Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Angus]

CC that, so how many degrees does it take to melt said ice caps?

Just staying like it is will do nicely with a good part of them....

[Have]

Seems like most of the questions from guys here who do not believe that the climate change is happening or that man could somehow affect to it are basically the same frequently asked questions as always.  

BBC has collected the answers to these top frequently asked questions, you can check them out here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

Also this blog with its list covers more points and questions than ever could be done in this forum, this is something which I really recommend to read:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

edit: typo

[Angus]

Whoa! Good links here mate

[Chalenge]

Seems like most of the questions from guys here who do not believe that the climate change is happening or that man could somehow affect to it are basically the same frequently asked questions as always.  

BBC has collected the answers to these top frequently asked questions, you can check them out here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

Also this blog with its list covers more points and questions than ever could be done in this forum, this is something which I really recommend to read:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

edit: typo

Ha! I love the bit about water vapor does this but without clouds... as if they are denying clouds and water vapor are two forms of the same thing.

Cleverness and wisdom are two distinct characteristics also and though the BBC is clever they fail at wisdom. Our scientists have let us all down and now you cant find a single one you can trust.

(If it works like they say water vapor alone would cause runaway global heating and the planet would be consumed)

[Have]

Cleverness and wisdom are two distinct characteristics also and though the BBC is clever they fail at wisdom. Our scientists have let us all down and now you cant find a single one you can trust.

Speaking of trust, this is an excellent blog dealing with just that and the human psychology in general:
http://climatedenial.org/

I recommend especially the first two entries named "SWIFTBOATING THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS" and "WHY WE STILL DON’T BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE". I think the man has some very good insights there.

[Chalenge]

Yes very CLEVER but it does not refute facts.

[DrDea]

I recommend especially the first two entries named "SWIFTBOATING THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS" and "WHY WE STILL DON’T BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE". I think the man has some very good insights there.

These Scientists changed data to fit their goals.They destroyed data that didnt.They mercilessly attacked those that opposed them.They even discuss it in their e mails.Swiftboating? please. By the very definition of science,they are charlatans.

[Getback]

NASA is next on the Climategate list I bet.

[CAP1]

Ha! I love the bit about water vapor does this but without clouds... as if they are denying clouds and water vapor are two forms of the same thing.

Cleverness and wisdom are two distinct characteristics also and though the BBC is clever they fail at wisdom. Our scientists have let us all down and now you cant find a single one you can trust.

(If it works like they say water vapor alone would cause runaway global heating and the planet would be consumed)

actually, water vapor could absorb heat. ever notice in the summer time, when it rains, the temp drops?

 now of course, water vapor can also release heat too............

 if anyone ever watches discovery green? there was a show on there that'd make ya think these scientists are romper room rejects.

 lessee.......ideas to stop what's happening.

1) launch a rocket with trillions of little prismatic lenses....they'll bend the sunlight around the planet.  
2) unmanned ocean liners cruising the oceans spraying a mist of ocean water into the air, creating a cloud.  
3) lets give the snow and ice a blankee........

 in all honesty, i can't believe that these people don't realize this is all a natural occurrence, and it will continue on its current path regardless of what we do.
 even worse, i can't believe so many of the masses fall for this bologna, especially in light of the doubt that's been cast.

[CAP1]

Speaking of trust, this is an excellent blog dealing with just that and the human psychology in general:
http://climatedenial.org/

I recommend especially the first two entries named "SWIFTBOATING THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS" and "WHY WE STILL DON’T BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE". I think the man has some very good insights there.

how come it's "climate change" now? and not "global warming"? seems they had to change it to keep this going.

[CAP1]

NASA is next on the Climategate list I bet.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/488/NASA-Scientist-Declares-Climate-Dissent-Scientific-analysis-must-conclude-the-basic-theory-wrong

or here's a blogger.....
http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/0/1/46C08C9809474F01/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

[RTHolmes]

Ha! I love the bit about water vapor does this but without clouds... as if they are denying clouds and water vapor are two forms of the same thing.

water vapour is the gaseous phase of water, clouds are an aerosol of the liquid phase. like ice is the solid phase. the phases all have very different properties.

there's only one thing that's needed to show them.

 look out the window.

this will prove nothing, your extrapolationg from 1 datapoint. put it this way, a customer brings in his camaro and says its running a bit rough. I'm guessing that if you hear it idling for a few mins, then take it for a test drive and listen to it under a range of loads and rpms you could make a decent guess as to the problem. otoh if they play you a recording of 0.01s of it idling you wont be able to diagnose the problem.

if you have a couple of thousand people spread around the world looking out their window, making consistent observations for 500,000+ years you would have a pretty good idea of the effects of climate change. this is the kind of data that combining recent data from met stations through paleoclimatology and a bunch of other sources in between attempts to reconstruct.


our climate is an extremely complex dynamic system, research teams with 100s of years combined experience in the field cant agree on how the system works as a whole, trying to second guess their findings using your own personal experience wont get you very far. put another way, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

[CAP1]

water vapour is the gaseous phase of water, clouds are an aerosol of the liquid phase. like ice is the solid phase. the phases all have very different properties.

this will prove nothing, your extrapolationg from 1 datapoint. put it this way, a customer brings in his camaro and says its running a bit rough. I'm guessing that if you hear it idling for a few mins, then take it for a test drive and listen to it under a range of loads and rpms you could make a decent guess as to the problem. otoh if they play you a recording of 0.01s of it idling you wont be able to diagnose the problem.

if you have a couple of thousand people spread around the world looking out their window, making consistent observations for 500,000+ years you would have a pretty good idea of the effects of climate change. this is the kind of data that combining recent data from met stations through paleoclimatology and a bunch of other sources in between attempts to reconstruct.


our climate is an extremely complex dynamic system, research teams with 100s of years combined experience in the field cant agree on how the system works as a whole, trying to second guess their findings using your own personal experience wont get you very far. put another way, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

my point was that we all realize there are changes. they are not caused by us though. they are natural occurrences .

[Strip]

As far as glacial ice recession....

Wasn't it just a few (10-20?) thousand years ago that the Great Lakes were covered in ice flows?

My point being recession in a natural event and will continue its own course.

Strip

[Have]

These Scientists changed data to fit their goals.They destroyed data that didnt.

So what data are you exactly referring to? When you answer, could you please provide a direct link to the source of these claims?

If you are talking about the emails hacked from the East Anglia University, I have not so far seen or heard of a single data set, which would have been "changed to fit their goals". Especially no evidence of such has been found to my knowledge. So far what I have seen are few lines of text quotes taken from a decade worth of emails and a piece of Fortran code that seems to have values designed to generate results for the so called 'hockey stick' graph. But when you actually read the code, those values are not used anywhere.

But in a more general point of view if we assume that the data is actually wrong, do you mean that if one data is not correct then everything else is wrong too? Are you saying the climate is not in fact changing? Or pehaps that the greenhouse effect is not existing? Or that CO2 is not in fact a major player in greenhouse effect? If so, I would be more than happy to see the evidence of it.

Just for the record, I really really wish the research would indeed be wrong about the climate change/global warming. It would mean that I could keep on with my snowboarding hobby here in Finland and in the Alps, because if the common predictions are true it will be the end of winters here and there.  Heck, most of the ski centers in the Alps are already in serious trouble because of the lack of snow and melting glaciers.