Quote:

---

DoctorDarkMatter said:
Earth has gone through many hot times. Back in the Renaissance time they had record heat waves just like we are having. The sun is having increased solar activity which is completely normal, if you research you will find that saturn, jupiter etc. Are actually heating up as well. So it is not just us, and the nwo and government are using this as an excuse that WE are causing this but this is false. The excuse gave the government the right to throw carbon taxes on us and many other taxes. And if really pay attention now they are saying(or have ben saying) That kids are adding to this. Gore pitched that humans are leaving a carbon foot print due to high child birth rates etc.
And if you look china has already put law on child birth. Chinese are only allowed to have one child per family, first where fined for having more, now they are being jailed for having more then 1 child per household. Eventually the sun will calm down and the heat will recede, this has nothing to do with humans. The arctic ice melting etc, it's caused by the sun heating the earth, not the earth trapping gasses. This is also giving them the excuse to spray chem. trails into the atmosphere.
Their flawed logic is spraying chemicals, aluminum's and metals into the atmosphere will help "reflect" the sun. They create a panic, and then provide a solution that they see fit. you have to understand carbon levels have ben high in the past, this is normal. Just because its happening now does not mean that we are the main cause.I do believe it is a hoax, its ben proven they paid off half the scientists who claimed global warming was happening to say it was happening.

---

A couple things are evident from reading your post;

1) you've never actually taken a science class, nor do you have any idea what you're talking about.
2) you're a conspiracy nut. I mean really, bringing chemtrails into this discussion?
3) you didn't read a single post in this thread.
4) you don't understand anything about the sun. We actually just went through a period of DECREASED solar activity, indicated by a sharp decline in sun spots (as well as a complete and utter lack of them for a 2-month period this summer).

Thanks for joining in!

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:
We can say with a very high degree of certainty that the rate of temperature change we're experiencing right now is considerably above the historical and predicted rates.

---

You need to check who did those 'tests'. Many were blown out of proportion.......

Such results add to the overwhelming evidence provided by other paleoclimate records that have shown, in their words, that "Holocene climate was punctuated by widespread cooling events, recurring every ~1500 ± 500 years (Bond et al., 1997; Bianchi and McCave, 1999; Broecker, 2000; Mayewski et al., 2004; Debret et al., 2007; Allen et al., 2007)." And since this periodicity suggests that the world was fully ripe for a recovery from the last of these coolings (i.e., the Little Ice Age), 20th-century global warming is seen to be neither unusual, unnatural nor unprecedented,  which latter three adjectives are routinely - but very wrongly - used by climate alarmists to suggest that the most recent upward swing of this recurrent temperature cycle was caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It was not. It was merely time for the earth to naturally recover from the coldest interval of the current interglacial period, which further suggests that a good deal of warming was only to be expected.
link

Virtually every study done on medieval climate (prior to the global warming scare ~1990-95) showed a much higher mean temp than they show now.

Quote:

---

Nearly every single climate model, no matter how complex, falls below our current rate of change until they factor in anthropogenic carbon emissions.

---

Here is another article that flies in the face of global warming....

A recent article in the journal Science has provided a new, detailed climate record for the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), also know as the Medieval Warm Period. It was the most recent pre-industrial warm period, noted in Europe and elsewhere around the globe. The researchers present a 947-year-long multi-decadal North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) reconstruction and find a persistent positive NAO during the MCA. The interesting thing is that the MCA had basically been removed from the climate record by Michael Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” history graph that was adopted by the IPCC a decade ago.

...

The bottom line? Once again the climate models used by the IPCC and other climate catastrophists are shown to be inaccurate, incomplete and not up to the job of predicting future climatic conditions. What does the IPCC have to say about all of this? Here is a quote from Paleoclimate, chapter 6 of the 2007 IPCC report:

    "Palaeoclimate science has made significant advances since the 1970s, when a primary focus was on the origin of the ice ages, the possibility of an imminent future ice age, and the first explorations of the so-called Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. Even in the first IPCC assessment (IPCC, 1990), many climatic variations prior to the instrumental record were not that well known or understood. Fifteen years later, understanding is much improved, more quantitative and better integrated with respect to observations and modelling."   

