Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

Originally posted by Mez353
Enjoy your night out but stay on the well beaten path. Do not attempt to veer from the mainstream by taking a left or right turn as you'll quickly become lost. And down those dark, less trodden alleys and side streets who knows what mysterious entities await. No, better you stay on the well lit and guided paths ahead. Just don't go pissing on any lamposts. Woof!

Actually somewhat funny.

You're wrong again, though. Fun can be had without leaving the house

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by The_Liberator

 

I will take you up on that bet.
Let's see what happens in the next few years and if the temperature will rise by 2 degrees as you predict.

Liberator will NOT acknowledge this, or will find a way to deny that it is true, but the "2 degrees" figure is a complete political fiction! the "father"of the 2-degrees standard has gone on record to say so.

Even the IPCC contributors admit a lack of agreement as to cause:

One policymakers’ summary omitted several important unequivocal conclusions contained in the scientists’ report, including, “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate change to anthropogenic causes,” and “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.” These significant revisions were made, according to IPCC officials quoted in Nature magazine, “to ensure that it [the report] conformed to a policymakers’ summary.”

townhall.com...

As for the "consensus," Phil Jones admits there's no such thing. Moreover, Dr Benny Peiser, director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, has revealed that only 13 of the 1,117, or a mere 1 per cent of the scientific papers crosschecked by him, explicitly endorse the consensus as defined by the IPCC.
www.openthemagazine.com...

How can you refute a negative? You can't. People may presume to believe whatever they want; but, there is no consensus as to causation for observed changes in climate.

The best the IPCC and East Anglia/CRU can do is say, "We don't know what else it could be, so it must be us."

That may be good enough for the sheep to run, but most rational people require a bit more.

I'm enjoying the debate between Melatonin and Mez, but in the meantime I thought I'd take a break from the popcorn and reply to your post.

The article you link to cites John Christy who has been debunked as a liar and a front man for oil companies:

climateprogress.org...

It also says there are 31,000 scientists who say that AGW is a myth.

That is also false:

www.skepticalscience.com...

I love this quote: “The world is in much better shape than this doomsday scenario paints … the worst-case scenario [is] not going to happen.”

That is patently false. Every data set has been worst than the worst case scenario outlined by the IPCC.

AND the IPCC did not consider feedbacks such as the melting permafrost because they were too difficult to model.

climateprogress.org...

In short, you cite an article that is obviously and blatantly misleading.

reply to post by Mez353


You lifted parts if not this entire post from here.
www.climatecooling.org...

I suggest you link other peoples work as it is against ATS T and C.

reply to post by atlasastro


Colour me surprised-me-not.

Plagiarism is a common way to feign understanding. Reason why it's common in the student populace.

Originally posted by Mez353
To reiterate, most of us on this thread believe the climate is changing but we believe that this is a constant. We do not believe that the planet is warming in unison, rather we accept that some areas may be warming whilst others are cooling. Most if not all of us think that ramming Global Warming down our throats based on 'settled science' closes the door on any discussion and we will not accept that.

I am in the process of wading through the last few pages (I still have a way to go) of debate between you and Melatonin. However, as I read, I figure I will pick out a few statements of yours that are objectively and unequivocally false.

As to the above statement, the fact that the planet is warming in unison is not a "belief" as you say...it is an accepted fact.

Rather than link to a site that says we have warmed about a degree C (which we have), go here and see for yourself. Just check the years to see the satellite readings for yourself. And that's of only the past few decades.

discover.itsc.uah.edu...

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by Mez353

 

Have you ever spent any time in the British Isles? It can be rather a depressing place alot of the time due to the cool and wet climate. If I did believe that warming was actually occurring (sitting here freezing my nuts off throughout record low temperatures in November and early December makes me think otherwise) I'd actually say it was a good thing.

Boy you can say that again!

I just looked out the window and it is SNOWING!!! I am in North Carolina and it snows here about once every five years... In January. I do not even own snow tires.

Last year we had FIVE, count them FIVE snow storms and now on Dec 4 a few days after Thanksgiving it is SNOWING - HARD! It looks like New Hampshire out there

Face it, the 60 year cycle has headed back towards cooler weather after a 30 year run.

Regional temps are irrelevant. We are talking about global temperature, and yes it is rising. That is a fact that is not in dispute.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Mez353
We have the ability to see through the BS and we are proud to be skeptical because it means that we've not succumbed to the brainwashing.

Denialism is not skepticism.

