Originally posted by baff

Yes mate.

That's the debunked one. A surface instrument analysis provided by NASA.

 

If you want to know about "the majority of scientists", perhaps you should extend your search past just the one source?

As previously mentioned the other 3 major studies all provide conflicting data.

 

Here a graph showing two of them.

Hadley is the largest colllection of ground based thermometer data available in the world. UAH is a satelitte based system.

Here is another one with another satelitte system's measurements. The RSS.

As you can see, Global Cooling has been happening for a long time now.

 

Here's another. I can go on posting graphs all night mate. But you could have looked them up for yourself. So if you didn't already know this, you probably have no intrest in it.

Once again, in the above example, you can clearly see that the IPCC (or NASA data) which you favour is very much out of kilter with the other scientific studies. it is anything but the consensus opinion of the scientific community.

You have failed to adjust to the change in consensus of the scientific community mate. It's no longer 1998, new data has been recorded. The theories have all evolved.

 

And finally I'll leave you with a brief overview of the temperature history of the last 2,000 years complete with the old hocky stick prediction dotted in for post 1998. The one that embarrasingly  turned out to be the exact opposite of what has actually been measured.

 

Please note from these graphs that in 2008, our global temperature as measured by satellitte and the largest collection of ground based thermometers collated by man, our global temperature was exactly the planetry average. 0.0 on those graphs.

Not hotter, not colder. Not warmer.    Mean. Average. Normal.

 

You see it's not just me who can read graphs, it's every scientist in the world. That's why they have all shut up about Global Warming. The consensus is it isn't happening any more. It ended in 1998.

There are still some Global Cooling denialists out there of course. I have absolutely no doubt you can link me to a load of nonsense websites etc, ten year old graphs, debunked models and all the rest.

 

But your trapped in the past mate. Arguing last decades hot scientific theory that didn't survive the turn of the century. The great Global Warming debate is over. Long since debunked.

 

Haven't you heard? We've moved on old son, we are discussing Climate Change these days.

I thought we were discussing climate change the whole time.  Global warming and climate change are interchanged so often nowadays that they have practically become the same thing.

Anyway, the charts you have posted are all within a decade or so.  Of course temperature fluctuate within a decade, but the average trend is up.  And on NASA's official website it states the majority of scientists agree that humans have caused or at least contributed to global warming. 

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html 

No one here is a climatologist, so all we have to go by is research by qualified individuals.  If some actual official research group comes out and says it's all fake, fine I'll gladly accept it, but they haven't done that and still maintain that we are in fact contributing to global warming.

There is not one poll/study/analysis out there that says the majority of scientists don't believe in it.  There are several that say the vast majority do.  Plus some of the qualified skeptics of global like Roy Spencer are creationists.....which should exclude their opinion pretty fast.  Creationism is the exact opposite of science.

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Gameloading

So let me ask this to those who deny global warming:

Do you think this is all one big conspiracy?

Nope. Do you think the belief in a god is one big conspiracy?

Your answer to that is my answer to your question.

No i don't think the belief in a god is one big conspiracy. I do believe there are lots of groups trying to make money off the belief the in god but this does not strengthen or weaken the existance of a god in any way.

So I'm glad we agree that this has no effect on wheter Global Warming is true or not.

That's exactly what is going on with man-made global warming nuts. Does the planet warm? Yes. Does it cool? Yes? Are we doing it? No. Is it natural? Yes.

That's what I was thinking. I've seen much information about a temperature cycle the Earth goes through, some examples more extreme than others, but it's nothing humanity hasn't lived through before.

However, it is something to take into consideration that during the last warm period, humanity wasn't producing as much carbon dioxide as we are now. Do we affect the cycle this way? Yes. Could it prove deadly? We don't know yet, some scientists say 'yes' some say 'no.'

Experiments are not controlled enough to show evidence towards either claim, it seems.

My problem is that people tend to believe that either we are causing 100% of the warming, or none of it.  The truth is probably that we are playing a role, and so is nature.   But the skeptics want to just completely ignore it and continue polluting to high hell.  That is where the real ignorance comes into play.

