Don't believe in Global Warming

I believe there is a Significant Climate Change occurring.

Some times and places are warmer, some cooler, some wetter and some dryer.

I blame the media for miss naming it.

Now every time some place gets cold, some numb skull cries " see? it not warming!"

Unfortunately it is still very profitable to destroy the environment.

I was going to vote on your "Climate change Poll"

But when you only asked about warming, I decided not to vote!

The theory is that as CO2 content of the atmosphere increases, the global average temperature increases. If CO2 content increases (it has), but the measured global average temperature does not increase there is something wrong with the theory as stated.

Computer models are not science, science involves observations. If your observations (measured data) do not do what your theory predicts will occur, there may be a flaw in the theory. Almost every model used by the UN IPCC (something like 213 out of 214 models) have greatly overestimated the forcing function of CO2 in the atmosphere and the predictions from these models are significantly higher than have been observed/measured.

In my mind if the result of increasing CO2 (a trace gas in the atmosphere) can be anything you want (temperature increases, or decreases, or no change) the original theory is unsound, or maybe CO2 really doesn't have much of a negative effect at all on the atmosphere.

The poll questions are biased, there should be a selection for man made CO2 may have an effect on the environment, but that effect has been overblown and overestimated in order to make scientists and the green lobby money .

My favorite modeling quote: "Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful." George Edward Pelham Box

In George E.P. Box and Norman R. Draper, Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces (1987), 74.

Edited October 23, 201312 yr by rsokolowski

Well after reading al of the my house got flooded posts some people came to realise that Thailand has had problems with floods for century's thats why many old houses in rural Thailand are built on stilts .

Apparently buying a parcel of cheap land from noi or toys family in nakhon somewhere and building that million dollar retirement villa has left a sour taste in their mouth and bank account.

So much for climate change.But according to some people its al a certain politicians fault ........

I am not sure why the Thai rural houses are built on stilts, but in Issan I think it had something to do with keeping snakes, and bugs etc out of the dwelling amoung other reasons.

Well after reading al of the my house got flooded posts some people came to realise that Thailand has had problems with floods for century's thats why many old houses in rural Thailand are built on stilts .

Apparently buying a parcel of cheap land from noi or toys family in nakhon somewhere and building that million dollar retirement villa has left a sour taste in their mouth and bank account.

So much for climate change.But according to some people its al a certain politicians fault ........

Huh? You must be drunk, or high, or something. You basically said because some people got flooded out because they didn't build their houses on stilts, means climate change doesn't exist.

Did I get that right? Huh???

No i basically said no such thing about stilts.Its like people building houses next to airports and complaining about the noise,are you thick or something.

These types of discussions are stupid. Everyone here who's a climatologist, please put up your hand. Oh right, that's nobody.

99% of the world's scientific community has come to a consensus that climate change is real, and is being caused by human intervention.

I would argue that being a climatologist is not a requirement to recognizing you are being sold a load of bull $hit. I would also like to add that 99% of the world's scientific community are NOT climatologists either, does that mean that they should shut their pie holes and keep their opinion to themselves also?

Well after reading al of the my house got flooded posts some people came to realise that Thailand has had problems with floods for century's thats why many old houses in rural Thailand are built on stilts .

Apparently buying a parcel of cheap land from noi or toys family in nakhon somewhere and building that million dollar retirement villa has left a sour taste in their mouth and bank account.

So much for climate change.But according to some people its al a certain politicians fault ........

I am not sure why the Thai rural houses are built on stilts, but in Issan I think it had something to do with keeping snakes, and bugs etc out of the dwelling amoung other reasons.

And large amounts of water.

I would argue that being a climatologist is not a requirement to recognizing you are being sold a load of bull $hit. I would also like to add that 99% of the world's scientific community are NOT climatologists either, does that mean that they should shut their pie holes and keep their opinion to themselves also?

http://www.ipcc-data.org/

If you don't believe in climate change, there you go. Should take you at least a week to go through all the data there, but without question, the climate is warming. This isn't a topic that's really up for debate anymore.

I'd love to hear what you people think of the documentary, Chasing Ice. If nothing else, the cinematography was fantastic.

Absolutely right, the cinematography was fantastic..

I would argue that being a climatologist is not a requirement to recognizing you are being sold a load of bull $hit. I would also like to add that 99% of the world's scientific community are NOT climatologists either, does that mean that they should shut their pie holes and keep their opinion to themselves also?

http://www.ipcc-data.org/

If you don't believe in climate change, there you go. Should take you at least a week to go through all the data there, but without question, the climate is warming. This isn't a topic that's really up for debate anymore.

What?? dont believe in climate change?? its always changing its never been static and never will until the sun goes out then itll be cold for quite a long time.

As for the cause thats whats really up for debate and i dont buy the crap Im being fed from the ipcc.

Your poll is not complete:

*) Climate change is a hoax

*) Global warming was a hoax and therefore renamed "climate change" because so many people were/are making so much money off it that they wanted to cover all of the bases, up or down.

These types of discussions are stupid. Everyone here who's a climatologist, please put up your hand. Oh right, that's nobody.

99% of the world's scientific community has come to a consensus that climate change is real, and is being caused by human intervention.

And... Not surprising, they are all paid to say that. Try being a PHD scientist who doesn't believe it, and see where your career goes fails.

There is no room in the "scientific community" for discussion on the subject. All of the big grants and government subsidies go to those who espouse their beliefs in global warming climate change.

There is big money and big opportunities for government and even world control of people in global warming climate change.

When global warming fails as a scientific model, then the fraudsters invent climate change. That covers all of their bets, up or down. They need something to cling to to control people, and to tax people, and to justify their own existence as noted by all the money Al Gore made writing and speaking about climate change global warming.

One wouldn't dare try to be a scientist today, employed by any university, school, or major corporation without claiming a belief in global warming climate change.

They can't prove it, but they'll surely force it.

Well after reading al of the my house got flooded posts some people came to realise that Thailand has had problems with floods for century's thats why many old houses in rural Thailand are built on stilts .

Apparently buying a parcel of cheap land from noi or toys family in nakhon somewhere and building that million dollar retirement villa has left a sour taste in their mouth and bank account.

So much for climate change.But according to some people its al a certain politicians fault ........

I am not sure why the Thai rural houses are built on stilts, but in Issan I think it had something to do with keeping snakes, and bugs etc out of the dwelling amoung other reasons.

And large amounts of water.

And ground termites....and better air circulation...and no need to pour foundations....and a place for chickens and pigs to hang out.

I would argue that being a climatologist is not a requirement to recognizing you are being sold a load of bull $hit. I would also like to add that 99% of the world's scientific community are NOT climatologists either, does that mean that they should shut their pie holes and keep their opinion to themselves also?

http://www.ipcc-data.org/

If you don't believe in climate change, there you go. Should take you at least a week to go through all the data there, but without question, the climate is warming. This isn't a topic that's really up for debate anymore.

ohm since you said case closed then we should just believe everything we are told and not question it. I was under the misinterpretation that science and other forms of higher learning were about disputing and debating ideas.

sorry, i will now fall in line and no longer question.

Your poll is not complete:

*) Climate change is a hoax

Another option you need to include is:

Human action is having a very minor effect on global temperatures but is not relevant in affecting climate change

Well you seem to forget it takes water to make food, fresh water that is and that is a commodity that is dwindling at an alarming rate.

And desertification is also a concern you forget that , too.

I'm not whining, I'm very, very concerned so trite comments are most unwelcome in such a serious conversation- but expected from those who cannot or will not accept their behavior affects others less fortunate.

One of the quoted effects of CC is an increase in ocean temperatures and an increase in the moisture load in the air. In the same breath the CC people claim CC will result in drought and desertification. I don't see how the two facts can be reconciled. Surely more ocean evapouration of fresh water into the atmosphere equals more clouds equals more fresh water rain being dumped over land.

The simple fact is that the claims of droughts and desertification are simple guesses with no science behind it what so ever.

Well you seem to forget it takes water to make food, fresh water that is and that is a commodity that is dwindling at an alarming rate.

And desertification is also a concern you forget that , too.

I'm not whining, I'm very, very concerned so trite comments are most unwelcome in such a serious conversation- but expected from those who cannot or will not accept their behavior affects others less fortunate.

One of the quoted effects of CC is an increase in ocean temperatures and an increase in the moisture load in the air. In the same breath the CC people claim CC will result in drought and desertification. I don't see how the two facts can be reconciled. Surely more ocean evapouration of fresh water into the atmosphere equals more clouds equals more fresh water rain being dumped over land.

The simple fact is that the claims of droughts and desertification are simple guesses with no science behind it what so ever.

the fact that you cant understand why that would be the case means that it isnt a fact? lol

I would argue that being a climatologist is not a requirement to recognizing you are being sold a load of bull $hit. I would also like to add that 99% of the world's scientific community are NOT climatologists either, does that mean that they should shut their pie holes and keep their opinion to themselves also?

http://www.ipcc-data.org/

If you don't believe in climate change, there you go. Should take you at least a week to go through all the data there, but without question, the climate is warming. This isn't a topic that's really up for debate anymore.

The climate is not warming, global temperatures have been rising which may lead to certain effects on the climate. Global temperatures have been rising since the last ice age, over this time there have been temperature anomalies where very rapid changes in temperature have occured both up and down. Greenland for example was green when the vikings found it. They also found Newfoudland and named it vineland because of all the grapes which grew there at the time. The vikings had settlements in greenland but were pushed out by rapidly advancing glaciers caused by a mini ice age, Those same glaciers have been retreating there and all over the world since.

No one is disputing that temperatures have been rising. The big question is; does a very tenuous correlation of observed temperature rise and CO2 levels over a short period of time equal causation.

Well you seem to forget it takes water to make food, fresh water that is and that is a commodity that is dwindling at an alarming rate.

And desertification is also a concern you forget that , too.

I'm not whining, I'm very, very concerned so trite comments are most unwelcome in such a serious conversation- but expected from those who cannot or will not accept their behavior affects others less fortunate.

One of the quoted effects of CC is an increase in ocean temperatures and an increase in the moisture load in the air. In the same breath the CC people claim CC will result in drought and desertification. I don't see how the two facts can be reconciled. Surely more ocean evapouration of fresh water into the atmosphere equals more clouds equals more fresh water rain being dumped over land.

The simple fact is that the claims of droughts and desertification are simple guesses with no science behind it what so ever.

the fact that you cant understand why that would be the case means that it isnt a fact? lol

I am always willing to learn, could you explain it to me?

Well you seem to forget it takes water to make food, fresh water that is and that is a commodity that is dwindling at an alarming rate.

And desertification is also a concern you forget that , too.

I'm not whining, I'm very, very concerned so trite comments are most unwelcome in such a serious conversation- but expected from those who cannot or will not accept their behavior affects others less fortunate.

One of the quoted effects of CC is an increase in ocean temperatures and an increase in the moisture load in the air. In the same breath the CC people claim CC will result in drought and desertification. I don't see how the two facts can be reconciled. Surely more ocean evapouration of fresh water into the atmosphere equals more clouds equals more fresh water rain being dumped over land.

The simple fact is that the claims of droughts and desertification are simple guesses with no science behind it what so ever.

the fact that you cant understand why that would be the case means that it isnt a fact? lol

That about says it all, those with the least scientific knowlege have the strongest contempt for those that do, this thread sadly illustrates that observation.

Well you seem to forget it takes water to make food, fresh water that is and that is a commodity that is dwindling at an alarming rate.

And desertification is also a concern you forget that , too.

I'm not whining, I'm very, very concerned so trite comments are most unwelcome in such a serious conversation- but expected from those who cannot or will not accept their behavior affects others less fortunate.

One of the quoted effects of CC is an increase in ocean temperatures and an increase in the moisture load in the air. In the same breath the CC people claim CC will result in drought and desertification. I don't see how the two facts can be reconciled. Surely more ocean evapouration of fresh water into the atmosphere equals more clouds equals more fresh water rain being dumped over land.

The simple fact is that the claims of droughts and desertification are simple guesses with no science behind it what so ever.

the fact that you cant understand why that would be the case means that it isnt a fact? lol

That about says it all, those with the least scientific knowlege have the strongest contempt for those that do, this thread sadly illustrates that observation.

Well you seem to forget it takes water to make food, fresh water that is and that is a commodity that is dwindling at an alarming rate.

And desertification is also a concern you forget that , too.

I'm not whining, I'm very, very concerned so trite comments are most unwelcome in such a serious conversation- but expected from those who cannot or will not accept their behavior affects others less fortunate.

One of the quoted effects of CC is an increase in ocean temperatures and an increase in the moisture load in the air. In the same breath the CC people claim CC will result in drought and desertification. I don't see how the two facts can be reconciled. Surely more ocean evapouration of fresh water into the atmosphere equals more clouds equals more fresh water rain being dumped over land.

The simple fact is that the claims of droughts and desertification are simple guesses with no science behind it what so ever.

the fact that you cant understand why that would be the case means that it isnt a fact? lol

That about says it all, those with the least scientific knowlege have the strongest contempt for those that do, this thread sadly illustrates that observation.

Ok guys I'm serious, explain to me how more moisture and clouds equals desertification and drought. Put your superior scientific knowledge to use and explain to us all how this works.

Or just continue to take pot shots from the side lines

Well you seem to forget it takes water to make food, fresh water that is and that is a commodity that is dwindling at an alarming rate.

And desertification is also a concern you forget that , too.

I'm not whining, I'm very, very concerned so trite comments are most unwelcome in such a serious conversation- but expected from those who cannot or will not accept their behavior affects others less fortunate.

One of the quoted effects of CC is an increase in ocean temperatures and an increase in the moisture load in the air. In the same breath the CC people claim CC will result in drought and desertification. I don't see how the two facts can be reconciled. Surely more ocean evapouration of fresh water into the atmosphere equals more clouds equals more fresh water rain being dumped over land.

The simple fact is that the claims of droughts and desertification are simple guesses with no science behind it what so ever.

the fact that you cant understand why that would be the case means that it isnt a fact? lol

That about says it all, those with the least scientific knowlege have the strongest contempt for those that do, this thread sadly illustrates that observation.

How about "Those who have the most brainwashing about climate change have the strongest contempt for those who can think for themselves?"

of course someone who cannot grasp complexities will deny them rather than admit an inability to understand.!

I would argue that being a climatologist is not a requirement to recognizing you are being sold a load of bull $hit. I would also like to add that 99% of the world's scientific community are NOT climatologists either, does that mean that they should shut their pie holes and keep their opinion to themselves also?

http://www.ipcc-data.org/

If you don't believe in climate change, there you go. Should take you at least a week to go through all the data there, but without question, the climate is warming. This isn't a topic that's really up for debate anymore.

The climate is not warming, global temperatures have been rising which may lead to certain effects on the climate. Global temperatures have been rising since the last ice age, over this time there have been temperature anomalies where very rapid changes in temperature have occured both up and down. Greenland for example was green when the vikings found it. They also found Newfoudland and named it vineland because of all the grapes which grew there at the time. The vikings had settlements in greenland but were pushed out by rapidly advancing glaciers caused by a mini ice age, Those same glaciers have been retreating there and all over the world since.

No one is disputing that temperatures have been rising. The big question is; does a very tenuous correlation of observed temperature rise and CO2 levels over a short period of time equal causation.

Interesting reading all the posts and opinions, and I agree that the pot shots don't do any good at all. The reality is in the real data and the science.

Regarding your last sentence, I would put it another way such as analyzing what effect the rise in CO2 levels could have on temperatures and climate. I think most agree that the data extracted from ice samples is sound and it shows that there have been variations in CO2 over the last 1000 years, but that there has been a monumental increase during the industrial revolution. Things like condensation nuclei additions also have to be factored in when you see all those coal plants being commissioned in China. The reason for the black and white poll was to see if people think man can influence the world's environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

of course someone who cannot grasp complexities will deny them rather than admit an inability to understand.!

those who cannot grasp the complexities are divided into two groups. some deny them, other blindly follow. you like to ridicule the former and are probably a part of the latter.

of course someone who cannot grasp complexities will deny them rather than admit an inability to understand.!

those who cannot grasp the complexities are divided into two groups. some deny them, other blindly follow. you like to ridicule the former and are probably a part of the latter.

sorry, i can grasp them.

I would argue that being a climatologist is not a requirement to recognizing you are being sold a load of bull $hit. I would also like to add that 99% of the world's scientific community are NOT climatologists either, does that mean that they should shut their pie holes and keep their opinion to themselves also?

http://www.ipcc-data.org/

If you don't believe in climate change, there you go. Should take you at least a week to go through all the data there, but without question, the climate is warming. This isn't a topic that's really up for debate anymore.

The climate is not warming, global temperatures have been rising which may lead to certain effects on the climate. Global temperatures have been rising since the last ice age, over this time there have been temperature anomalies where very rapid changes in temperature have occured both up and down. Greenland for example was green when the vikings found it. They also found Newfoudland and named it vineland because of all the grapes which grew there at the time. The vikings had settlements in greenland but were pushed out by rapidly advancing glaciers caused by a mini ice age, Those same glaciers have been retreating there and all over the world since.

No one is disputing that temperatures have been rising. The big question is; does a very tenuous correlation of observed temperature rise and CO2 levels over a short period of time equal causation.

Interesting reading all the posts and opinions, and I agree that the pot shots don't do any good at all. The reality is in the real data and the science.

Regarding your last sentence, I would put it another way such as analyzing what effect the rise in CO2 levels could have on temperatures and climate. I think most agree that the data extracted from ice samples is sound and it shows that there have been variations in CO2 over the last 1000 years, but that there has been a monumental increase during the industrial revolution. Things like condensation nuclei additions also have to be factored in when you see all those coal plants being commissioned in China. The reason for the black and white poll was to see if people think man can influence the world's environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

The reality is indeed in the data and it clearly shows that historically, temperature and CO2 are closely linked.

However, temperatures have always risen FIRST and then CO2 lags behind. Temerature drives CO2, not the other way round.

the fact that you cant understand why that would be the case means that it isnt a fact? lol

Would you be so kind to take a few minutes and explain how the CO2 levels during the start of the Silurian period were vastly higher than they are today (and I really mean vastly) and yet it was the first ice-age following the Pre-Cambrian period.

And then go on to explain how my education in geology was a total waste of time.

Thanks in advance.

When i was a child the " official science " was asserting the chance of a big asteroid hitting the Earth as extremely remote.

In the last years we have had a huge improvement on technology, and now it seems that we are constantly bombarded with asteroids and the likes.. When the big one will come, they will probably not tell us.

IMHO this Planet is well described as a " clockwork orange " , and it has an expiry date on it.

Let's just wait for a big catastrophe, which will exterminate the biggest part of us... The ones who survive will erect a colourful totem, dance around it in the full moon nights, and worship fire and water.

So, let's not worry too much, enjoy the technology and be happy, we are too small to influence the future of the Planet.

the fact that you cant understand why that would be the case means that it isnt a fact? lol

Would you be so kind to take a few minutes and explain how the CO2 levels during the start of the Silurian period were vastly higher than they are today (and I really mean vastly) and yet it was the first ice-age following the Pre-Cambrian period.

And then go on to explain how my education in geology was a total waste of time.

Thanks in advance.

no

the fact that you cant understand why that would be the case means that it isnt a fact? lol

Would you be so kind to take a few minutes and explain how the CO2 levels during the start of the Silurian period were vastly higher than they are today (and I really mean vastly) and yet it was the first ice-age following the Pre-Cambrian period.

And then go on to explain how my education in geology was a total waste of time.

Thanks in advance.

Some might call the above graph an inconvenient fact.