Meaning all of the earlier IPCC predictions were wrong because they really didn’t know what they were doing. Of course that didn’t prevent them from predicting a coming climate catastrophe with great confidence. The thing that they don’t tell us is that their current “improved” predictions, which are also based on computer models, simply can not be considered accurate either. If the Holocene truly marks the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age and a return to the conditions that prevailed during the Pliocene, parking your SUV and buying carbon credits won’t do a thing to stop it.

link

.....

and another......The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science

In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 5-yearly report on climate change [10], in a blaze of publicity, which contained the now infamous phrase that there was "a discernible human influence on global climate".

In their previous 1990 report [33], the IPCC illustrated their, then, understanding of how global climate had changed, not just during the previous 95 years, but also the past 1,000 years. In so doing they presented this graph (Fig 1.) of temperature change since 900 AD.


Fig.1 - Global temperature since 900 AD

This graph asserts that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were higher than those of today (as suggested by the opening lines to the Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer), while it was much cooler during the Little Ice Age (as suggested by John King). Historical records from all over Europe, and Greenland attest to the reality of both events, and their profound impact on human society. For example, the colonisation of Greenland by the Vikings early in the millennium was only possible because of the medieval warmth. During the Little Ice Age, the Viking colonies in Greenland collapsed, while the River Thames in London often froze over, resulting in frequent `frost fairs' being held on the river ice.

The dating of these two climatic events depends to some extent on what one regards as `warm' and `cold' in comparison with present temperatures, but the following dating approximates these events -

      1) `Medieval Warm Period' (AD 700 - 1300)
      2) `Sporer Minimum' cool period (AD 1300 - 1500)
      3) Brief climatic warming (AD 1500 - 1560)
      4) `Little Ice Age' (`Maunder Minimum') (AD 1560 - 1830)
      5) Brief warmer period (AD 1830 - 1870)
      6) Brief cool period (AD 1870 - 1910)
      7) 20th century warm period (AD 1910 - 2000)

As to what caused these two major climatic events, the most probable candidate is the variable sun, particularly with respect to the Little Ice Age. This is because we have direct observations of sunspot counts going back to 1600 AD, which allows us to compare variations in the sun with variations to global climate. Fig.2 shows how the sun has changed over time, the radiation being greatest during a sunspot maximum and least during a sunspot minimum, both recurring on an 11-year cycle.


Fig.2 - The Solar Cycle since 1600 AD

This account of climatic history contains two serious difficulties for the present global warming theory.

      1) If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, with no greenhouse gas contribution, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm also?

      2) If the variable sun caused both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, would not the stronger solar activity of the 20th century account for most, if not all, of the claimed 20th century warmth?

Both propositions posed a serious threat to continued public acceptance of the climate modeller's catastrophic view of future climate. This is because new findings in solar science suggested that the sun, not greenhouse gases, were the primary driver of 20th century climate trends.

Dr Michael Mann of the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts was the primary author of the GRL paper, and in one scientific coup overturned the whole of climate history [16].

Using tree rings as a basis for assessing past temperature changes back to the year 1,000 AD, supplemented by other proxies from more recent centuries, Mann completely redrew the history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events, consigned to a kind of Orwellian `memory hole' [22]. Fig.4 shows Mann's revision of the climatic history of the last millennium.


Fig.4 - The `Hockey Stick'

At that point, Mann completed the coup and crudely grafted the surface temperature record of the 20th century (shown in red and itself largely the product of urban heat islands) onto the pre-1900 tree ring record. The effect was visually dramatic as the 20th century was portrayed as a climate rocketing out of control. The red line extends all the way to 1998 (Mann's `warmest year of the millennium'), a year warmed by the big El Niño of that year. It should be noted that the surface record is completely at variance with the satellite temperature record [20]. Had the latter been used to represent the last 20 years, the effect would have been to make the 20th century much less significant when compared with earlier centuries.

As a piece of science and statistics it was seriously flawed as two data series representing such different variables as temperature and tree rings simply cannot be credibly grafted together into a single series.

In every other science when such a drastic revision of previously accepted knowledge is promulgated, there is considerable debate and initial scepticism, the new theory facing a gauntlet of criticism and intense review. Only if a new idea survives that process does it become broadly accepted by the scientific peer group and the public at large.



Now that I have provided you with evidence that the IPCC was toying with the numbers....will you please take the time to watch that video. He goes into far more detail on the hoax than I can.