If someone other than liberal politician would have narrated an Inconvenient Truth, I doubt there would be as much skepticism as there is.

Well, someone is starting to wonder if Al Gore is totally wrong - upcoming soon on one of the discovery channels is a show on if the recently rapidly dropping temperatures are the beginning of a new mini-ice age...

On the other hand, both sides have advanced the (always changing) weather patterns to justify their agenda. Many of the arguments and anecdotes here are exactly the same ones I am hearing now to prove that global warming is a "fact". Time Magazine article 1974.

But then again... Alaska glaciers growing.

Originally posted by Laiina

Well, someone is starting to wonder if Al Gore is totally wrong - upcoming soon on one of the discovery channels is a show on if the recently rapidly dropping temperatures are the beginning of a new mini-ice age...

On the other hand, both sides have advanced the (always changing) weather patterns to justify their agenda. Many of the arguments and anecdotes here are exactly the same ones I am hearing now to prove that global warming is a "fact". Time Magazine article 1974.

But then again... Alaska glaciers growing.

Also that Russian expedition vessel that got stuck in the ice recently

Originally posted by Sabiancym

But the skeptics want to just completely ignore it and continue polluting to high hell.  That is where the real ignorance comes into play.

It seems you hold some stereotypes. Just because I completely disagree with man-contributed global warming does not mean I toss trash on the ground and simply consume as much as I can.

I'm quite conservative when it comes to such issues - I recycle when I can (I live in Oklahoma - not many recycling centers around), I go bat shit crazy when my kids take long showers or when someone moves the thermostat from 69, I use fans as much as possible in the summer and only try to use air conditioning when we are going through our hot times and I try to do as little driving as possible.

I'm all for alternative energy.

However, I do it for real reasons such as reduction in consumption and costs, not a fabricated story such as man-contributed planet warming.

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym

But the skeptics want to just completely ignore it and continue polluting to high hell.  That is where the real ignorance comes into play.

It seems you hold some stereotypes. Just because I completely disagree with man-contributed global warming does not mean I toss trash on the ground and simply consume as much as I can.

I'm quite conservative when it comes to such issues - I recycle when I can (I live in Oklahoma - not many recycling centers around), I go bat shit crazy when my kids take long showers or when someone moves the thermostat from 69, I use fans as much as possible in the summer and only try to use air conditioning when we are going through our hot times and I try to do as little driving as possible.

I'm all for alternative energy.

However, I do it for real reasons such as reduction in consumption and costs, not a fabricated story such as man-contributed planet warming.

All I can say is that 69 is indeed a good number. For many reasons.

Everything else I'm not at liberty to debate with what I know.

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym

But the skeptics want to just completely ignore it and continue polluting to high hell.  That is where the real ignorance comes into play.

It seems you hold some stereotypes. Just because I completely disagree with man-contributed global warming does not mean I toss trash on the ground and simply consume as much as I can.

I'm quite conservative when it comes to such issues - I recycle when I can (I live in Oklahoma - not many recycling centers around), I go bat shit crazy when my kids take long showers or when someone moves the thermostat from 69, I use fans as much as possible in the summer and only try to use air conditioning when we are going through our hot times and I try to do as little driving as possible.

I'm all for alternative energy.

However, I do it for real reasons such as reduction in consumption and costs, not a fabricated story such as man-contributed planet warming.

I will admit that I have stereotypes, I know I do. 

I didn't mean you specifically, I meant those out there that do act like the stereotype I was referring to.  I probably should have put "some of the skeptics", because I have seen many people on conservative boards and a few relatives of mine who talk shit about people concerned with the environment.  Tree huggers, gay environmentalists, pussies, etc.  They call them all kinds of shit and then go on about how they love having big ass trucks with terrible gas mileage just so they can stick it to them.

So I apologize for labeling all skeptics as that.  I should have clarified. 

