Page 1 of 197 1234567891151101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 4912
  1. #1
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    7,674

    Any doubts about Climate Change?

    Stick it.

    For those of you who are still undecided, keep reading.





    Climate Scientist investigated (again!), vindicated (again!)

    One of the world’s leading climate scientists, Michael Mann of Penn State, has been vindicated by the National Science Foundation. Almost no one noticed.

    Mann is the author of the famous “hockey stick” graph showing rising global temperatures. The graph, based on research conducted in 1999, was included in the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (here). It is significant because it resulted from the first “multi-proxy” effort to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past thousand years. The “proxies” used included ice cores, tree rings, lake sediment cores, etc.

    His results provoked interest and followup by scientists, some of which was fairly exacting. Some claimed that the data was incomplete or the statistical methods were wrong. That’s to be expected; scientists examine one another’s work as a matter of routine.

    More significantly, the graph put Mann on a collision course with the emerging climate change denial industry (see also here, here, here and so on). A series of charges and accusations ensued.

    Starting in 2006 and continuing to the present, all the investigations have turned up the same results. The climate scientists, including Mann, have been vindicated each time.

    The accusations at issue in the current investigation arose from the “Climategate” scandal of late 2009; a trove of emails from climate scientists was put onto the web and attacked as proof that climate science is a fraud. As a result, Mann and numerous other scientists were investigated for scientific misconduct.

    The NSF’s recent report followed up an investigation of Mann by Penn State. The university investigated charges against Mann for:

    1. Falsifying research data
    2. Concealing, deleting or otherwise destroying emails, information or data
    3. Misusing privileged information
    4. Seriously deviating from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research and other scholarly activities.

    The university concluded there was no basis for the first three allegations. The NSF challenged the university to back up this conclusion by documenting its inquiry process, including how inquiry committee members were selected, what evidence they used, how they verified statements, etc. After investigating all the allegations de novo, the NSF decided the university had not adequately addressed the issue of falsification. In particular, it had not interviewed experts who were critical of Mann’s work. The NSF’s own investigation was not limited to the subject of falsification, but looked at the entire record for signs of research misconduct. It found that Mann had not concealed or falsified data, destroyed emails, misused privileged information or deviated from accepted practices. The NSF report is here.

    In other words, Mann got the fine-tooth-comb treatment. And he was cleared, not just partly, but completely. After a series of investigations this exhaustive, on a subject this important, one would expect some news about it.

    In fact, there has been only a trickle of interest. The climate-change blogosphere has noted it (DeSmogBlog, ClimateProgress, BadAstronomy). James Fallows noted it at the Atlantic, and Fox News managed a couple of dozen words. The other major media have relegated the issue to blog posts here and there.

    More remarkably, there has been a deafening, thunderous silence from the climate-denialist crowd (Globalwarming, which has bragged of reducing the “hockey stick” to “splinters” and “sawdust”, has ignored the report. Likewise Wattsup, Heartland, Air Vent, Climate Audit). I could only find a snarky little post at Climate Depot, which tries to minimize the NSF conclusion. It cites a post by antigreendescribing a “whitewash”. The author grumbles that the investigations by Penn State and by the NSF were “limited”.

    It doesn’t conclude there is “nothing wrong” with Mann’s conclusions, all it concludes is there is no basis to conclude he did anything improper (WITH NSF FUNDING).

    Would it be too much to ask of these people to say “gee, maybe we were wrong”. They claim to be interested in facts, in science, and some of them even have scientific degrees. They presumably understand what intellectual honesty is. As John Belushi used to say, “but NOOOOOO…” All we get is sour grapes, griping that Mann was only cleared of doing something improper with NSF funding. Well, perhaps that’s because that’s what Mann was charged with. I suppose they should have investigated whether Mann was bank robber or space alien. THEN they would have come up with something…

    More seriously, if Mann had been condemned, I imagine there would have been a lot more attention. According to the “heads I win, tails you lose” standards applied to climate science, it is simply not news when an accused scientists is upheld.

    Accusations: that’s news. Vindications: *yawn*. This skews the record and gives the deniers most of the headspace. So, in spite of all the facts, we can hear from presidential candidates that scientists have “manipulated” climate change data, and everyone just nods.

    Link: Climate Scientist investigated (again!), vindicated (again!) | MyFDL


    Another article,……….


    Climate Secret: NSF Quietly Closes Out Inspector General Investigation with Complete Vindication of Michael Mann


    Two things we know with extremely high confidence:

    1. Recent warming is unprecedented in magnitude and speed and cause (so the temperature history looks like a Hockey Stick).

    2. Michael Mann, the lead author on the original Hockey Stick paper, is one of the nation’s top climatologists and a source of first-rate analysis.

    We know these things because both the Hockey Stick and Mann have been independently investigated and vindicated more times than any other facet of climate science or any other climate scientist (see links below).

    Readers also know that “the first rule of vindicating climate science is you do not talk about vindicating climate science.” While the anti-science extremists who rule the Tea Party and the right-wing bunkosphere keep shouting lies about the Hockey Stick and Mann — and urging their followers to “shout down” science-based commenters on independent websites — the vindications of the science and the man are reported as quietly as if they came from the Whos of Whoville.

    And so after countless investigations — 3 in the U.K., 2 by Penn State, the EPA, the NOAA IG — that have all unanimously found the allegations against climate scientists and their research conclusions based on the hacked “ClimateGate” emails to be wholly unsubstantiated, a top GOP presidential candidate backed by the fossil fuel industry still gives voice to the Texas-sized lie (see “Denier Rick Perry Takes $11 Million from Big Oil, Then Claims Climate Scientists ‘Manipulated Data’ For Money“).

    And so while Mann and the Hockey Stick were getting yet another full vindication (from Penn State) earlier this year, Fox News was trumpeting one final investigation:

    But the final say will be in the hands of a skeptical inspector general at the National Science Foundation, the primary funder of the research into global warming. According to published documents obtained by FoxNews.com, the IG must determine whether Penn State’s investigation was adequate.

    The Office of Inspector General confirmed that it will review the misconduct charges. A spokeswoman told FoxNews.com that “in accordance with our research misconduct regulation, (45 C.F.R. part 689), when the OIG is provided with an institution’s investigation report, we review it for fairness, accuracy and completeness” — issues the investigation has already been faulted for.

    Yes, well, the Penn State investigation was faulted only by anti-science deniers. And NSF’s IG is “skeptical” only in the sense that global warming “skeptics” are not — which is to say it analyzes the facts objectively and come to defensible and reproducible conclusions.

    The IG analyzed all of the charges “de novo” and concluded:

    “Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed.”

    I have uploaded the full report here, but you can also go the NSF IG website here and insert “A09120086.”

    Let me end with some key findings of the Penn State investigation:

    “An Investigatory Committee of faculty members with impeccable credentials” has unanimously “determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.”

    His work “clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field…. Dr. Mann’s work, from the beginning of his career, has been recognized as outstanding.“

    So Mann isn’t merely a competent researcher. He is one of the leading climate scientists in this country, which of course is precisely why the anti-science crowd has gone after him, much as they have with other leading climate scientists, including Hansen and Santer.

    And that’s one more reason why the major media outlets who smeared and defamed him owe him an apology and a retraction — loud ones!

    Recent Studies Vindicating the Hockey Stick:

    1. Temperatures of North Atlantic “are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming” — Science (2011)

    2. GRL (2010): “We conclude that the 20th century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years.“


    3. JGR (2010): “The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last 1600 years.”

    4. Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds (2009)


    5. Unprecedented warming in Lake Tanganyika and its impact on humanity (2010)

    Link: Climate Secret: NSF Quietly Closes Out Inspector General Investigation with Complete Vindication of Michael Mann | ThinkProgress
    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Boon Mee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    16-12-2016 @ 09:19 AM
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    44,058
    Well, Al Gore (snake-oil peddler) has just about lost it now.



    Says who don't believe his views are all racists or deniers and "should be locked up like Nazis"

    Al Gore | Global warming | racists | The Daily Caller

  3. #3
    Thailand Expat
    sabang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 09:53 AM
    Location
    There
    Posts
    30,344
    You would have to be some sort of cretin to deny the earth is in a warming phase-



    And certainly the rate of change has increased markedly since Industrialisation, although that is not sufficient proof in itself of mans influence on global warming.



    Then again, the world has been in and out of Ice Ages and warming phases throughout history-




    The bottom line is, can the human race get it's act together, and do much about it? Personally I doubt it.

    Graphs from-
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
    probes Aliens

  4. #4
    Fuck it
    Satonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    The city of angels, the great city, the eternal jewel city, the impregnable city of God Indra, etc..
    Posts
    3,113
    1. IS TEMPERATURE OF EARTH GETTING WARMER?

    Most long-term data comes from weather stations
    Sceptic
    Instruments show there has been some warming of the Earth's surface since 1979, but the actual value is subject to large errors. Most long-term data comes from surface weather stations. Many of these are in urban centres which have been expanding and using more energy. When these stations observe a temperature rise, they are simply measuring the "urban heat island effect". In addition, coverage is patchy, with some regions of the world almost devoid of instruments. Data going back further than a century or two is derived from "proxy" indicators such as tree-rings and stalactites which, again, are subject to large errors.
    Counter
    Warming is unequivocal. Ocean measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon measurements, boreholes and satellites all show results consistent with records from surface weather stations. The urban heat island effect is real but small; and it has been studied and corrected for. Analyses by Nasa , for example, use only rural stations to calculate trends. Research has shown that if you analyse long-term global temperature rise for windy days and calm days separately, there is no difference. If the urban heat island effect were large, you would expect to see more warming on calm days when more of the heat stays in the city. Furthermore, the pattern of warming globally doesn't resemble the pattern of urbanisation, with the greatest warming seen in the Arctic and northern high latitudes. Globally, there is a warming trend of about 0.8C since 1900, more than half of which has occurred since 1979.
    2. THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE HAS STOPPED RISING

    Weather balloons or balloon sondes gather and transmit data
    Sceptic
    Since 1998 - more than a decade - the record, as determined by observations from satellites and balloon radiosondes, shows no discernible warming.
    Counter
    The year 1998 was exceptionally warm because of a strong El Nino event, while 2008 was unusually cold because of La Nina conditions. Variability from year to year is expected, and picking a specific warm year to start an analysis (or a cold one to end with) is "cherry-picking". If you start in 1997 or 1999 you will see a sharp rise. Furthermore, while the UK Met Office regards 1998 as the hottest year yet, Nasa thinks it was 2005 (they use the same data but interpret it differently). According to the Met Office, the 10 warmest years in the modern record have all occurred since 1997.
    3. THE EARTH HAS BEEN WARMER IN THE RECENT PAST

    Satellite images show the extent of Arctic ice
    Sceptic
    The beginning of the last Millennium saw a "Medieval Warm Period" when temperatures, certainly in Europe, were higher than they are now. Grapes grew in northern England. Ice-bound mountain passes opened in the Alps. The Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than it is today.
    Counter
    There have been many periods in Earth history that were warmer than today - for example, the last interglacial (125,000 years ago) or the Pliocene (three million years ago). Those variations were caused by solar forcing, the Earth's orbital wobbles or continental configurations; but none of those factors is significant today compared with greenhouse warming. Evidence for a Medieval Warm Period outside Europe is patchy at best, and is often not contemporary with the warmth in Europe. As the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) puts it: "The idea of a global or hemispheric Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than today has turned out to be incorrect." Additionally, although the Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than in the following few decades, it is now warmer still. One recent analysis showed it is warmer now than at any time in the last 2,000 years.
    4. COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT RELIABLE

    Computer models cannot project the influence of clouds
    Sceptic
    Computer models are the main way of projecting future climate change. But despite decades of development they are unable to model all the processes involved; for example, the influence of clouds, the distribution of water vapour, the impact of warm seawater on ice-shelves and the response of plants to changes in water supply. Climate models follow the old maxim of "you put garbage in, you get garbage out".
    Counter
    Models will never be perfect and they will never be able to forecast the future exactly. However, they are tested and validated against all sorts of data. Over the last 20 years they have become able to simulate more physical, chemical and biological processes, and work on smaller spatial scales. The 2007 IPCC report produced regional climate projections in detail that would have been impossible in its 2001 assessment. All of the robust results from modelling are backed up by theoretical science or observations.
    5. ATMOSPHERE IS NOT BEHAVING AS MODELS WOULD PREDICT

    Satellite data does not always correspond with computer models
    Sceptic
    Computer models predict that the lower levels of the atmosphere, the troposphere, should be warming faster than the Earth's surface. Measurements show the opposite. So either the models are failing, or one set of measurements is flawed, or there are holes in our understanding of the science.
    Counter
    Interpretation of the satellite data has not always been straightforward - but it does not show the opposite of what computer models predict. Two separate analyses show consistent warming, one faster than the surface and one slightly less fast. Information from balloons has its own problems but the IPCC concluded in 2007: "For the period since 1958, overall global and tropical tropospheric warming estimated from radiosondes has slightly exceeded surface warming".
    6. CLIMATE IS MAINLY INFLUENCED BY THE SUN

    Solar variations do affect the climate
    Sceptic
    Earth history shows climate has regularly responded to cyclical changes in the Sun's energy output. Any warming we see can be attributed mainly to variations in the Sun's magnetic field and solar wind.
    Counter
    Solar variations do affect climate, but they are not the only factor. As there has been no positive trend in any solar index since the 1960s (and a negative trend more recently), solar forcing cannot be responsible for the recent temperature trends. The difference between the solar minimum and solar maximum over the 11-year solar cycle is 10 times smaller than the effect of greenhouse gases over the same interval.
    7. CO2 RISES AFTER A TEMPERATURE INCREASE NOT BEFORE

    Ice core data shows a pattern of temperature rises
    Sceptic
    Ice-cores dating back nearly one million years show a pattern of temperature and CO2 rise at roughly 100,000-year intervals. But the CO2 rise has always come after the temperature rise, not before, presumably as warmer temperatures have liberated the gas from oceans.
    Counter
    This is largely true, but largely irrelevant. Ancient ice-cores do show CO2 rising after temperature by a few hundred years - a timescale associated with the ocean response to atmospheric changes mainly driven by wobbles in the Earth's orbit. However, this time, CO2 is leading temperature. Furthermore, the situation today is dramatically different. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere (35% increase over pre-industrial levels) is from man-made emissions, and levels are higher than have been seen in 650,000 years of ice-core records. They may in fact be higher than at any time in the last three million years.
    8. LONG-TERM DATA ON HURRICANES AND ARCTIC ICE IS POOR

    Arctic ice used to be measured on expeditions
    Sceptic
    Before the era of satellite observation began in the 1970s, measurements were ad-hoc and haphazard. Hurricanes would be reported only if they hit land or shipping. The extent of Arctic ice was measured only during expeditions. The satellite record for these phenomena is too short to justify claims that hurricanes are becoming stronger or more frequent, or that there is anything exceptional about the apparent shrinkage in Arctic ice up to 2007.
    Counter
    The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment project notes that systematic collection of data in parts of the Arctic began in the late 18th Century. The US National Hurricane Center notes that "organised reconnaissance" for Atlantic storms began in 1944. So although historical data is not as complete as one might like, conclusions can still be drawn from it. And the IPCC does not claim that global warming will make hurricanes more frequent - its 2007 report says that if anything, they are likely to become less frequent, but more intense.
    9. WATER VAPOUR IS BIGGER GREENHOUSE GAS THAN CO2

    Water vapour concentrations are rising
    Sceptic
    The natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth's surface about 33C warmer than it would otherwise be. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, accounting for about 98% of all warming. So changes in carbon dioxide or methane concentrations would have a relatively small impact. Water vapour concentrations are rising, but this does not necessarily increase warming - it depends how the water vapour is distributed.
    Counter
    The statement that water vapour is "98% of the greenhouse effect" is simply false. In fact, it does about 50% of the work; clouds add another 25%, with CO2 and the other greenhouse gases contributing the remaining quarter. Water vapour concentrations are increasing in response to rising temperatures, and there is evidence that this is adding to warming, for example in Europe. The fact that water vapour is a feedback is included in all climate models.
    10. THERE ARE BIGGER PROBLEMS THAN CLIMATE CHANGE

    Sceptics argue that curbing pollution is not the world's top priority
    Sceptic
    The Kyoto Protocol has not reduced emissions of greenhouse gases noticeably. The targets were too low, applied only to certain countries, and have been rendered meaningless by loopholes. Many governments that enthuse about the treaty and want a successor are not going to meet the reduction targets that they signed up to in Kyoto. Even if it is real, man-made climate change is just one problem among many facing the world's rich and poor alike. Governments and societies should respond proportionately, not pretend that climate is a special case. Poorer countries should not be forced to constrain their emissions and therefore their economic growth, as they will be under a Copenhagen treaty. Some economists believe that a warmer climate would, on balance, improve lives.
    Counter
    Arguments over the Kyoto Protocol are outside the realms of science, although it certainly has not reduced greenhouse gas emissions as far or as fast as the IPCC indicates is necessary. The latest IPCC Working Group 2 report suggest that the impact of man-made climate change will on balance be harmful, in particular to the poorer countries of the tropics, although colder regions may see benefits such as increased crop yields. Investment in energy efficiency, new energy technologies and renewables are likely to benefit the developing world. A Copenhagen treaty would not force emission constraints on the world's poorest countries - in fact, it will funnel money to them for technology and climate protection, helping clean growth. More affluent developing countries - including China - will have to constrain their emissions growth but they agreed to this at the 2007 Bali summit.

  5. #5
    Thailand Expat klong toey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    15-11-2017 @ 05:18 AM
    Posts
    5,616
    Feck all them graphs and figures,all i can say is this has been the worst ever summer in the U.K.
    Don't think we have had any real settled weather,a few nice warm days,25c then a week of gales.
    When i was a kid the school holidays meant 6 weeks of very hot sunny weather i reckon apart from early April a couple of nice weeks, its been awful.

    This summer has been the UK's coolest since 1993, provisional Met Office figures indicate.

    The figures cover 1 June to 29 August. But while this summer has been wetter than 2010, it has not been as wet as 2007, 2008 or 2009.

    The temperature during August has been below normal by about one degree Celsius in most parts of the UK.

    But the Met Office says it has been "close to normal" over central and eastern counties of England in August.

    2010 was a year that was colder, drier and sunnier than average in most areas. This was due to prolonged periods of blocked weather patterns and an absence of westerly airstreams.


    2010 was ranked the 12th coldest year in the previous one hundred years. The year both began and ended with widespread and disruptive snowfalls. December was recorded as one of the coldest calendar months in the last 100 years.

  6. #6
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    15-10-2016 @ 10:22 PM
    Posts
    3,860
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    The bottom line is, can the human race get it's act together, and do much about it? Personally I doubt it.

    Not a chance, which is why i totally dropped out of the debate long time ago. Too much money/vested interest spreading too much disinformation to too many greedy morons.

    It's past the point of salvaging anyhow.

  7. #7
    Valve Master Latindancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,252
    There are too many stupid, greedy and self-centred people for the race as a whole to get it's act together......for a long time, anyhow. For instance, the Australian government is imposing a carbon tax whilst selling billions of tons of coal to China.
    They CANNOT stop selling coal....it would financially ruin too many people.
    The only hope for the world at large is that there are various homeostatic biological feedback mechanisms in place. They may keep the earth balanced longer than expected. But we simply don't know. If a tipping point is reached, things may accelerate out of hand. For instance the Arctic tundra is warming, which releases methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas (much more so than CO2).
    Bangkok is HOW many feet above sea level ???

  8. #8
    Thailand Expat
    robuzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last Online
    19-12-2015 @ 05:51 PM
    Location
    Paese dei Balocchi
    Posts
    7,848
    On the one hand, I think there is room for more research into how the sun and solar cycles affect the climate. On the other hand, a world that cuts its dependence also cuts the influence of noxious regimes like Saudi Arabia:
    Saudi Arabia to Seek Financial Aid if World Reduces Oil Dependence
    Saudi Arabia to seek compensation for climate pact oil losses | Environment | The Guardian
    What is the downside to making the Saudis and other Arabs less rich? Why aren't the Islamophobes and Muslim-bashers on the right all over that? Oh, right, because it also hurts the biggest corporations in the US and the UK, not to mention the corrupt Russian government and the tin-pot fascists that run Venezuela, etc. (and sorry about that, Norway- your big puffy clowns may wind up having less shit to give to the Pattaya fuzz).
    “You can lead a horticulture but you can’t make her think.” Dorothy Parker

  9. #9
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:47 PM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,113
    Quote Originally Posted by FlyFree View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    The bottom line is, can the human race get it's act together, and do much about it? Personally I doubt it.

    Not a chance, which is why i totally dropped out of the debate long time ago. Too much money/vested interest spreading too much disinformation to too many greedy morons.

    It's past the point of salvaging anyhow.
    My best guess (on insufficient data) is that we can. However we will need another 30 to 50 years to get our act together. That may be too late to avert significant change. But that does not mean we will go extinct.

  10. #10
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    15-10-2016 @ 10:22 PM
    Posts
    3,860
    ^Extinct? I doubt it. We may wish for it though.... Society will disintegrate.
    IMHO the tipping point has come and gone, the beast is already feeding upon itself.

  11. #11
    Member
    phomsanuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Online
    21-09-2012 @ 02:26 AM
    Posts
    705
    I don't deny warming but I think that the humans thinking we caused it is an insult to Mother Nature.

  12. #12
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:47 PM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,113
    Quote Originally Posted by FlyFree View Post
    ^Extinct? I doubt it. We may wish for it though.... Society will disintegrate.
    IMHO the tipping point has come and gone, the beast is already feeding upon itself.
    You may be right but I believe we can do better than that even under extreme conditions.

    I mentioned it because some people speak of climate change as the end of humanity but it won't. It won't be comfortable though.

  13. #13
    Excitable Boy
    FailSafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Depends on your point of view...
    Posts
    6,592
    Quote Originally Posted by phomsanuk View Post
    I don't deny warming but I think that the humans thinking we caused it is an insult to Mother Nature.
    If we can pollute vast tracts of land, ocean, and our inner atmosphere over many major cities, why is it 'conceit' (or beyond the bounds of reality) to think it's possible that humans are at least partially responsible for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution?

  14. #14
    Valve Master Latindancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,252
    I don't think there is any doubt that the climate is changing.
    But people are still debating about WHY it is changing. It is important to not mix these two issues, as many do.
    Last edited by Latindancer; 03-09-2011 at 12:08 PM.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Boon Mee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    16-12-2016 @ 09:19 AM
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    44,058


    See here and here for references.

  16. #16
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    15-10-2016 @ 10:22 PM
    Posts
    3,860
    Boon Mee you, like Sarah Palin, must be the thinking Republican's <cat-calls and boos from the cheap seats> worst nightmare.

    This remark not specifically on this post but from an collection of 17,599 (probably now changed to 19,666)



    This also has an ocean view. What are you suggesting?


  17. #17
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    60,022
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang
    You would have to be some sort of cretin to deny the earth is in a warming phase-
    Nope, you'd have to have little understanding of geological history and science.

  18. #18
    Thailand Expat Jesus Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    22-09-2017 @ 11:00 AM
    Posts
    6,954
    No one is denying climate change. However, the man made theory is just a scam which is being coined based on natural climate change.

  19. #19
    Valve Master Latindancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,252
    I'm not sure if anyone in their right mind is denying that man has had SOME influence.
    The big question is....how much ? Things are not always either black or white.
    We may be in a natural warming phase, and man's influence on top of that is tipping the balance. This thing is : after a tipping point is reached, we may be screwed.
    Methane currently being released because of a warmer Arctic / Siberian tundra is contributing to the warming greatly. It is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

  20. #20
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    60,022
    Why with the insults ?

    You would have to be some sort of cretin to deny
    Quote Originally Posted by Latindancer
    if anyone in their right mind
    A typical tactic of the climate change believers.

    There is not tipping balance.

    The earth has been a lot hotter, the earth has been a lot colder, the earth has had a lot less GHGs and a lot more GHGs.

  21. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Online
    22-11-2017 @ 04:36 AM
    Posts
    114
    And dinosaur farting caused the Ice Age. The earth has cooled and warmed through out the mellinuim without humans. Humans appeared on earth only 200,000 years ago, the earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. So who's to say there is not a very long-term seasonal cycle of earth warming and cooling.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Boon Mee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    16-12-2016 @ 09:19 AM
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    44,058
    The news leaked out a while ago that Al Gore scored a D in natural science at Harvard.

    That would be the science introduction for Other Majors, not difficult chemistry or calculus. So Nobel Laureate Al Gore got a D in Science for Dummies.
    But don't worry. Anybody can blow a college course and still bounce back. A lot of us get it wrong the first time. Unfortunately, Al Gore didn't fix his failure. He made it much worse by peddling monstrous pseudo-science and getting even richer from it.

    As well as repulsively fat -- a walking metaphor for his politics.

    Articles: On Being Governed By Scientific Frauds

    No shit...

  23. #23
    Banned
    Boon Mee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    16-12-2016 @ 09:19 AM
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    44,058
    Shock Finding: The Sun Has Dominant Control Over Earth’s Climate

    It’s looking more and more like that could be the case:

  24. #24
    Sukhumvet
    VocalNeal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 02:45 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    9,881
    why is it 'conceit' (or beyond the bounds of reality) to think it's possible that humans are at least partially responsible for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution?
    There is no Millennium Bug cash cow any more, the new cash cow is Climate Change. Everything from wind power to solar. One can save the planet but not by saving money. ALL alternative forms of energy seem to me MORE expensive than the conventional choice.

    Urbanization adds to the heat sink effect but when compared to one solar flare it is still insignificant.

    Agree that pollution should be reduced, that's a local environmental problem. Yes poor air quality caused by cars but still a local issue. Not many hybrid cars are plug in to allow charging from utility. This would suffice for most short distance commutes. I know plug energy has to come from somewhere but it is currently cheaper but also pollution control on larger installations is per capita cheaper.

    Agree that consumption and waste needs to be addressed. I saw recently that if the whole population lived a western lifestyle we'd need two more Earths to support everyone. Also if the whole population lived a north american lifestyle we'd need four extra planets.

    I think farting livestock figures largely in the methane/ozone problem.:-) Yes cows for McDonalds etc but there are millions of wildebeest on the plain of Africa etc...

    One decent volcanic eruption with enough sulphur dioxide and we'll all be shivering.

    Sadly working together won't work.

    Still on the upside I'll be long gone before the sh1t hits the fan unless the Mayans were right.
    No one on TD is gay. If suspect, it was probably because of the way they were reared.
    I apologize if any offence was caused. unless it was intended.
    You people, you think I know feck nothing; I tell you: I know feck all
    How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Boon Mee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    16-12-2016 @ 09:19 AM
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    44,058
    Former Vice President Al Gore will renew his 30-year campaign to convince skeptics of the link between climate change and extreme weather events this week in a 24-hour global multi-media event.

    24 Hours of Reality” will broadcast a presentation by Al Gore every hour for 24 hours across 24 different time zones from Wednesday to Thursday, with the aim of convincing climate change deniers and driving action against global warming among households, schools and businesses.

    The campaign also asks people to hand over control of their social networking accounts on Facebook and Twitter to it for 24 hours to deliver Gore’s message


Page 1 of 197 1234567891151101 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •