Global Warming In Thailand

[AleG]

All graphs show a warming trend. The question is about how much man is involved with the warming trend and what can he do about it... or is WILLING to do about it. When it comes to dollars there will ALWAYS be someone to will manipulate the facts for their own gain. I'm 69 and I've been through many of these so called scientific studies proving one thing or another. They've all proven false after 20 years or so.

Indeed, the warming is there, the theory is out in the open; I have no vested interest on the cause being C02 from human activity, but the facts are what they are and the conclusions from those facts point at increased CO2 levels being part of the cause. The quibbling is how much, could be a small part, a big part, 50/50. What matters it that is one part of the equation that we can work on changing, at best we avoid the problem or at least we reduce the impact. Doing nothing when we know we are part of the problem is irresponsible.

As for scientific studies that have ended up being false, yes, some. But usually the problem lies with what the media and public do with those and sadly they tend to sensationalize scientific studies beyond their certainty or scope. Someone mentioned that the scientific community in the 70s was predicting an Ice Age, yet the actual picture was that those predicting cooling (let alone an ice age) where outnumbered 9 to 1.

Recently we've had some similar events, like the doomsday predicted when the CERN Large Hadron Collider would generate a black hole that would eat the Earth. There was a big bruahaha, rivers of ink and all for nothing, all based on an infinitesimal possibility emanating from a few scientists amplified by sensationalist press and people's fears.

Then you have scientific studies that brought lots of controversy and where finally accepted by society, like smoking causing cancer or the ozone layer hole.

Just because someone made bad science, bad reporting or self serving lobbing in the past doesn't mean that all new things should be dismissed out of hand. It just means that we have to pay attention, follow the source of the information we get and apply a good does of critical thinking when evaluating the evidence.

What I DO think is a valuable lesson is this so called global warming problem HAS caused people to be more aware of the environment and their own part in it. I have seen remarkable changes for the better in the way people think. I've seen pollution reduced in areas that were cesspools before. Vehicles HAVE become more efficient.

The greatest problem the world faces today is the growing population. So far we haven't stemmed the problem in third world countries and the economically poorer groups in the richer western cultures. The black and hispanic cutures still breed at twice the rate of white people in the USA. And, as a group, their level of education averages far lower. Asians who come to North America rise to the top in both education and the willingness to cut down on breeding.

Although strange and harsh as it might be, the world doesn't have enough natural disasters and wars to kill off the growing number of excess people. AIDS was supposed to kill off all the stupid ones, but we've even curbed that potential threat. Nature doesn't care what species replaces another one. Nothing exists in a vacuum. When one species dies another takes its place.

Environmental awareness is a good thing, a great thing, to see emerging. Gives hope for the future. But it also has to be rational and use critical thinking on it's application. For example, photovoltaic solar panels sound very green, free energy from the sun, no CO2 emissions or pollution. But the truth is that, as far as I know, the usual break even point for a solar panel, between the pollution and CO2 emissions involved on it's manufacture and the savings garnered from its use is something like 20 years. If they get replaced or fall out of use before the break even point it's a net loss for the environment.

There's nuclear power, zero CO2 emissions, a lot of power and a mess to take care afterward, but properly designed nuclear reactors are very safe, and if it wouldn't be because of NIMBYsm the matter of disposing of the waste is manageable. So environmentalist had fight tooth and nail against nuclear power, but it only yielded coal plants that pollute the environment even more.

So it takes more than a fad on green thinking to do things right; it takes looking at the problems objectively and rationally.

[canuckamuck]

All graphs show a warming trend. The question is about how much man is involved with the warming trend and what can he do about it... or is WILLING to do about it. When it comes to dollars there will ALWAYS be someone to will manipulate the facts for their own gain. I'm 69 and I've been through many of these so called scientific studies proving one thing or another. They've all proven false after 20 years or so.

What I DO think is a valuable lesson is this so called global warming problem HAS caused people to be more aware of the environment and their own part in it. I have seen remarkable changes for the better in the way people think. I've seen pollution reduced in areas that were cesspools before. Vehicles HAVE become more efficient.

