Thread: UN Worst Case Global Warming Scenarios Realized

unless you have been alive for a few centurys then you can prove none of this bullshit you have posted and keep defending,
How many Carbon Credits do you own and have ready for sale, Not as many as Al Gore I bet and he stands to make millions on this deal.
A well thought out plan and they have sent Madoff to prison for 150 years and the people are lining up behind Gore and no one seems to suspect anything.

While I'm here, I'd like to draw a line under this matter.

Nothing will be enough to quell the warmists' semi-religious fervour.

They are like medieval preachers, proclaiming to baying crowds that the end of the word is nigh.

Given the margin of error associated with the old-style thermometers which were, until only recently, used to record temperatures, it should be stated thus: over the past 100 years, temperature has risen by 0.7C - plus or minus 1.3 degrees!

The only importance the serious scientists can attach to such a figure is that less serious people think it meaningful.

My own science teacher would have kept me in after school for saying this was a valuable figure.

But, as you will have noticed, it worked. The catastrophists piled in - some of whom had previously flourished warnings about global cooling. For some, any figure will do, especially when it gives them a media profile (and grants for research).

Those who worry about facts should look at the findings of NASA (see the website), whose up-to-date and sophisticated global surveys throw such doubt on the warmists' claims

Here's a link for the usual suspects who start bouncing up & down if there isn't one

I know it's the Mail - what else? - so there's no need to bang on about that but the facts of the matter are true.

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

While I'm here, I'd like to draw a line under this matter.

Thank you, your omniscience, the world will sleep soundly tonight for the first time in centuries

How old are you?

Old enough to read the scientific literature to help form my opinion on scientific matters, rather than the Daily Mail, but still young enough to find such an outrageously pompous statement as "While I'm here, I'd like to draw a line under this matter" hilarious.

^

I already pre-empted your shitty response, Bob.

You may have scientific knowledge - I'm over the moon for you - but you're not to quick on the up-take, are you?

Let's get this clear...

the facts of the matter are true

End of.

Originally Posted by peterpan

These bureaucrats amuse me, have a big talkfest in a nice city with good beer and food,flying in from the 4 corners on planes

I thought the treehuggers walked or kayaked.

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.

This is the Canadian who's studied polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, BUT, look what those global warming and polar bear folks did to him:

Dr Taylor obtained funding to attend a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission), but he was banned by its members because of his views on global warming.

Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".
Polar bear expert barred by global warmists - Telegraph

Yep, the guy doesn't agree so boot him out. Those 500 scientists signed a one-page ad in US newspapers and I think their info is listed on Cato.

Weather patterns change all the time. Our farm on the Prairies hasn't had a spit of rain for a few months and the chance of a crop is almost zilch this year. Global warming? 55555 Same sh*t dry hot weather happened on and off since the pioneers settled there. And that's why old cultures -- hey, like the Anasazi -- picked up and left.

And we have another week of freezing cold in Vancouver. It snowed at my folk's in Alberta last month. Etc.

Sea level's rising? Why don't you start protesting about reclaimed land countries -- M-East, Japan, HK, and that nasty little pothead country called the Netherlands.

Fek, I doubt many would care if Malibu fell into the Pacific anyway.

This global warming crap is a load of crock.

Here's the real deal:

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend –

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.


That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008.

THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

look what those global warming and polar bear folks did to him

Fascists. Depends who's side you're on, I guess.

he was banned by its members because of his views on global warming

An honest man, etc...

we have another week of freezing cold in Vancouver

It used to be called global warming, Jet, until they'd terrorised that for every penny they could & now they're pitching it as 'climate change'!

is the meaning of "pre-empt" as opaque to you as the meaning of "true"?

Keep it simple, pal. It's not QI.

you would have had some facts ready to show why the Mail article is true

You want me to provide links to my links?

Get a grip, knobhead!

It says to look at NASAs website.

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

You want me to provide links to my links?

Get a grip, knobhead!

It says to look at NASAs website.

Which one of the many hundreds of NASA websites? No doubt you checked so you should have no problem telling us the exact link. I actually know what the writer in the Mail is talking about here, I also know why, in this case he's wrong. If you think he's right give us the details, what's he referring to and where is it, I'm sure you must know - after all who would be gullible enough to swallow a story whole without doing at least some fact-checking?

Originally Posted by DrB0b

What proportion of the world's climatologists signed up

All the bent ones.

About 90%

you should have no problem telling us the exact link

Read the ones I've done.

You're the exact kind of moonbat I was talking about before.

who would be gullible enough to swallow a story whole without doing at least some fact-checking

Give someone a little power & they always, always, abuse it.

You're the new Stroller!

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

Originally Posted by DrB0b

What proportion of the world's climatologists signed up

All the bent ones.

About 90%

I absolutely agree. Go back and read Jet's post again. You didn't read a word of that Manhattan Declaration, did you?

Originally Posted by drb0b

you should have no problem telling us the exact link

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

Read the ones I've done.

A link to an opinion piece is meaningless, I've already read the article. It's tosh. Do you have the link referred to as "see the website" in your post?l. You know, the link referred to in the newspaper article, the one that wasn't actually in the newspaper article. The link to the fictional NASA site where NASA admit they were all wrong about global warming. What is it? Where is it? The only link you gave was to the Mail article.

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

You're the exact kind of moonbat I was talking about before.

Yes, one who checks his facts and knows what he's talking about. I can see why you find that threatening.

Originally Posted by drb0b

who would be gullible enough to swallow a story whole without doing at least some fact-checking

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

Give someone a little power & they always, always, abuse it.

What power are you talking about? Are you sure you're quite sane?

You talk so much shit I've forgot what we were talkng about.

Smell ya later!

The sheppard and his heard! Still can't believe some of you people are falling for the biggest scam in history. Stay inside your box people.

I don't believe in global warming. I look at the facts. Man-made global warming is based on a computer model, not facts. Most of the temp measurements have been made near big cities. Of course the temp is rising new cities.
Facts: In Steamboat Springs Colorado one year ago they had 30 feet of base snow. May was the coldest in LA in thirty years. I have been gardening in Northern Cal for over thirty summers, the last three have been the cooest ever.
The night time temp here tonight will be 50deg. 10 below normal. At this time I'm usually picking 3-5 pounds of ripe tomatoes, the plants have not even set fruit yet. I'm still picking lettuce. From my point of view it's global cooling. Climate change. duh, the climate has been changing for millions of years as far as we know. That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. N is right it's all about $.

Halfing the world population is the best solution to all problems. Combine this with more freedom for migration ect and the world will be a much better place.

Originally Posted by Rattanaburi

Halfing the world population is the best solution to all problems.

No worries, the human species is working on that as we speak.

^If there is a tenth of us left after the next 50 years I'll be surprised (and amazed that I'll be here to be surprised)


It really boils down to those who believe that unlocking billions of tons of CO2, that has been buried for millions of years, and releasing it into the atmosphere is conducive to global warming versus those who believe that Venus just happens to be a pretty warm place because...well, just because.

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Naturally, the cream of TD's community is right, and the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists are wrong on global warming.....

For those of you who are actually able to comprehend the issues involved, I strongly recommend the June 2009 edition of Discover magazine - it has an article called "The State of the Climate—and of Climate Science" with interviews with four well-known climatologists. Some of many noteworthy quotes:

Bill Easterling: When we entered into the computer all the various things that forced the climate to change, we were able to faithfully reproduce the temperature record of the past 100 years globally. When you take out the component of human-generated carbon dioxide, the models don’t work at all. There are all these people who say, “Well, what about the sun? Why don’t they think about solar variability?” Of course we think about the sun. The models think about all these things, but the models work only if you put all the components in, and one of the big components is us.

Ken Caldera: To me the most compelling evidence is the fact that the stratosphere—the upper atmosphere—is cooling while the lower atmosphere and the land surface are warming. That’s a sign that greenhouse gases are trapping energy and keeping that energy close to the surface of the earth. I mentioned that in ocean acidification, you actually see animals that should make shells unable to make shells anymore. You could demonstrate the same kind of effect in a bell jar in the lab. There is a level of certainty about it.

Stephen Schneider: First, with regard to your due diligence as a publisher, why hasn’t DISCOVER published a compelling account of the other side? Because there isn’t any. That’s a pretty good reason. There are a lot of things in that speculative and competing explanations category, but there is no preponderance, and that is what is compelling to me.

For example, take the evidence that Robin cited. If you were a cynic and you asked about the probability of the ice sheet in the north going up, it’s 50 percent. Going down? Fifty percent. And the South Pole going up? Fifty percent. Going down? Fifty percent. Probability they are both going together? Twenty-five percent. What’s the probability of the stratosphere cooling while the earth gets warmer? Again, assuming we knew nothing, 50 percent. Troposphere warming? Fifty. The probability that one will go up while the other goes down? Twenty-five percent. Same thing for other patterns, like the way high-latitude continents are warming more than low-latitude ones are.

With any single line of evidence, you can say, “Oh, well, there’s still a 25 percent chance it’s random,” but what happens when you put all these events together? The probability of all these events’ lining up the same way is pretty darn low unless we are dealing with global warming.

You mean the UN and government backed scientists. There are more top scientists that challenge global warming, or atleast the man made theory. Swings and roundabouts!