Al Gore's hocky stick

so in the "hockey stick" charts they are incomplete and the last one was complete? im confused? point being?

point being, that some believe that we have no affect on global warming and this has been happening for hundred of thousands of years. (or more). The hocky stick shows how we curved the temperature, but the other portions of the graph show how the temperature goes in cycles anyways.

Its pretty much just trying to tell you Al Gore is just blowing smoke and Earth will keep going in its cycle's anyways.

ahhh.. well dont well all know by now that this is all bullshit?

not everyone does..

So humans have no impact huh?

Ok a little story.

In the American plains land many many years ago was a city. This was a city built entirely of wood. Now this wasn't a small city for this time in history, it was quite large. But to look at it today you would wonder how a city came to be there. Cities need resources, food and water for a large number of people to be possible. Yet this city was in the middle of a desert.

You see when the people moved there it had been a forest. They began cutting down trees to make a bit of land for farming. Then they started cutting down as many trees as they could to build their city of wood. But soon something changed. The rains stopped coming. The crops stopped growing and the city was abandoned. You see forests and natural vegetation have a major effect on weather (which is not necessarily related nor seperate from climate). When the humans removed the forest they changed the local heat pattern and air didn't cool there anymore to allow rain. Forest became desert (and is still desert).

This is not the only example of how humans have changed their local environment in our history. Yet according to anti-climate change morons I am meant to believe that if we make major changes to our Earth (roads, buildings, emmissions, mining, agriculture, fishing, etc, etc, etc) there will be no change.

DENIAL MYTH #9: The temperatures we’re experiencing in the later part of the 20th century are a result of the global climate finally coming out of the Little Ice Age.

Debunking: The Little Ice Age is a period of significant cooling in Europe, but there are questions as to whether this known regional change was truly global in dimension. However, if you look at the graph of the temperature data for the last 2000 years, there is no period where the reconstructed global temperatures have changed at a faster rate than in the last 50 years or so. I refer people to the IPCC Working Group 1 Report, Chapter 6, Figure 6.10 and Box 6.4, pages 467-469 (image shown above in Myth #8 above), but also to this NCAR press release that verifies that the basic conclusions of the original “hockey stick” remain accurate even using multiple different models.

Click to expand...

http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress....ating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/

Is the hockey stick broken?

The skeptic argument...

"In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the hockey stick and debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from 'collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects', substantially affecting the temperature index." (John McLaughlin)

What the science says...

Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

The hockey stick gained prominence in the Third Assessment Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study used tree-rings, ice core, ice melt, coral and long instrumental records to reconstruct past temperatures.


Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere temperature changes estimated from various proxy records shown in blue (Mann 1999). Instrumental data shown in red. Note the large errors (grey area) as you go further back in time.

Two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, published a critique of Mann's methodology, citing statistical errors. Mann published a corrected version of the hockey stick, showing essentially the same result. Mann's original 1999 study continues to be criticised today. (I will point out here that criticising essentially outdated data is a common theme among deniers)

However, since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a range of proxy data and various methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes). What are some of the proxies that are used to determine past temperature?

Surface temperature changes send thermal waves underground, cooling or warming the subterranean rock. Boreholes can be used to measure these changes. In Huang 2000, underground temperature measurements were examined from over 350 bore holes in North America, Europe, Southern Africa and Australia. Borehole reconstructions aren't able to give annual or even decadal variation, yielding only century-scale trends. What they find is that the 20th century is the warmest of the past five centuries. This provides independent confirmation that the Earth is warming dramatically (the blue line is the instrumental record).



Figure 1: Global surface temperature change over the last five centuries from boreholes (thick red line). Shading represents uncertainty. Blue line is a five year running average of HadCRUT global surface air temperature (Huang 2000).

Stalagmites (or speleothems) are formed from groundwater within underground caverns. As they're annually banded, the thickness of the layers are used as climate proxies. Figure 2 shows a Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction from stalagmites. While the uncertainty band (grey area) is significant, the temperature in the latter 20th Century exceeds the maximum estimate over the past 500 years.


Figure 2: Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction from speleothem reconstructions shown with 2 standard error (shaded area) (Smith 2006).

Oerlemans 2005 used historical records of glacier length as a proxy for temperature. As the number of monitored glaciers diminishes in the past, the uncertainty grows accordingly. Nevertheless, temperatures in recent decades exceed the uncertainty range over the past 400 years.


Figure 3: Global mean temperature calculated form glaciers. The red vertical lines indicate uncertainty.

Of course, these examples only go back as far as 500 years - this doesn't even cover the Medieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxy estimate (including uncertainty) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, you find the same result for the past 1,700 years.


Figure 4: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

Further reading

The National Academy of Science's summation of the various temperature proxies are available online at Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years.

Tamino has an interesting blog post Not Alike where he compares the Moberg temperature reconstruction (one of the least hockey stick like reconstructions with a distinct Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age) to modern temperature trends. He finds modern temperatures are 0.53 deg.C hotter than medieval times and the modern warming rate is 64% greater than the fastest rate in medieval times.

AlexLockwood.net writes a good overview of the Hockey Stick controversy with an emphasis on how the media and public have overstated the hockey stick's importance in looking for a potent symbol of climate change.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm



Given the willful ignorance displayed by opponents of Climate Change though I'm sure that someone will just shout "conspiracy" or "science is lying" like every other time.

Deniers, lol.

:gaysign:

(I have nothing of any substance to add as Tim has said it all.)

I for one am not saying climate change doesn't exist, but I do not agree that man is the sole cause of everything, and I believe if human activity is distorting the balance a little bit I'm sure mother nature is more than capable of restoring balance. Who knows, maybe the ice melting would create condition in which a lot more plant life can exit and thus absorb the extra CO2 (just an assumption).

What my post aim's to show is that climates change, be it fast or slow, and trying to fool the uneducated into thinking that this is a new phenomenon is wrong. Showing a graph which is pretty flat and is then shooting up would scare the person who can't see what else has been happening in the past, and that this isn't something that extraordinary.

I do not see the point of the story you wrote, that is an example of poor resource management, if humans don't manage there resources right and end up suffering then its their fault, but chances are the batch of forest which turned into a desert, won't always stay like that, given enough time it might return to being a forest or it might not. What I do know is that there are places which used to be covered by water or sand or forest in the the past now they've completely changed. It is wrong for us humans to assume we are the sole cause and solution providers to every problem no matter how big or small.

One thing I do know is that the future is almost impossible to predict the future. As you can see from the graphs the temperatures have been quite high for 1000's of years, in another few thousand years is might dive back down somewhere lower or it might keep going a little further up, but that is the thing, you just can't be sure where its going.

This is the same with the stock markets, sometimes it over shoots but eventually it will correct it self. But no one is capable of predicting how high or how low it will go. So the fact that computer models which can't predict next weeks weather have been able to determine that the earths temperatures will increase by 2°C amuses me. I'm sure if the guys programming them were so gifted as to be able to predict the future they would all be predicting where the stock markets are going and becoming trillionairs in no time. In the markets they say "the trend is your friend" so it means don't fight it, because they can stay irrational for a lot longer than you can stay rational (or liquid).

If the temperatures are rising then the trend is set, its best to try and put all of your focus and energy in trying to adapt rather than fighting it. No crappy agreement and a few percentage reduction is ever going to cool the earth down, so why waste the time and money trying to do so.

So to conclude, I don't disagree with climate change, but I disagree with scaremongering:






and bringing about taxes none of which will probably be used for any good cause, power grabs and making statements like the science is settled, the debate is over and branding anyone who disagrees as the village idiots, flat earthers (which you do alot), or trying to stop any kind of discussion about the material which they claim to base their theories on by preventing access to them...

Believers of CATASTROPHIC climate change, lol.

:gaysign:

(Thanks for your valuable input.)

pegasus said:

I for one am not saying climate change doesn't exist, but I do not agree that man is the sole cause of everything, and I believe if human activity is distorting the balance a little bit I'm sure mother nature is more than capable of restoring balance. Who knows, maybe the ice melting would create condition in which a lot more plant life can exit and thus absorb the extra CO2 (just an assumption).

Click to expand...

You have changed your stance pretty suddenly. Now you believe in climate change just not the cause

Second point is this: if the world warms by 4 degrees (which is very possible by 2050-2070, i.e. our lifetime) then the human race is fucked. You require one of two scenarios for the human race to survive: lose about half the human population and move to Canada, Northern Europe, Greenland, Northern fringe of Australia or New Zealand; or we move everyone into these same areas from the countries that are no longer habitable (America, Indonesia, South Pacific Islands, India and Bangladesh deltas, large tracts of China..... i.e. a shitload of people) into dense high rises with an allocation of 4x5m for each person (that is 20m square total living/cooking/sleeping space, which is smaller than the lounge room I am sitting in) and hope that disease doesn't wipe us all out due to the cramped living conditions. Also under either scenario we have to worry about whether our current crops will produce considering they don't like high CO2 levels (saturation point). I should point out that I don't necessarily agree with either proposal, but this is taken directly from the Feb 2009 New Scientist discussion of what will need to happen. The reality will actually be different as it assumes a lot of things that are actually flawed, such as "habitable" is a rough definition as people already live in inhospitible areas and often grow food there.

This isn't about just waiting for things to come back again. Too many people suffer and die in the meantime. You won't get to live the same as you currently do now.

What my post aim's to show is that climates change, be it fast or slow, and trying to fool the uneducated into thinking that this is a new phenomenon is wrong. Showing a graph which is pretty flat and is then shooting up would scare the person who can't see what else has been happening in the past, and that this isn't something that extraordinary.

Click to expand...

No this is incorrect thinking. This is distinct from global fluctuations, that is what the science is validating. This is also not something we can just sit out. The last time these changes occured humans weren't 6 billion strong and living cushy. In fact technically they didn't really exist (Homo sapien ancestors, not us I believe). So major changes to our world are going to have major consequences for us. Oh and I like the subtle dismissal of the solid science I presented.

I do not see the point of the story you wrote, that is an example of poor resource management, if humans don't manage there resources right and end up suffering then its their fault, but chances are the batch of forest which turned into a desert, won't always stay like that, given enough time it might return to being a forest or it might not. What I do know is that there are places which used to be covered by water or sand or forest in the the past now they've completely changed. It is wrong for us humans to assume we are the sole cause and solution providers to every problem no matter how big or small.

Click to expand...

Not about resource management. It won't grow back. It is desert, has been for 1000yrs, will continue to be so short of artificial terraforming. Plenty of examples, Eygpt is mostly desert, used to be an oasis, they did the same thing. My point was that you are pretending we don't have a major effect on the world around us, I was using a small example of how we do.

One thing I do know is that the future is almost impossible to predict the future. As you can see from the graphs the temperatures have been quite high for 1000's of years, in another few thousand years is might dive back down somewhere lower or it might keep going a little further up, but that is the thing, you just can't be sure where its going.

Click to expand...

Blah blah blah. We can't predict the future mainly because of compounding effects. If no-one does anything about climate change then we could have land squabbles, the need for huge technological advances (to abate the worst of the changes and to grow food), we could have wars, or the world could unite as one. But that is neither here nor there and is backwards thinking.

This is the same with the stock markets, sometimes it over shoots but eventually it will correct it self. But no one is capable of predicting how high or how low it will go.

Click to expand...

Natural population systems are pretty well defined and stock markets mimic this. Rise and crash, stabilisation doesn't occur for lengthy periods. Crashes are not something that is desireable. A correction is a crash, stop pretending that it is somehow easy to live through a mjor crash, this last one didn't cause as much damage as it would have.

So the fact that computer models which can't predict next weeks weather have been able to determine that the earths temperatures will increase by 2°C amuses me. I'm sure if the guys programming them were so gifted as to be able to predict the future they would all be predicting where the stock markets are going and becoming trillionairs in no time. In the markets they say "the trend is your friend" so it means don't fight it, because they can stay irrational for a lot longer than you can stay rational (or liquid).

Click to expand...

This is a spurious argument. Weather isn't climate and they aren't necessarily linked nor exclusive. Weather can be predicted relatively accurately, especially given the amount of spacial variation that it is trying to account for with a single number on the nightly news. Your statement about being "amused" by predictions of X degree changes shows an ignorance of the topic. Your allusion to the stock market being somehow similar is farcical. The greater stock market trends, which are readily graphed and understood, are the equivilent of modelling climate, not the day to day trading of one company that you are implying, which is more akin to the weather in one spot miles from the nearest weather station.

If the temperatures are rising then the trend is set, its best to try and put all of your focus and energy in trying to adapt rather than fighting it. No crappy agreement and a few percentage reduction is ever going to cool the earth down, so why waste the time and money trying to do so.

Click to expand...

So kill yourself now then. If the world is going to warm and kill us all why have hope for the future?

So to conclude, I don't disagree with climate change, but I disagree with scaremongering:

and bringing about taxes none of which will probably be used for any good cause, power grabs and making statements like the science is settled, the debate is over and branding anyone who disagrees as the village idiots, flat earthers (which you do alot), or trying to stop any kind of discussion about the material which they claim to base their theories on by preventing access to them...

Click to expand...

At what stage have I said I support the taxes or trading schemes?
At what stage have you understood the science enough to be critical of it?
At what stage did those pictures have anything to do with the discussion? I show graphs and data, you show a globe on fire......

The science is openly available to everyone. That is the point of publication in science. This isn't hidden, it isn't remote or evil. If you display ignorance expect to be called a "flat earther".

I dont know whether or not to beleive that global warmin is being sped up by humans or not. All i know is that its kinda silly that once people start to debunk all the stuff that Al Gore said, they had to come up with new studies that would "proove" them right again. We all know know about junk science so it is possible for someone to steer results in their favor so i dunno who to beleive. One thing i dont like is the ridiculing or questioning of integrity of those who do not beleive global warming is spedup and/or caused by man.


Here's an interesting video i saw a while back.The perspective of some respected scientists...

































This one is only the credits...

dilatedmuscle said:

I dont know whether or not to beleive that global warmin is being sped up by humans or not. All i know is that its kinda silly that once people start to debunk all the stuff that Al Gore said, they had to come up with new studies that would "proove" them right again.

Click to expand...

When Al Gore made the Inconvenient Truth there were scientists that were critical that he used the outdated data. Further to that the "debunkers" didn't actually prove anything wrong, if anything they actually led to a stronger data set due to the improvements made. READ MY POST.

What the science says...

Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

The hockey stick gained prominence in the Third Assessment Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study used tree-rings, ice core, ice melt, coral and long instrumental records to reconstruct past temperatures.

Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere temperature changes estimated from various proxy records shown in blue (Mann 1999). Instrumental data shown in red. Note the large errors (grey area) as you go further back in time.

Two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, published a critique of Mann's methodology, citing statistical errors. Mann published a corrected version of the hockey stick, showing essentially the same result. Mann's original 1999 study continues to be criticised today.

Click to expand...

dilatemuscle said:

We all know know about junk science so it is possible for someone to steer results in their favor so i dunno who to beleive.

Click to expand...

Do you really????

So you would know then how to spot this in the analysis of the data. Oh wait you aren't even sure what the data is

dilatedmuscle said:

One thing i dont like is the ridiculing or questioning of integrity of those who do not beleive global warming is spedup and/or caused by man.

Click to expand...

Oh but it is ok to ridicule and condemn anyone who does.

You see telling someone that all of this science is a fraud or somehow wrong without actually even understanding the information is ridiculing and questioning the integrity of those that support and created the information.

My own organisation (seperate group from my own) has done research on this topic and I have also done a quick analysis on rainfall changes over the past hundred years. I find it insulting when people discredit this information because it is incovenient or unbelievable. If you want to be like a scientist and lend to a greater understanding of the data then feel free (which could include prooving that the null hypothesis is true i.e. nothing is happening). Running around and saying it is a conspiracy and a fraud or lie is just willfully ignorant and/or subversive.

tim290280 said:

When Al Gore made the Inconvenient Truth there were scientists that were critical that he used the outdated data. Further to that the "debunkers" didn't actually prove anything wrong, if anything they actually led to a stronger data set due to the improvements made. READ MY POST.



Do you really????

So you would know then how to spot this in the analysis of the data. Oh wait you aren't even sure what the data is

I was talking about the actual term "junk science" and i didnt mean to say that the studies posted are junk or that they fall under the category of junk science, I was meerly speaking in general terms

Oh but it is ok to ridicule and condemn anyone who does.

No it is not and i never said it was nor did i ever do it.
You see telling someone that all of this science is a fraud or somehow wrong without actually even understanding the information is ridiculing and questioning the integrity of those that support and created the information.

I never said it was fraud and im not saying they are full of shit, im saying i dont know what to beleive because there seem to be two sides to the story.

My own organisation (seperate group from my own) has done research on this topic and I have also done a quick analysis on rainfall changes over the past hundred years. I find it insulting when people discredit this information because it is incovenient or unbelievable. If you want to be like a scientist and lend to a greater understanding of the data then feel free (which could include prooving that the null hypothesis is true i.e. nothing is happening). Running around and saying it is a conspiracy and a fraud or lie is just willfully ignorant and/or subversive.

Click to expand...

I think you completely mis-understood where im coming from. I never said they were fraud or wrong. I said i dont know who to beleive. I posted those videos simply because i found them interesting, I never said that they are right or wrong. Part of what i said about questioning the integrity or ridiculing people who dont beleive humans sped things up has to do with some of the scientists in those videos are respected and accomplished individuals and all of a sudden people think they are rediculous because of what they said without actually trying to look at both sides. I loved your use of smilies, i was really able to capture the emotion you were trying to portray

I wasnt trying to make a coment on the reasearch you posted since i didnt even read it. I didnt feel like i needed to because i wasnt gonna question it, Ill give them the benefit of the doubt. But (serious question) were they able to do research on solar flare activity?

dilatedmuscle said:

I think you completely mis-understood where im coming from. I never said they were fraud or wrong. I said i dont know who to beleive. I posted those videos simply because i found them interesting, I never said that they are right or wrong. Part of what i said about questioning the integrity or ridiculing people who dont beleive humans sped things up has to do with some of the scientists in those videos are respected and accomplished individuals and all of a sudden people think they are rediculous because of what they said without actually trying to look at both sides. I loved your use of smilies, i was really able to capture the emotion you were trying to portray

I wasnt trying to make a coment on the reasearch you posted since i didnt even read it. I didnt feel like i needed to because i wasnt gonna question it, Ill give them the benefit of the doubt. But (serious question) were they able to do research on solar flare activity?

Click to expand...

So you weren't being insulting by posting "The Great Global Warming Swindle" videos that are insulting and questioning the integrity of the respected individuals who have researched the Climate Change topic? Strange way of not being insulting or questioning the integrity of people.

Also if you didn't read the research posted by myself, yet you want to post anti-climate change propaganda, then how do you hope to understand the topic exactly? Why did you post in the first place? It doesn't make a lot of sense to post anti-climate change propaganda, not read the post I made, and yet claim to not know what to believe.

You can see how I would draw the conclusion that your post was meant to be an affront to Climate Change science.

Ill say it again, i thought it was "interesting". I thought it was post worthy because in this thread you have someone posting evidence, and you have some dude posting what he thinks and a larger chart that included the stick. In the video ( aside from the propaganda ) they talk about how science and history has proven otherwise. They also point out an interesting theory about how the whole Humans Causing Global Warming is propaganda itself. If you felt like i rediculed or questioned the integrity of your opinion or the studies you posted then thats your own problem. OBVIOUSLY the title of the videos is bias and its obviously done to get attention and get people to watch the actual video. The people in it are also bias but they also explain why what they beleive, their studies, and why they beleive it. Someone might want to watch it because it got me questioning a lot of things.

I am not trying to be bias or opinionated myself, but i didnt need to post a pro- humans causing/speeding global warming because it wouldve all the same stuff you just posted. I didnt read all your posts but i saw the graphs and the consistency between the different materials studied. But these guys beleive that all those things mentioned are cause by the sun.

dilatedmuscle said:

Ill say it again, i thought it was "interesting". I thought it was post worthy because in this thread you have someone posting evidence, and you have some dude posting what he thinks and a larger chart that included the stick. In the video ( aside from the propaganda ) they talk about how science and history has proven otherwise. They also point out an interesting theory about how the whole Humans Causing Global Warming is propaganda itself. If you felt like i rediculed or questioned the integrity of your opinion or the studies you posted then thats your own problem. OBVIOUSLY the title of the videos is bias and its obviously done to get attention and get people to watch the actual video. The people in it are also bias but they also explain why what they beleive, their studies, and why they beleive it. Someone might want to watch it because it got me questioning a lot of things.

Click to expand...

Many of the experts in that series of videos were actually taken out of context and have asked that their segments be removed from the documentary. When it was screened in the UK most of the experts appearing in it were outraged and the documentary maker in question was dropped from the BBC (I think it was the BBC) due to flagrant falsification and misrepresentation. This then became an issue again when it was broadcast in Australia and anti-climate change people were crying "freedom of speech" while the scientists in question were issuing press releases stating their actual stance on their research.

I am not trying to be bias or opinionated myself, but i didnt need to post a pro- humans causing/speeding global warming because it wouldve all the same stuff you just posted. I didnt read all your posts but i saw the graphs and the consistency between the different materials studied. But these guys beleive that all those things mentioned are cause by the sun.

Click to expand...

So you chose instead to post in opposition of the data, something that has already been done in this thread :footmouth:

Compelling justification.

tim290280 said:

So you chose instead to post in opposition of the data, something that has already been done in this thread :footmouth:

Compelling justification.

Click to expand...

ok, I dont remember being opposed to the data. Im sorry i cant stand reading long articles at once, instead i just hoped chart to chart and read the explenation of the chart. I beleive there is global warming.

Did they prove that human caused CO2 caused/is related to global warming?

Did they take into concideration the sun and solar flares?

I dont know if its true, but in the video they stated that during the times in history when humans were causing much more CO2 then they are today, that temperature actually droped instead of rising.

dilatedmuscle said:

ok, I dont remember being opposed to the data. Im sorry i cant stand reading long articles at once, instead i just hoped chart to chart and read the explenation of the chart. I beleive there is global warming.

Click to expand...

The videos were in direct opposition of the data I posted. They are also fraudulent as I pointed out in my previous post.

Did they prove that human caused CO2 caused is related to global warming?

Click to expand...

Yes. It explains the majority of the change that is observed in the data.

Did they take into concideration the sun and solar flares?

Click to expand...

They have considered these. It does contribute but it does not explain the changes we are seeing. I have posted on this previously somewhere on this forum.

I dont know if its true, but in the video they stated that during the times in history when humans were causing much more CO2 then they are today, that temperature actually droped instead of rising.

Click to expand...

Bullshit. At no time in history has the human population been as large, nor has it been able to consume as much resources per capita than it does right now. Plus the data was just released this past weeking showing that this last decade has heated up. The temperature drop is propaganda.

tim290280 said:

The videos were in direct opposition of the data I posted. They are also fraudulent as I pointed out in my previous post.


Yes. It explains the majority of the change that is observed in the data.


They have considered these. It does contribute but it does not explain the changes we are seeing. I have posted on this previously somewhere on this forum.


Bullshit. At no time in history has the human population been as large, nor has it been able to consume as much resources per capita than it does right now. Plus the data was just released this past weeking showing that this last decade has heated up. The temperature drop is propaganda.

Click to expand...

i shoudlve said -They also say that the correlation between CO2 and Temperature is that levels of CO2 were recorded to go up shortly after the temperature had already risen so then by the time the temperature cools down the high levels of CO2 also begin to cool down. But since the CO2 is following the temperature, then the CO2 is high by the time the temperature is cooling down. So the CO2 is not Causing the cooldown but it is following the warm up. They also noted that the recently recorded rise and fall of temperature was in correlation to the rise and fall of solar activity (number of sun spots). But since, as you have posted, the authenticity of the "facts" in the video has been compromised then theres nothing more i can say.

How can I be denying climate change when I post a graph showing how much it has changed throughout history? That is a very retarded assumption you made.

No this is incorrect thinking. This is distinct from global fluctuations, that is what the science is validating. This is also not something we can just sit out. The last time these changes occured humans weren't 6 billion strong and living cushy. In fact technically they didn't really exist (Homo sapien ancestors, not us I believe). So major changes to our world are going to have major consequences for us. Oh and I like the subtle dismissal of the solid science I presented.

Click to expand...

I don't know if you even looked at the video I posted. Yes the climate has been relatively range bound in the past 1 or 2 thousand years, but looking at the full picture shows you that you shouldn't expect it to last for ever. Its interesting that none of the graphs you posted cover a longer period. You can only predict what you think the climate is going to look like, but trying to make that sound like a scientific fact is plain stupid. You even contradict your own "validated science" when you say that rising CO2 levels only..

Yes. It explains the majority of the change that is observed in the data.

Click to expand...

So that leads me to assume that there is no solid link between the two, only a theory. Pretty much like a witch hunt. You then try to write a prescription for earth problems by saying that cutting CO2 levels will stop temperature rises in the future, based on an assumption.

What I suggested was that we should start the process of adjusting, that may include research on GM crops, try to improve sea water desalination technologies or build walls around areas where water is expected to rise in metropolitan areas etc, but instead what is being suggested is to cut CO2 emissions by a particular amount so that the temperature rises 3 degrees instead of your 4 or 5 degree projection.

Also, posting graphs and then making projections is pointless. It's like me going back to the year 2006 and assuming that based on the current trend, this is whats going to happen:


Trends do not last for ever, and if I was to make a bet, I would bet that 10 or so thousand years from the now the temperatures are likely to be much lower than they are now, based on the very same graph that Al Gore took his little excerpt from.

At what stage have I said I support the taxes or trading schemes?
At what stage have you understood the science enough to be critical of it?
At what stage did those pictures have anything to do with the discussion? I show graphs and data, you show a globe on fire......

Click to expand...

I don't know, but did you see any reference to you when I opened the thread? Do you think I care if you are in support for the taxes or not? what I said was my objection to what the group of retards in Copenhagen are trying to implement. What disgusts me is that this whole thing is turning into some what of a religion where a small group are trying to shove their bullshit ideology down peoples throats, by using scaremongering and spreading lies. I didn't create the pictures I posted, it was your fellow man made global warming advocates who did.

I don't claim to be a climatologist, but neither is Al Gore or Rajendra Pachauri. And yes you posted a few graphs, but the video I posted showed how meaningless it is when you only show what the climate has been like in that pass 2000 years. All your graphs only date back a maximum of 2000 years, Why not post graphs making predictions based on the past 20,000 years? Even though I have an engineering degree instead of some climatology degree it doesn't make me incapable of critical thinking.

If the temperatures are rising then the trend is set, its best to try and put all of your focus and energy in trying to adapt rather than fighting it. No crappy agreement and a few percentage reduction is ever going to cool the earth down, so why waste the time and money trying to do so.

Click to expand...

So kill yourself now then. If the world is going to warm and kill us all why have hope for the future?

Click to expand...

So here I am advocating that its best to embrace it and instead of fighting it, we should try to adapt, and then you come out and say I should go kill my self, because you believe there's going to be catastrophic global warming?!? Here's what I suggest you do, pull your head out of your ass and stop being so arrogant and obnoxious.

If you like to debate this subject further I suggest you read this: http://europeanjournal.typepad.com/my_weblog/jim_mcconalogue/
and come up with a reply to all the points mentioned and reply back to person who wrote it, instead of coming on a bodybuilding forum and acting like Mr know it all.