +230 / 0 / -0
    And again, all of this is irrelevant to whether global warming is actually occurring. Most of this post is a critique on politicians and the media misusing the data on global warming, not the data itself. There is no causal relationship between public perception and global warming so, yes, it is not important.

    You've no grounds for that claim.

    .
    .
    As for the sources you've provided, OR's already tackled the Daily Mail article so I don't feel any need to. As I pointed out earlier the Daily Mail is highly biased anyway.

    From your posts on page 5:
    As I've been pointing out, global warming is a long term trend. If the current trend towards cooling is caused by PDO cycles, that does not contradict the theory that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be responsible for global warming. It's just that currently the tendency towards cooling is outweighing that towards warming. The causes of the two trends are entirely unrelated. How about this part of that article anyway?
    .
    .
    .
    You may think that, but the author of the relevant research doesn't agree with you, and presumably he knows his subject. From that article:
    .
    .
    .

    Yup, Greenpeace supplied eight sources for that document. On this page you can find the references used in only one of the twenty chapters of that report. I haven't counted them but there are literally hundreds of references there, and that's only one chapter. Greenpeace supplied comfortably under 1% (even 0.1%) of the data in that report.
    .
    .
    .

    He's an intellectually dishonest idiot for suppressing data, yes. However, there are many other climatologists around and he doesn't speak for them all. That particular IPCC report is hardly the only evidence for global warming out there.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2010
  12. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    My claim is based on human nature itself. We are all subject to our own biases. The vast majority of research being done on global warming is funded by either activist groups, or government funds. Global warming is strictly a left leaning issue. Studies against global warming are routinely criticized as having been funded either by right leaning groups or oil companies. Either way, both sides naturally would seek to please the provider of their grants, and I fully admit that as well for the side against global warming. However, the media and majority of politicians and lawmakers have sided with the global warming side, not for the good of mankind, but for another hook they can attach to the already broadening scope of government intervention. Al Gore stated in Grist magazine that exaggerating the effects of global warming was perfectly acceptable to curry favor in its direction. Former French President Jacques Chirac stated global warming was the perfect precedent for the means of establishing "global governance".

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/965

    I usually try to find sources from media that is very much in favor of global warming, but regardless of the source, what I am looking for is whether or not it is true.

    Now we're getting somewhere. If natural cycles in the earths atmosphere are that much more powerful than mans contribution of Co2 in the atmosphere, that goes exactly along the lines of what I have been saying this whole time. We simply do not know any of the effects of what we are doing long term, if we are heating the planet, or if we have absolutely no effect at all. If we are having an effect, it's not as strong as previously thought with the current cooling cycle throwing everything for a loop.

    That's why i bring up the cooling trend with every post I make. The IPCC as recently as 2007 made no predictions of global cooling. In fact, until pressed to admit it last year, they were still claiming we were warming. That's why Global Warming is in fact dead. The new monicker is "Climate Change". Essentially, we are no longer warming the planet, we are changing the planet. That's why I also bring up the fact that every time there is any change in climate, Global Warming is usually blamed.

    In fact, an even stupider title trying to be circulated is "Global Weirding".

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html

    It's not catching on. Stating certain areas are experiencing weather conditions they haven't seen in 50, 100 years or so is no longer greeted with gasps, but instead people ask, "Well, what was the cause before if it wasn't climate change?"

    Not all of Friedman's suggestions are ludicrous in the article, but he brings up a valid point. By simply not leveling with people, suppressing cooling data, having non peer reviewed research, and basically hyping doom and gloom like the prophet Al Gore has, (remember, he's an American politician so we hear from him all the time) they poisoned their own theory. Rather than suggesting a calm and gradual change into practical and renewable energy sources, a gradual change on carbon emissions and vehicle fuel efficiency, and perhaps giving incentives for reducing energy use rather than increasing taxes on energy, advocacy groups banded together and insisted we act now, restrict business and industry, tax energy, and create more government to oversee what they just created. We could have had everything straightened out in a few decades had we approached it gradually. Instead the entire debate has been soured.
     
  13. LyannaWolfBlood

    LyannaWolfBlood Ella Dictadora

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    6,374
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +230 / 0 / -0
    I had a far longer reply but my computer ate it :( Apologies for any failure of grammar or syntax, it's due to extreme annoyance and frustration.

