Man-made Global Warming proven to be a hoax

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


I honestly have no idea what charts you are looking at. Could you provide the ones that shows a prediction of 3 complete freezes in the next 15 years? Because the ones I have - http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/ice/atlas/daily_ice_cover/daily_averages/plots/superior/supgallery/index.html - show that in the 29 year period shown it only reached 100% ice coverage once, in 1996. And it certainly doesn't make predictions about future ice coverage as you claim to be able to do.

The area is nowhere near the SIZE of central Asia, I was merely commenting on the continental effect producing a large swing in temperatures. You continue to confuse a weather event with climate. This is a weather event, or a (hopefully) temporary shift in weather patterns, and is not relevant to the entire year average. If I went to Florida before a large hurricane struck, saw the wind, the rain and the storm surge, it would be foolish of me to assume that this is what Florida is like all year round. If this lasts until July we can start going 'oh sh*t, maybe this is a permanent shift in weather patterns', but as it is at the moment it is just a harder winter for some balanced by a much milder winter for others.

I explained this with a note in a prior post, after contacting one of the authors of the study he explained it as such 'the the ocean circulation can change due to changes of the wind pattern and changes of the ocean water density, the sea level can change with these changes. For example, if you fill a bath tub, then start to drain the water, you could sea that the level of the water is different in the bath tub. In the ocean, the same thing happens. The changes of ocean circulation, such as the Atlantic oceanic overturning circulation, can change the local sea level which it is called dynamic sea level change. This dynamic sea level change can cause the sea level rise more in some regions sic and sea level lower in some regions sic.' This is why there is a sea level differential. There's an image of it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_surface_topography

No, other areas are not more important, everywhere is of equal importance. Western Asia, Northern Canada, Continental Europe, North Africa, Central America, Western Australia - these places were all warmer than usual. There significance is identical to the colder places; Northern Europe, North Asia, Central Asia, Eastern Australia, I don't know what you are driving at. I place influence on the warmer parts to point out that while it cold in some places it is warmer in others.

You know what I believe. I do believe that global warming has caused this, and that as such we are responsible for that cold weather. I think this is part of the process of the world screwing up. But this is a belief and the weather hasn't ended, so scientists haven't had the chance to do a study into whether this WEATHER was as a result of global warming. They might just go, 'you know what, we can't actually prove the link here, so in the conclusion of our study we can't put that unsubstantiated claim in, as the peer-review would tear us apart'. But of course you will always say that they will link it to anything, so if it IS actually part of global warming, which will be bloody difficult to substantiate, you will just say 'Of course they'll say that, it's part of the conspiracy', without even looking at the paper, which contains evidence to back up their conclusion. I have already discussed the difference between Meteorology and Climatology. Meteorologists rely on chaos theory to predict weather in the short term ('5 days'), whereas climatologists use climate modelling to predict future climate. Two different methods, two different time scales, two different fields of study. Meteorologists also have to predict to within what, 2 square miles (the Met office does it down to 1.5km horizontally) whereas climatologists can pull out to maybe 100km horizontal, plus they only have to look at temperature instead of every single aspect of weather. So whilst 5 day forecasts are indeed difficult, long-range climate forecasts for 10, 20 or even 50 years are a lot easier.

You must be an anarchist with that view of government. Of course you pay taxes. Out of which you get; policing, armed forces, social security, education, roads, and in most developed nations, healthcare. It only follows that you pay taxes to clean up the mess we've all made, yourself and myself included, to this planet. The evidence for this is vast, and action should be taken immediately. It should have been taken at Kyoto but it wasn't and procrastination is getting us nowhere but spiralling downwards towards chaos. You see to much evidence and call it to many claims.
 


We've discussed this. Plus your links agrees that the 11-year cycle cannot dramatically effect the earths climate. 'The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent—not substantial enough to affect Earth’s climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet’s current warming trend, scientists say.'
Obviously things like Milakovitch cycles can as we've touched upon earlier. But the 11-year doesn't make much difference to solar output, it only varies about 1W per square metre compared to a solar flux of 1400W er square metre.

