Quote: Original post by nobodynews
I'd like to see some facts about this 'cooling for 10 years straight' comment. I've heard it said that 2005 was the warmest year ever by organizations such as Nasa. And from another NASA source2008 was the 9th warmest year since 1880.

Of course, because over the last 10 years some climate scientists fudged their numbers and tried to discourage dissent means that, logically, everything any climate scientist says is 100% bullshit.

It might be the geographic location. But here, record after record is being broken, things are warming up heavily (I think this year will earn itself a place in the top five of warmest years ever recorded). It's pretty straightforward, it's data.

Quote: I believe that the scientific community who supports global warming only say it is a fraction of a percent that is different. They are only talking about a 2 degree change over the course of the next couple decades. Therefore, there must be another explanation for a 20 degree of more temperature increase in your area, such as a warm front.

I also heard news, three months ago, it didn't got any attention from the mainstream media (maybe the economical depression fears at the time), that some scientists have concluded that the Co2 emission is much , much higher than anticipated, and that the global warming will be much higher (in percents) than currently anticipated.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom
in fact, one of your own NASA links contained this plot (on this page).

Maybe its my eyes/brain, but to me that plot looks like an increase over time; the 1998 is just a 'freak' high point which really shouldn't be taken as a baseline if only because of the difference between 1996 and 1998 temperature wise.

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
Let me first say that science needs to be completely out of the hands of politics and religion.

Now with that said.... Who cares if someone fudged the numbers or completely distorted the data? This has brought the world to actually take some responsibility for its waste, pushed industry to make more efficient processes, and has gotten technology to go the next level (or at least accelerated the process).

All in all, I like the results this "lie" has caused [smile]

That's a bit naive. It's called a "funding train" and the only change you will see is less money in your pocket, and you won't mind a bit!

Limits on CO2 emissions are bogus and ineffective. CO2 is not toxic to the earth, and there isn't any credible evidence that it causes planetary warming. The runaway greenhouse effect (which is a key underpinning for the CO2/warming link) was proposed by Carl Sagan to account for the surface temperature of Venus, which was discovered to be hot even though conventional theories predicted it would be only slightly warmer than earth’s. Sagan’s model regarding what occurred on Venus proved wrong but several scientist have been propping-up his theory ever since.

In the late ‘70s, Michael Hart utilized a complex computer model to provide “evidence” of the theory. His model is the basis for the delicate balance view of life in the solar system. However, it was based on a plethora of untested assumptions. Many scientist of the day were critical of his model and later calculations showed their criticisms were justified. However, the “delicate balance” view garnered much attention, including an appearance on television in “Walter Cronkite’s Universe”. Human just love their doomsday scenarios!

The entire global warming scam rests on the events which began with Sagan’s shaky theory.

Quote:
Limits on CO2 emissions are bogus and ineffective. CO2 is not toxic to the earth, and there isn't any credible evidence that it causes planetary warming.

Toxic? It doesn't have to be toxic to be harmful. Please read:
Form wikipedia: Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s.[23] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[24]

Quote: Original post by Marmin

Quote:
Limits on CO2 emissions are bogus and ineffective. CO2 is not toxic to the earth, and there isn't any credible evidence that it causes planetary warming.

Toxic? It doesn't have to be toxic to be harmful. Please read:
Form wikipedia: Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s.[23] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[24]

My full statement was "CO2 is not toxic to the earth, and there isn't any credible evidence that it causes planetary warming", which was a rebuttle to Alpha_ProgDes' assertion that the global warming movement could be based on a lie, but is still a positive overall because it "has brought the world to actually take some responsibility for its waste".

I think Alpha_ProgDes' sentiment is correct, mankind does need to find a way to become better caretakers of our own environment. I do not believe the global warming movement will result in acheiving that objective. Systematic approaches always result in corruption, which is why the founding fathers of the United States sought to limit the power of those who govern. Individuals raising their own awareness and self-knowledge is the only approach to an improved humankind.

i find it funny how there are tons of americans that apparently always search for truth that climate change is just a fake. the rest of the world doesn't care about that truth, because we all understand that it is an issue, unimportant how much of an issue it is.

getting rid of pollution of our own homeworld does just make sense, like cleaning your house does.

who doesn't want to save nature? who is that selfish to think he knows better?

anyways.. as stated above: it's not important. changing the way we use stuff is for our all goods, no matter why.

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
Now with that said.... Who cares if someone fudged the numbers or completely distorted the data?

I do. This instance is being spun into something much more significant than it really is, but the truth is never an irrelevancy.

Quote: This has brought the world to actually take some responsibility for its waste, pushed industry to make more efficient processes, and has gotten technology to go the next level (or at least accelerated the process).

So you're saying these things are pretty much divorced from global warming, right? So then if global warming was a sham and everyboy knew it, these problems would still be as bad as they are in the real world, right? Then my question to you is: If we have the will and make the effort to tackle global warming, and this effort incidentally patched up some of these other problems, why do you think these problems would not have been addressed directly in the fictional world where global warming is known to be bunk? You are pleased with the responsibilty the real world has taken in fighting global warming, so what makes you think that a hypothetical we-all-know-global-warming-is-bunk world wouldn't redirect their sense of responsibility into tackling these other problems directly?

In other words, why do you make it sound like fighting global warming is the best way to tackle these other problems that are not global warming?

he doesn't. but fact is, the fight against global warming results in tons advances, or positive sideeffects. and they are great, even if global warming is just nothing to care about.

which it isn't. believing otherwise is just stupid. try to life in your house for years without ever removing your waste (and without having your mother, gf, wife, or who ever removing it).

Quote: This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

I see you guys quoting this, but I don't know where you got it from. I didn't find this quote in Dredd's original link. But apparently somebody said it, so...

I'm sure the author of this quote was running around in 1999 (or whenever all the data from '98 was in) saying "Holy crap, there really is something to this global warming business after all", right?

Quote: Original post by Marmin
There seems to be a trend of downplaying the global climate change right now. Let's take a practical approach. It's end of november here in the Netherlands and it feels like late summer (or early spring). Two days ago, I heard woodpeckers and blackbirds singing. It is november not may!There is also a rise in pesty insects that appear only in summer like mosquitoes. It is clear nature is confused, and it is not the first time. If you ask me, we're heading for a frying pan.

Sorry, but that's not practical, that's anecdotal. You can't even say that you gave us a few data points out of the already existing thousands upon thousands, as you provide no measurements. I'm one of the first to call out the numbskulls who try to dismiss global warming by pointing to a cool summer or unusually cold winter, so it wouldn't be right to let this pass either. You haven't said anything to make the case one way or another.