    It sounds to me as if you have an axe to grind about government intervention here. You've no evidence that that is the most prominent reason for governments to agree with global warming and, given the dire scenarios that you've painted in previous posts about the economic consequences of decisions taken because of global warming, I find it hard to believe that many politicians find global warming convenient.

    With respect to funding, the IPCC is funded by the WMO (World Meteorological Organisation) and two other UN bodies, the UNEP and UNFCCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.htm. I find those reasonably independent sources of funding. In any case, you're the one making the accusation, care to furnish some evidence?

    .
    .
    .

    No, he called it "the first component of an authentic global governance", and even then we don't know the context of the quote (does he mean governance in general, or in respect to the issue of global warming?). Please don't alter quotations again in order to make them align better with your personal prejudices. I'd interpret what he said as meaning that issues with global significance should be dealt with on an international basis and, despite your dislike of government intervention, for those who do believe in climate change it's only logical to attempt to deal with it on such a basis, since it can't be dealt with alone.

    .
    .
    .

    OR has given a fairly thorough critique of why that source isn't reliable.

    .
    .
    .

    No, it doesn't. All that says is that climate is complex (and it is). It doesn't necessarily follow that climate is so complex that changes to it cannot be quantified, or that scientists are unqualified to differentiate between changes due to natural or man-made causes. According to the UK Met Office, all the phenomena you brought up are accounted for in their models and I'm more inclined to believe them than I am you.

    .
    .
    .

    As I've mentioned before, it is usually not blamed by people who know what they're talking about. As for the term "climate change", it's more precise because, although global warming is projected to bring about an average increase in temperature, that doesn't mean that this increase will be consistent across the world (or even that it will be an increase everywhere).

    .
    .
    .

    I'm confused as to what exactly you mean by this but the answer to the quoted question is "weather", as I pointed out three posts ago.
    .
    .
    .

    Interesting article, thanks for the link. I feel obliged to point out that the vast majority of research on global warming is peer reviewed and that so far you've found one guy who suppressed data. When you consider the amount of research on the subject, which I linked to in my last post, that hardly qualifies as poisoning the entire theory (though it certainly doesn't help).

    Also, the rest of this concerns advocacy groups. The scientists are hardly to blame for what groups and government officials do with their theory. You're not distinguishing between the research on climate change itself and the "prophets" who try to create policy based on it; they're generally not the same people.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2010
  14. ScreenXSurfer

    ScreenXSurfer Better Than You

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Where you want to live
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0
  15. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Now it's hotter, now it's cooler, now it's hotter, now it's cooler.....aaarrgghh!!!!

     
  16. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    He said, she said....

     
  17. Kelmourne

    Kelmourne The Savage Hippy

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Messages:
    8,034
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    A Pirate city in international cyberspace
    Ratings:
    +119 / 0 / -0
    I find it frustrating that whenever it's slightly colder than it was last year at the same time, global warming is all of a sudden dead. And when it's warmer than usual people keep saying how it's "global warming" doing it. FFS, global temperature change is a gradual thing. Variations from year to year would occur anyways, it's just an average of the last 5 years is SLIGHTLY warmer than the average for the 5 years before that.

    /rant
     
  18. Ser Land

    Ser Land New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Azores, Portugal
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    Global warming doesn't "die". And even if it's rise was inverted, it would take a considerable amount of time.
     
  19. LyannaWolfBlood

    LyannaWolfBlood Ella Dictadora

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    6,374
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +230 / 0 / -0
    Actually, you'd need periods rather longer than 5 years to make any kind of valid comparison ;). But other than that I completely agree with you; it really annoys me too.
     
  20. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    And that, for me personally, is why it's so hard for me to join the Yes or No camp 100%. Humans have only kept accurate temperaure records for a short period in the billions of years of earth's existence. Ice core samples can yield data on temperature fluctuations, but all we can tell for sure is "Earth gets hotter, and colder, in long term cycles."

    I don't like the poisons and toxins we're pumping into the air, soil and water. But are humans causing global warming, or is it just the earth doing its normal natural cyclical thing, which just happens to coincide with humans pumping crap into the atmosphere?

    As there seems no definite way to quantify human vs natural impact, I just can't decide. In the meantime, I shall continue driving my small 4 cylinder car, recycling and utilising my solar panels etc :D
     
Search tags for this page

cliamte of j n k