Originally posted by Sabiancym

 

My problem is that people tend to believe that either we are causing 100% of the warming, or none of it.  The truth is probably that we are playing a role, and so is nature.   But the skeptics want to just completely ignore it and continue polluting to high hell.  That is where the real ignorance comes into play.

 

If someone other than liberal politician would have narrated an Inconvenient Truth, I doubt there would be as much skepticism as there is.

No one is advocating "polluting to high hell". UNLESS, you think the Co2 you breathe out of your pie hole is pollution (the same C02 plants need to live), and in that case the only way to stop pollution is death of the human race.

The skepticism over the Inconvenient Truth is because of all the flawed science in it. It really wouldn't matter of Ronald Reagan came back from the grave and narrated it.

The problem with all the graphs and models that show global warming, is that they all can be manipulated to show anything you want, depending on WHEN you start the graph.

For a really scientific graph, you need to start at least a billion years ago, not a couple of hundred, and then pick a point where you can show whatever you want.

Add a few years before that, the graph changes dramatically, start a few years later, the graph changes again.

 I can show ANYTHING I want with a graph of temperatures, cooling, warming, stability, depending on what year I choose to start with.

Just like I can show children will be 21 feet tall by age 30, if I only use growth data from ages 5 to 15.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

 

My problem is that people tend to believe that either we are causing 100% of the warming, or none of it.  The truth is probably that we are playing a role, and so is nature.   But the skeptics want to just completely ignore it and continue polluting to high hell.  That is where the real ignorance comes into play.

 

If someone other than liberal politician would have narrated an Inconvenient Truth, I doubt there would be as much skepticism as there is.

I believe Man is causing some of the warming.

if you look at the stastics of the Co2 Man releases, compared Earth as a whole, it would be reasonable to believe that IF Co2 causes warming, Man is causing about .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the warming.

The rest is the Sun.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

 

I thought we were discussing climate change the whole time.  Global warming and climate change are interchanged so often nowadays that they have practically become the same thing.

 

Anyway, the charts you have posted are all within a decade or so.  Of course temperature fluctuate within a decade, but the average trend is up.  And on NASA's official website it states the majority of scientists agree that humans have caused or at least contributed to global warming. 

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html 

 

 

No one here is a climatologist, so all we have to go by is research by qualified individuals.  If some actual official research group comes out and says it's all fake, fine I'll gladly accept it, but they haven't done that and still maintain that we are in fact contributing to global warming.

 

There is not one poll/study/analysis out there that says the majority of scientists don't believe in it.  There are several that say the vast majority do.  Plus some of the qualified skeptics of global like Roy Spencer are creationists.....which should exclude their opinion pretty fast.  Creationism is the exact opposite of science.

 

You are 100% factually incorrect. Over a decade the average trends are down. Over the milleniums the trends are mean. Average. Normal.
 

Why do you keep posting NASA data as evidence of qualified scientific consensus? Are there no other scientific studies you've even looked at? Are you still claiming to know about scientific consensus and yet still only looked at a single source?

That is one single source and it is in direct conflict with every other qualified scientific source. The other resources I have mentionsed are all  "official research groups" and they all dispute the NASA data.

There is no point telling me that when that happens you will gladly believe it when you see it, because it has already happened, you've already seen it and you clearly won't.  

It's funny isn't it, when we had a decade long period of data indicating global warming it was indisputable fact, now that we have had a decade long period of Global Cooling, it's just a blip. Despite that said decade of warming was "clearly man made" and yet now, it turns out it wasn't man made. Oh dear. How embarrassing.

Some people have the balls to admit when they are wrong, some people can't lose face.

Global Warming and Climate Change are not the same thing. The Global Warmingist's promoted Climate Change as a side effect of Global Warming. Only there is no Global Warming anymore, so we are just left with Climate Change.

The goalposts have moved in the debate. You are arguing 20th century theories and the 21st century has left you behind.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

If someone other than liberal politician would have narrated an Inconvenient Truth, I doubt there would be as much skepticism as there is.

I most certainly agree that having a man solely famous for being a (sore) loser associated with a campaign didn't do it any favours on the credability front.

I think what you fail to grasp about the narrative of "an Inconvenient Truth" is, only the people who wanted to believe it actually bothered to listen to it in the first place. Cindy Crawford could have said it naked and no one right wing would have listened either. Although they might have at least watched it with the sound turned down.

The left wing agenda of using "Global Warming" to beat on all their usual bugbears, industry, the rich, oil companies, etc  definitely and deservingly earnt the left some right wing backlash. But it has also fueled their need for the argument to have been correct. The great Global Warming debate has had as much to do as left wing vs right wing than it has enviromentalism and science. In fact the science of the issue got lost quite early on. 

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Sabiancym

 

My problem is that people tend to believe that either we are causing 100% of the warming, or none of it.  The truth is probably that we are playing a role, and so is nature.   But the skeptics want to just completely ignore it and continue polluting to high hell.  That is where the real ignorance comes into play.

 

If someone other than liberal politician would have narrated an Inconvenient Truth, I doubt there would be as much skepticism as there is.

 

I believe Man is causing some of the warming.

if you look at the stastics of the Co2 Man releases, compared Earth as a whole, it would be reasonable to believe that IF Co2 causes warming, Man is causing about .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the warming.

The rest is the Sun.

The broad sentiments of this post agree with my own.
 

It's perfectly obvious that man is affecting his enviroment. It is also abundantly clear to me that the globally cataclysmic nature of this as prescribed by many is completly laughable and in fact any direct correlation to climate changes are not scientificaly measureable at this time.

People who believe so are either political opportunists, or first rate idiots.

Originally posted by Sabiancym 

I didn't mean you specifically 

I know that, I was speaking in generalities.

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym

But the skeptics want to just completely ignore it and continue polluting to high hell.  That is where the real ignorance comes into play.

It seems you hold some stereotypes. Just because I completely disagree with man-contributed global warming does not mean I toss trash on the ground and simply consume as much as I can.

I'm quite conservative when it comes to such issues - I recycle when I can (I live in Oklahoma - not many recycling centers around), I go bat shit crazy when my kids take long showers or when someone moves the thermostat from 69, I use fans as much as possible in the summer and only try to use air conditioning when we are going through our hot times and I try to do as little driving as possible.

I'm all for alternative energy.

However, I do it for real reasons such as reduction in consumption and costs, not a fabricated story such as man-contributed planet warming.

 

All I can say is that 69 is indeed a good number. For many reasons.

Everything else I'm not at liberty to debate with what I know.

That it is.

Originally posted by Laiina

Well, someone is starting to wonder if Al Gore is totally wrong - upcoming soon on one of the discovery channels is a show on if the recently rapidly dropping temperatures are the beginning of a new mini-ice age...

On the other hand, both sides have advanced the (always changing) weather patterns to justify their agenda. Many of the arguments and anecdotes here are exactly the same ones I am hearing now to prove that global warming is a "fact". Time Magazine article 1974.

But then again... Alaska glaciers growing.

Last I hear the thermohylic<sp> current was down to about 30% and falling. That current is basically the world's radiator. It takes warm water from the equatoral area and shoots it up into the north atlantic. The last time that current failed we ended up with the mini-ice age that ran 1400-1850.

Isn't that what was going to kill us all in the 80'S?

I'd be a bit more worried about Godzilla if I were you. Man made pollution makes him kind of pissy.

Originally posted by baff

Isn't that what was going to kill us all in the 80'S?

I'd be a bit more worried about Godzilla if I were you. Man made pollution makes him kind of pissy.

Lol beats me but it basically acts as a circuit breaker against global warming. Mother Earth has ways to deal with excess warmth. Bascially it is one more thing that debunks global warming in favor of the climate change argument.

 Here is the packet www.megaupload.com/ read it and discide for yourselves what this will mean for the global warming movement.  

It's been a good week!

Originally posted by Faxxer

 

It's been a good week!

 

vary good week..