I know you might prefer to pretend you are a skeptic, but you're not.

Correct. Mez and 90% of the skeptics on here are not skeptical of the facts.....rather, they refuse to LOOK at the facts.

I believe that the earth is 6000 years old, therefore all evidence that points to the contrary is either fabricated or based on faulty data. Let me Google "earth only 6000 years old" so I can find an article that agrees with me which I can link to.

Mez, I know you think you are rational, but you are not my friend.

Originally posted by gotrox
Glaringly obvious to those who didn't turn a blind eye are the admissions that a cooling of global temperatures has been ongoing since 1995, and that the Melting of the Himalayan glaciers data was all based on an opinion, not on a study of any kind.

That is incorrect and based on nothing more than your imagination.

climateprogress.org...

And as for your contention that global warming was replaced with "climate change" because of cooling, that is also patently false. The term climate change was adopted because it was felt that "global warming" implied that everyone should be warming everywhere on the globe. The problem with "global warming" is that when a super cold winter hits, people could say "global warming isn't real!", but they can't say "climate change isn't real".

It's a more encompassing term than global warming.

You are basing your opinions on what you wish were facts....but not on facts.

Originally posted by Mez353
We know that the Earth's temperature and the level of CO2 rise and fall roughly together, but it is not clear (not proven) whether this is cause and effect by either variable.

The relationship between CO2 rise and temperature rise is WELL understood. The earth does not orbit in a perfectly spherical orbit (known as Milenkovich cycles), and the tilt of the earth changes ever so slightly over time.

Your assertion that this is not proven is simply false.

www.skepticalscience.com...

I'd like to sum some stuff up.

According to evidence found in the ice from Ice core drilling, we learned that 11.500 years ago the Earth was still under the spell of an ice age. A cataclysmic event took place that heated up the globe several degrees in inly 1 human lifetime, and mega mammals could not adapt enough that fast to survive we did.

The event caused the death of countless of plant and animal life alike which caused a huge amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere .

Then temperatures stabilized all the way up to 400 years ago when the Earth slipped into a little ice age.
A log from Galileo Galilei where he wrote and drawled the number and size of sunspots. Shows that at the same time the number of Sun spots was at an all time low.

Now we are the reason a loot of green house gas is getting up there with an ever increasing rate. This effects global climate, but that's not really the biggest problem. Only recently the discovery of tos and tons of methane escaping from the frozen permafrost which is melting rapidly. The oceans will also release a big amount of gas when methane is released from the unstable form it has on the ocean floor as sea ice or Methane clathrate.

Last year almost 5.000 species of life got extinct. Disturbingly this was the same number as the two years before..

Some are covinced we are right in the middle of a mass extinction, an event that usually happens where a new era starts and an old one ends

We might get lucky though... It seems the Sun is again very quite and this could mean a cold will strike that counters a warming

The melt of Kilimanjaro's icy top is a big clue here as records show that . this didn't happen even once in the 11.500 years.

You could be closer to the truth on this then I would like you to. The future shows us a string of events that spiral downI hope you are wrong...

reply to post by melatonin


Quote mining as "debate".
What is even more disappointing is that it comes from a site regarding "cooling" that goes on a massive scare campaign about cooling in order to "argue against the warming alarmists".

It goes on a diatribe about how many people die from cold as opposed to warming.
And they think we are the fear mongers.

Here are some amazing quotes designed to allay our fears regarding GW.

Just found (Dec 09) CIA cooling report: "The western world's leadlng climatologists have confirmed reports of a detrimental global climatic change [cooling]. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new cllmatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the Earth's climate is returning to that of the neo·boreal era (1600-1850) - an era of drought, famine, and political unrest in the western world." (1974)

Ohhhh! Noooeeees.

More People Die from the Cold than From Heat and no Place on Earth is too Hot for Humans. In Europe, more than 200,000 people die from excess heat while 1.5 million people die from excess cold (Source: Lomborg 2007 ), a point left out of most assessments. For the US, the net lower death count from global warming in 2050 is estimated at 174,000 per year (Citation in Lomborg 2007).

www.climatecooling.org...
Should I buy an anorak?

That is why it pays to actually read what you are quote mining.
Because this site is far more "doom" orientated in nature.


So it seems Mez' argument is to out doom you Mel, in order to prove that we are not in danger from warming.


Denial "Mez" Jones and the Ice Temple of Doom.
da de dat da, da de da.
da de dat da, da de da da......

reply to post by atlasastro


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6aff2ec0027e.jpg[/atsimg]


Sun Responsible for Global Warming

Two new reports cast doubt on the manmade global warming theory and instead point to another cause for the recent warming of Earth — changes in the sun.

One report from National Geographic News asserts, "Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural — and not a human-induced — cause, according to one scientist’s controversial theory.”

Data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey mission in 2005 disclosed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps” near Mars’ south pole had been shrinking for three consecutive summers.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the shrinking provides evidence that the current warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun, according to the National Geographic article.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said. "Manmade greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.”

The other report offers a mechanism behind the changes in the sun — variations in its magnetic field.

Compiled by scientists at the Danish National Space Center, it maintains that the Earth’s climate is strongly influenced by cosmic rays from exploded stars.

The cosmic rays help make ordinary clouds, and high levels of rays and cloudiness cool the planet, while lower levels of radiation lead to milder temperatures, according to the Danish report, which is cited by Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, on the committee’s Web site.

"Cosmic ray intensities — and therefore cloudiness — keep changing because the sun’s magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the galaxy before they reach the Earth,” the Danish report by Henrik Svensmark, head of the Space Center, explains.

Whenever the sun’s magnetic field was weak, cosmic ray intensities were high and the climate cooled, most recently in the little ice age that climaxed 300 years ago.

Several scientists cited in the report believe that changes in the Earth’s climate are linked to "the journey of the sun and the Earth through the Milky Way Galaxy. They blame the icehouse episodes on encounters with bright spiral arms, where cosmic rays are most intense.”

I hope the martians stop their pollution too. Not that I like pollution, dont get me wrong.

Make of it what you will.

Mez, I asked you to come up with a single piece of evidence that could not be easily debunked using Google and so far you have failed.

If you read the debate between you and Melatonin carefully, you will see that he uses facts to dispute you...while you consistently grasp at straws to prove your point.

Why are you so reluctant to accept reality? I mean that with all sincerity.

If a doctor tells me that I have incurable cancer and am going to die in 2 months, then I am going to die in 2 months. I can try to find a cure, and I can drink wheat grass juice until I piss green, but that doesn't change the fact that an expert (my doctor) has told me that I'm dying.

The experts, climate scientists, are telling us that we are warming. They also tell us that if we go beyond 2 degrees C, natural feedbacks will kick in that will cook us like a chicken in a Chinese restaurant.

That is what they tell us. Period, end of discussion.

I will go a step further and tell you that feedbacks have ALREADY kicked in and the permafrost is venting methane at a level not seen for thousands of years. Furthermore, there is nothing we can do to stop it.

This is from December 2, 2010: www.desdemonadespair.net...

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

We might get lucky though... It seems the Sun is again very quite and this could mean a cold will strike that counters a warming

I wish you were right, but unfortunately the sun's effect is minimal when compared to the effect of CO2...not to mention water vapor and methane from the melting permafrost.

reply to post by atlasastro


I agree, that site is kind of sad. His arguments are just absurd. Poor ignorant soul as my mother would say.

reply to post by RUSSO


Studies by CERN on the effects of radiation on cloud forming are still in progress. Anyone who start making claims about this stuff is not including the material from the Cern CLOUD project., and is preemptive

Read the following thread to read all there is to know about the CLOUD project : The CLOUD Project

reply to post by RUSSO


I have debunked the "sun" argument over and over and over in this thread.

The sun is irrelevant when compared to CO2 and other GGG's.

www.skepticalscience.com...

reply to post by The_Liberator


What about the release from that same permafrost and just as unsuspected... Nitrous oxide.Also a green house gas.

I don't agree the sun be only minimal influential. without it there wouldn't be a climate.
The sun can and will meddle . The sun is only even more stable then the Earth therefor only causing minimal effect

reply to post by The_Liberator


Ignore Russo, he is a denial troll.
He is stalking me after I responded to his blatant and deliberate lies on this thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not to mention he is quote mining sources that he does not understand.
Here ya go Russo.
One I prepared earlier, for trolls like you.
news.nationalgeographic.com...
This article quotes a scientist who attributes recent global warming to the Sun, the same one you quote.

But this fails.
One only need search for data on Total Solar Irradiance.
But this will explain it better.
www.youtube.com...

Keep up the good work.
Its guys like you that reinforce how honest and rational our side of the debate is, and deniers as deliberate liars with little interest in reality.
Thanks bro.
Thats what I make of it.