The greatest problem the world faces today is the growing population. So far we haven't stemmed the problem in third world countries and the economically poorer groups in the richer western cultures. The black and hispanic cutures still breed at twice the rate of white people in the USA. And, as a group, their level of education averages far lower. Asians who come to North America rise to the top in both education and the willingness to cut down on breeding.

Although strange and harsh as it might be, the world doesn't have enough natural disasters and wars to kill off the growing number of excess people. AIDS was supposed to kill off all the stupid ones, but we've even curbed that potential threat. Nature doesn't care what species replaces another one. Nothing exists in a vacuum. When one species dies another takes its place.

I like your experienced point of view. Yes we are always in a state of crisis or impending doom.

About the population point, did you see

that was posted in another thread? Times they are a changin.

[AleG]

Your look at the chart was quite optimistic. the best I can give you is 0.73 degrees increase considering the final point on the graph is not reflected whatsoever in the median. And we know we are on a cooling trend for the last two years so don't tell me it is higher today than the graph shows. My comment on this tiny point stands and I will accept I was off by 0.13 degrees if we go from the turn of the century. Which is what I meant, or 0.23 if we go from 1910 which was a brief cooling period. My figure was based on an average of what I have seen reported.

I have no idea what the other guy meant, but I like his acronym.

I did say a 0.8/1 degree rise, you point out 0.73 degrees after you conveniently change your goal post from 100 years ago (1909) to 1900, one could even say that you are cherrypickng that particular hot date...

Here's a more detailed NOAA update on land and sea temperatures, last averaged measurements are 0.55, from 0.45 in 2000. 0.1 degrees rise in that time period instead of 0.2, mea culpa; I don't recall where I read the current situation as being 0.6 degrees above median.

At least I am showing actual data, research work and whatnot so people can see for themselves. On the other hand I still haven't seen any link to scientific studies offering an alternative explanation to the warming.

[Garry9999]

The tide is turning.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25683...5019059,00.html

Australian senator Steve Fielding has made up his mind on global warming - there's not enough evidence that it's real.

This will start to happen in many countries soon, as politicians start to wakeup.

[canuckamuck]

I can tell you are an intelligent guy AleG. and I am impressed that you mentioned an alternative statistic on temp. I believe I also got that number from NOAA long ago, but couldn't remember today when it would have been convienient.

Rather than cherry picking the hotter date I was using the turn of the century as a reference but sloppily referred to it as 100 years ago, not knowing there was significant difference in dates. But I guess that is why 1900 is a popular choice for deniers. Many have cherry picked it before me.

Anyhow, you want to see evidence of an alternative theory but we have gone on and on about our disagreement over solar activity, and that is my theory so what can I do now. I did provide links, I am sure if I spent half an hour I can find 20 more. But I 'm not going to do it today for reason of: it is time to get back to my real life before I am killed by my wife.

I look forward to seeing you again here in TV land.

[AleG]

The tide is turning.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25683...5019059,00.html

Australian senator Steve Fielding has made up his mind on global warming - there's not enough evidence that it's real.

This will start to happen in many countries soon, as politicians start to wakeup.

A politician with an axe to grind or the international community of scientist and institutions dedicated to the study of climate... though choice who to trust.

Canuck, I've seen the solar activity studies, the case is compelling and that global temperatures tend to correlate to the Sun's output is quite obvious; but the fact of the matter is that for the last few decades the correlation has decoupled , temperatures rose steeply while solar output remained more or less constant. There must be something else at work. For me the case anthropogenic global warming from greenhouse emissions seems strong, much stronger than other theories at least. The Earth is a very complex system, and there are many factors that come into play, we should try to see as much of the full picture as possible.

CO2, albedo, aerosols in the atmosphere, contrails, cloud cover, methane emissions, orbital changes, solar activity, etc, etc. It's a big puzzle and we should try to understand it and make sure that we are not messing up with key pieces lest they come back to bite us for our shortsightedness.

If there's other well documented theory I'm perfectly willing to revise my views, my interest is not to further any agenda but merely trying to understand the way the world works.

Edited June 24, 2009 by AleG

[AleG]

The tide is turning.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25683...5019059,00.html

Australian senator Steve Fielding has made up his mind on global warming - there's not enough evidence that it's real.

This will start to happen in many countries soon, as politicians start to wakeup.

By the way, you quote the sayings of a figure of authority as proof of a change on the tide, then whatever happened with...

The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.

Thomas Huxley

?

[Garry9999]

The tide is turning.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25683...5019059,00.html

Australian senator Steve Fielding has made up his mind on global warming - there's not enough evidence that it's real.

This will start to happen in many countries soon, as politicians start to wakeup.

Canuck ........ If there's other well documented theory I'm perfectly willing to revise my views, my interest is not to further any agenda but merely trying to understand the way the world works.

An admirable statement.

[canuckamuck]

Canuck, I've seen the solar activity studies, the case is compelling and that global temperatures tend to correlate to the Sun's output is quite obvious; but the fact of the matter is that for the last few decades the correlation has decoupled , temperatures rose steeply while solar output remained more or less constant. There must be something else at work. For me the case anthropogenic global warming from greenhouse emissions seems strong, much stronger than other theories at least. The Earth is a very complex system, and there are many factors that come into play, we should try to see as much of the full picture as possible.

CO2, albedo, aerosols in the atmosphere, contrails, cloud cover, methane emissions, orbital changes, solar activity, etc, etc. It's a big puzzle and we should try to understand it and make sure that we are not messing up with key pieces lest they come back to bite us for our shortsightedness.

If there's other well documented theory I'm perfectly willing to revise my views, my interest is not to further any agenda but merely trying to understand the way the world works.

To your list of earthly pollutants you should add: a fear mongering press, big money manipulation, and governments whose only goal is to get re-elected. These items too make it difficult to sort out the reality of the situation. Obviously we have polluted the planet, you just have to have a stroll on any Thai beach to find evidence of that. It is also obvious that we now have a generation that considers this to be a crucial issue. So with the bad comes some good.

I am concerned about the environment, I don't litter, I recycle, I make compost, I drive my motorcycle even though I have a car, and I have a timer on my air con. But this particular issue seems to be driven more by hype than carbon. You have to admit, it is easy to make the statistics look either scary or boring. There are so many ways to spin the facts, and the big hammer is that all life hangs in the balance (or does it?). How can you argue against that. Look at JR's argument "what if your wrong?" thats all it takes and sheeple go baaaaa. And the press can't resist the "we are all going to die stories" it's like a license to print money.

Yes the temperature has gone up (0.5 degrees, sorry I couldn't resist), we should do every thing we can to learn what makes that happen. But hey let's keep our tax dollars in our pockets and hang on to our national soveriegnties until we get some better evidence. 38,000 scientists signed a petition saying they are angry about the bad science. Shouldn't that raise some flags about CAGW science (recognize the acronym?).

Any how, it makes no difference whether I am right or wrong, humanity will kill us all long before the weather does.

Cheers

[Garry9999]

Here's a couple from the alarmists, guaranteed to scare the cr@p out of anyone.

[AleG]

Here's a couple from the alarmists, guaranteed to scare the cr@p out of anyone.

Debate 101, the Straw Man:

Straw man.

This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.

In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.

You are invited to debate the arguments I've laid out, and have rational and honest discussion, showing a scare picture and saying "Oooga booga!" is neither.

[Garry9999]

Debate 101, the Straw Man:

"A person using a Straw Man against a position will intentionally make a ridiculous caricature of the topic, one that only the most ignorant might believe".

How many book covers have you seen with images similar to the one of London on the front?, sensationalism sells.

I'm happy you can see through the straw man, but believe me, many others don't.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Garry9999

[Garry9999]

The tide is turning.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25683...5019059,00.html

Australian senator Steve Fielding has made up his mind on global warming - there's not enough evidence that it's real.

This will start to happen in many countries soon, as politicians start to wakeup.

By the way, you quote the sayings of a figure of authority as proof of a change on the tide, then whatever happened with...

The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.

Thomas Huxley

?

Not sure what you are getting at here.

I'm not a particular fan of this senator, but I think you will find that he has been researching both sides of the argument for sometime now.

[doggie888888]

Of course global warming doesn't exist. So let's continue to make more cars, use more fossil fuels, emit more chemicals/pollutants into the air, clear more forests, waste more electricity/water/gas...in fact, let's see how far this planet can bear before it is completely exhausted, polluted and destroyed. Who cares about what sort of planet our children will inherit? Who cares if the very food we eat is contaminated or cannot be sustained on a longer term due to climate-change-related mass extinctions in the food chain? Who cares what Al Gore and his supporters say?

The sad thing for me is I am sharing this planet with IDIOTS who think like the above. Unfortunately their selfishness and greed has dire consequences for the rest of us

[Garry9999]

Of course global warming doesn't exist. So let's continue to make more cars, use more fossil fuels, emit more chemicals/pollutants into the air, clear more forests, waste more electricity/water/gas...in fact, let's see how far this planet can bear before it is completely exhausted, polluted and destroyed. Who cares about what sort of planet our children will inherit? Who cares if the very food we eat is contaminated or cannot be sustained on a longer term due to climate-change-related mass extinctions in the food chain? Who cares what Al Gore and his supporters say?

The sad thing for me is I am sharing this planet with IDIOTS who think like the above. Unfortunately their selfishness and greed has dire consequences for the rest of us

Well, 1-0 to the straw man.

[teatree]

Hysteria is the real threat, not global warming

By ANDREW ALEXANDER

MailOnline

With Tony Blair launching his own plan to save the world (groans), and the G8 leaders also unveiling their thoughts about global warming, this is a big week for environmental fanaticism.

Whatever he or they offer, it will not be enough to quell the warmists' semi-religious fervour.

They are like medieval preachers, proclaiming to baying crowds that the end of the word is nigh.

On the agenda: World leaders will be debating climate change at the G8 summit in Italy this week

Well, is it? There are two separate climate issues - the extent of global warming and the role that humanity plays in it.

Some facts help. The famous 1996 report by the International Panel on Climate Change predicted serious global warming and blamed mankind.

But, since then, the world has disobligingly stopped warming. And two years of global cooling erased nearly 30 years of recorded temperature rises.

What was the worrying rise in temperature - so exciting for those whose computer models used the past to predict a grim future?

Given the margin of error associated with the old-style thermometers which were, until only recently, used to record temperatures, it should be stated thus: over the past 100 years, temperature has risen by 0.7C - plus or minus 1.3 degrees!

The only importance the serious scientists can attach to such a figure is that less serious people think it meaningful.

My own science teacher would have kept me in after school for saying this was a valuable figure.

But, as you will have noticed, it worked. The catastrophists piled in - some of whom had previously flourished warnings about global cooling. For some, any figure will do, especially when it gives them a media profile (and grants for research).

Those who worry about facts should look at the findings of NASA (see the website), whose up-to-date and sophisticated global surveys throw such doubt on the warmists' claims.

They should also read Heaven And Earth by Ian Plimer, Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne and Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide.

It is the best book on science and scientists I have ever read. Piece by piece, he takes apart the work of the fanatics. Far from denying global warming, he stresses its regularity and occasional abruptness and how humans have had to adapt.

A millennium ago, Greenland was warm, with a rich agriculture - not much man-made carbon gas then. Over half of the past six million years, the climate was warmer than it is now.

He explains that the supposed consensus view of the IPCC is nonsense. The much-touted 2,500 scientists supposed to have backed its conclusion included many non-scientists or were even the same contributors counted twice.

The finding that human activity influenced global climate involved the deletion of an original passage saying they had no evidence that greenhouse gases played a role and that the best answer was 'we do not know'.

There is always a temptation to assume that anyone labelled a scientist thinks scientifically. Learned philosophers have discussed how experiments are regularly conducted to prove a desired conclusion rather than to ascertain truth.

Prof Plimer provides the sharp-end view of this. The use of computer models excites his particular disdain.

We have to adapt: In his new book, Ian Plimer (above) stresses regularity and occasional abruptness of global warming

He cites 17 areas of science, ranging from tectonics to meteorology, which need to be utilised in analysing climate change. No computer I have ever heard of can do this meaningfully.

In every area, conclusions, such as they are, are subject to wide margins of error (and often fierce debate).

Simple multiplication demonstrates that even modest margins of error must collectively become magnified into enormous final ones.

As he says: 'If computer models torture the data enough, the data will confess to anything.'

Yet all this leaves a big problem. If the data is really so inconclusive, not to say contradictory, why is the fanatics' message so successful?

This is a profoundly important phenomenon requiring the study of social, political, historical and even religious trends. Catastrophists have, of course, always been with us. There is something in humanity's psyche which delights in impending disaster.

Politicians are attracted because the cause must involve a great increase in the power of government.

The supposed danger has also provided fuel for those who are determined, come what may, to demonstrate that capitalism and industrialisation are the roots of our woe.

The religious instinct is satisfied by the opportunity for pious preaching and noisy protest. Yet the cause is so flawed.

Are we being conned? Yes, why not? Think of all the grand causes in our lifetime which have been bogus, starting with Iraq and Afghanistan and working backwards. Or consider the dishonesty in public affairs, as in MPs' expenses. Fraud is the common coinage of public affairs.

Think, too, that it is little over 200 years since Europe stopped the execution of witches, and less than that since Spain finally abolished the Inquisition. We are, of course, too enlightened now to be in danger of being carried away by superstition or hysteria - so we say.

• Heaven And Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science, by Ian Plimer (Quartet, £25)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-...al-warming.html

[Garry9999]

Great post teatree. JR Texas & Jingthing are going to have heart attacks after they read it

Edited July 10, 2009 by Garry9999

[Maizefarmer]

Don't see global warming just in terms of temp changes - in Thailand (and elswhere in South East Asia) its more about climate change - which includes changes in rainfall pattern (more so than temp changes): greater variation in wet/dry periods, and greater likelyhood of expected seasonal rainfall to fall over shorter pariods of time, increasing the likelyhood flooding and flood related damage.

[JR Texas]

Don't see global warming just in terms of temp changes - in Thailand (and elswhere in South East Asia) its more about climate change - which includes changes in rainfall pattern (more so than temp changes): greater variation in wet/dry periods, and greater likelyhood of expected seasonal rainfall to fall over shorter pariods of time, increasing the likelyhood flooding and flood related damage.

Nothing Teatree just posted reflects scientific reality. It is just a compilation of BS.....pseudo-science masking as science.....manipulation of data, deliberate obfuscation of findings......deliberate omission of critical research.

Climate change is real.....the debate already took place.......widespread agreement has already been reached that climate change is a reality and serious threat to humanity.

I can only assume that Big Oil is behind all of the misinformation. If you want to believe them, go ahead. But you might ask yourself why they are intent on creating "doubt" when virtually none exists among responsible scientists and scientific institutions that are tasked with understanding climate change.

The real tragedy is that by embracing pseudo-scientific nonsense, you are exploiting yourself (which is precisely what Big Oil wants you to do). Change would mean massive job creation, a clean environment, fewer population numbers, sustainability, a shift from large scale centralized energy to small scale decentralized energy.

In short, the quality of life for the now exploited masses would increase almost beyond measure.

[canuckamuck]

Excellent post Teatree.

I don't expect it will make any difference here though.

I can already see the faithful with their hands over their ears saying "I'm not listening, I'm not listening."

I just got news from back home;they just had the coldest June since the 1800's.

Not that that is any evidence of course. I think the greatest cause of global warming today is the flushing red faces of the climate scientists who are seeing their indicators of warming reversing from the trend.

Next year they will be taking credit for saving us from the crisis.

[Garry9999]

Don't see global warming just in terms of temp changes - in Thailand (and elswhere in South East Asia) its more about climate change - which includes changes in rainfall pattern (more so than temp changes): greater variation in wet/dry periods, and greater likelyhood of expected seasonal rainfall to fall over shorter pariods of time, increasing the likelyhood flooding and flood related damage.

Nothing Teatree just posted reflects scientific reality. It is just a compilation of BS.....pseudo-science masking as science.....manipulation of data, deliberate obfuscation of findings......deliberate omission of critical research.

Climate change is real.....the debate already took place.......widespread agreement has already been reached that climate change is a reality and serious threat to humanity.

I can only assume that Big Oil is behind all of the misinformation. If you want to believe them, go ahead. But you might ask yourself why they are intent on creating "doubt" when virtually none exists among responsible scientists and scientific institutions that are tasked with understanding climate change.

The real tragedy is that by embracing pseudo-scientific nonsense, you are exploiting yourself (which is precisely what Big Oil wants you to do). Change would mean massive job creation, a clean environment, fewer population numbers, sustainability, a shift from large scale centralized energy to small scale decentralized energy.

In short, the quality of life for the now exploited masses would increase almost beyond measure.

JR, would you mind explaining what you believe "Big Oil" to be. You seem to go on and on about Big Oil.

Also, some clarifacation of pseudo-science would be appreciated.

[Garry9999]

Back peddling???????

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-w...90711-dgf5.html

[teatree]

SPECTATOR.CO.UK

Meet The Man Who Has Exposed The Great Climate Change Con Trick

JAMES DELINGPOLEWEDNESDAY, 8TH JULY 2009

James Delingpole talks to Professor Ian Plimer, the Australian geologist, whose new book shows that ‘anthropogenic global warming’ is a dangerous, ruinously expensive fiction, a ‘first-world luxury’ with no basis in scientific fact. Shame on the publishers who rejected the book

Imagine how wonderful the world would be if man-made global warming were just a figment of Al Gore’s imagination. No more ugly wind farms to darken our sunlit uplands. No more whopping electricity bills, artificially inflated by EU-imposed carbon taxes. No longer any need to treat each warm, sunny day as though it were some terrible harbinger of ecological doom. And definitely no need for the $7.4 trillion cap and trade (carbon-trading) bill — the largest tax in American history — which President Obama and his cohorts are so assiduously trying to impose on the US economy.

Imagine no more, for your fairy godmother is here. His name is Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at Adelaide University, and he has recently published the landmark book Heaven And Earth, which is going to change forever the way we think about climate change.

‘The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology,’ says Plimer, and while his thesis is not new, you’re unlikely to have heard it expressed with quite such vigour, certitude or wide-ranging scientific authority. Where fellow sceptics like Bjorn Lomborg or Lord Lawson of Blaby are prepared cautiously to endorse the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) more modest predictions, Plimer will cede no ground whatsoever. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, he argues, is the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history.

To find out why, let’s meet the good professor. He’s a tanned, rugged, white-haired sixtysomething — courteous and jolly but combative when he needs to be — glowing with the health of a man who spends half his life on field expeditions to Iran, Turkey and his beloved Outback. And he’s sitting in my garden drinking tea on exactly the kind of day the likes of the Guardian’s George Monbiot would probably like to ban. A lovely warm sunny one.

cont..

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/fe...con-trick.thtml

[JR Texas]

Don't see global warming just in terms of temp changes - in Thailand (and elswhere in South East Asia) its more about climate change - which includes changes in rainfall pattern (more so than temp changes): greater variation in wet/dry periods, and greater likelyhood of expected seasonal rainfall to fall over shorter pariods of time, increasing the likelyhood flooding and flood related damage.

Nothing Teatree just posted reflects scientific reality. It is just a compilation of BS.....pseudo-science masking as science.....manipulation of data, deliberate obfuscation of findings......deliberate omission of critical research.

Climate change is real.....the debate already took place.......widespread agreement has already been reached that climate change is a reality and serious threat to humanity.

I can only assume that Big Oil is behind all of the misinformation. If you want to believe them, go ahead. But you might ask yourself why they are intent on creating "doubt" when virtually none exists among responsible scientists and scientific institutions that are tasked with understanding climate change.

The real tragedy is that by embracing pseudo-scientific nonsense, you are exploiting yourself (which is precisely what Big Oil wants you to do). Change would mean massive job creation, a clean environment, fewer population numbers, sustainability, a shift from large scale centralized energy to small scale decentralized energy.

In short, the quality of life for the now exploited masses would increase almost beyond measure.

JR, would you mind explaining what you believe "Big Oil" to be. You seem to go on and on about Big Oil.

Also, some clarifacation of pseudo-science would be appreciated.

Any scholar involved in true science knows what pseudo-science is. If I have to define it, there is no point in communicating from a scientific point of view.

All of us know precisely who/what Big Oil is. Let me give you a hint: They are the people who are paying pseudo-scientists to produce and distribute misleading crap on the internet about climate change that is eventually picked up by people who know nothing about science.

[chuckd]

Big oil behind global warming??? LOL!

The only ones behind it are those that hope to reap a windfall of profits from green energy investments. Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, et al.

There is no such thing as global warming. Any variations of the earth's temperatures are a result of activities on the face of the sun. Nothing more, nothing less.

[steve28]

I have always been a global warming skeptic, because I've never seen any proof that global warming actually exists. So I decided to look at temperature records for Thailand. I chose Chiang Mai because there is data available from 1943 to 2009. I chose April because it is generally one of Thailand's hottest months.

The lowest average April maximum temperature in Chiang Mai was in 1949 (29.9 C)

The highest average April maximum temperature in Chiang Mai was in 1983 (39.2 C)

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai in 1944 was 36.1 C

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai in 2009 was 36.1 C

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai between 1943 and 2009 was 36.1 C

<deleted>,where's the global warming???

Maybe you need glasses

[remil]

Melting glaciers and ice clods breaking away are definitely signs, that there is something going on with mother nature. To observe that one has not be a scientist.

Definitely. For all you know these scienctist are recieving a fat bonus check to talk bullshit from major corporations. Look at the changes yourselves. Crazy weather patterns, a large hole in the ozone layer, and of course the icebergs. Everyone should look at some before and after pictures of these glaciers really incredible. The ocean currents are also de stabalized causing a lot of this. Its suprising that people still deny this. I was in bondi beach sydney like at the end of winter (which is not really a real winter) and it snowed!!!? Tell me thats normal and you need some help. I bet there is a lot more being covered up than we think.

[David006]

Isn't it about time that humans realize that they are eating themselves to death. Obesity is rampant and spreading. This global warming delusion is a deadly distraction. It is time for denial to end.

Well that explains localized warming and methane increases.

GREAT!! Who ever said Canadians are boring??? Best post yet!!

[teatree]

The beauty of the whole global warming/global cooling/climate change scam is that ANY change in weather is attributed to man. Whether the Earth heats or cools, whether rainfall increases or decreases, whether hurricanes become more or less frequent, the blame is pinned firmly on YOU.

And the answer? Taxing and controlling every facet of your life.

But wait, hasn't the Earth's climate always been changing? Are people so ignorant that they think the climate should stay static for eternity? The climate is always changing, always has changed and always will. You just have to do a little research into the past to see this.

The level of propaganda spewed out by most of the mainstream media is astounding and I really am baffled how people can't see how they are being fooled.

[JR Texas]

The beauty of the whole global warming/global cooling/climate change scam is that ANY change in weather is attributed to man. Whether the Earth heats or cools, whether rainfall increases or decreases, whether hurricanes become more or less frequent, the blame is pinned firmly on YOU.

And the answer? Taxing and controlling every facet of your life.

But wait, hasn't the Earth's climate always been changing? Are people so ignorant that they think the climate should stay static for eternity? The climate is always changing, always has changed and always will. You just have to do a little research into the past to see this.

The level of propaganda spewed out by most of the mainstream media is astounding and I really am baffled how people can't see how they are being fooled.

That is yet another totally false and misleading statement. The climate change models take numerous variables into consideration, both human induced and non-human induced.

Unfortunately, the models show that human activities are causing the bulk of climate change, especially apparent within the past two decades.

The answer is to free ourselves from "Big Oil." Why? Because it is our allegiance to Big Oil that is costing us money.....the precise opposite of what you seem to think.

We pay for Big Oil in many ways, among them being military expenditures to keep the Big Oil game going in places like the Middle East.

Move away from Big Oil........produce an inexpensive, clean, decentralized, personal energy system (like your personal computer), and everything will cost us less, not more. We will even be able to work less hours.

And huge numbers of high tech jobs will be created because the entire energy grid will have to be replaced to fit the new energy system. Military expenditures will also decline as energy sustainability and self-sufficiency increases.

Crime will also be dramatically reduced.......less tax dollars for prisons and incarceration, etc.

No scientists in his/her right mind would ever state that the climate is static.........another straw man.

The level of propaganda is fascinating.......the attempt to create doubt when virtually none exists among responsible scientists and institutions tasked with understanding climate change is truly fascinating.

The debate already took place.......your side lost.......doubt was virtually removed........reality kicked in........responsible scientists and governments wanting to make things better are focusing on what to do to correct the global climate change challenge.

Try focusing on reality. Once again, you can find some of that here: http://www.realclimate.org/