Concerns About Climate Change

[HS Mauberley]

They didn't change the mantra from global warming to global climate change overnight just willy-nilly for the heck of it. They changed it purposely to put a greater stranglehold on their prophecy, and try to exert yet even further control over you and the people you claim to be so concerned about.

They changed the terminology to more effectively describe what is happening. Wether you want to read something sinister into that move or not is your perogative.

Maybe they didn't like the name "Global Warming", because it hasn't been "warming" for a long time...

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

Limited intellects permitting, read this for an explanation of how The Torygraph cherry picks data to make grossly unscientific conclusions

[dave_boo]

HS Mauberley;

Beat me to it. I like how the detractors have to link to opinion pages to try and bolster their case.

[lardy]

A graduate of distinction from the GWB Academy of Science, to be sure.

I hate to say it, but UK primary school children have a better grasp on the fundamentals of climate change science than some posters here.

I hear they've been force-fed Al Gore's movie.

Such impressionable minds, such damage done. Shame.

That's just what the religious extremists say about any part of science that tends to weaken their grip on those impressionable young hearts and minds. "Don't teach kids about evolution, birth control, paleontology, etc,.......... it might damage their minds".

I doubt v. much if primary school kids are shown "An Uncomfortable Truth", but they are shown age-appropriate lesson material, which should ensure that they are at least aware of the basic science behind climate change by the time they leave school, unlike the unfortunate generations before them who were not given this chance and ended up believing whatever their own particular prejudice dictated and Coleman-balls type people could feed off.

The trouble is, as the evidence grows and is internalised of what human-induced climate change could mean, it's going to get mighty lonely on that limb you're out on and one day in the not-too-distant future, denying the reality is going to be like claiming "the earth is flat". Just in the past year, I've witnessed a huge turnaround in UK public opinion and awareness to what mankind is facing.

"I'd rather stick with the concensus view of the majority" ........I believe the consensus view years ago was that the Earth was flat too?

You stick with your consensus view Ill go out on a limb. My geology degree helped me quite a lot before deciding my point of view.

[plachon]

A graduate of distinction from the GWB Academy of Science, to be sure.

I hate to say it, but UK primary school children have a better grasp on the fundamentals of climate change science than some posters here.

I hear they've been force-fed Al Gore's movie.

Such impressionable minds, such damage done. Shame.

That's just what the religious extremists say about any part of science that tends to weaken their grip on those impressionable young hearts and minds. "Don't teach kids about evolution, birth control, paleontology, etc,.......... it might damage their minds".

I doubt v. much if primary school kids are shown "An Uncomfortable Truth", but they are shown age-appropriate lesson material, which should ensure that they are at least aware of the basic science behind climate change by the time they leave school, unlike the unfortunate generations before them who were not given this chance and ended up believing whatever their own particular prejudice dictated and Coleman-balls type people could feed off.

The trouble is, as the evidence grows and is internalised of what human-induced climate change could mean, it's going to get mighty lonely on that limb you're out on and one day in the not-too-distant future, denying the reality is going to be like claiming "the earth is flat". Just in the past year, I've witnessed a huge turnaround in UK public opinion and awareness to what mankind is facing.

"I'd rather stick with the concensus view of the majority" ........I believe the consensus view years ago was that the Earth was flat too?

You stick with your consensus view Ill go out on a limb. My geology degree helped me quite a lot before deciding my point of view.

I'm afraid your geology degree let you down badly, if you still deny AGW. Try asking some geologist colleagues about the evidence of carbon dioxide increases in ice core samples taken from the polar ice caps. No colleagues in the business? Nevermind, try going to your local library and doing some background research reading into climate change. Lots of books to choose from. Go ahead.......and come back in a week or twos time and tell me how many books published in the last ten years that you could find that denied the existence of human-induced global climate change. I'd bet you were hard pressed to find more than a couple tops. Ah, must be a fraud.............like the Piltdown Man, eh? But strange how virtually the whole scientific fraternity has fallen for it hook, line and sinker, along with governments, business and now even the majority of the public. Sheep, eh? How can they be so dumb, when you have your geology degree and know the truth...................

[lardy]

A graduate of distinction from the GWB Academy of Science, to be sure.

I hate to say it, but UK primary school children have a better grasp on the fundamentals of climate change science than some posters here.

I hear they've been force-fed Al Gore's movie.

Such impressionable minds, such damage done. Shame.

That's just what the religious extremists say about any part of science that tends to weaken their grip on those impressionable young hearts and minds. "Don't teach kids about evolution, birth control, paleontology, etc,.......... it might damage their minds".

I doubt v. much if primary school kids are shown "An Uncomfortable Truth", but they are shown age-appropriate lesson material, which should ensure that they are at least aware of the basic science behind climate change by the time they leave school, unlike the unfortunate generations before them who were not given this chance and ended up believing whatever their own particular prejudice dictated and Coleman-balls type people could feed off.

The trouble is, as the evidence grows and is internalised of what human-induced climate change could mean, it's going to get mighty lonely on that limb you're out on and one day in the not-too-distant future, denying the reality is going to be like claiming "the earth is flat". Just in the past year, I've witnessed a huge turnaround in UK public opinion and awareness to what mankind is facing.

"I'd rather stick with the concensus view of the majority" ........I believe the consensus view years ago was that the Earth was flat too?

You stick with your consensus view Ill go out on a limb. My geology degree helped me quite a lot before deciding my point of view.

I'm afraid your geology degree let you down badly, if you still deny AGW. Try asking some geologist colleagues about the evidence of carbon dioxide increases in ice core samples taken from the polar ice caps. No colleagues in the business? Nevermind, try going to your local library and doing some background research reading into climate change. Lots of books to choose from. Go ahead.......and come back in a week or twos time and tell me how many books published in the last ten years that you could find that denied the existence of human-induced global climate change. I'd bet you were hard pressed to find more than a couple tops. Ah, must be a fraud.............like the Piltdown Man, eh? But strange how virtually the whole scientific fraternity has fallen for it hook, line and sinker, along with governments, business and now even the majority of the public. Sheep, eh? How can they be so dumb, when you have your geology degree and know the truth...................

I dont deny global warming I deny mans influence.

[plachon]

A graduate of distinction from the GWB Academy of Science, to be sure.

I hate to say it, but UK primary school children have a better grasp on the fundamentals of climate change science than some posters here.

I hear they've been force-fed Al Gore's movie.

Such impressionable minds, such damage done. Shame.

That's just what the religious extremists say about any part of science that tends to weaken their grip on those impressionable young hearts and minds. "Don't teach kids about evolution, birth control, paleontology, etc,.......... it might damage their minds".

I doubt v. much if primary school kids are shown "An Uncomfortable Truth", but they are shown age-appropriate lesson material, which should ensure that they are at least aware of the basic science behind climate change by the time they leave school, unlike the unfortunate generations before them who were not given this chance and ended up believing whatever their own particular prejudice dictated and Coleman-balls type people could feed off.

The trouble is, as the evidence grows and is internalised of what human-induced climate change could mean, it's going to get mighty lonely on that limb you're out on and one day in the not-too-distant future, denying the reality is going to be like claiming "the earth is flat". Just in the past year, I've witnessed a huge turnaround in UK public opinion and awareness to what mankind is facing.

"I'd rather stick with the concensus view of the majority" ........I believe the consensus view years ago was that the Earth was flat too?

You stick with your consensus view Ill go out on a limb. My geology degree helped me quite a lot before deciding my point of view.

I'm afraid your geology degree let you down badly, if you still deny AGW. Try asking some geologist colleagues about the evidence of carbon dioxide increases in ice core samples taken from the polar ice caps. No colleagues in the business? Nevermind, try going to your local library and doing some background research reading into climate change. Lots of books to choose from. Go ahead.......and come back in a week or twos time and tell me how many books published in the last ten years that you could find that denied the existence of human-induced global climate change. I'd bet you were hard pressed to find more than a couple tops. Ah, must be a fraud.............like the Piltdown Man, eh? But strange how virtually the whole scientific fraternity has fallen for it hook, line and sinker, along with governments, business and now even the majority of the public. Sheep, eh? How can they be so dumb, when you have your geology degree and know the truth...................

I dont deny global warming I deny mans influence.

I realised that - that's why I say "AGW" and "human-induced global climate change".

So do you deny the proven rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) role in global warming?

And if you don't deny them, why do you suppose these levels are rising?

Two simple questions begging simple answers....................

[HS Mauberley]

I dont deny global warming I deny mans influence.

So increasing atmospheric CO2 by a third has no influence on climate? What about all the other greenhouse gases? All the NOX, methane, CFCs, HCFCs. Are your really going to claim these haven't had an influence on climate?

We know that concentrations of CO2 have increased dramatically and continue to increase dramatically on pre-industrial levels.

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

We know that concentrations of other greenhouse gases have increased dramatically and continue to increase dramatically on pre-industrial levels.

Given this we would expect global temperatures to increase and....guess what? They have. So what exactly is it about climate change which you, with your 'geology degree', know which tens of thousands of climate scientists don't know? Let's have the results of your research and we can pass it along to the IPCC. I'm sure with your 'geology degree', they'll be glad to hear from you. And then those of us on the inside of the conspiracy can tell the polar bears that the game's up and they can stop hiding all that pesky Arctic ice.

[JetsetBkk]

HS Mauberley;

Beat me to it. I like how the detractors have to link to opinion pages to try and bolster their case.

Ah, so my link is "an opinion page" and Mauberley's is what?

Still, Mauberley's link did have some good links in it. Here's one:

The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Former Science Mag Editor Speaks Out Against Global Warming Hysteria

Looks like we've got to the point where all these threads end up at - a "web link fight", everyone quoting their own favourite web pages that support their views and nobody being swayed against their original view. It's all a bit pointless. I'll see you guys - hopefully - in 10 years and have a good laugh (at your expense ).

[Thaddeus]

Looks like we've got to the point where all these threads end up at - a "web link fight",

I like graphs, everyone can understand them.

Climate change is measured in millennia not decades, and I'm afraid we are stuck with it, it cannot be stopped.

[ironhut]

It's interesting that the increasing tracked climate changes since the 80's have been met with the largest annual drop in temperature in over 100 years...

Ask the Chinese (many of whom trying to get home to celebrate the Chinese New Year) what they thought of rising temperatures and "Global Warming" this season.

[Graham100]

It is very interesting reading the comments on this topic and the absolute conviction some have for the climate change belief. I am no expert on this matter but am very concerned on what it has developed into. I come from a family of scientific and medical high achievers who were all taught to question and not assume. What amazes me is that no one now talks of the "Hole in the Ozone Layer" This was the last media induced paranoia that was going to effect mankind yet now it is not even mentioned. Could it be that because of some research conducted by a brother of mine showing that Mother Nature was producing billions of tons of counter reactive "gas" by a micro organism that he analysed and collected all the way to Antartica aboard Aurora Australis.

Can I suggest that people who are looking at obtaining some unbiased opinion on this debate look at what Professor Bob Carter from James Cook Uni at Townsville, Australia has said. He belongs to the old school and now has no need to obtain funding so therefore he can say what he believes his research supports.

My views expressed tonight on this matter are very limited and I have not gone into giving any factual basis or sustainable argument to base my beliefs on, however I know that relatives of mine in Lapland are still waiting for Global Warming to thaw there top paddocks that have been frozen for the past 500 years !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dave_boo]

HS Mauberley;

Beat me to it. I like how the detractors have to link to opinion pages to try and bolster their case.

Ah, so my link is "an opinion page" and Mauberley's is what?

Well considering you were trying to advance opinion as fact, and he was trying to advance the opinion that using the Telegraph as a factual source of information is about as smart as using the Tea Leafs, I fail to see your problem...

Still, Mauberley's link did have some good links in it. Here's one:

The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Former Science Mag Editor Speaks Out Against Global Warming Hysteria

Looks like we've got to the point where all these threads end up at - a "web link fight", everyone quoting their own favourite web pages that support their views and nobody being swayed against their original view. It's all a bit pointless. I'll see you guys - hopefully - in 10 years and have a good laugh (at your expense ).

[Thaddeus]

Looks like we've got to the point where all these threads end up at - a "web link fight",

I like graphs, everyone can understand them.

Climate change is measured in millennia not decades, and I'm afraid we are stuck with it, it cannot be stopped.

Amazing, on this subject, facts just appear to be below the radar of some opinions ..... strange that.

[lardy]

HS Mauberley;

Beat me to it. I like how the detractors have to link to opinion pages to try and bolster their case.

Ah, so my link is "an opinion page" and Mauberley's is what?

Still, Mauberley's link did have some good links in it. Here's one:

The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Former Science Mag Editor Speaks Out Against Global Warming Hysteria

Looks like we've got to the point where all these threads end up at - a "web link fight", everyone quoting their own favourite web pages that support their views and nobody being swayed against their original view. It's all a bit pointless. I'll see you guys - hopefully - in 10 years and have a good laugh (at your expense ).

Quite correct and why I dont respond its all been said before, nothing has changed. + Ive been banned several times guffaaaaaaaaw.

Probably best to avoid this subject altogether on virtually all forums.

Time will tell it will be interesting and I hope EVERYONE here can see a result in the next 10-20 years. Im worried that so much money wll be diverted into this that could really be much much better used.

For the record there is debate on the inaccuracy of the ice core readings of CO2 levels but its a waste of time descussing it nothing will change as you have said.

[plachon]

Since some people want facts, then please view attached file of atmospheric CO2 levels from about 550,000 years ago to present time, spread over three graphs.

Taken from the US govt's Environmental Protection Agency site:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/r...orghg.html#fig1

By the way, the graph you presented Thaddeus has little relevance to the current topic, beyond confirming what everyone should already know. The interesting period of time as far as present climate change data goes, is essentially the last 200 years since the industrial revolution began and climate records have been accurately recorded across large parts of the world.

Edited April 13, 2008 by plachon

[Thaddeus]

By the way, the graph you presented Thaddeus has little relevance to the current topic, beyond confirming what everyone should already know. The interesting period of time as far as present climate change data goes, is essentially the last 200 years since the industrial revolution began and climate records have been accurately recorded across large parts of the world.

I can't believe you just typed that, the interesting period is not 'essentially the last 200 years' ...... 200 years is one tick on the watch ..... 200 years is nothing compared to the history of this planet.

The graph I presented has every relevance, it shows that the average global temperature on earth has been cycling constantly since the place got a crust, oceans and an atmosphere...... now if you would like to tell me which life-forms in the Pre-Cambrian, Ordovician, Permian and Jurassic periods were carelessly burning fossil fuels (hint, there weren't any then) or farting recklessly into the atmosphere I may be interested in your theory.

Until that happens, I'll stick with mother nature.

[dave_boo]

By the way, the graph you presented Thaddeus has little relevance to the current topic, beyond confirming what everyone should already know. The interesting period of time as far as present climate change data goes, is essentially the last 200 years since the industrial revolution began and climate records have been accurately recorded across large parts of the world.

I can't believe you just typed that, the interesting period is not 'essentially the last 200 years' ...... 200 years is one tick on the watch ..... 200 years is nothing compared to the history of this planet.

The graph I presented has every relevance, it shows that the average global temperature on earth has been cycling constantly since the place got a crust, oceans and an atmosphere...... now if you would like to tell me which life-forms in the Pre-Cambrian, Ordovician, Permian and Jurassic periods were carelessly burning fossil fuels (hint, there weren't any then) or farting recklessly into the atmosphere I may be interested in your theory.

Until that happens, I'll stick with mother nature.

You do understand that the planet has been settling down over the eons, don't you? I.E., for you to insist that you can directly compare the conditions today to those of billions of years ago is disingenious at best. The sun's temperature, the amount of ozone, the variety of life, etc. are so different from current day to those of the immature planet to make comparisons foolish.

One of the biggest causes of the earliest cooling spikes were CO₂ breathing "pre-plant" (in that they have little in common with modern plants; in fact they were mostly algeal type organisms). Since there were few to no predators, their growth was exponential. After they managed to strip the atmosphere of the abundance of CO₂ they died, rotted away and caused more to be released. Of course, by then evolution was providing O₂ breathing organisms, so a balance was eventually struck.

And that's just one example from a lay person. I'm sure that if you were really interested in a debate, you could quickly find some research papers and even contact those that know MUCH more than I. And yes, I have read those crack-pots (can't come up with a more family friendly forum word for them) that insist that gloabal warming is a hoax.

[plachon]

By the way, the graph you presented Thaddeus has little relevance to the current topic, beyond confirming what everyone should already know. The interesting period of time as far as present climate change data goes, is essentially the last 200 years since the industrial revolution began and climate records have been accurately recorded across large parts of the world.

I can't believe you just typed that, the interesting period is not 'essentially the last 200 years' ...... 200 years is one tick on the watch ..... 200 years is nothing compared to the history of this planet.

The graph I presented has every relevance, it shows that the average global temperature on earth has been cycling constantly since the place got a crust, oceans and an atmosphere...... now if you would like to tell me which life-forms in the Pre-Cambrian, Ordovician, Permian and Jurassic periods were carelessly burning fossil fuels (hint, there weren't any then) or farting recklessly into the atmosphere I may be interested in your theory.

Until that happens, I'll stick with mother nature.

It's rather sad watching you AGW doubters crucify yourself, as you're drifting on a different chapter and verse from where the real action and debate is. So, for your benefit once again I'll state: Nobody here is doubting that the earth has been in a state of physical, chemical, climatological, geological and biological flux since its first existence. We already know that! Period. It's not what we're debating sunshine!

The debate is at what has happened in the last few hundred years, post-industrialisation, post-population boom and post-fossil fuel era. And since we've had sophisticated measurements of climate in real time across the globe, plus sophisticated models to predict future scenarios. Take a few moments to think about it and let it sink in. Thousands of climate scientists working in hundreds of countries have pooled their collective knowledge through the auspices of the IPCC and come up with the same conclusion - i.e. mankind is altering the earth's climate through his actions, particularly the burning of fossil fuels to create greenhouse gases. Not only have they concluded this and created a consensus, but they've managed to convince the majority of govts., the mass media (even down to right-winger lowlifes like Rupert Murdoch!), a growing group of business leaders and a majority of the public in developed nations and developing nations alike that global warming is real and humans are the main culprit. Hence, to be on the outside of this mass consensus, is like being a flat earther.

The real disagreements begin with what to do about it and who should foot the bill. Also, the speed at which it is happening, as the IPCC predictions are known to be at the modest end of the spectrum. But nobody in their right mind doubts if it exists or is going to create serious problems in the coming years. Get used to it. Read up about it. Even do something about it. But don't doubt its happening!

[plachon]

By the way, the graph you presented Thaddeus has little relevance to the current topic, beyond confirming what everyone should already know. The interesting period of time as far as present climate change data goes, is essentially the last 200 years since the industrial revolution began and climate records have been accurately recorded across large parts of the world.

I can't believe you just typed that, the interesting period is not 'essentially the last 200 years' ...... 200 years is one tick on the watch ..... 200 years is nothing compared to the history of this planet.

The graph I presented has every relevance, it shows that the average global temperature on earth has been cycling constantly since the place got a crust, oceans and an atmosphere...... now if you would like to tell me which life-forms in the Pre-Cambrian, Ordovician, Permian and Jurassic periods were carelessly burning fossil fuels (hint, there weren't any then) or farting recklessly into the atmosphere I may be interested in your theory.

Until that happens, I'll stick with mother nature.

You better believe it! Even the likes of intellectually challenged Republicans and GWB have got the message that global warming is real, caused by human industrial activity (especially CO2 emissions) and if we don't do something about it fast, it'll be darn paeng to pick up the pieces later. So, why the reluctance of a few TV die-hards to understand simple science?

Better too late than never for Bush..........

http://www.greendirectory.net/news/news.cfm?newsid=3011

Edited April 20, 2008 by plachon

[pampal]

This year has been colder worldwide

[JetsetBkk]

This year has been colder worldwide

Shhhh! This thread has gone nice and quiet. Don't wake it up again.

Oh, dammit.

[MustaphaMond]

It's interesting that the increasing tracked climate changes since the 80's have been met with the largest annual drop in temperature in over 100 years...

Ask the Chinese (many of whom trying to get home to celebrate the Chinese New Year) what they thought of rising temperatures and "Global Warming" this season.

YOur understanding is right in its simplicity but wrong in conclusion and undoubtedly a parroted view that is comfy.

May I call you Flat Earther?

Some places will get colder, some with bake. Others flood and then draught. Yes, just like always only now much, MUCH more of it.

UP and down will go the year to year graphs- the decade, the century graphs.

It's the trend you want to bank on.

The CO2 graphs are so far up and off the charts...More CO2 More heat.. Simple.

Sea levels rising, hurricanes stronger. I think within our lifetimes, a dramatic loss of geography.

How do so many breathe with heads in sand?

Is it just a culture of laziness. Can't be bothered. MUST GO TO MALL. MUST MAKE MONEY.

Is it already too late who knows?

Not an option to ignore anymore. and everyone has to do their part.

How many on this thread can live without AC. in this climate?

Check for new thread on this subject, Peak Oil, Changing world orders , etc.

Edited April 23, 2008 by MustaphaMond

[HS Mauberley]

This year has been colder worldwide

Not according to NASA, but perhaps you know something which they don't. Based on their data, the temperature anomalies for 2005, 2007 and 2008 compared to the period 1951- 1980 are:

But, in all honestly, this is a stupid argument. A cold winter no more disproves anthropongenic climate change than a hot summer proves it. It's all about trends and the trend is absolutely clear. The world is warming and the only way to deny this is to deny reality.

[Spee]

Here's all anyone needs to know about the current manmade global warming aka manmade global climate change hysteria:

http://newsbusters.org/node/20680?q=blogs/...onvenient-truth

It's fictional propaganda. The only way it can be sold is to make up falsehoods in an attempt to create mass hysteria.

And so much for the credibility of the Academy Awards and Nobel Committee for rewarding a fictionalized documentary. Hmmm, fictionalized .... documentary .... wouldn't that be an oxymoron?

The world is cooling? So what? It happens.

The world is warming? So what? It happens.

That man is causing all of these things to happen? It's a farce, a work of fiction, spun up with deliberate intent by governments and other power brokers for the resolute purpose to acquire more control over your life and your pocketbook.

[Spee]

Or, if you prefer, you could supply some peer-reviewed material which supports your infantile claims. Because you know that there are 1000s and 1000s and 1000s of peer-reviewed papers which support ACC.

It is well documented that the peer review process in this field has been completed corrupted. As a result, there is a phenomenon called "scientific consensus." Unfortunately, history has shown where there is consensus, there is an absence of science. I used to be heavily involved in scientific and engineering research programs, have been a peer reviewer and have chaired peer review panels, so sorry, but I know of what I speak.

That there may be "1000's and 1000's and 1000's" of them is clear indication that people unqualified are generating papers. There probably aren't even 50 or 100 climate experts in the entire world. A peer reviewed paper would take 2-3 years to write and get published. The basic math would indicate these people would have to generate 50-100 papers to reach your numbers, which obviously they have not.

Ergo, it is intuitively obvious that there are 100's if not 1000's of wanna-be climate experts publishing a lot of paper that isn't sufficiently qualified to be used in the loo, much less regarded as having any scientific merit. A peer review of a kook paper, by a review panel of a dozen other kooks, all of whom have drank the same koolaid, does not valid science make.

As for what I have read and believe, may I suggest that you also read the links that were provided in Post #13.

As for the kindergarten approach, I think it is your childish remarks that indicate who really wants to rant at that level.

[Gary A]

Which is it? Ice age or global warming? If not for Al Gore I may have bought into the global warming thing. Since I believe he and his ilk are several bricks shy of a full load I believe that it is a normal earth cycle and there is nothing man can do to change it.

Anyways read the below article;

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ow/2975016.cms

CANBERRA: Scientists have warned that the world might once again be heading towards an Ice Age, with global warming approaching a possible end.

Evidence in support of this theory has come from pictures obtained from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, which showed no spots on the sun, thus determining that sunspot activity has not resumed after hitting an 11-year low in March last year.

A sunspot is a region on the sun that is cooler than the rest and appears dark.

Some scientists believe a strong solar magnetic field, when there is plenty of sunspot activity, protects the earth from cosmic rays, cutting cloud formation, but that when the field is weak - during low sunspot activity - the rays can penetrate into the lower atmosphere and cloud cover increases, cooling the surface.

According to Australian astronaut and geophysicist Phil Chapman, this might have caused the world to cool quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.

"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," said Dr Chapman.

"If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over," he added.

Dr Chapman has proposed preventive, or delaying, moves to slow the cooling, such as bulldozing Siberian and Canadian snow to make it dirty and less reflective.

"My guess is that the odds are now at least 50:50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades," he said

[Spee]

If not for Al Gore I may have bought into the global warming thing.

Speaking of the chief hypocrite, pathological liar, and high priest of the man-made global warming movement:

http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/al_go...onvenient-truth

[teatree]

IT'S SIMPLE

Temperature rise PRECEDES C02 rise. Temperature goes up and then 2-300 years later the C02 goes up. C02 is not causing temperature rise but rather it is the other way round! You can look at the ice cores featured in Gore's film for that - although strangely he didn't mention that fact.

For all those members of the First Church of Global Warming, please do some independent research. Don't just take CNN's word for it. Watch 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' (UK channel 4) on youtube.

If you take the trouble to research you will see the clear agenda in play

1 Increased taxes through direct taxation and cap and trade

2 More control over the average person's life

The elite don't want us to stop using oil! They just want us to be taxed more and to be under even more control. How long will it be before every car has a meter that deducts 10 baht from your bank account after every mile passed?

And perhaps someone could answer me this. Billions after billions are being spent researching the things like the number of penguins living on the Falkland Is, but how much is being put towards genuine energy alternatives? How much did the guy who has created an energy source by splitting the H from the O in water get? Nothing

Or the French company that has developed a car that runs on air? Nothing

Why? Because they want us to keep on using oil until it is all gone.

Edited April 24, 2008 by teatree

[plachon]

IT'S SIMPLE

Temperature rise PRECEDES C02 rise. Temperature goes up and then 2-300 years later the C02 goes up. C02 is not causing temperature rise but rather it is the other way round! You can look at the ice cores featured in Gore's film for that - although strangely he didn't mention that fact.

For all those members of the First Church of Global Warming, please do some independent research. Don't just take CNN's word for it. Watch 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' (UK channel 4) on youtube.

If you take the trouble to research you will see the clear agenda in play

1 Increased taxes through direct taxation and cap and trade

2 More control over the average person's life

The elite don't want us to stop using oil! They just want us to be taxed more and to be under even more control. How long will it be before every car has a meter that deducts 10 baht from your bank account after every mile passed?

And perhaps someone could answer me this. Billions after billions are being spent researching the things like the number of penguins living on the Falkland Is, but how much is being put towards genuine energy alternatives? How much did the guy who has created an energy source by splitting the H from the O in water get? Nothing

Or the French company that has developed a car that runs on air? Nothing

Why? Because they want us to keep on using oil until it is all gone.

Perfect example of logical deduction from the die-hard sceptics!

Who is this mystical "elite" that you refer to? And please be specific as it's crucial to your argument. Perhaps it's the G8 nations of the world, which means that most of the people reading this are part of the "elite".

Or perhaps it is the oil companies? Well, Exxon, Texaco and most of those spent millions trying to deny global warming, media disinformation and propping up the election campaigns of GWB and the Republicans, so presumably it can't be them? Although they certainly don't want us to stop using oil, as its their core business.

Or perhaps it's the Green movement who are the "elite", who first brought the threat of climate change to the world's attention. I'm sure Greenpeace, James Lovelock and FoE would be very flattered to be called the "elite", but I would point out they would prefer it if we all used a lot less oil and moved to non-fossil fuel sources, so it kind of rules them out.

Or maybe you are using a Marxist argument, where the "elite" are the bourgsosie scum, who keep the proles in their place by making up fanatastical theories about climate change and manage to fool virtually the entire scientific community in the process? Interesting theory, but would need a bit of evidence to back it up?

Or maybe there is another hidden "elite" I haven't mentioned, a bit like Thai politicians "third hand". In which case, do please reveal all and prove you are on the money when it comes to climate change and not just falling prey to your own prejudices and a lack of basic scientific understanding.

And while you're at it, please provide a link which shows that "billions have been spent counting things like researching the number of penguins in the Falkland Islands."

[dave_boo]

IT'S SIMPLE

Temperature rise PRECEDES C02 rise. Temperature goes up and then 2-300 years later the C02 goes up. C02 is not causing temperature rise but rather it is the other way round! You can look at the ice cores featured in Gore's film for that - although strangely he didn't mention that fact.

You do realise that in the past, it was a symbiotic relationship? I.E., when the temperatures went up, the plant life went up. Then the CO₂ levels went up even faster. Eventually the system crashed. However, all that buried mass of CO₂ that we humans are now releasing isn't helping the current situation.

For all those members of the First Church of Global Warming, please do some independent research. Don't just take CNN's word for it. Watch 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' (UK channel 4) on youtube.

Nothing personal, but if it had to be released on youtube (I understand that it was originally on UK TV, but I doubt many at all had heard of it before now) I really wouldn't think that you could put much stock in what is put out on it.

If you take the trouble to research you will see the clear agenda in play

1 Increased taxes through direct taxation and cap and trade

2 More control over the average person's life

The elite don't want us to stop using oil! They just want us to be taxed more and to be under even more control. How long will it be before every car has a meter that deducts 10 baht from your bank account after every mile passed?

You're already being taxed, I doubt that taxes would get that ergerious, but remember, driving is a privilege, not a right. I.E., you and I don't have the right to totally screw up the enviroment for the next generation.

And perhaps someone could answer me this. Billions after billions are being spent researching the things like the number of penguins living on the Falkland Is, but how much is being put towards genuine energy alternatives? How much did the guy who has created an energy source by splitting the H from the O in water get? Nothing

You do realise that currently you expend more energy splitting the H₂O than you can recoup from it right?

Or the French company that has developed a car that runs on air? Nothing

In common internet speak "Link plz, thx".

Why? Because they want us to keep on using oil until it is all gone.