---

Quote:

---

THEBats said:

---

I state my opinion and you ask me to back them up with evidence.
I back them up with solid evidence, and you threaten to close the thread
claiming that you can't/won't dispute the facts you asked me to show.



The only evidence/argument given by you and others is

Humans make CO2 ...
CO2 is a greenhouse gas therefore ...
Humans are responsible for Global Warming



You reword it differently, but it all boils down to the same tired ass argument.

Here let me say this again

I never said that CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas. Just that the evidence for humans effect on the planet was either consequential or non existent.

I never believed the story from the start. I doubted the alarmists 'science' from the very beginning. A lot of the 'new data' (the overblown stats on how much warmer it is now than 5oo years ago) went against much older proof otherwise. Too many people (politicians) were making too big a deal about this far, FAR too fast. (just like the swine flu scare that I called BS on)

Scare tactics are a proven way for politicians to get laws changed. And this screams SCARE TACTIC to me, and has for a long, LONG time.

I simply haven't seen enough solid evidence to say that humans are having a major global effect on the climate. I have compared data from post 1990 til today. I've spent many hours doing searches and reading, from many different sources (both for and against the theory). And there was a drastic change (especially in the IPCC) between 1990-95.

You think that I'm ignorant of certain facts, and I'm not. I'm just not going to buy into every scare tactic that the media puts out.

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

Quote:

---

THEBats said:

---

The only evidence/argument given by you and others is

Humans make CO2 ...
CO2 is a greenhouse gas therefore ...
Humans are responsible for Global Warming

---

Quote:

---

THEBats said:

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

Quote:

---

THEBats said:

---

The only evidence/argument given by you and others is

Humans make CO2 ...
CO2 is a greenhouse gas therefore ...
Humans are responsible for Global Warming

---

If that's seriously the only argument you picked up in this entire thread then, I don't know what to say. Practice critical reading more?

---

OK....here are the arguments in this thread so far....

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:
Not even in the slightest. As I said, we know for absolute 100% certain fact that compounds such as Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Sulfur Hexafluoride absorb and re-radiate IR wavelengths (heat).  We also know for a fact that humans are releasing those compounds into the atmosphere. I don't see how that's a hard connection to comprehend. They reflect heat + we release them = we're contributing to rising temperatures. That's literally the most simple math problem you'll ever see in your life.

---

ummm....

Humans make CO2 ...
CO2 is a greenhouse gas therefore ...
Humans are responsible for Global Warming

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:
well then I think you're simply misunderstanding the position. I don't think there's a single person on the planet who would argue that humans are the ONLY cause for global warming, but if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and humans emit CO2, then how can you possibly say that humans have absolutely no contribution to it?

---

Humans make CO2 ...
CO2 is a greenhouse gas therefore ...
Humans are responsible for Global Warming

Quote:

---

THEBats said:
I don't see what's so hard to understand.  CO2 is a greenhouse gas ...... bla bla bla......it shouldn't be hard to see our continued methods are worsening our planets ability to recycle CO2, which increased concentrations cause warming

---

Humans make CO2 ...
CO2 is a greenhouse gas therefore ...
Humans are responsible for Global Warming

Its the same tired correlation over and over each time.

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:
well it's actually a very complex equation involving Milankovitch cycles, Solar output variation, and alteration of global Albedo (from ice-recession, and land-use change).  That said, we have a very good handle on exactly how much those other variables influence our climate (it's literally one of the oldest sciences in existence), both in historical trends, empirical data, and from climatological modeling.  We can say with a very high degree of certainty that the rate of temperature change we're experiencing right now is considerably above the historical and predicted rates. Nearly every single climate model, no matter how complex, falls below our current rate of change until they factor in anthropogenic carbon emissions.

---

Quote:

---

Either way, is the legislature so bad?  If global warming does turn out to be false is the change related to coming to the false conclusion so bad?

---

Yea, when the new legislation puts sever restrictions on how developing countries can use fossil fuels....

Watch part 8 of that video series to get an idea of what the new legislation would do.

That video series takes all of the 'threats and predictions' from teh GWH and rips them apart. The planet was far warmer eons ago with far more C02 and there was never a 20ft rise in ocean levels.

The whole thing was based on made up stats. There are even scientists from the IPCC in that documentary that say the same thing.

Yet every time someone posts any evidence against the GWH then you blindly stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALA IM NOT GONNA WATCH THAT LALALALA"

Quote:

---

niteowl said:
Ok, first, why should I watch any video you present when you blatantly refuse to watch any I post?

Quote:

---

Either way, is the legislature so bad?  If global warming does turn out to be false is the change related to coming to the false conclusion so bad?

---

Yea, when the new legislation puts sever restrictions on how developing countries can use fossil fuels....

Watch part 8 of that video series to get an idea of what the new legislation would do.

That video series takes all of the 'threats and predictions' from teh GWH and rips them apart. The planet was far warmer eons ago with far more C02 and there was never a 20ft rise in ocean levels.

The whole thing was based on made up stats. There are even scientists from the IPCC in that documentary that say the same thing.

Yet every time someone posts any evidence against the GWH then you blindly stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALA IM NOT GONNA WATCH THAT LALALALA"

---

Quote:

---

niteowl said: The planet was far warmer eons ago with far more C02 and there was never a 20ft rise in ocean levels.

---

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:
yes it was, but does that in ANY way justify pollution right now?

---

Again......WHEN DID I EVER SAY THAT

Just that adding CO2 to the air has little to nothing to do with the current global warming trend

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

Quote:

---

Either way, is the legislature so bad?  If global warming does turn out to be false is the change related to coming to the false conclusion so bad?

---

Yea, when the new legislation puts sever restrictions on how developing countries can use fossil fuels....

---

Right there

you're basically saying that you'd rather have developing countries allowed free reign on emissions than have any sort of regulation that protects the wellbeing of our planet

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

Quote:

---

Either way, is the legislature so bad?  If global warming does turn out to be false is the change related to coming to the false conclusion so bad?

---

Yea, when the new legislation puts sever restrictions on how developing countries can use fossil fuels....

---

Right there

you're basically saying that you'd rather have developing countries allowed free reign on emissions than have any sort of regulation that protects the wellbeing of our planet

---

I love how you think that the opposite of severe = none

When legislation makes farmers grow corn for bio-diesel instead of food for people. Guess what, the price of food goes up. Paying a bit more for food is not an issue for you and I, but it is for people in Haiti/Africa.

We legislated higher food prices so you could feel good about driving an SUV.....

When there is NO need for bio-diesel AT ALL

THA SKY'S A FALLIN
THA SKY'S A FALLIN

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

Quote:

---

Either way, is the legislature so bad?  If global warming does turn out to be false is the change related to coming to the false conclusion so bad?

---

Yea, when the new legislation puts sever restrictions on how developing countries can use fossil fuels....

---

Right there

you're basically saying that you'd rather have developing countries allowed free reign on emissions than have any sort of regulation that protects the wellbeing of our planet

---

I love how you think that the opposite of severe = none

When legislation makes farmers grow corn for bio-diesel instead of food for people. Guess what, the price of food goes up. Paying a bit more for food is not an issue for you and I, but it is for people in Haiti/Africa.

We legislated higher food prices so you could feel good about driving an SUV.....

When there is NO need for bio-diesel AT ALL

THA SKY'S A FALLIN
THA SKY'S A FALLIN

---

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

We legislated higher food prices so you could feel good about driving an SUV.....

---

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

THA SKY'S A FALLIN
THA SKY'S A FALLIN

---

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:
Your lack of maturity completely astounds me. aren't you at least slightly ashamed at your incapacity to have a rational, mature discussion without resorting to personal attacks

---

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:
Don't take this the wrong way, because I like you and respect you as a person, but the fact that you're referencing a 10 year trend in this debate shows that you clearly don't have a firm enough grasp on the concept to really be making any sort of a statement on the subject.

---

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:
Quite frankly, if you do your research and still can confidently say that it's bullshit, then clearly the only reason you're able to state such a deluded point is because you're not capable of comprehending the mechanism by which it happens....


also, calling us "global warming nuts" and saying it's bullshit science is the sort of Ad hominem personal attack that just makes you look ignorant and immature.  If you can't refrain from those sorts of comments I'll just have to assume you're not mature enough to debate this intelligently and I'll assume that even attempting to explain my point is a waste of my time.

Although to be perfectly honest it's pretty clear that you've never set foot inside a science classroom of any level higher than high-school, so I find it a bit comedic that you're trying to assert any sort of intellectual might to the conversation in calling other people's research "bullshit."

---

Quote:

---

THEBats said:

---

@ Pascals Wager