'While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species. '

Solar variation can warm the planet, but we've not recorded unusual changes in its output that we could pin down on as responsible for GW.
 
Its more then just an 11 year cycle, it goes by 20,000 and 100,000 year cycles and maybe even larger unknown cycles.

interesting NASA charts on a study more current. Granted they are hostile to AGW perspectivies, but interesting charts.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/
 


I know.

We've discussed this. The long term cycles can, and DO effect the climate, but the 11-year cycle does not. Evidence shows that the sun may have caused SOME of the warming (half in the 1900s), it can't explain all of it, especially after 1980, solar variation cannot account for the 0.4C rise that has occurred since then.
-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16622370.800

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-6.htm

Compared to CO2 the radiative forcing from the sun is a lot less, maybe an eighth of that for CO2.

Although it's noted that, in that report at least, the understanding of solar is classed as Very Low - http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

The link you gave me linked out to this - http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+Acknowledges+Solar+Cycle+Not+Man+Responsible+for+Past+Warming/article15310.htm as its source material.
'Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes, "The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum. The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012."'

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011639.shtml
'Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980. '

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf
'Whereas we estimate that greenhouse warming is likely to have caused more warming than observed during 1950–99, with greenhouse gas warming offset by cooling from sulfate aerosols, our best estimate is that warming from solar forcing is 16% and 36% of the greenhouse warming with the LBB and HS econstructions, respectively.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg This shows the sunspot activity vs CO2 level vs Temperature level. Note that 1) the sunpot scale appears to have been compressed compared to your graph ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png ) and 2) the sunspot activity is from a belgian data set, rather than the NASA set shown inyour graph.

All these links say different things regarding the proportion of temperature rise caused by solar activity, but none of them say that the majority is caused by solar activity.

The majority of the recent change in temperature is down to global warming from greenhouse gases that are released by man.
 
gotta love the title of this thread, hoax? i would have selected my words a little more carefully, more like "Manmade global warming, proven to be false & misleading" but a hoax it is not, more like fraud...
 


I understand your position on this, the more extreme increases occured since industrial revoluton, I can assume this is your position.

If that is true how do you explain the point that the Dakota article made?



"About 1,000 years ago, Greenland was warm enough for the Vikings to colonize and grow vineyards. Today Greenland is almost entirely covered in ice. Tell me: is the earth warmer today than it was 1,000 years ago? Did they have SUVs and coal power plants in the days of the Vikings? This isn’t tough to figure out, people."

What is really normal? Is it suposed to be really colder or really warmer? If the warmer, a case can be made that if man made Global Warming is real , it is good, we can finaly make Greenland lush with vegatation again. Such extreme temperture differnces have been occuring before the industrial revalution. The human race with such primitive technology can change patterens that have been going in cycles for billions of years is difficult to agree too, on top of that carbon credits and more tax rates will change these cycles is even more difficult to belive.

Allot of scientist need grants to make a living, they are as biased just as the oil driller that needs to destroy a forest to get to an oil field. This welfare for scientist that produce findings that later turn out to be nothing more the propaganda papers shows real flaws in entire segment of earth sciences. If the UN corruption was not reveald it was be listed as truth and a talking point to support a global carbon tax system .

 
I think the GW folks need to get money, one way is they should seek sponsors for storms, such as the latest snowacane heheh
Maybe the Toyota snowacane? Follow with commercials showing a hybrid driving thru a blizzard.
No one can explain the exceptions, no one, the mini ice age, the mini heating times etc, and to claim this as a for sure we are causing this and throw out solunar activity, other cycles we havnt discovered, exceptions, the fact that were on the end of one cycle, where were about to enter into a ice age type scenario, reaching our zenith in heat like shown and talked about before here, we simply dont know.
For all we know, we could be delaying the next ice age, tho I still dont give us that much credit as to being able to effect things this much.
I watched the African lake scenario where this lake released huge amounts of CO2, and it choked everyone along its path, flowing down a valley in its gaseous state.
Read and have seen where volcanoes can emit sulfer in such high quantities wheres the entire earth doesnt ever have a summer etc.
All these things have impact, some last for decades, some for a much smaller period of time.
Until we know more, Im just not willing to hand my wallet over to these people.
Their motives may be true, but the people behind them? Thats where to look, its their collective "forcing" thats making this all happen
 


