Is global warming/climate change a crock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

The fact that graphs have been posted which show obscenely high levels of atmospheric CO2 while there have been low temps kind of points out that there may be merit to my argument. Oh wait you ignore anything which doesn't agree with what the scientists think and any scientist which doesn't agree with popular belief is said to be working for the oil companies :rolleyes:

---

And there have been graphs that show a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature too, such as the one 2/3 of the way down the first page of this thread.

Daniel, you continue to berate the opinion of the vast majority of the scientific community using the logic "they've been wrong before" without formulating your own argument as to WHY they are wrong. Your graphs prove nothing because there are plenty of other graphs that support the hypothesis behind global warming.

It is also your insistence on name calling that draws attention to the fact that you don't appear to have an argument. I'd avoid it in the future if you want to be taken seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

And there have been graphs that show a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature too, such as the one 2/3 of the way down the first page of this thread.

Daniel, you continue to berate the opinion of the vast majority of the scientific community using the logic "they've been wrong before" without formulating your own argument as to WHY they are wrong. Your graphs prove nothing because there are plenty of other graphs that support the hypothesis behind global warming.

It is also your insistence on name calling that draws attention to the fact that you don't appear to have an argument. I'd avoid it in the future if you want to be taken seriously.

---

Shut up for gods sake. I merely said they COULD be wrong. I'm not saying they have been wrong in the past so therefore they are wrong now. If you can't understand that then I don't know what hope the human race has if this is indead the biggest threat to our survival :rolleyes:

I'd avoid your insistence of attacking my posts on points which I'm not actually trying to say if you want anyone to take you seriously as well.

If you don't understand what the word precedent means then I suggest you don't post on this thread. I'm merely trying to say that scientists aren't always correct.

Yet again it's a case of "your graphs are wrong because ours say otherwise". That ranks alongside "My brother's bigger than yours and he's going to beat your brother up and then, then, then your brother will go home crying" as the silliest way of proving your argument. Explain why Tinchote's graph that was posted earlier is wrong rather than just saying ours are right so yours must be wrong. Don't be rude and dismissive just because I don't have the arrogance to suggest my race of foolish humans knows everything about how this planet works OK?!?!?!?!?!?!

Every single point I put across such as the thames freezing over 40 years ago, CO2 being shown in graphs to have little or no correlation to the temperature of the planet and so on it met with "Ummm errr the evidence says otherwise" or somesuch ludicrous way of dismissing what are actually really good points. I see little point in "discussing" this with people who only have a one track mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

As I said before. Explain the Thames freezing over in the middle of this century? The climate has always been changing. Get used to it.

---

Sure, what would you like to know about it? It got cold and froze. It has frozen several times in the past, but that was the most recent one. The recent years that it has frozen are 1963, 1953, 1947, 1940, 1895-6, 1880, 1857... I can go on if you wish.

This begs the question: what point are you trying to make? Are you saying that the climate has warmed and the Thames can no longer freeze? I actually doubt that that is the reason, but I would love to know what it is you are thinking.

Yes the climate is always changing. And as I have said, repeatedly, it is not the fact that the world climate is changing. The problem is the speed at which it is happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

Sure, what would you like to know about it? It got cold and froze. It has frozen several times in the past, but that was the most recent one. The recent years that it has frozen are 1963, 1953, 1947, 1940, 1895-6, 1880, 1857... I can go on if you wish.

This begs the question: what point are you trying to make? Are you saying that the climate has warmed and the Thames can no longer freeze? I actually doubt that that is the reason, but I would love to know what it is you are thinking.

Yes the climate is always changing. And as I have said, repeatedly, it is not the fact that the world climate is changing. The problem is the speed at which it is happening.

---

My point is.... such a major event like the thames freezing over? What made that happen and what made it happen again and again against this trend of global warming? And if the recent wet spell in the UK was down to climate change then why is it that a major body of water that's not easy to freeze, freezing isn't? :mark:

If next year the climatologists predict in rough terms the variance from the "average" weather that we get. Perhaps I'll side with them. But currently they sound like the people who make up the starsigns you hear on the radio. "Cancer, expect the unexpected". If Climatologists know the impact that warming is going to have and have an idea how quickly warming is taking place then surely they can at least give a decent ballpark estimate of what sort of climatic variance from the norm we're going to see. But they are no better and predictions than the person who makes up those starsigns.

Daniel, in telling people who are putting across perfectly reasoned arguments to 'shut up' and so on, I really think you're going way over the top now.

Looking at a few graphs and seeing the odd article here and there does not make you enough of an expert on this topic to start going on in this way. I'd say that whatever opinion you were expressing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Daniel, in telling people who are putting across perfectly reasoned arguments to 'shut up' and so on, I really think you're going way over the top now.

Looking at a few graphs and seeing the odd article here and there does not make you enough of an expert on this topic to start going on in this way. I'd say that whatever opinion you were expressing.

---

I told Dylan to "shut up" because he was taking my remarks out of context and putting words into my mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

My point is.... such a major event like the thames freezing over? What made that happen and what made it happen again and again against this trend of global warming? And if the recent wet spell in the UK was down to climate change then why is it that a major body of water that's not easy to freeze, freezing isn't? :mark:

If next year the climatologists predict in rough terms the variance from the "average" weather that we get. Perhaps I'll side with them. But currently they sound like the people who make up the starsigns you hear on the radio. "Cancer, expect the unexpected". If Climatologists know the impact that warming is going to have and have an idea how quickly warming is taking place then surely they can at least give a decent ballpark estimate of what sort of climatic variance from the norm we're going to see. But they are no better and predictions than the person who makes up those starsigns.

---

What made the Thames freeze over? it was cold weather. Why has it not frozen over since? Well maybe because it is warmer. But it is more likely the case that there have also been changes to the banks of the Thames that reduce the chance of it freezing over.

But what does that have to do with Global Warming? not much. The Thames freezing over is a local event, not a global event.

A climatologist can predict trends over years. Not whetere its going to rain more next year. They could predict if it is going to rain more as a continuing trend over your region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

My point is.... such a major event like the thames freezing over? What made that happen and what made it happen again and again against this trend of global warming? And if the recent wet spell in the UK was down to climate change then why is it that a major body of water that's not easy to freeze, freezing isn't? :mark:

---

Measurements of Global Warming are based on the observation of MEAN GLOBAL temperatures. That is the average temperature across the whole planet over the whole year.

The Thames freezing for a short while in one or two years is a local weather event, and can be caused by fluctuations in global airflow and sea currents that would, at the same time, mean that somewhere else is warmer than usual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Measurements of Global Warming are based on the observation of MEAN GLOBAL temperatures. That is the average temperature across the whole planet over the whole year.

The Thames freezing for a short while in one or two years is a local weather event, and can be caused by fluctuations in global airflow and sea currents that would, at the same time, mean that somewhere else is warmer than usual.

---

Fair point ;) So why is it that when there's a drought somewhere and semi-monsoonal conditions elsewhere that it's the effects of global warming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

The problem is that our ability to extrapolate geological records into the average temperature of certain periods isn't accurate either and it is difficult if not impossible to ascertain short term fluctuations in temperature if you're looking at records over several thousand years old. Manmade records are of course imperfect because they only go back for such a short period of time but they are accurate.

Therefore I don't see how your climatologists evidence is more sound than the current consensus in the scientific community.

---

I don't see any evidence as "sound". In particular, I still struggle to understand (and no one helps me in this regard) why is it obvious that "warmer is worse". From that, do we have to conclude that "cooler is better"? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Fair point ;) So why is it that when there's a drought somewhere and semi-monsoonal conditions elsewhere that it's the effects of global warming?

---

Much of it is due to "normal" variations - we've always had droughts and floods.

What is happening at the moment is that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, and one of the cornerstones of the GW scenario is exactly that.

And even those scientists who are firmly convinced of GW are surprised by the current rate of loss of Arctic ice, which is much greater than forecast by even the most pessimistic.

Incidentally, I don't believe that we are solely responsible - as has been pointed out, the Earth does go through warming/cooling phases, but the current rate of change is extreme, and if we can possibly do anything to lessen the effects, then we should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

What made the Thames freeze over? it was cold weather. Why has it not frozen over since? Well maybe because it is warmer. But it is more likely the case that there have also been changes to the banks of the Thames that reduce the chance of it freezing over.

But what does that have to do with Global Warming? not much. The Thames freezing over is a local event, not a global event.

A climatologist can predict trends over years. Not whetere its going to rain more next year. They could predict if it is going to rain more as a continuing trend over your region.

---

That's rubbish. Climatologists are quite good at predicting change and if they're not right they simply put any miscalculations down to global warming. I'm not saying that they should be able to predict tomorrows weather or even next week's weather. But huge seasonal variations should be fairly easy to predict considering we're so knowledgable about the atmosphere and how it works. Oh wait we don't actually know how it works and therefore we can't predict what the weather's going to be like for next year with any huge degree of accuracy. :rolleyes:

I agree Tinchote. Is colder better or worse? Were we at the "right" temperature before man supposedly warmed the planet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

What is happening at the moment is that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent

---

Is that a fact? I would like to see the evidence. Because we obviously have a more communicated World these days, and even a few decades ago news would travel a lot slower or not at all.

I'm still amazed about how people seem to be surprised every year about their local whether (i.e. they seem to forget it's cold in the Winter, hot in the Summer, it's always a surprise), and it's probably the same with "extreme whether events".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinchote

Is that a fact? I would like to see the evidence. Because we obviously have a more communicated World these days, and even a few decades ago news would travel a lot slower or not at all.

I'm still amazed about how people seem to be surprised every year about their local whether (i.e. they seem to forget it's cold in the Winter, hot in the Summer, it's always a surprise), and it's probably the same with "extreme whether events".

---

As humans we want everything to be easy to understand. We don't want to not know how something like the weather and world climatew works....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

And even those scientists who are firmly convinced of GW are surprised by the current rate of loss of Arctic ice, which is much greater than forecast by even the most pessimistic.

---

But then, they won't mention at all those areas in the Artic which are cooler than usual, and with more ice. I have Inuit friends, and for the last two years the yearly ice retreat in the Summer, at their hometown, has been way slower than what they are used to. When you find the melting in the Artic mentioned, and these phenomena not mentioned at all, you are in presence of an agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

That's rubbish. Climatologists are quite good at predicting change and if they're not right they simply put any miscalculations down to global warming. I'm not saying that they should be able to predict tomorrows weather or even next week's weather. But huge seasonal variations should be fairly easy to predict considering we're so knowledgable about the atmosphere and how it works. Oh wait we don't actually know how it works and therefore we can't predict what the weather's going to be like for next year with any huge degree of accuracy. :rolleyes:

---

I suspect most climatologists would be rather insulted to hear a layman saying that if they're not right, they just blame global warming. How do you know that this isn't actually the right reason? Truth is, you don't.

And I suspect that, earlier in this thread, you were given a perfectly good explanation as to why climatologists can't predict exact weather events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I suspect most climatologists would be rather insulted to hear a layman saying that if they're not right, they just blame global warming. How do you know that this isn't actually the right reason? Truth is, you don't.

And I suspect that, earlier in this thread, you were given a perfectly good explanation as to why climatologists can't predict exact weather events.

---

Thing is, I'm critical of this retrospective science. Tell us what the effects are and then if they happen there is some kind of loose proof for the argument. But merely trying to explain any inconsistencies in the weather with a one argument fits all excuse it tiring at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Thing is, I'm critical of this retrospective science. Tell us what the effects are and then if they happen there is some kind of loose proof for the argument. But merely trying to explain any inconsistencies in the weather with a one argument fits all excuse it tiring at best.

---

How do you know that it's not absolutely right, though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

How do you know that it's not absolutely right, though?

---

We don't ... That's the rub!

Let's take a T-Rex as an example of science getting it wrong
1) The theory was they walked upright - now the theory is walked parallel to the ground.
2) The theory was they ran 40 miles an hour -now the theory is they creped along.
3) The theory was they were predators - now the theory is they were scavengers.

Another Crock of Doodle
CFCs caused the hole in the Ozone layer. REALLY?! The Ozone layer was discovered in the beginning of the 20th century. When was the first hole discovered? In the 1970's. Were there holes before that at some point? I'll bet yes. Oh and the CFCs must break down into chlorine to cause the hole. But the CFCs have to get higher than 30,000 feet in the atmosphere for that to happen. How does a gas 3X the weight of air get up there? It's like pushing a rock uphill.

I am sure global warming is real but I will stand on my belief it is not caused by primarily by man UNTIL there is REAL proof. Real proof that I suspect never materializes.

- Can you see why I am skeptical?

I am with the global warming not existing clan. I personally believe that it won't be the end of us and even if it does exist I think it will only cause another ice age which we survived the last time.

Only this morning I had a debate with some classmates at school about global warming existing and I was shocked by the amount of people that had allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the ecologists. :eek:

People, stop trying to save the world because about 99% of people that can actually make the slightest difference have better, more important things to worry about. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blancvino

I am sure global warming is real but I will stand on my belief it is not caused by primarily by man UNTIL there is REAL proof. Real proof that I suspect never materializes.

---

What would you consider to be real proof? What do you feel is missing from what has been said already?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaikkonenRules

I am with the global warming not existing clan. I personally believe that it won't be the end of us and even if it does exist I think it will only cause another ice age which we survived the last time.

Only this morning I had a debate with some classmates at school about global warming existing and I was shocked by the amount of people that had allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the ecologists. :eek:

People, stop trying to save the world because about 99% of people that can actually make the slightest difference have better, more important things to worry about. ;)

---

Why do you feel it's a case of 'brainwashing'? What is there about the science that you doubt, and on what grounds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

What would you consider to be real proof? What do you feel is missing from what has been said already?

---

a good explanation of what caused the previous "warm ups" in the planet and why this couldn't one of those cases

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jso1985

a good explanation of what caused the previous "warm ups" in the planet and why this couldn't one of those cases

---

But again, I must ask whether you seriously think that the scientists who have concluded that global warming is to blame for climate change would be so dumb as to ignore this factor in their calculations.

I never said global warming isn't to blame for the climate change!

what I still doubt is if it's man caused or not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinchote

But then, they won't mention at all those areas in the Artic which are cooler than usual, and with more ice. I have Inuit friends, and for the last two years the yearly ice retreat in the Summer, at their hometown, has been way slower than what they are used to. When you find the melting in the Artic mentioned, and these phenomena not mentioned at all, you are in presence of an agenda.

---

As I already said... GW observations are based on looking at the OVERALL picture... NOT local variations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

What would you consider to be real proof? What do you feel is missing from what has been said already?

---

Interesting you latched onto my sckepticism and request for proof when I offered 2 examples of how science got it wrong regarding other maters. I believe GW is real. Did you get that point? It's the root causes of GW I have trouble with. I only want to see some empirical or direct evidence of what part of GW is caused naturally. That is missing from EVERY hypothesis I have EVER read.

I can and will become a believer if there is indisputable proof GW is a caused primarily by man.

Fair enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blancvino

Interesting you latched onto my sckepticism and request for proof when I offered 2 examples of how science got it wrong regarding other maters. I believe GW is real. Did you get that point? It's the root causes of GW I have trouble with. I only want to see some empirical or direct evidence of what part of GW is caused naturally. That is missing from EVERY hypothesis I have EVER read.

I can and will become a believer if there is indisputable proof GW is a caused primarily by man.

Fair enough?

---

Sorry — I was asking what you'd consider to be real proof while bearing your belief in global warming in mind. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

As I already said... GW observations are based on looking at the OVERALL picture... NOT local variations.

---

The overall picture is that the World's average temperature is up. But every time you read about GW they mention the melting in the Artic, the melting in the Alps, the starving polar bears, etc. There is nothing "overall" about that, so why wouldn't I mention examples that don't follow the supposed trend.

And I also keep asking: we are being told that there is an increase in episodes of "extreme weather". What are exactly the statistics supporting that assertion? How precise is the data of the "extreme weather" of a few decades ago?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinchote

The overall picture is that the World's average temperature is up. But every time you read about GW they mention the melting in the Artic, the melting in the Alps, the starving polar bears, etc. There is nothing "overall" about that, so why wouldn't I mention examples that don't follow the supposed trend.

And I also keep asking: we are being told that there is an increase in episodes of "extreme weather". What are exactly the statistics supporting that assertion? How precise is the data of the "extreme weather" of a few decades ago?

---

It has been recorded that both the thickness and total area of Arctic ice is deceasing year on year.

There are very accurate weather records for most of the planet for the last century and a half.

http://www.heatisonline.org/weather.cfm

http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle2901009.ece

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

There are very accurate weather records for most of the planet for the last century and a half.

http://www.heatisonline.org/weather.cfm

http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle2901009.ece

---

"Most of the planet"? I find that really hard to believe. You want to tell me that there are detailed records of tornados and floodings from 100 years ago in - for example - all of the former USSR or in China?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Why do you feel it's a case of 'brainwashing'? What is there about the science that you doubt, and on what grounds?

---

The 'brainwashing' is done by the 'go green' groups that try to make us believe that we are the only cause of global warming when there is no scentific prove saying that we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaikkonenRules

The 'brainwashing' is done by the 'go green' groups that try to make us believe that we are the only cause of global warming when there is no scentific prove saying that we are.

---

Yet again, do you believe all the scientists that say man has made a significant contribution to global warming are wrong? What makes you believe that you know better than them?

I'm not saying that they are definately wrong I'm just saying we shouldn't beleive what they say without definate proof. I presonally believe global warming is a natural process, hence the last ice age and that we are merely helping it along, not actually causing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaikkonenRules

I'm not saying that they are definately wrong I'm just saying we shouldn't beleive what they say without definate proof. I presonally believe global warming is a natural process, hence the last ice age and that we are merely helping it along, not actually causing it.

---

What other scientific viewpoints do you doubt in a similar way then? Why the fuss about global warming in this respect?

What proof do you need? And how the hell would it be even possible to prove it? If you sit here, waiting for the proof, or even looking for it, I'm sure the proof will come when it's already late anyway. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

What other scientific viewpoints do you doubt in a similar way then? Why the fuss about global warming in this respect?

---

I provided 2 a while back (T-Rex and the Ozone Layer hole). Science gets it wrong all the time. Steven Hawkins was debunked a couple of years ago too. Need more?

Just tell me about or point me to research that identifies how much global warming is natural (not caused by man as a percentage). Then it's simple math. No one EVER tells us what is natural GW.

You use the argument scientist "must have factored the naturally cased GW in" but then offer not a shred of evidence to back that statement up with facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erki

What proof do you need? And how the hell would it be even possible to prove it? If you sit here, waiting for the proof, or even looking for it, I'm sure the proof will come when it's already late anyway. :)

---

:up:

The truth is that the vast majority of people wouldn't know what that proof is, because they are not scientists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blancvino

I provided 2 a while back (T-Rex and the Ozone Layer hole). Science gets it wrong all the time. Steven Hawkins was debunked a couple of years ago too. Need more?

Just tell me about or point me to research that identifies how much global warming is natural (not caused by man as a percentage). Then it's simple math. No one EVER tells us what is natural GW.

You use the argument scientist "must have factored the naturally cased GW in" but then offer not a shred of evidence to back that statement up with facts.

---

I don't see it as my job to do so, because I am not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist or researcher. A lot of people who, like me, are neither seem to believe that they know better than those who are.

Out of interest, what other scientific theories do you doubt in a similar way, or is it just this one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaikkonenRules

I'm not saying that they are definately wrong I'm just saying we shouldn't beleive what they say without definate proof. I presonally believe global warming is a natural process, hence the last ice age and that we are merely helping it along, not actually causing it.

---

Exactly. But noooooooooo don't say that RaikkonenRules. The Eco-Nazi's will attack you. Just agree with them to shut them up. When the next ice age comes along they'll find a way to link it with stepladders or some other such rubbish and start outlawing stepladders.