Global warming still happening

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have to view it holistically. You can't just look at one pattern in one state for one instance to disprove that man is responsible for a lot of the climate change happening around the globe.

http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-2/
 
Global warming is really serious and is advancing more and more now.

 
I don't know if it's global warming or something, but i didn't see any winter day this year.
We are in february, i live in the North of France where it used to be cold, and we didn't have any day under 0°C.
I've never seen that before.
When i take a look at my garden, i can see bees and buds.

Climate changes are naturals. But i'm sure that mankind has something to do with this one.

And as usual, some countries do not give a damn and will continue to do as they like, spitting in the mouths of others.
But do not worry, we will continue to require more effort to those who provide the most.
And those who don't care about will continue to rot the planet, reaping profits.

Humanity is stupid.
Oldman talks about Fukushima, and he is right but for the wrong reasons.
What has been the impact of Fukushima on the planet? some countries morons decided to halt all nuclear power generation because "Fukushima showed that it is dangerous." (this is dangerous in a region of high seismic activity and when there is a tsunami, assholes!)
What did they do then? they have imported Australian coal astronomical amount to compensate nuclear.
Basically, they stopped nuclear power, which is now the cleanest way to produce electricity for use highly polluting fossil fuels. Congratulations bands morons.
 
Our PM Mr Tony Abbot claims there is no such thing as global warming ... which is a total embarrassment for our country.

Just to be sure he has completely defunded the department responsible for tracking it.

Then he moved on to defund the Drug and Alcohol Authority ... so in 12 months he can claim these issues are resolved ... because there is no reporting mechanism now in our country ... after 50 years ... all that data went down the drain.

In order to resolve the issue of illegal immigrants he put the military in charge and provides no reporting to the media ... and has almost started a war with Indonesia.

He then cut all subsidies to the auto industry and Ford, Holden (GM) and toyota are now closing ... he also cut the throats of our own fruit industry but gave Cadbury 25 Million ... go figure.

Job losses here will escalate beyond 100,000 people in less that 12 months and I imagine the Liberal Party (read Republicans) won't likely get back into power for another 20 years.

In the meantime he will sell Quantas (our 50% state owned Airline) and sail off into the sunset with his pal from Virgin airline.

He is screwing the country so the fat cats can get fatter ... and leaving us in a total mess.

He is also cutting the solar subsidies and the carbon tax since global warning is a myth.

Then his moronic foreign minister starts criticising China ...

I can't believe people in this country voted for such a complete idiot.

He has been in power less than 6 months ...

The secrecy, lies and deception is incredible here.

Nothing gets through to the media because Rupert Murdoch owns all of the TV stations and papers ... so you won't see or hear anything.

Murdoch also bankrolled his campaign.

The ABC (our govt Broadcaster0 has even been warned in writing not to criticise the Australian government.

Sadly we don't have secret police ... so I can't complain yet about being beaten and whipped.

Thats probably on his agenda for next week.

Global Warning FTW !!!

:)

 


The thing is there is no evidence that natural causes within the climate could have been solely responsible for the changes we are seeing now. Sure the drought could be part of a cycle. What about the rising sea levels? What about the acidity of the oceans? What about the shrinking of the ice caps? What about the unique weather patterns we are seeing? If you look at the entire situation it become painfully obvious that we are responsible for a lot of it.

"Different influences on climate have different signatures in climate records. These unique fingerprints are easier to see by probing beyond a single number (such as the average temperature of Earth’s surface), and looking instead at the geographical and seasonal patterns of climate change. The observed patterns of surface warming, temperature changes through the atmosphere, increases in ocean heat content, increases in atmospheric moisture, sea level rise, and increased melting of land and sea ice also match the patterns scientists expect to see due to rising levels of CO2 and other human-induced changes"

Most of humanity is stupid, maybe we deserve whats coming next.
 




Climate change is an absolute reality. The earth's climate has and will always change.

The debate about humans being the cause of wholesale climate change or being the cause of the dramatic changes in weather patterns is completely debatable. Think about it, the earth as we know is millions of years old, homo-sapiens arrived about 250K years ago, modern behaviors began about 50K years ago, and man has only been been industrialized for about 100 years. With a planet and ecosystem this old, how arrogant and presumptuous can human beings be to think that releasing "green house gases" is what is causing the changes in the climate.

Personally, I believe that the pole shift (not geomagnetic reversal, different altogether) has more to do with climate change than any effect that humans have on the environment.

Some studies report that the reason for the pole shift is due to man made climate change but I can't help consider that as a knee-jerk rush to blame humans for everything wrong with the climate. It also ignores the fact that the poles have shifted several times through the earth's history. And to add to that, the science has proven that the cause of pole shift is due to internal changes in the earth, not surface changes.

