Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[-tronski-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

Australia has voted down climate change laws

Thats actually not true

 Tronsky

[Viperius]

 

[Chalenge]

HOLD THE PHONES!!!!!!!!!

I just ran some figures and made calculations and they have it all wrong... the sun is about to SUPERNOVA and we are all going to die in a flaming fireball!!!

There is no where to run and taxes wont stop the supernova so... BOHICA!!!!!!!!   

[DMBEAR]

Australia has voted down climate change laws

Thats actually not true

 Tronsky

Did you find an error? Then I guess we need to dismiss the entire story.  Sound familiar?  


What is this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8389909.stm

[Have]

If you're interested about the climate sciences and the issue of global warming, then I suggest that you head here: http://www.realclimate.org/

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum.

In addition you can also find lots and lots of the raw data, tools, and models used by the scientists in the research. All are available there so if you believe that something wrong or even rigged for false results, feel free to come and present your own results.

I have found the site highly informative  

[SirFrancis]

well, this might get skuzzyfied, but I give it a try:

Its Al Gore signing books, when some young men ask him some questions about climate-gate. Its getting interesting after 2:10 min.
->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA6mXfdfp_Y&feature=player_embedded   

But anyhow, if we have GW or GC. The whole discussion should lead mankind not to pollute the earth and to take care, that the people who come after us will have the same opportunities to live and explore this earth, like we had the possibility. And if companies, politicans and scientists lie to us...what shall we do about it? I am more than confused the more i read and hear.

SF

[Angus]

Latest news of GW. The temperature record list since the 19th century. This is referred to as a temperature anomaly.
http://www.loftslag.is/?page_id=225
From 1880, this is the conclusion:
10.    1997    0,4618
9.    2008    0,4869
8.    2001    0,4939
7.    2004    0,5332
6.    2007    0,5499
5.    2006    0,5524
4.    2003    0,5566
3.    2002    0,5575
2.    1998    0,5768
1.    2005    0,6058



I think that there is no way talking yourself out of GW. Funny how few I see that debate HW, now it's down to MMGW. Still no way of talking yourself out of GW....

[CAP1]

well, this might get skuzzyfied, but I give it a try:

Its Al Gore signing books, when some young men ask him some questions about climate-gate. Its getting interesting after 2:10 min.
->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA6mXfdfp_Y&feature=player_embedded   

But anyhow, if we have GW or GC. The whole discussion should lead mankind not to pollute the earth and to take care, that the people who come after us will have the same opportunities to live and explore this earth, like we had the possibility. And if companies, politicans and scientists lie to us...what shall we do about it? I am more than confused the more i read and hear.

SF

dude could've filed assualt charges there.

 that being said.......he did more damage than good, by yelling like a loon.

[Viperius]

Latest news of GW. The temperature record list since the 19th century. This is referred to as a temperature anomaly.
http://www.loftslag.is/?page_id=225
From 1880, this is the conclusion:
10.    1997    0,4618
9.    2008    0,4869
8.    2001    0,4939
7.    2004    0,5332
6.    2007    0,5499
5.    2006    0,5524
4.    2003    0,5566
3.    2002    0,5575
2.    1998    0,5768
1.    2005    0,6058

(Image removed from quote.)

I think that there is no way talking yourself out of GW. Funny how few I see that debate HW, now it's down to MMGW. Still no way of talking yourself out of GW....

What about the rest of the 4.54 billion years into the past, a chart with a mere 120 years is nothing when you are talking long time climate changes. We still can't grow grapes in Scotland like we used to today. One thing is for sure the climate has always and will always change.
But go ahead give them all your money and believe in their empty promises, its good to know someone pays for their private jets to fly around the world and tell us all how guilty we are.

[RTHolmes]

Latest news of GW. The temperature record list since the 19th century. This is referred to as a temperature anomaly.

that is not an anomaly, that is entirely expected behaviour if you've bothered looking at the data from the last 500,000 years. take human civilisation out of the equation and at this point in the glacial cycle you would expect to see rising temeratures. expect them to rise another ~2deg until at some point (possibly this millennia) it peaks, followed by a very rapid decline in temps by ~12deg, ie. the next ice age.

Is climate change real? yes, the climate changes.
Is global warming real? yes, at this point in the glacial cycle the world is warming up.
Is man-made global warming real? no, at this point in the glacial cycle the world is warming up, regardless of human activity.
Is man-assisted global warming real? possibly, but its almost impossible to determine the extent.

... and now the key questions ...
Can we stop or reverse global warming by reducing carbon emmissions? no, at this point in the glacial cycle the world is warming up, regardless of human activity.
Can we slow down global warming by reducing carbon emmissions? possibly, but its almost impossible to determine the extent.

[-tronski-]

Did you find an error? Then I guess we need to dismiss the entire story.  Sound familiar?  


What is this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8389909.stm

In the context of the original article it uses the issues with the ETS as sign of a change of attitude towards climate change as a whole, when infact the reasons the ETS failed to pass the senate was far more complex, and mostly to do with politics and dollars than to back a growing international skepticism of global warming. It is true the new liberal leadership (through a convoluted leadership change) in Australia have taken on a stronger counter view and a number of the louder flat earthers are suddenly having a greater influence on their policies - the ETS initially also failed to pass the senate because the govt was unable gain support from the smaller number of Greens senators who wanted it to be tougher on emission targets.
 
 Tronsky

[Kev367th]

If you're interested about the climate sciences and the issue of global warming, then I suggest that you head here: http://www.realclimate.org/

In addition you can also find lots and lots of the raw data, tools, and models used by the scientists in the research. All are available there so if you believe that something wrong or even rigged for false results, feel free to come and present your own results.

I have found the site highly informative  

realclimate.org is basically a mouthpiece for the CRU (check the emails).

For the otherside of the coin try http://camirror.wordpress.com/

[MORAY37]

realclimate.org is basically a mouthpiece for the CRU (check the emails).

For the otherside of the coin try http://camirror.wordpress.com/

Again, quoting a website run by a guy with ties to oil, Steve McIntyre.  Seriously, when do you guys get it?  Do you even back check this stuff, or just swallow what it says because you already agree?

In addition to all this, and as noted in his wiki Bio, Steve until recently served as a "Strategic Adviser" to CGX Energy Inc. and the Northwest Exploration company, two companies engaged in oil and gas exploration.

[Strip]

No more than you swallow the other sides opinion....

Instead of attacking the credibility of people based on ties alone you could try attacking their data.

Or would that be too much to ask?

Strip

[CAP1]

Again, quoting a website run by a guy with ties to oil, Steve McIntyre.  Seriously, when do you guys get it?  Do you even back check this stuff, or just swallow what it says because you already agree?

generally, when one starts attacking the other sides sources, is a sign that the attacker is out of good arguments, and/or unwilling to consider the other side of the discussion.