And that hockey stick thing has been completely and repeatedly repudiated so anyone that is still citing it is obviously not a reputable source.
OH, THE IRONY OF IT ALL.............Global Warming
"I personally have spent the last 2 1/2 years working on my doctorate on glacial retreat." Be interesting to hear your discussion of the glaciers that are expanding.
It's cold here in Florida tonight ( about 40) but will be back to normal in a few days.....
You know.... 50 at night about 72 to 78 during the day........at this time of year.
This is why we moved here ....out of Chicago.
1 MYTH Planet earth is currently undergoing global warming FACT Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the 'urban heat island effect' i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming...and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out. 2 MYTH Even slight temperature rises are disastrous, ice caps will melt, people will die FACT In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, also parts of ice caps are melting yet other parts are thickening but this isn't reported as much (home experiment: put some water in a jug or bowl, add a layer of ice cubes and mark the level — wait until the ice has melted and look again, the level will have fallen). Data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime. 3 MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high). FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help. 4 MYTH Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate. FACT 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide! 5 MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth. FACT A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored. 6 MYTH Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet FACT The planet does not need saving, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, as can be seen using the numbers from Fact 4, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round — it is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans. 7 MYTH The recent wet weather and flooding was caused by mankind through 'global warming' FACT Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections, the recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this — it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense — this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045. 8 MYTH The climate change levy, petrol duty, CO2 car tax and workplace parking charges are justifiable environmental taxes. FACT As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories does not have any measurable impact on climate, these taxes are 'just another tax' on enterprise and mobility, and have no real green credentials. 9 MYTH Scientists on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issue reports that say 'global warming' is real and that we must do something now. FACT Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the 'spin' that the IPCC and media put on their findings. The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians. 10 MYTH There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true. FACT There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate. Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public ... as H L Mencken said "the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" ... the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.
Fangorn; if you actually cited your sources or expanded your argument to specifics (like WHICH of the scientists are 'political flaks') you'd be worth responding to.
There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate.
1. The Oregon Petition did not state that there is no evidence for man-made global warming. What it did state was that there is " no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere". (italics mine)
2. The three lead authors of this petition consisted of a biochemist and two astrophysicists. If persons with these qualifications were part of the 2500 who participated in the IPCC, would they have fallen in to the 100 "remotely qualified" category according to your reckoning?
I don't post here because I think I change people . . . I don't feel a need to spend several hours preparing a detailed essay just to please . . . . . . . and get my grade. So in the spirit of an independent writer I say 'Abaddon go soak your head if you think I'll dance to your tune'. Ah feels much better. . . . despite reading extensively . . .not having read everything) and balancingthe arguments against each other I am still utterly unconvinced that humans are that influential in global systems. Scare tactics sell newspapers, garner research grants, open up new sales avenues and are cool. We love to blame humans for everything (if temperatures go down we're responsible, if they go up we are responsible ad nauseum.) I contend that no matter what arguments are put forward for past temperatures we cannot do more than make educated guesses what the temperature was we don't know - it takes humans to write down exact figures nature is far too sloppy. We can no more tell exact temperatures from ice cores today than we can for the past they just aren't that accurate. I'll do my bit for global conservation of resources but I refuse to let the government put up prices to fill their coffers without a fight nor will I be motivated by fear or intimidation."
QCmmbr - Would you please try to read a bit more extensively before presenting your arguments (which frankly seem notthat accurate due to your lack of information)?
It would be better to read and understand all of the arguments before presenting your own possibly half-baked assumptions.
For instance, could you please prove to us how the ice core samples "just aren't that accurate"?
Based upon what I have read here, your "educated guesses" seem far less educated than others presented here. By presenting peer-reviewed statistical analysis and research on the matter, rather than opinions, you will make yourself a bit more credible and readable."
In the spirit of another independent writer, I'd like the facts on climate change, rather than half-baked, emotionally distraught opinions that sound an awful lot like the kind of paranoid suspiciousness the JWs teach us to have of science, government and research. For instance, where you say,"I refuse to let the government put up prices to fill their coffers without a fight nor will I be motivated by fear or intimidation." That kind of statement reminds me of my JW mom telling me I did not need dental floss as a child because it was a conspiracy to sell string.
How do attempts to stem global climate change "fill the government's coffers"? If it does accomplish that, and if the gov is able to stem the negative effects of pollution and environmental damage with that money, how is that a bad thing?
The Earth is approximately 4.55 billion years old. If my math is correct, 1% of that is 450,000,000 years. 1% of THAT 1% is 4,500,000 years.
You want me to put faith in a graph, or any graph for that matter, that doesn't take into account 1% of 1% of the age of the Earth? You want me to put faith in research that does the same? You have got to be kidding.
We KNOW that global warming HAS occurred in the past, ending the ice ages. If we were to have temp records for 10,000 years, what about the over 4 billion years in which we don't?
How can any scientist totally disregard over 4 billion years of unrecorded temp records and be taken seriously?
This WILL be my last word, because I have no more points to make. I know I said that already, but this time, it will be.
Look, we have a disagreement here and it looks like neither side will be convinced otherwise. I hold no animosity towards those who have a different opinion here.
It WAS a good discussion anyway.
I know I'm exaggerating a bit on the post above, but I'm sure you get my point.
I just thought I better add this, so the above is not taken the wrong way.
Madam Q - you may abuse me publically all you like but like I said intimidation isn't what convinces me. If you can't see the coming wave of environmnetal taxation and constraint on people's freedom that will do nothing whatsoever to affect our C02 emissions (as already stated china and India wipe out any small reductions and continued economic growth in other developed countries will also add to the man made outputs) but will give the government another slice of our incomes.
As for ice cores show me an exact temperature for ten years ago derived from an ice core and show me how that was 'the' temperature at the time - account for location, altitude, global temperature and convince me that there was such a thing as an average temperature and we know what it was.