I have NO DOG in this fight one way or the other, Scientific or Political/industry.

Ice cores tell a different story then you as far as CO2, there is only one way to read the cores. 3.6 million years is just the first real large spike and that one WAS NOT caused by man either. Average means nothing the spikes is what we need to study.

We have no idea if the rock we live on will warm more or cool more, no science facts here and once again just speculation.

Breathless...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Brendan
There are reputable studies around that found CO2 levels track temperatures rather than visa versa.

I remember back in the early 60's that in high school science we were taught that the C02 level in the atmosphere was 350 ppm.

I am not going to get my knickers in a twist over a small increase in 50 years particularly when the overall percentage is still only 0.0004% of the atmosphere. The gas is just not that active.

BTW. I am not a "denier", I am a sceptic. There is just too much hysteria and doom saying on the subject to take it seriously.

Either in this thread or the one preceding it I post a link to a "reliable" study that found that 2/3's of the planet's population would be dead by 2012 due to the effects of "climate change". Funny thing, but we all still seem to be here.

I leave it up to you to decide. Will the world end due to climate change or when Jesus comes walking into Sydney Harbour through The Heads ? (As was predicted by another set of extremists in the 1920's.) I'm taking bets.

T.A.

Your opinion is to agree with one side over the other.

I do not trust either side. When Money, Power, Prestige are involved (BOTH sides): Double, Triple, Quadruple check any assertion (even those made by Scientists).

+10

There is just too much BS surrounding this subject and "Money, Power, Prestige" have more to do with it than any climate variation.

T.A.

I accept the data that human activites are increasing CO2 levels and that there is a warming trend evident over the last 50 years. The published literature clearly supports that. However, its linking the 2 that I find difficult to accept. I belong in the agnostic group, believing in neither sides interpretation.

---

I simply believe my own eyes. The sun has the biggest infulance on our weather.

And the belief in what I see has nothing to do with my Faith in a Designer.

Is there a way to define where CO2 comes from? Do we know that this CO2 came from a forest fire, and that CO2 came from tar pits burning and or this CO2 came from internal combustion engine and this little bit came from exhailing humans?

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

I accept the data that human activites are increasing CO2 levels and that there is a warming trend evident over the last 50 years. The published literature clearly supports that. However, its linking the 2 that I find difficult to accept. I belong in the agnostic group, believing in neither sides interpretation.

This Thread appears to becoming and Agnostic Thread regarding "Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL"

Intelligent Design: This is meant in a Secular sense

Noted.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Very simply stated:


Climate scientist to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'

... In his testimony, Dessler simply and clearly articulated what we know about climate change, and why he personally views it as "a clear and present danger." Dessler's main points were:

1. The climate is warming - not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans, which are rising as a result, and ice is melting.

2. Most of the recent warming is extremely likely due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by human activities. This is supported by overwhelming evidence and hence was a conclusion of the 2014 IPCC report.

3. Future warming could be large. Over the 21st century, if we continue with business-as-usual, the IPCC projects 2.6–4.8°C average global surface warming.

4. The impacts of this are profound. The virtually certain impacts include increasing temperatures, more frequent extreme heat events, changes in the distribution of rainfall, rising seas, and the oceans becoming more acidic. There are numerous additional possible impacts as well...



There's an old saying about how you can watch the river flood and you will get washed away just the same. We really need to avert the 'flood' at source: That is reverse our atmospheric pollution.


Let the Deniers deny all they wish. Some of us wish to not pollute ourselves to a Biblical Hell.


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Your opinion is to agree with one side over the other.

I do not trust either side. When Money, Power, Prestige are involved (BOTH sides): Double, Triple, Quadruple check any assertion (even those made by Scientists).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People who call people with Valid Questions "Deniers", and refuse to answer any Valid Questions, and to deny their are Valid Questions, just raises questions.

Much "Settled Science" has been proven wrong. New theories have always supplanted old theories.

Repeating: When BIG GREEN MONEY/POWER/PRESTIGE and also BIG CORPORATE MONEY/POWER is involved: Have a healthy skepticism regarding ANY claim.

+1 CLYDE.

Anyone who claims "the science is settled" is cherry picking their sources. They are also blythely ignoring the increasing number of failed predictions of disaster that were supposed to have happened by this year due to "climate change".

It only takes a quick look at web sites such as junkscience.com or the various Climatology forums to see that the so called "consensus" exists only between those who get their names in the paper and faces on TV.

T.A.

Very simply stated:


Climate scientist to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'

... In his testimony, Dessler simply and clearly articulated what we know about climate change, and why he personally views it as "a clear and present danger." Dessler's main points were:

1. The climate is warming - not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans, which are rising as a result, and ice is melting.

2. Most of the recent warming is extremely likely due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by human activities. This is supported by overwhelming evidence and hence was a conclusion of the 2014 IPCC report.

3. Future warming could be large. Over the 21st century, if we continue with business-as-usual, the IPCC projects 2.6–4.8°C average global surface warming.

4. The impacts of this are profound. The virtually certain impacts include increasing temperatures, more frequent extreme heat events, changes in the distribution of rainfall, rising seas, and the oceans becoming more acidic. There are numerous additional possible impacts as well...



There's an old saying about how you can watch the river flood and you will get washed away just the same. We really need to avert the 'flood' at source: That is reverse our atmospheric pollution.


Let the Deniers deny all they wish. Some of us wish to not pollute ourselves to a Biblical Hell.


All on our only one planet,
Martin

And you think the idiots in congrass care? All they want is campaigne funds. And who ever gives them the most, Then they listen.

Untill I see an unbiased study, I will belive neither sides hacks.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Nothing has changed.
The only difference between these articles and the current crop of malarkey is the substitution of "warming" for "cooling". Otherwise the wording is virtually identical, so close it's almost plagiarism.
Gobal COOLING 1
Gobal COOLING 2

There are always Chicken Littles, just because some have a Phd doesn't mean they are any more accurate than the "Monsters From The Centre Of The Earth" brigade. What I want to know is, how did one group of scientists get graphs that point down while another got graphs that point up when both groups were using the same historical data ? Guess they just used different K factors to get the results they wanted

T.A.

+1 CLYDE.

Anyone who claims "the science is settled" is cherry picking their sources. They are also blythely ignoring the increasing number of failed predictions of disaster that were supposed to have happened by this year due to "climate change".

It only takes a quick look at web sites such as junkscience.com or the various Climatology forums to see that the so called "consensus" exists only between those who get their names in the paper and faces on TV.

T.A.

Cherry Picking sources. Oh, you mean those 97% of the articles that agree that climate change is real and caused by human beings. Yeah, sounds like cherry picking alright.

Also, funny how you are quick to dismiss all that overwhelming amount of evidence towards global warming being caused by man as part of some climate conspiracy, but have no trouble accepting the skeptics view, even when most of the time those studies are actually sponsored directly by companies that have a stake in preventing more stringent environmental protection standards.

Also, funny how you are quick to dismiss all that overwhelming amount of evidence towards global warming being caused by man....

But yet to be confirmed though...and there has to be a reason for this. 97% of
supposedly climate scientists, supposedly since most have not been schooled
in climatology, have yet to be able to confirm man made global warming should
send alarm bells ringing all round. Either (1), these scientists are lying or
(2), to confirm global warming is caused by man would put an end to many-many
scientists research in to this quandary hence a lot of scientists living on
vastly reduced earnings.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

But yet to be confirmed though...and there has to be a reason for this. 97% of
supposedly climate scientists, supposedly since most have not been schooled
in climatology, have yet to be able to confirm man made global warming should
send alarm bells ringing all round. Either (1), these scientists are lying or
(2), to confirm global warming is caused by man would put an end to many-many
scientists research in to this quandary hence a lot of scientists living on
vastly reduced earnings.

There is so much wrong with your argument.

Your argument cuts both ways. If these scientists are coming up with nonsense in order to keep their jobs, it also counts for the people who are supposedly 'debunking' them. So if that is a motive to come up with nonsense, the people debunking climate change are just as much making up nonsense in order to keep their job. In fact, both sides would have an active interest in each other, because as long as their are two sides their own job is safe. Right, thats like saying that evolutionary biologists need creationists and the other way around because that keeps the debate alive and ensures both sides have a job. Riiiight.... Even so, it means that you strictly can't know whether the climate is changing because both sides are inherently unreliable.

But really, it doesn't matter that much anyways because apparently all these scientists are not trained in climate science anyways. So it should not matter to them if they lose their job because they can always go back doing what they were trained to do. But it does raise a more interesting question. Who the hell has been paying people to do research into fields they are not at all experts in? And on such a massive scale all around the world. You'd think that someone would pick up on that. Oh right, probably because this assertion is total nonsense. If you honestly believe that on a global scale, governments, think tanks, universities and policy experts have been paying unqualified people to do research for decades without anyone ever noticing you've got something coming to you.

Finally, if you assert that such a large group of scientists are structurally lying without people catching on, you essentially cast doubt on science as an institution. It would mean that the scientific method has failed in one of the most spectacular ways possible. You might as well shut down all scientific research into anything because who the hell knows whether they are lying or not. But honestly, do you think thats a likely scenario? Because I don't.

Also, funny how you are quick to dismiss all that overwhelming amount of evidence towards global warming being caused by man....

But yet to be confirmed though...

Incredible.

How much "confirming" do you need?


Just now from NASA:

NASA: Long-Term Climate Warming Trend Sustained in 2013

... "Long-term trends in surface temperatures are unusual and 2013 adds to the evidence for ongoing climate change,"...

... Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat and plays a major role in controlling changes to Earth's climate. It occurs naturally and also is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels for energy. Driven by increasing man-made emissions, the level of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere presently is higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years...


The research and the resultant message continues to be consistently the same and as procrastination continues, ever more urgent and immediate.

And so according to you and your fellow Deniers, is the whole of NASA and all the peer review scrutiny they undergo ALL part of a world-wide 'conspiracy'?!


The physics is clear and has been known about for well over 100 years.

Our industrial pollution is clear and very obvious.

The results of our industrial pollution is ever more destructively obvious every day, now.



Or are you yourself one of those paid-for fossil fuels industry sponsored shills paid to spread confusion and worse?

Or what does it take for you to believe the world around you and how we are polluting it to Hell?


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Nothing has changed.
The only difference between these articles and the current crop of malarkey is the substitution of "warming" for "cooling". Otherwise the wording is virtually identical, so close it's almost plagiarism.
Gobal COOLING 1
Gobal COOLING 2

There are always Chicken Littles...

Oh no... Not that old regurgitated myth yet again...

For those interested to see the story (rather than made-up myth) behind one part of that old myth and conspiracy, see:

The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers – by David Kirtley

Wikipedia: Global cooling


The best part of all for the supposed Time Magazine cover of doom is that: Time Magazine never published any such cover! It's an outright fake.

Those two articles explain some of the biased sensationalism put around by some of the media. There was certainly never any consensus scientific claims of cooling.


So... All yet more of whatever Denialist's or Fossil Fuels Industry (or extreme Liberals market-freedom?) piece of Myth and Fake to spread a few lies and confusion... And our planet be Damned.


All on our own planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Im not a denialist. Sometyhing is going on with climate. BUT I refuse to believe all sides when it comes to the name calling. Calling someone a dolt dosent win converts to your side, It pisses people off.

When both sides shove the money up where the sun dosent shine and want to do an honest study of the problem, I will listen.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Oh no... Not that old regurgitated myth yet again...

For those interested to see the story (rather than made-up myth) behind one part of that old myth and conspiracy, see:

The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers – by David Kirtley

Wikipedia: Global cooling

The best part of all for the supposed Time Magazine cover of doom is that: Time Magazine never published any such cover! It's an outright fake.

Those two articles explain some of the biased sensationalism put around by some of the media. There was certainly never any consensus scientific claims of cooling.......

Martin, I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to remember this and it was quite a big thing in its day. It carried for a number of years before quietly fading away. Probably because the Coolists" didn't have as an effective PR machine as the later Warmists and couldn't con the grant money to keep it going. As a matter of fact, when you go back to the early days of Global Warming some of the names promoting it are the same a former Coolists, only this time they had learnt from their previous mistakes.

If you had bothered to check the links, apart from press stories, there are also clippings from Science News, Science and even the CIA (and I personally can remember several articles in New Scientist). Read the articles and you will find that tthe "scientists" were getting their data from weather satellites, ice cores, tree rings....In fact the same sources that now "prove" warming.

It's interesting to note the tone of the articles, warmist propaganda is exactly the same stuff, but stood on its head. There are warnings about the expanding ice caps, reduced food availability, etc and of course pleas for more funding so the effect can be studied in greater detail.