 
Its a closed system. Anything unnatural modifying that closed system has an effect.

But its was -10F (-23C) last so...

If there is even a 1% chance that what we are doing is going to have longterm lasting impacts things need to change.
 


 
He sounds like some of our moronic politicians we have in the Congress in the states.

 


Not to get too of topic here but population control has been an agenda item of the globalists for the past 100 years or so. The ties to culling the population has ties to communism, environmentalists, radical humanists, and the eugenics movement. There is an honest and definite opinion by many elites that a possible solution is to withhold vaccines, limit food production, encourage controlled genocide, and enact legislation in certain countries to limit reproduction. There are documented instances of population control being taught in public schools! This isn't in foil hat stuff either, these are true and documented instances of policy makers and influencers pushing a population control agenda, i.e. Agenda 21, as a legitimate means to make the world a better place.

Fortunately, in order to make population control a reality, there would truly have to be a facist/draconian government and the means to enforce population control; see China. In America, I doubt that it could become a reality any time soon but as civil liberties are continuously eroded and progressive agendas breed ignorant and complicit electorates, it wouldn't take but a few generations for the useful idiots to begin believing it is in their best interest to get a "parenting license" and accept limits on the number of children they can have.

But I digress...
 


Personally, IMO, I agree, that if there is a chance human activity is having long term effects that appropriate and necessary steps should be taken to mitigate if not possibly reverse those effects. I take a better safe than sorry approach in that sense. Given the diversity of opinion and the fact that the leading "experts" at the IIPC were busted falsifying date to achieve a political agenda, I just can't justify action or accept the "data" that "proves" humans do have an effect. I also have a hard letting go of the simple fact that it has been proven the earth has been through many climate change cycles in the past several million years and the simple fact that industrialized humans have only been on this earth for the past 100+ years. I find it extremely hard to believe that 100+years of industrial activity trumps the naturally occurring and repeating cycles of the earth. Does that activity speed it up, does it cause a change that is not naturally occuring? Again, when the experts falsify data, they lose an credibility they may have had regardless of whether they were correct or not.

 
Well there Johnson, the reason why people think anthropomorphic global warming is a myth is because it is. The AGW proponents cherry-pick a lot of data using different methodologies and use a large number of "correction" factors to try to make the model fit their prediction. The actual truth as best anybody can tell is that there are many and poorly-understood climate cycles occurring. If you use the same types of proxy data that we used to say what temperature was thousands of years ago to what it is today, we are nothing out of the ordinary. The CO2 seems to be a red herring, especially as it has increased *after* the short-term temperature trend went up.

This page has several of those reconstructed data sets put in graphs of varying time periods. In particular look at any one single data set that goes back further than the 1880-present direct thermometry line that the AGW crowd loves to use. (We were nearly but not yet completely done coming out of the Little Ice Age in 1880 so of course it is going to be warmer today.) We see that there is a significant amount of disagreement between predicted temperatures using different proxy methods and that temperatures in the past 6000-800 years were potentially much warmer than today.

The really surprising thing is that there are supposedly well-educated people that think that CO2 AGW is actually true and believe all of the "oh noes, we're all going to drown!!" hyperbole. AGW was a theory based on some early 20th-century observations of temperatures of gases in closed containers when exposed to sunlight plus seeing a few decades worth of direct thermometry results but not having other data available to them yet (satellite data, ice cores, etc.) It should have died a quiet death like millions of other "what-if" theories. But the statists in government looking for something to allow them plenary control over everything and climatologists looking to expand their prestige and grant-gathering abilities not only kept the faulty theory alive, they pushed it front and center to the national stage.

But hey, who am I as an engineer and scientist with post-doctoral level training to point out that science by definition isn't "settled" by consensus declaration as AGW supposedly is? I must be a paid shill of Exxon, despite working in a completely different industry and having never accepted even a single penny from anybody in any industry.
 
Let me ask you a question since you are an engineer and a scientist! What happens in a system or an equation when you introduce unknown variables? What about when you change existing variables?

You point out one graph of data to prove your point yet there are thousands of peer reviewed papers that agree on the idea that man is affecting the climate. To counter this you say that all those papers cherry-pick data and use correction factors? So basically, just about every climate scientist is wrong or blowing smoke? Not only that but its part of a government takeover?

Sorry you lost me at government takeover.
 


HAHAHAHAHAHA!

You research, write your findings, I agree with it. Peer review.

Peer review is how we get "hard proof", until the next "great discovery" that revises or debunks said hard proof.

 
There is absolutely no global warming in Australia ... the Liberal Party (Tony Vladimir Abbott) has banned the topic and fired all of the scientists.

In fact he has no Minister for Science ... he disolved Science and replaced it with Religion.

He also gagged the CSIRO.

Currently they are confined to looking at stars and such.

Their next project is to destroy the Great Barrier Reef by dumping enough dredge spoil in it to kill off everything ... the Queensland National Party is personally on the shovels with this one,
 


Well I suppose science is completely useless then? Lets just give up and go back to living in caves since you have proven that science is a sham. Well done!
 


Sounds like a real shity situation. I would tell you to come to America if you want to be a scientist but we just got rid of it too thanks to Chunky's astounding revelations. Maybe him and Abbot are secretly working for the pope in an effort to stamp out science and restore religion to its rightful place.
 


Ahhh yes...the classic "agree with me or nihilism" response.

You can go back living in a cave, my family and I are quite happy in our center hall colonial, thank you very much!

Nothing wrong with peer review, but when it's held up as the end-all-be-all answer and then proven incorrect by independent review, as the IIPC findings were, then peer review is a joke.



Snarky much?! And, you give me too much credit. If I was in any form of collusion to rid the world of anything, it wouldn't be science, it would be close minded progressive ideologues like yourself.
 
If you cannot respond to a post without resulting to bigotry maybe you shouldn't post at all? Apparently you do not enjoy my sarcasm, that much is clear.

Peer reviewed study is not the end all be all. It is merely the best answer available until evidence and scientific study prove otherwise. One "independent" review or publication that contradicts this view is a start. Now you only need a couple more decades and thousands of more studies that collaborate on this view for it to be taken seriously. This is science at work. You will excuse me if I make light of the fact that you demean the whole scientific process because you disagree with it.

The real argument here is how much we are affecting the climate not "if" we are. Any person that looks at this with a rational view that is not corrupted with political ideologies can see this. Most of the world sees this as well.
 


You have an unsolvable set of equations if the number of variables outnumbers the number of equations. You thus have to guess as to what some variables are to try to solve the equation, and if you get it wrong, you get the wrong answers. This is exactly what the AGW folks have done- they try to guess as to what the equations/variables are. There's nothing absolutely wrong with that as long as they realize that they really do not know what's going on. However, they've started to think that they are correct and the science is "settled" despite their models NOT being accurate (e.g. the Al Gore IPCC "hockey stick" graph) and thus their equations of climate system dynamics aren't correct.

You point out one graph of data to prove your point yet there are thousands of peer reviewed papers that agree on the idea that man is affecting the climate. To counter this you say that all those papers cherry-pick data and use correction factors? So basically, just about every climate scientist is wrong or blowing smoke? Not only that but its part of a government takeover?
Click to expand...

Yes. Laymen think that peer review is the ultimate check and balance but those of us in scientific fields know peer review is only as good as the peers doing the reviewing. This article from JAMA illustrates the principle very well even though it's about a different subject. That JAMA article written by well-known academics (who undoubtedly do peer review of others) argues for clinical trial raw data from non-industry sources to only be available to certain non-industry researchers (instead of being open to any medical researcher) because the "wrong" researchers may arrive at the "wrong" conclusion using the exact same data. And note that this is with a topic which is very amenable to top-quality research. You can have multiple double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trials and results valid results are easily repeatable in further studies. So it's much harder to try to BS results in a medical study than with a single, unrepeatable, purely observational trial with multiple known and unknown confounders such as with climate change studies. So riddle me this- if those academic "peers" are willing to subscribe to a censoring groupthink with easily repeatable medical studies, what makes you think they won't do that with something where falsehoods are much harder to disprove like climate studies?

Sorry you lost me at government takeover.
Click to expand...

It is very clearly the case as the government is certainly using global warming/climate change to further its regulatory reach. I don't know how you are lost unless you absolutely aren't looking at what's going on with the government of this country.
 


Like I said before, the peer group in climatology is very closed and outside opinions are NOT tolerated. The language of "settled science" and "deniers" tells us that very easily and the reason is because insignificant to no AGW = climatology labs lose boatloads of grant funding. So you will essentially never get anybody doing climatology peer review who doesn't subscribe to the AGW groupthink and thus you get the "consensus" on the issue. Groupthink is the antithesis of the scientific process. I think you can ask people like Galileo who challenged the then-prevalent theocratic groupthink in about that one!

The real argument here is how much we are affecting the climate not "if" we are. Any person that looks at this with a rational view that is not corrupted with political ideologies can see this. Most of the world sees this as well.
Click to expand...

The "if" and "how much" are essentially the same question- are we affecting climate to any actually significant degree? Sure, just in being part of a system we are having some sort of an effect. But if we have about as much effect as a single grasshopper has an effect on 30 acres worth of crops, then we don't need to worry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom