Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

[Bomonster]

I am not disagreeing with you , I said "of course we are seeing the highest temperatures now". After an ice age things get warmer, that is how it works.

Do you seriously think that this hasn't been taken into account? that only YOU thought of this? I think you seriously underestimate the thinking behind this topic.....even though the answer is simple - man made climate change is just about as near to fact as science allows.

My old friend Wilco. I wonder if you could help me point out the strawman in your argument. And if you like you can also explain the phrase, "as close to fact as science allows". Does it mean, not a fact as in, not a real thing?

as with most deniers,you seem to have a problem with the very basis of scientific language and thought.

like I said I am a scientist, and you my friend are being brainwashed by corrupt government and government controlled media.

[Scott]

Inflammatory post removed.

[Bomonster]

Who do you think control this planet, and they mean you and I no harm, it's all a con, who collapsed the economy ? Who backs both sides in war, Al gore is a con man, with a massive financial interest in carbon offsets. Now come on NO conflict of interests.

[Bomonster]

Anyway nice discussion, some people might go away with something from this. It's St Stephens day and I'm getting on the sauce, and come on you Reds

[canuckamuck]

Good stuff Bomonster, come back anytime. There are, from time, a few true believers that come through here needing a little reality. We do our best to educate, but another point of view is always helpful.

[canman]

Wonder why greenland was called greenland? Strange eh

Greenland was allegedly called that as a sales gimmick to attract people to an otherwise bleak and barren land.

Wrong. It was very much greener during the 12th and early 13th century, the glaciers were then in retreat and there were fantastically fertile pastures. In the mid 13th century it got cooler and the glaciers advanced again. The population switched to a mostly animal diet with seal meat being a staple.

We are in an interglacial period now. Average world temps have been steady now for 15 years busting the temp-CO2 correlation myth.

Glaciers advance and retreat, average world temps go through cycles and are not being affected in any measurable way by trace amounts of CO2.

[canman]

Do you seriously think that this hasn't been taken into account? that only YOU thought of this? I think you seriously underestimate the thinking behind this topic.....even though the answer is simple - man made climate change is just about as near to fact as science allows.

My old friend Wilco. I wonder if you could help me point out the strawman in your argument. And if you like you can also explain the phrase, "as close to fact as science allows". Does it mean, not a fact as in, not a real thing?

as with most deniers,you seem to have a problem with the very basis of scientific language and thought.

like I said I am a scientist, and you my friend are being brainwashed by corrupt government and government controlled media.

Expect an ad hominem attack any time now.

[Bomonster]

Wonder why greenland was called greenland? Strange eh

Greenland was allegedly called that as a sales gimmick to attract people to an otherwise bleak and barren land.

Wrong. It was very much greener during the 12th and early 13th century, the glaciers were then in retreat and there were fantastically fertile pastures. In the mid 13th century it got cooler and the glaciers advanced again. The population switched to a mostly animal diet with seal meat being a staple.

We are in an interglacial period now. Average world temps have been steady now for 15 years busting the temp-CO2 correlation myth.

Glaciers advance and retreat, average world temps go through cycles and are not being affected in any measurable way by trace amounts of CO2.

agreed and plants need CO2

[wilcopops]

Wonder why greenland was called greenland? Strange eh

Greenland was allegedly called that as a sales gimmick to attract people to an otherwise bleak and barren land.

Wrong. It was very much greener during the 12th and early 13th century, the glaciers were then in retreat and there were fantastically fertile pastures. In the mid 13th century it got cooler and the glaciers advanced again. The population switched to a mostly animal diet with seal meat being a staple.

We are in an interglacial period now. Average world temps have been steady now for 15 years busting the temp-CO2 correlation myth.

Glaciers advance and retreat, average world temps go through cycles and are not being affected in any measurable way by trace amounts of CO2.

agreed and plants need CO2

Like most deniers' "evidence" it is wrong....3 million years ago when it was green there are no Vikings about to call it "Green" the Greenland ice sheet is about 400,000 years old.

You might be getting confused about the Medieval Climatic Anomaly which was not a global event but brought tempsnup to about today's levels in some places.

Edited December 28, 2014 by wilcopops

[wilcopops]

[quote name=canuckamuck" post="8810234"




timestamp="1418714304]

I am not disagreeing with you , I said "of course we are seeing the highest temperatures now". After an ice age things get warmer, that is how it works.

Do you seriously think that this hasn't been taken into account? that only YOU thought of this? I think you seriously underestimate the thinking behind this topic.....even though the answer is simple - man made climate change is just about as near to fact as science allows.

My old friend Wilco. I wonder if you could help me point out the strawman in your argument. And if you like you can also explain the phrase, "as close to fact as science allows". Does it mean, not a fact as in, not a real thing?

as with most deniers,you seem to have a problem with the very basis of scientific language and thought.

like I said I am a scientist, and you my friend are being brainwashed by corrupt government and government controlled media.


Sadly no matter how often one repeats something it doesn't make it true. As you neither seem to think or express yourself in terms that indicate any ability of critical thinking,one has to conclude that like your view of climate change your view of what defines a scientist is at odds with the predominantly held view. ....however i do see a smudgeon of conspiracy theorist Edited December 28, 2014 by Scott

[canuckamuck]

Well now you got the quotes all messed up.

Wilco were you referring to me or our new friend Bomonster? Are you saying he is not a scientist? How do you come by such knowledge?

Edit, the quotes are OK now, a glitch I guess. Anyhow, how do you know he is not a scientist?

Edited December 28, 2014 by canuckamuck

[boomerangutang]

Wonder why greenland was called greenland? Strange eh

Greenland was allegedly called that as a sales gimmick to attract people to an otherwise bleak and barren land.

I concur with Wilcopops on that.

Who do you think control this planet, and they mean you and I no harm, it's all a con, who collapsed the economy ? Who backs both sides in war, Al gore is a con man, with a massive financial interest in carbon offsets. Now come on NO conflict of interests.

I like Gore and wish he had become prez in 2000, instead of Bush Jr. He's not clean as the driven snow? Aww, that's too bad. Bomonster has 12 posts on this one page, and there's still room to post some more. Soon, he'll be having conversations with himself.

Who controls this planet? I know this one species have over-run it, and are leaving trash and chemical messes everywhere. Jacques Coustou, in the 1960's, while scuba diving in the Arctic, lamented traces of fossil fuel pollution in what were supposed to be the cleanest waters, and that was 50 years ago. Each person on the planet produces an average of 1 ton of CO2/annually - and that's not counting the Great Pacific Trash Vortex in the Pacific.

[Bomonster]

The answer is yes I am a scientist worked for one of the largest multinationals 20 years retired at 45. I guess non on this topic are climate scientists including myself but if 31,000 real climate scientists say it aint true no solid science only politically led agendas, one has to question. As I have said before the sun is the biggest driver. My ability is lateral thinking without any emotion and an ability to absorb large amounts of data weigh up all the evidence and make honest unbiased judgment. I don't have a dog in the fight. I like debate but when people start using the words conspiracy theorist I immediately think fox news and sigh. There are so many things wrong with this planet. Wonder what al gores carbon footprint is, you would be astounded. Its hypocrisy and the poor loose out every time. Don't be sidelined by these distractions, I remember when people actually looked up at the sky at night. Obtuse remarks sadden me, but lets face it pattaya is not where the hotest brains are.

[Bomonster]

Worry more about the next finacial collapse, sooner than you think and will effect you more than alleged CO2 levels. Have a good new year all......

[wilcopops]

I am not disagreeing with you , I said "of course we are seeing the highest temperatures now". After an ice age things get warmer, that is how it works.

Do you seriously think that this hasn't been taken into account? that only YOU thought of this? I think you seriously underestimate the thinking behind this topic.....even though the answer is simple - man made climate change is just about as near to fact as science allows.

My old friend Wilco. I wonder if you could help me point out the strawman in your argument. And if you like you can also explain the phrase, "as close to fact as science allows". Does it mean, not a fact as in, not a real thing?

as with most deniers,you seem to have a problem with the very basis of scientific language and thought.

I am a scientist

I am Spartacus!

[wilcopops]

Well now you got the quotes all messed up.

Wilco were you referring to me or our new friend Bomonster? Are you saying he is not a scientist? How do you come by such knowledge?

Edit, the quotes are OK now, a glitch I guess. Anyhow, how do you know he is not a scientist?

Further evidencebof yourlack of critical abilities? I have said nothing of the sort.

[Bomonster]

I am spartacus , I was relating to all the comments, like I said I meet people like this all the time, I call it short mind syndrome

[Bomonster]

Wonder why greenland was called greenland? Strange eh

Greenland was allegedly called that as a sales gimmick to attract people to an otherwise bleak and barren land.

you must be SpartAcuS everybody here is

[canuckamuck]

Well now you got the quotes all messed up.

Wilco were you referring to me or our new friend Bomonster? Are you saying he is not a scientist? How do you come by such knowledge?

Edit, the quotes are OK now, a glitch I guess. Anyhow, how do you know he is not a scientist?

Further evidencebof yourlack of critical abilities? I have said nothing of the sort.

This line of argument is very confusing. Which ad hominin attack would you like to continue with?

That I have no critical ability or that Bomonster is not a scientist?

Or perhaps, just to change things up, you would like to bring some facts to the table, Spartacus? Surely you could walk us through at least one piece of convincing evidence that global warming is either the fault of man, or that it is indeed something to worry about, or that we can do anything about it?

Edited December 29, 2014 by canuckamuck

[thaibeachlovers]

Naomi Klein (who we have discussed before) has finally broken the last taboo, which climate activists have been struggling to avoid uttering over the years.

Yes, if you disagree with the UN on climate matters, you are a racist -- and more, you are a white supremacist.

"Thinly veiled notions of racial superiority have informed every aspect of the non-response to climate change so far. Racism is what has made it possible to systematically look away from the climate threat for more than two decades.

What would governments do if black and brown lives counted as much as white lives?"

These rage-filled people desperately try to portray themselves as reasonable people with the future health of the planet as their only concern, but they can't help the hairy heel slipping out from time to time and revealing their true motivation.

Klein knows very little about people and even less about science, but cannot be ignored given the extreme length of the conga line of emotionally immature dimwits who regard her as some kind of a sage, and even buy her books.

Ok Rick, you found one person who's shrill. You tried to find that person, and you did, congratulations. There are still a plurality of scientists and millions of people who believe, as I do, that burning fossil fuels are a contributing factor to GW. Even if it weren't a contributing factor, it would still be good to lessen burning fossil fuels, if only to render cities less awful places to reside.

There are still a plurality of scientists and millions of people who believe,

Which is no indicator that what they believe is true. In Nazi Germany, millions of people and lots of scientists believed in the master race theory- were they correct?????

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Naomi Klein (who we have discussed before) has finally broken the last taboo, which climate activists have been struggling to avoid uttering over the years.
Yes, if you disagree with the UN on climate matters, you are a racist -- and more, you are a white supremacist.

"Thinly veiled notions of racial superiority have informed every aspect of the non-response to climate change so far. Racism is what has made it possible to systematically look away from the climate threat for more than two decades.
What would governments do if black and brown lives counted as much as white lives?"

These rage-filled people desperately try to portray themselves as reasonable people with the future health of the planet as their only concern, but they can't help the hairy heel slipping out from time to time and revealing their true motivation.
Klein knows very little about people and even less about science, but cannot be ignored given the extreme length of the conga line of emotionally immature dimwits who regard her as some kind of a sage, and even buy her books.

Ok Rick, you found one person who's shrill. You tried to find that person, and you did, congratulations. There are still a plurality of scientists and millions of people who believe, as I do, that burning fossil fuels are a contributing factor to GW. Even if it weren't a contributing factor, it would still be good to lessen burning fossil fuels, if only to render cities less awful places to reside.

There are still a plurality of scientists and millions of people who believe,

Which is no indicator that what they believe is true. In Nazi Germany, millions of people and lots of scientists believed in the master race theory- were they correct?????

Well, actually, it is an indicator (the plurality of scientists that is). It's not a guarantee, but it's certainly an indicator of truth (however defined). If it wasn't an indicator there simply would be no such thing as science or the sciences - not just with regard to climate science, but with regard to any and all areas of scientific activity. Short of having a god's eye view of things - something I understand some people have, or at least think they have - consensus within a relevant scientific discipline is the best indicator of where truth or approximately truth might be. After all, what are the alternatives - drunk uncle McDermott's lunatic ramblings? Of course consensuses resolve and dissolve in the normal course of science, but that in itself is no argument against the truth of a current consensus position. The formation of a different scientific consensus is however. Seems there's pretty much a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Lot's of interesting dissent too - as there is within any scientific consensus.

The greatest contribution to global warming? The gigatons of bilious hot air being generated by the misinformed 'debate' about it.

[Bovverboy]

[Boon Mee]

how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

Fok all. It's always hot here in LOS!

[nisakiman]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

There are still a plurality of scientists and millions of people who believe,

Which is no indicator that what they believe is true. In Nazi Germany, millions of people and lots of scientists believed in the master race theory- were they correct?????

Well, actually, it is an indicator (the plurality of scientists that is). It's not a guarantee, but it's certainly an indicator of truth (however defined). If it wasn't an indicator there simply would be no such thing as science or the sciences - not just with regard to climate science, but with regard to any and all areas of scientific activity. Short of having a god's eye view of things - something I understand some people have, or at least think they have - consensus within a relevant scientific discipline is the best indicator of where truth or approximately truth might be. After all, what are the alternatives - drunk uncle McDermott's lunatic ramblings? Of course consensuses resolve and dissolve in the normal course of science, but that in itself is no argument against the truth of a current consensus position. The formation of a different scientific consensus is however. Seems there's pretty much a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Lot's of interesting dissent too - as there is within any scientific consensus.

The greatest contribution to global warming? The gigatons of bilious hot air being generated by the misinformed 'debate' about it.

I think you'll find that the 'scientific consensus' is confined to those scientists for whom the 'climate change crisis' pays the mortgage, and hansomely.

It's a gravy train, and a very profitable one for those who continue to promote it. The scientists who disagree with the whole concept of AGW are swiftly marginalised and de-funded before they can rock the boat. They end up disagreeing from the sidelines, ignored by the MSM and unheard by the gullible politicians whose ears are being bent by the Grima Wormtongues from the AGW sect. There's far too much money at stake to allow any serious dissent to be heard.

It's almost exactly the same modus operandum as deployed by 'Public Health' in their pursuit of their neo-puritan ideology.

And the end result is the same; a gradual, salami-slice reduction in your liberties, giving those who rule over you ever more control of your day-to-day life and lifestyle. Your choices are being limited more and more, all in the name of 'AGW' and 'Public Health'. And the rallying cry of both is: "Think of the cheeldren!"

Lying, blackmailing charlatans, all. The sooner they are consigned to the dustbin of history, the better it will be for everyone.

Edited December 29, 2014 by nisakiman

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

There are still a plurality of scientists and millions of people who believe,

Which is no indicator that what they believe is true. In Nazi Germany, millions of people and lots of scientists believed in the master race theory- were they correct?????

Well, actually, it is an indicator (the plurality of scientists that is). It's not a guarantee, but it's certainly an indicator of truth (however defined). If it wasn't an indicator there simply would be no such thing as science or the sciences - not just with regard to climate science, but with regard to any and all areas of scientific activity. Short of having a god's eye view of things - something I understand some people have, or at least think they have - consensus within a relevant scientific discipline is the best indicator of where truth or approximately truth might be. After all, what are the alternatives - drunk uncle McDermott's lunatic ramblings? Of course consensuses resolve and dissolve in the normal course of science, but that in itself is no argument against the truth of a current consensus position. The formation of a different scientific consensus is however. Seems there's pretty much a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Lot's of interesting dissent too - as there is within any scientific consensus.

The greatest contribution to global warming? The gigatons of bilious hot air being generated by the misinformed 'debate' about it.

I think you'll find that the 'scientific consensus' is confined to those scientists for whom the 'climate change crisis' pays the mortgage, and hansomely.

It's a gravy train, and a very profitable one for those who continue to promote it. The scientists who disagree with the whole concept of AGW are swiftly marginalised and de-funded before they can rock the boat. They end up disagreeing from the sidelines, ignored by the MSM and unheard by the gullible politicians whose ears are being bent by the Grima Wormtongues from the AGW sect. There's far too much money at stake to allow any serious dissent to be heard.

It's almost exactly the same modus operandum as deployed by 'Public Health' in their pursuit of their neo-puritan ideology.

And the end result is the same; a gradual, salami-slice reduction in your liberties, giving those who rule over you ever more control of your day-to-day life and lifestyle. Your choices are being limited more and more, all in the name of 'AGW' and 'Public Health'. And the rallying cry of both is: "Think of the cheeldren!"

Lying, blackmailing charlatans, all. The sooner they are consigned to the dustbin of history, the better it will be for everyone.

You have gone with the Upton Sinclair:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it". A species of what in olden times, when logic was an idol of the tribe, was called the genetic fallacy.

Be that as it may, I will raise you and, referring directly to post, go with Jonathan Swift:

"Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired..."

And so, I'll do no such thing.

[RickBradford]

Well, actually, it is an indicator (the plurality of scientists that is). It's not a guarantee, but it's certainly an indicator of truth (however defined)

As has been noted before on this thread, science is not, and should not be, a democracy.

Many of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made in the face of sustained hostility from the "consensus".

In the mid-1930s, a pamphlet called "100 Authors Against Einstein" dismissed as absurd the Theory of Relativity on which we now depend for so many things.

Alfred Wegener had to endure decades of abuse and vilification from the mainstream "consensus" of earth physics before the reality of his tectonic plate theory was finally established. In fact, he had to wait so long that he died long before his theory was finally accepted.

Does that mean there is no place for consensus in science?

The moon is not made of cheese, the earth is not flat, and lightning may strike the same place twice. We believe these claims to be true, yet it is unlikely that we have personally confirmed each of them.

The more difficult things become, the more complex and chaotic, the more we would expect views to differ, and a general "consensus" to weaken.

Although the climate is perhaps the most complex and chaotic phenomenon we can observe, the relentless agit-prop informs us that 97% of scientists agree on a single interpretation of how climate is driven. The only people who can routinely achieve figures like that are the Kim family of the DPRK at election time.

The manufacturing of the 97% figure is an attempt to turn science into a numbers game, a popularity contest, a fact-free zone where the Green/Left feels much more comfortable than in debating the actual science, with its inconvenient data and observations.

[wilcopops]

"Many of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made in the face of sustained hostility from the "consensus".

In the mid-1930s, a pamphlet called "100 Authors Against Einstein" dismissed as absurd the Theory of Relativity on which we now depend for so many things."

I get the impression that many CC deniers consider themselves in the same mould as Copernicus or Galileo. However in reality they are the equivalent of the Catholic Church. They are in fact desperately trying to reaffirm an old dogma that has overwhelmingly disproved. And like the church I very much doubt if they will be joining us in the 21st century for some time to come.

Edited December 29, 2014 by wilcopops

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Well, actually, it is an indicator (the plurality of scientists that is). It's not a guarantee, but it's certainly an indicator of truth (however defined)

As has been noted before on this thread, science is not, and should not be, a democracy.

Many of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made in the face of sustained hostility from the "consensus".

In the mid-1930s, a pamphlet called "100 Authors Against Einstein" dismissed as absurd the Theory of Relativity on which we now depend for so many things.

Alfred Wegener had to endure decades of abuse and vilification from the mainstream "consensus" of earth physics before the reality of his tectonic plate theory was finally established. In fact, he had to wait so long that he died long before his theory was finally accepted.

Does that mean there is no place for consensus in science?

The moon is not made of cheese, the earth is not flat, and lightning may strike the same place twice. We believe these claims to be true, yet it is unlikely that we have personally confirmed each of them.

The more difficult things become, the more complex and chaotic, the more we would expect views to differ, and a general "consensus" to weaken.

Although the climate is perhaps the most complex and chaotic phenomenon we can observe, the relentless agit-prop informs us that 97% of scientists agree on a single interpretation of how climate is driven. The only people who can routinely achieve figures like that are the Kim family of the DPRK at election time.

The manufacturing of the 97% figure is an attempt to turn science into a numbers game, a popularity contest, a fact-free zone where the Green/Left feels much more comfortable than in debating the actual science, with its inconvenient data and observations.

Nothing here that I've not already said (apart from the wacky history about relativity) - and in a far more articulate and concise fashion too I might add.

"Of course consensuses resolve and dissolve in the normal course of science, but that in itself is no argument against the truth of a current consensus position. The formation of a different scientific consensus is however.Seems there's pretty much a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Lot's of interesting dissent too - as there is within any scientific consensus."

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"Many of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made in the face of sustained hostility from the "consensus".

In the mid-1930s, a pamphlet called "100 Authors Against Einstein" dismissed as absurd the Theory of Relativity on which we now depend for so many things."


I get the impression that many CC deniers consider themselves in the same mould as Copernicus or Galileo. However in reality they are the equivalent of the Catholic Church. They are in fact desperately trying to reaffirm an old dogma that has overwhelmingly disproved. And like the church I very much doubt if they will be joining us in the 21st century for some time to come.

I'm more reminded of the debate around tobacco smoking. Similar level of hostility, and similar level of accusation, one side to the other, of there being payola for position and view.

[boomerangutang]

I'm feeling contrarian, so I'll actually respond to the question in the OP.

I'm in Chiang Rai, which is about as comparatively cold as any part of Thailand. We had a few cold days recently. Gave me an opp to fire up my home-made propane space heater (I get spaced and heated at the same time). It's been mild for the past 3 days. Even after the coldest nights, the days are warm enough to sunbathe nude. But the point I'm trying to make: plants and animals are acting like it's spring. Granted, in normal times, spring is a vague concept in northern Thailand, but there are some annual indications, such as certain trees/bushes flowering, and frogs chirping, mostly in May/June. Yet, each year it seems spring flowers are showing earlier, and insects aren't sticking to the cycles one would expect. Example: all week there have been some fireflies at night. Ordinarily, fireflies only come out in May thru September. My observations aren't very scientific, as I'm not measuring anything with any precision. Just by 2 satang's worth.