The quote is daft because Greenland is still populated by humans. The earth, from the graphs I've seen, IS warmer than it was 1000 years ago, but should evidence on the contrary come along I'd be willing to change my position on that. Myself and JDJ have already been through this point, regarding Greenland. (i said)
'Vinland could be vin(with an accent over the i)-land, or Wineland. But recently the competing theory has been that vin(without the accent)-land meant pasture land, this is from an old Norse word for pasture, so the land discovered could simply be described as pasture land. Moreover it's possible that with Vinland they were not describing Greenland at all, but rather a part of America, with many scholars indicating they believed that Vikings had landed at America some 500 years prior to the discoveries of Columbus, supported by excavations at L'Anse Aux Meadows. In the 16th century Icelanders realised that this 'New World' described in Europe was very similar to the lands described in their Vinland Sagas.'

Nothing is really normal, normality is something defined by humans. The temperature varies throughout time, but it WAS trending downwards as shown by this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png (though it's arguable that this anthropogenic warming isn't yet significant enough,as far as time is concerned, to completely reverse the trend.) Normality would vary from generation to generation and location to location. But I guess, as far as the world as a whole, and through it's entire timespan, the Earths 'normal' temperature would be about 2-3C more than it is today. For the more recent history (from 500k years ago) I'd suggest that this normal temperature is about 1-2C lower than it is today, and more recent than that (the Holocene) I'd probably go for a little under the 0C line on the above graph, so about 0.5C lower than todays.

I disagree with your assertion that if all the ice melts it would be good. The sea level rise would flood a lot of land elsewhere on the planet, and the land under the ice sheet would be underwater, meaning the verdant land you suggest would take a lot of time to appear, if at all, as the bedrock has to spring back.

The taxes themselves won't stop the change, the money will be spent on green technology, to generate power without releasing CO2. A carbon-credit system would be a trading scheme that encourages companies to reduce their CO2 emissions.

Climate scientists apparently earn a lot less than equivalent industrial scientists (but I can't find where I read this so I wouldn't take my word on it.). Anyway the figures I remember were circa $107k for industrial scientists and $49k for research scientists. So it would apparently be more profitable for scientists to be in industrial position rather than research positions. Plus all the hoops you have to jump through in academia to get grants to carry out your research means I don't believe that they are in it for the money.

I think the GW folks need to get money, one way is they should seek sponsors for storms, such as the latest snowacane heheh
Maybe the Toyota snowacane? Follow with commercials showing a hybrid driving thru a blizzard.
No one can explain the exceptions, no one, the mini ice age, the mini heating times etc, and to claim this as a for sure we are causing this and throw out solunar activity, other cycles we havnt discovered, exceptions, the fact that were on the end of one cycle, where were about to enter into a ice age type scenario, reaching our zenith in heat like shown and talked about before here, we simply dont know.
For all we know, we could be delaying the next ice age, tho I still dont give us that much credit as to being able to effect things this much.
I watched the African lake scenario where this lake released huge amounts of CO2, and it choked everyone along its path, flowing down a valley in its gaseous state.
Read and have seen where volcanoes can emit sulfer in such high quantities wheres the entire earth doesnt ever have a summer etc.
All these things have impact, some last for decades, some for a much smaller period of time.
Until we know more, Im just not willing to hand my wallet over to these people.
Their motives may be true, but the people behind them? Thats where to look, its their collective "forcing" thats making this all happen
Click to expand...

There have been volcanic eruptions that have reduced the temperature by blocking out the sun, but we shouldn't continue to pollute the planet just because nature can do worse.

The problem is that you will likely never be sated in your demand for more research, more evidence. The evidence before you is already so vast. We have increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by 35%, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we have observed the temperature change that has occurred since industrialisation. I mean these pieces of evidence already paint a picture of human made warming. Then you go through what else, solar variation can account for some of the warming, but not for 1985 onwards. There have been few volcanic eruptions that have produce a global effect, besides our CO2 emissions outweigh volcanic emission by over 100 to 1 (230Mt vs 27000Mt (2004)) so they have had limited impact (any impact will be under 1%), plus they've been going on for thousands of years without producing the spike we see today.
 
Just like Medieval Warm Period helped end the dark ages this warming trend will be benifical to humanity. So many underwater cities have been discovered it sorta proves drastic temperture changes occured but humans survived. Cities will fall into the waves every fey 10,000 years. It happens. We will survive.
 


The MWP occured from roughly 900AD to 1200AD, whilst the dark ages ended in the 14th century. This means that there was about a century of gap between the MWP and the Renaissance. The change was also not as great in speed or magnitude as it has been this past century.

I don't feel that this warning will be beneficial to humanity. I've outlined why before.
 
We dont know that, buildings can be rebuilt, people can move.
The areas that lose their ice cover become usable once again.
These is old old areas under the seas, very old, such as the findings in the english channel, right next to you, and you should know of this, these lands are now underwater, once inhabited by people, so I guess Englands of no use to man anymore by this logic, it wont be good for man?
 
The rapid global warming resulted in marked changes in vegetation and animal communities across Europe. Extensive pollen analyses have documented the transition from the late glacial open tundra of northern Europe to mixed oak woodland by 8000 b.p. Some of the large herbivores of the late glacial, such as reindeer, moved to the far north of Europe, while others, like red deer, adapted to the forested environments by living in more dispersed and smaller herds. Other large terrestrial animals, such as mammoths, became extinct, while forest-loving animals such as roe deer and wild boar extended their range. Along with changes in the large game, there was a marked increase in the abundance and diversity of small game, wildfowl, and coastal resources. In southern Europe, the changes in plant and animal communities were less dramatic and we find a much higher degree of economic continuity across the Pleistocene-Holocene interface.

Read more: The European Mesolithic Period - Mesolithic, Hunters in Transition, The Mesolithic in Europe http://www.jrank.org/history/pages/6069/The-European-Mesolithic-Period.html#ixzz0gi7Wyqpo
http://www.jrank.org/history/pages/6069/The-European-Mesolithic-Period.html
OK, a few ponts here, first of all, notice the words, rapid global warming.
Now, next notice the reactions. Southern latitudes were less effected, whereas the northen ones were more effected, species wise.
Man lost alot of his best hunting grounds, , animals that used to be in these areas left, yet man still thrived here, with little options back in the day.
To say todays society is weaker than it was then is folly, and the very knowledge some claim to have fails them one ways or another here believing this.
Either today we cant do as well as mesolithic men means our knowledge has indeed faled us.
Making such claims, if we can do as well and better, then again, theyve failed to grasp this, mans ability to survive.
Do we want to have a perfect world? Cant happen, and only man wants it, right? Then why this huge unknown worry? The demand of our money? The demand of our rights to forfeit to choose? Not these fellas, they arent smart enough to trust me, and so, they dont deserve nada from me either
 


The areas that lose ice cover won't become usable and you know it. The Greenland ice sheet compresses the bedrock beneath it, meaning that if all the ice went a lot would be underwater, or have you forgotten what you said - http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/page-52_65_200.html#t910 'The bedrock in the center of Greenland has been pressed below sea level by the weight of the ice sheet. Thus, if the ice suddenly melted, much of central Greenland would be under water'

The lands are underwater now (although most settlements have been found in the North Sea) and this should serve as a warning of the damage done when the climate changes. To be honest I've no idea where you've even got this logic from. The settlements in the North Sea, in an area we call Doggerland, began to be inundated when the ice melted 12,000 years ago. It wasn't good for man, the sea level rise meant that people had to abandon their homes. The same will happen in many areas of the world if the sea levels rise.