The David Kirtley article is totally meaningless. His main piece of evidence that the Global Cooling prediction never happened is a fudged photo on Facebook. Gee Whiz Batman fancy that, if a faked photo on Facebook is a major piece of counter-evidence then everything about everything has now been disproved.

The rest of the article reads like a poor precis of what Wikipedia says.
Who is David Kirtley anyway ? The person who comes up most often in a Google search is a 36 yo writer and therefore way too young to have any first hand knowledge of the issue. None of the other David Kirtley's that came up is a Climatologist or any type of scientist.

It was a mildly interesting read, but hardly damning evidence

I was pleasantly surprised by the Wikipedia entry, it was much improved from the last time I read it. It still minimises how big the issue was back in the 1970's, makes excuses for poor science, does a bit of tut tutting and more or less infers "but we knew the place really warming anyway".
As a matter of fact, it reads very much like I imagine the Wikipedia article on AGW will appear in 40 years time.

Correction on my first post, I doubled up on the posted links. Here is the correct one
Hubert Lamb's prediction on Cooling

Hubert Lamb was the founder of the Climate Research Unit at the Uni of East Anglia. Yes he got it wrong, but they all did....

T.A.

Also, funny how you are quick to dismiss all that overwhelming amount of evidence towards global warming being caused by man....

But yet to be confirmed though...and there has to be a reason for this. 97% of
supposedly climate scientists, supposedly since most have not been schooled
in climatology, have yet to be able to confirm man made global warming should
send alarm bells ringing all round. Either (1), these scientists are lying or
(2), to confirm global warming is caused by man would put an end to many-many
scientists research in to this quandary hence a lot of scientists living on
vastly reduced earnings.

Well, I did get a rousing response, much as I expected. I wrote the above mainly
because I've picked up on a change of attitude towards man made global warming.
A change of attitude by some major world governments who are beginning to shift
their stance on the whole subject. Why have they started to shift?...I think I
know the reason for this...more on this at a later date.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Germany's green wind power energy companies are struggling, despite 17% subsidy.

Gone With the Wind: Weak Returns Cripple German Renewables

Investments in renewable energy were supposed to be a sure thing, with wind park operators promising annual returns of up to 20 percent. More often than not, however, such pledges have been illusory -- and many investors have lost their principal to boot.

A fifth of all wind parks for which more than 10 years of annual reports are available haven't once paid their investors a dividend exceeding 2 percent of their investments.

Germany's green wind power energy companies are struggling, despite 17% subsidy.

Gone With the Wind: Weak Returns Cripple German Renewables

Investments in renewable energy were supposed to be a sure thing, with wind park operators promising annual returns of up to 20 percent. More often than not, however, such pledges have been illusory -- and many investors have lost their principal to boot.

A fifth of all wind parks for which more than 10 years of annual reports are available haven't once paid their investors a dividend exceeding 2 percent of their investments.

Thanks for that.

Reading through, the significant comment I think is:

... In an informational brochure from the year 2001, the institution hailed investments "in a solidly calculated wind park" as an "ideal pension supplement."

With many wind park projects, however, the only solid calculations were the fees and commissions scooped up by participating companies. In many ventures financed via closed-end funds, such expenditures amounted to 15 percent or even 20 percent of the invested principal. Because of the complexity of the financing model, up to a half-dozen firms are involved to take care of such tasks as "project management," "equity raising" or, simply, "marketing."

Plenty of Hazards

Given such a starting point, it is difficult to earn high profits. And it doesn't provide for much of a contingency reserve. In addition to the capital collected from investors, large amounts are often borrowed from banks, with the loans sometimes representing 70 percent or even more of the fund's volume. Consumer protection activists say that such a share of bank money is up to twice as large as it should be to limit investor risk.

There are, after all, plenty of hazards associated with the business even without the financing acrobatics...


Is that actually a case of opportunistic financial scamming riding on the back of Government subsidy and public feel-good factor? To me, it sounds like the primary motive was to set up the financial deals. Whether or not the scheme usefully worked looks to be very 'secondary'...

So... Who profited and who lost from the "financing acrobatics"?...

And how do those schemes compare to those more conventionally financed?...


The biggest losers are those who have been duped out of their pensions for "guaranteed returns" that weren't...

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)