Northern latitudes were more effected because they had more land 'connected' to the Arctic, whereas Antarctica sits unconnected to any large land mass.

Can you substantiate your claim that the people of the Mesolithic thrived? I looked through your links and found 'adapted' but not 'thrived'. I did find this in your link - 'The rapid environmental change during the Mesolithic, and the diversity of animal and plant communities across Europe, make it difficult to generalize about Mesolithic economies.' The author is suggesting that making sweeping claims about the economies of the settlements, as you do so readily, is difficult.

I disagree that it is a folly but I disagree more that you suggest I made that assertion. I never made that claim. It is arguable that this modern society IS a lot weaker than this older society. I couldn't hunt animals. I don't know which plants/fungi will kill me or which is edible. I'll be bold enough to say that most of the people in the developed world couldn't do this either. In Mesolithic societies most, if not all, of the populous could live off the land relatively easily. On the other hand we are much more interconnected as a society, and this enhanced co-operation means that we may be able to adapted in a better way to change/natural disaster. Modern literature is vast and wide ranging, so using this we are likely to be able to learn to hunt quite quickly. But the interconnected aspect of modern society can also be a weakness. Take away the ability to communicate with others and you lose the ability for specialisation to take place. If population X are expert hunters and population Y expert fishers then contact with between them greatly benefits there chances of survival. If fish stocks collapsed for Y then they could help hunt with X and survive, and vice versa. But if the links are lost, and communication destroyed, then a problem with food stocks for either could mean that the population ceases to be. If this population is the only one who is an expert in a subject then the knowledge is also lost with them. Modern society is weaker as far as survival goes, but stronger with knowledge and literature.

We don't have a perfect world. We never will. Only man has the ability to communicate he wants it, who's to say that a rhino doesn't wish hunting to end and that everything is nice to everything else. The worry isn't unknown, the worry is that the sea levels will rise, displacing millions, that arable areas will be destroyed through flooding or a change in climate. This is why myself and thousands of others worry for the future of this planet, it's not unknown, it's very known which is why it is very worrying. They don't demand money, they demand a change. If this requires some sort of monetary deduction for those who cannot change then so be it. You already have laws that forfeit your right to choose. Unless for some reason the law against murder has been repealed in your country this law takes away your choice to murder and escape punishment. The 'forfeit' of certain choices is essential for social cohesion, economic co-operation and to prevent environmental damage.
 
So, all the sudden it gets warmer, the sea levels rise, and we forget everything weve ever learned.
We can no longer farm, knowing what plants will grow in the climates we can foresee, if GW is to be believed, so theres no problem, whereas meso peoples had no idea, let alone a few short centuries ago, ala Ireland and the potato, so we would have huge advantages over those cultures.
Having more land submerged allows for huge amounts of nutrients into the oceans, and where these land become submerged, the sea life will explode in livelyhood.
People moving out of non "green" housing seems like a good opportunity to create all those super easy on the ocology buildings for millions of people, perfect for all these experts to do their thing, and show how far weve come, and how well we can do, as long as GW people can keep predicting the future, itll be OK
 


I never said that we would forget everything. I said the opposite. I said that the literature side of our society is a lot stronger than Mesolithic society, where knowledge stayed within groups of people. We can still farm, or, to be precise, farmers can still farm. This is what I am saying. I couldn't hunt or identify poisonous plants. Most people in developed nations can't either. This doesn't mean EVERYONE will be useless. Which is why I said most not all.

If GW warming is to be understood, and the large amount of evidence for it accepted there IS a problem. Plants will only grow in relatively controlled/stable conditions, and if these conditions change land previously arable will become unusable. Will some land replace that? Perhaps. It's not a certainty. The soils are different and the weather may be different. If the weather is more extreme shallow soil crops will be highly effected. Mesolithic people DID have knowledge, they could live off the land in a manner far more advanced than most of us could individually.

I haven't found any information on marine transgression releasing large amounts of nutrients, if you could provide me links that would be appreciated.
 


The Daily Express is nothing but a joke.

I delivered papers for about 3 years, and every winter they said it would an 'arctic winter' with temperatures down to -40 or what have you, and every winter nothing of the sort happened.

1) There is also no 'scientific proof' of atoms, and whilst GW is not as succinct a theory as aomic theory the point remains, and 'proof' only ever exists in mathematics.
2) '[Man-made CO2 is equivalent to] less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.' Years of large scale Human CO2 release ~250 years, 'geological history' ~billion years (further back and continental drift, volcanic activity etc. make it difficult to determine). The comparison is pointless, misleading and irrelevant, and since the industrial revolution human emissions are far greater than volcanic emissions.
3) In this thread we've discussed before. The rise in CO2 has been with or upto 8000 years after the rise in temperature, not always 8000 yers afterwards.
4) Is just a lie, temperature plateaued betweeen the mid-40s and late 60s.
5) Shows that higher CO2 levels correlate with higher temperatures.
6) Nobody denies that, and during some of these periods sea-levels were much higher.
7) Since the 1970s the temperature has risen in spite of things like solar output not increasing.
8) Also appears to be a lie, as the figure is over 2500 reviewers.
9) 'Nothing in the emails undermines any of the key scientific conclusions. Independent groups have come to the same conclusions.'
And also -
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238
10) The Sun may have contributed to the early-20th century increase, but since the 70s it hasn't increased its output.
11) Sea level has been very stable for the past 2000 years, after a rapid increase as we entered this interglacial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File😛ost-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
12) Climate change is, as with many other systems, open to many factors infulencing it, but the rise since the 1970s has been mostly due to an increase in greenhosue gases.
13) Irrelevant, and I do not think that Britain is the most commited in Europe let alone the world.
14) So, what this list is trying to say is that using wind energy to produce power instead of fossil fuels will not reduce CO2 emissions. Wind farms are one method of many for producing power without using fossil fuels.
15) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases increase the temperature of an atmosphere. In the past higher temperatures have correlated with higher CO2. There are other greenhouse gases man has produced, such as methane.
16) 'Many scientists think Soon should be embarrassed by some of the papers he has published.'
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18279-deniergate-turning-the-tables-on-climate-sceptics.html?page=1
17) The larger picture is clear, and getting clearer everyday, as understanding of the details of the mechanisms are filled in. Don't forget that many uncertainties can go both ways.
18) Water vapour is a feedback, not a cause.
I think I might let New Scientist take over from here.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html

 


Yes, I have read all 100 'reasons'. They are not the result of a study, they are reasons given in a dossier by a think tank. Its holds very very little scientific merit, repeats itself numerous times, and some reasons are nothing to do with the global warming itself, but politics -
14, 56, 58, 59, 60, 62, 65, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 82, 88, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99 are political issues, not scientific reasons.

Repetition:
14, 50, 51, 82, 87 Lament wind farms which are nothing to do with the cause of global warming.
9, 66, 83 Accuse scientists of tampering or manipulating data, which they have been cleared of by an investigation.
36, 39, 68 Extreme weather.
38, 52 Regarding the temperature increase.

Lies:
4, 8, 11, 19 (not what the Heidelberg appeal was about), 28, 32, 34 (used H2O, which is a feedback, not a cause), 35, 38 (rose 0.19C), 67 (this contradicts 38), 88, 92.

So what:
2, 29, 33 (it was also much much hotter in the past as well), 55, 63 & 64 (further research has deemed that the hockey stick was wrong, with regards to its flatness, but finds that it was largely correct with regards to the sudden rise from the mid-19th century), 81.

Shock! Peole who deny that man is causing global warming say that man isn't causing climate change:
12, 15, 16, 21, 53, 57, 76, 100

Citation needed:
7, 10, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 30, 36, 40 (and it contradicts itself), 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 54, 62, 68, 69 (this also contradicts 38 and 67), 78, 80 (contradicts 8), 84, 85, 86, 90, 91 (also contradicts 38 and 67).

Unscience - 31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming. 'Rising CO2 levels of some so-called greenhouse gases'? Come on...

79 Is just a statement that has no bearing on reality and 89 is complete nonsense. Oxygen is also toxic at 100% concentrations, is that also a pollutant? Water is also toxic to humans at 100% concentration (called drowning), is that also a pollutant? Frankly 89 just shows that the producers of this dossier have pretty much no scientific knowledge.

In this list they've stated that the temperatures over the past decade have been steady, increased and decreased. Such blatent contradictions are intolerable in science, as is the lack of citation, lying, repetition, not staying on topic (21 Political reasons. Really now...), pointless statements and personal anecdotes. The list fails to give a single credible reason as to why this current climate change is natural.
 
9, 66, 83 Accuse scientists of tampering or manipulating data, which they have been cleared of by an investigation. Who did the investigation? the leaked E-mails prove what they were doing
SunSpots caused the rise in temp, I saw in National Geopgraphic that we are headed for a mini Ice Age, Science has become corrupted, political change, one world government is the real problem, they are creatiing BS to keep us distracted, both Obama and Biden have said that the capital of the free world should be in Belgium, Quote:"As you probably know, some American politicians and American journalists refer to Washington, D.C. as the 'capital of the free world,'" Biden said. "But it seems to me that in this great city, which boasts 1,000 years of history and which serves as the capital of Belgium, the home of the European Union, and the headquarters for NATO, this city has its own legitimate claim to that title." if that's not a plug for a one world govt!!!, Change is coming, not the one you wanted maybe, but it will be a deciding moment in American history, incumbents are being sent home, or you hear they are "going to spend more time with their families" political sideways talk for I'm getting out of here before I lose.
 


The inquiry was chaired by Lord Oxburgh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate#Science_Assessment_Panel
'The panel included Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, who had been examining the way CRU used statistical methodology to develop an average annual global temperature.
Climate sceptics have argued that CRU's statistical methods were inadequate.
Professor Hand said that the CRU scientists did not use "the best statistical tools for their studies" but that this had made not significant difference to their conclusions. '
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8618024.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg
Sunspot number has been decreasing since the mid-80s, yet temperatures have kept increasing.

There are some scientists who think that the large amount of freshwater release by the Greenland ice sheet melting could shut down the Gulf Stream, making places colder than they are today - I remember the Horizon version of what you seem to be describing.

Nobody wants a single government in control of the world - it's simply too complex for a single government to handle.
'this city has its own legitimate claim to that title.' =/= this IS the capital of the free world nor is it equal to this should be the capital of the free world.
 
1. Lord, sounds English, that was where the E-mails came from wasn't it, ever heard of the American Bar Association, do you really think they "police"their ranks, if they did most of the politians would be disbarred for serving in the Judicial and Executive branch at the same time( which the constitutioon strictly for bids), when was Europe Free? ever heard of Fuedalism, how about Serf's, there was a reason that people came to this country and did NOT allow this to happen, free Europe, HMMm, never saw that in world history, of course I went to school before they had a chance to rewrite history.
"There are some scientists who think that the large amount of freshwater release by the Greenland ice sheet melting could shut down the Gulf Stream" and I think they are full of baloney, (Fact fresh water sit on top of salt water, so how is it going to disrupt the Gulf stream) 800M to 1200M down and about 60 miles wide, even the Eskimo's know that, we can think anything, last winter England had the coldest winter in a decade or more, so I think the Scientific data is corrupted, the computer models only went back 50 years, I think somebodies lying, so I think Global Warming is a hoax.
"Nobody wants a single government in control of the world" only in your mind, do you really think the global meltdown was a "accident" it was just a practice run for what's coming. ever heard of the NWO guidestone in Elbert County, Georgia, etched in granite in 12 languages, many of the decree's people find very alarminig, the New World Order put their plans for world population control on it, 500 million people so they could be "managed easily", Al Gore went home and you haven't heard from him for a while for a reason, at his book signing in New York, he had to "escape out the back door" he was terrified of the neg publicity and harassment from the crowd,Wake up the coffee's brewing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom