Poll: global warming

[Whitti Steve]

This is what my strange daughter has to say on the subject:

"Last month in school we had a Climate Change representitive for Wales come in and talk to us about global warming. Just about all the information I'm about to use comes from her and so if it's wrong you can yell at her, not at me.

Over the last 300,000,000 (Three hundred million) years, since the Carboniferous Period, the Earth has experienced warm periods (such as the Permian and the Mezozoic) and Ice Ages (such as the Little Ice Age of 1730). On average, before the year 1900, the global temperature has been increasinging about 0.2 degrees Celcius per 100 years. But since 1900, the climate has warmed by 0.7 degrees Celcius. So yous who think climate change is a natural cycle are off yer heads because the climate hasn't warmed as quickly as it's doing now for 300,000,000 years, and you're telling me it's coincidence that the climate has started warming almost four times its natural rate ever since the Industrial Revolution? Don't think so, mate. CO2 levels have also increased by an alarming amount since the 1900s, by about the same rate (4x higher than the natural rate).

Since the 1960s, the air temperature of the Arctic has risen by 2 degrees Celcius, 30% of the Ice Sheet has been lost and there is an increasing number of polar bears starving to death because of the fast-retreating ice which means that they can't hunt seal pups. :shock: Coincidence? Not likely.

Nothing like this has happened since 300,000,000 BC, and it's entirely our fault. Guilty? So you should be.

It's relatively difficult to predict the concequences, but this kind of thing happened before (but on a much smaller scale) about 250 million years ago and again about 25 million years ago. The first time round it was devastating. it was caused by a change in the tilt of the Earth, and caused the biggest mass extinction the world has ever known. 95% of life in the oceans and 75% of life on land was wiped out all within the course of a few thousand years. Almost all life was reduced to dust and only a few species survived. It took about 150 million years for life to recover.

The second time was less devestating. this was caused by the melting of polar ice caps due to a change in the Earths tilt. Fish stocks were wiped out. The world's largest aquatic mammalian predator (Basilosaurus) was wiped out, as was the largest predatory land mammal (Andrewsarchus), along with many other giant mammals including Dorudon and Brontotherium (a giant dolphin and a giant rhino).

Only this time it's worse. The fish stocks needn't wait for climate change to kill them off, they're already being ruined. The largest aquatic mammals needn't wait either, they're being wiped out for Japanese "research", even our own species is suffering from the consequences of our actions, hurricanes, droughts, floods and tsunamis regularly claim thousands of lives, and it's only going to get worse. So thanks, world. Thanks a lot. You've ruined my future, my children's future, everyone's future. There's nothing can be done about it, we've passed the "tipping point" as the media like to call it: we've tipped. I don't believe the human race has any right to survive at all. After all that we've done, we deserve extinction."

It's this kind of education that my children will be getting that I worry about. Tell me how they measured the temperature 295,000,000 years ago? No? I suppose you will tell me the scientists (of post 1900) work it all out and know for sure what happened during the last 300,000,000 years. Tell me the temperaure guages of say 100 years ago were as acurate as now?

Anyway... no point arguing... aparently it's too late. Just off to get my stuff out of the recycle bin as I now know there is no point :roll:

[sj]

Welsh----- your girl seems to me to be a thinker, you must be proud of her. She is giving the Ultra_Green perspective( James Lovelock argues this way), there are other Green points of view. Get her to read this and tell us what she thinks http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/ ... icle/7840/

[SaigonSaddler]

It's this kind of education that my children will be getting that I worry about. Tell me how they measured the temperature 295,000,000 years ago? No? I suppose you will tell me the scientists (of post 1900) work it all out and know for sure what happened during the last 300,000,000 years. Tell me the temperaure guages of say 100 years ago were as acurate as now?

There are ways Steve. It doesn't need to rely on 1900 technology either - for example ice cores give a very accurate reading of the composition of the climate - and these stretch back many hundreds of thousands of years.

The position is pretty hard line, but is essentially what the science is showing.

[Whitti Steve]

It's this kind of education that my children will be getting that I worry about. Tell me how they measured the temperature 295,000,000 years ago? No? I suppose you will tell me the scientists (of post 1900) work it all out and know for sure what happened during the last 300,000,000 years. Tell me the temperaure guages of say 100 years ago were as acurate as now?

There are ways Steve. It doesn't need to rely on 1900 technology either - for example ice cores give a very accurate reading of the composition of the climate - and these stretch back many hundreds of thousands of years.

The position is pretty hard line, but is essentially what the science is showing.

Don't get me wrong... I know you know more on this subject than I do... but how can they be sure that a method of testing proven over the last 100 (or 200?) years is acurate of 300,000,000 years? There is simply no way of knowing for certain :P

[ShyTallKnight]

Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, so why are we not up to our necks in it?

[big baz 1]

I dont belive in global warming

[SheffieldSaddler]

I dont belive in global warming

You may have a good point Baz.
There are many arguments for and against "Global Warming".
For example, temperature increases occured before the widespread emission of carbon dioxide in the middle of the 20th century.
Added to that most temperature observations are taken in cities or airports where temperatures may be skewed higher.

[geoffwhiting]

Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, so why are we not up to our necks in it?

That is one hell of a good question STK. And for those of us who are shorter than average, who may be in it over our heads, why are we not already dead from asphyxiation? :?

[Cully]

Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, so why are we not up to our necks in it?

That is one hell of a good question STK. And for those of us who are shorter than average, who may be in it over our heads, why are we not already dead from asphyxiation? :?

Apparently Geoff, the story us non intellectual types have been fed is that the gas disappears down worm holes and those cracks in the pavement you should never step on. I would ask someone who has a brain the size of a planet but failing that, Saigon will do.

I am happy to help with lazy, flippant, one dimensional and inaccurate answers should you prefer.

[SaigonSaddler]

This thread is just one big whoosh isn't it? :D

Isn't it?! :|

[Cully]

This thread is just one big whoosh isn't it? :D

Isn't it?! :|

Do not be downcast saigon, your many posts have been useful as an aid to sleeping, if counting them doesn't work then reading them does the trick :D

I hope that helps put your mind at rest?

[SaigonSaddler]

This thread is just one big whoosh isn't it? :D

Isn't it?! :|

Do not be downcast saigon, your many posts have been useful as an aid to sleeping, if counting them doesn't work then reading them does the trick :D

I hope that helps put your mind at rest?

Glad I could help! :D

I use your posts as a handy emetic. :wink:

[tape66]

This thread is just one big whoosh isn't it? :D

Isn't it?! :|

Do not be downcast saigon, your many posts have been useful as an aid to sleeping, if counting them doesn't work then reading them does the trick :D

I hope that helps put your mind at rest?

Glad I could help! :D

I use your posts as a handy emetic. :wink:

I use your PM's as wrist exercises.

[aaaae]

It's this kind of education that my children will be getting that I worry about. Tell me how they measured the temperature 295,000,000 years ago? No? I suppose you will tell me the scientists (of post 1900) work it all out and know for sure what happened during the last 300,000,000 years. Tell me the temperaure guages of say 100 years ago were as acurate as now?

There are ways Steve. It doesn't need to rely on 1900 technology either - for example ice cores give a very accurate reading of the composition of the climate - and these stretch back many hundreds of thousands of years.

The position is pretty hard line, but is essentially what the science is showing.

Don't get me wrong... I know you know more on this subject than I do... but how can they be sure that a method of testing proven over the last 100 (or 200?) years is acurate of 300,000,000 years? There is simply no way of knowing for certain :P

Well we have the Central England Temperature record. According to Wikipedia "This record represents the longest accurate series of monthly temperature observations in existence. It is an extremely valuable dataset for meteorologists and climate scientists. It is monthly from 1659, and a daily version has been produced from 1772".

You can find the raw data on the Metoffice web site here - http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

What the CET shows is that the climate hasn't warmed as quickly as it's doing now for errrrrm 300 years. In fact the warming from 1695 to 1735 was faster than the warming from 1969 to 2009.

[Mirek]

Try this experiment at home.
Get a large tumbler of water with ice cubes in, and mark the level of the water. After the ice cubes have melted, has the level of the water risen?

Hi mate, I thought about that when it was on the TV a few weeks ago, consider your glass of water and add ice cubes to it from elsewhere and it will rise as it melts.

You are right about the effect of any ice that is already in the sea, what about the ice that has formed on land ?

[SaigonSaddler]

It's this kind of education that my children will be getting that I worry about. Tell me how they measured the temperature 295,000,000 years ago? No? I suppose you will tell me the scientists (of post 1900) work it all out and know for sure what happened during the last 300,000,000 years. Tell me the temperaure guages of say 100 years ago were as acurate as now?

There are ways Steve. It doesn't need to rely on 1900 technology either - for example ice cores give a very accurate reading of the composition of the climate - and these stretch back many hundreds of thousands of years.

The position is pretty hard line, but is essentially what the science is showing.

Don't get me wrong... I know you know more on this subject than I do... but how can they be sure that a method of testing proven over the last 100 (or 200?) years is acurate of 300,000,000 years? There is simply no way of knowing for certain :P

Well we have the Central England Temperature record. According to Wikipedia "This record represents the longest accurate series of monthly temperature observations in existence. It is an extremely valuable dataset for meteorologists and climate scientists. It is monthly from 1659, and a daily version has been produced from 1772".

You can find the raw data on the Metoffice web site here - http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

What the CET shows is that the climate hasn't warmed as quickly as it's doing now for errrrrm 300 years. In fact the warming from 1695 to 1735 was faster than the warming from 1969 to 2009.

Will this turn into an object lesson in fielding a procession of dubious/marginal data that goes against the majority?

Are you seriously suggesting that data taken in a location in central England, once a month during the period in question, can give meaningful data on global weather patterns? Think carefully now. That's one small region of one small country, measurements taken ONCE a MONTH.

This really is quite desperate.

I've got no particular axe to grind here, if you want to buy a fleet of 4x4s and use them to cart around 2 dozen farting cattle, then I really don't care. But many of the so called arguments and evidence being produced in order to support your claims are embarrassing.

[ciscokid]

Can someone tell me when Global Warming is going start, because I have been freezing my nuts off for the last 6 weeks :?: :wink:

[aaaae]

It's this kind of education that my children will be getting that I worry about. Tell me how they measured the temperature 295,000,000 years ago? No? I suppose you will tell me the scientists (of post 1900) work it all out and know for sure what happened during the last 300,000,000 years. Tell me the temperaure guages of say 100 years ago were as acurate as now?

There are ways Steve. It doesn't need to rely on 1900 technology either - for example ice cores give a very accurate reading of the composition of the climate - and these stretch back many hundreds of thousands of years.

The position is pretty hard line, but is essentially what the science is showing.

Don't get me wrong... I know you know more on this subject than I do... but how can they be sure that a method of testing proven over the last 100 (or 200?) years is acurate of 300,000,000 years? There is simply no way of knowing for certain :P

Well we have the Central England Temperature record. According to Wikipedia "This record represents the longest accurate series of monthly temperature observations in existence. It is an extremely valuable dataset for meteorologists and climate scientists. It is monthly from 1659, and a daily version has been produced from 1772".

You can find the raw data on the Metoffice web site here - http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

What the CET shows is that the climate hasn't warmed as quickly as it's doing now for errrrrm 300 years. In fact the warming from 1695 to 1735 was faster than the warming from 1969 to 2009.

Will this turn into an object lesson in fielding a procession of dubious/marginal data that goes against the majority?

Are you seriously suggesting that data taken in a location in central England, once a month during the period in question, can give meaningful data on global weather patterns? Think carefully now. That's one small region of one small country, measurements taken ONCE a MONTH.

This really is quite desperate.

I've got no particular axe to grind here, if you want to buy a fleet of 4x4s and use them to cart around 2 dozen farting cattle, then I really don't care. But many of the so called arguments and evidence being produced in order to support your claims are embarrassing.

I've got no axe to grind either. I would be happy to live a pastoral existence in my wood in Devon, it would be no skin off my nose. :wink:

But the data you are dismissing out of hand is our very best source of primary data on climate change. You can rubbish it if you like, but even CRU at UEA are happy to use it as a source because it confirms the recent warming trend. But instead of weighing it as a piece of evidence, you dismiss it with a sneer and it is that attitude in the AGW fraternity as much as anything else which makes me wonder.......

One thing is for sure, we are not going to agree. You can be a believer, I'll be an agnostic. Only time will tell. I'll continue to plant trees and holiday in Cornwall and commute just a couple of miles to work each day and in the summer do it on my bike. You can continue to fly to all corners of the world, I'll look forward to hearing about your trips and think about how you are killing all our children in the process :D

[Exile]

This is what my strange daughter has to say on the subject:

Warmist propaganda

Write to her school and complain that she's being taught bullshit not facts.

[SaigonSaddler]

I've got no axe to grind either. I would be happy to live a pastoral existence in my wood in Devon, it would be no skin off my nose.

But the data you are dismissing out of hand is our very best source of primary data on climate change. You can rubbish it if you like, but even CRU at UEA are happy to use it as a source because it confirms the recent warming trend. But instead of weighing it as a piece of evidence, you dismiss it with a sneer and it is that attitude in the AGW fraternity as much as anything else which makes me wonder.......

One thing is for sure, we are not going to agree. You can be a believer, I'll be an agnostic. Only time will tell. I'll continue to plant trees and holiday in Cornwall and commute just a couple of miles to work each day and in the summer do it on my bike. You can continue to fly to all corners of the world, I'll look forward to hearing about your trips and think about how you are killing all our children in the process

I've rubbished the conclusions you drew from it - that on it's own it has even the slightest significance in terms of making conclusions about global climate change (rapidity of temperature change). It is an interesting data set of a local area over a long period of time. But if the concept of 'confounding variables' is not completely alien to you, then you should see that any local data taken over monthly periods is, how shall I say.....limited?

It might be useful information, but it depends on how it's used.

I just follow the evidence. If you were to bring up a whole series of mutually supporting data that comprehensively eroded the climate change correlations - then I'd be more inclined to subscribe to the neutral standpoint. All the evidence points one way though.

As for the moral stance - I've said before - I don't care. If we were all to drown in our own effluent next year and a sizable percentage of this were directly attributable to me, then so be it. I'll keep flying for as long as I can afford it, and my use of public transport significantly helps with this cost.

It's not a moral issue, it's a fact analysis issue.

[Exile]

I just follow the evidence. If you were to bring up a whole series of mutually supporting data that comprehensively eroded the climate change correlations - then I'd be more inclined to subscribe to the neutral standpoint. All the evidence points one way though.

What evidence are you following though? If you're getting your reports from the BBC, Greenpeace, Al Gore and Real Climate then you're being led up a garden path rather than following real science.

It's not a moral issue, it's a fact analysis issue.

Then analyse the facts. Look at CO2 and radiative forcing, the logarithmic way it absorbs heat radiation and how the global energy budget stacks up (and why there's no tipping point to worry about). Have a look at how the oceans work, how the atmosphere interacts, how clouds and water vapour play a huge part and how the UNIPCC computer models for global warming have all systematically failed in the last decade (and why that may be). Check out tropospheric atmosphere modelling (to see the problems the UNIPCC have with their limited vision), have a look at how the Sun and the whole solar system work (especially with regard to orbital variations, wobbles and sunspots).

It's an eye opener. The whole AGW thing is less than a hypothesis, let alone a theory, and it's been sold to us as fact. Utter cack.

[sj]

I just follow the evidence. If you were to bring up a whole series of mutually supporting data that comprehensively eroded the climate change correlations - then I'd be more inclined to subscribe to the neutral standpoint. All the evidence points one way though.

What evidence are you following though? If you're getting your reports from the BBC, Greenpeace, Al Gore and Real Climate then you're being led up a garden path rather than following real science.

It's not a moral issue, it's a fact analysis issue.

Then analyse the facts. Look at CO2 and radiative forcing, the logarithmic way it absorbs heat radiation and how the global energy budget stacks up (and why there's no tipping point to worry about). Have a look at how the oceans work, how the atmosphere interacts, how clouds and water vapour play a huge part and how the UNIPCC computer models for global warming have all systematically failed in the last decade (and why that may be). Check out tropospheric atmosphere modelling (to see the problems the UNIPCC have with their limited vision), have a look at how the Sun and the whole solar system work (especially with regard to orbital variations, wobbles and sunspots).

It's an eye opener. The whole AGW thing is less than a hypothesis, let alone a theory, and it's been sold to us as fact. Utter cack.

Exile-----We have had 20 years of "experts" and their "evidence based practise". Risk modelling for everything, but look all their modells and their maths are poo, they see very little and only predict what the men with money want. Think Tanks and managers are deablo.


We need to question all their sophistry and renew a love for research for its own sake not the needs of the economy or the "public good". I have said this many times, we have been had and global warming is just a part of the wider social conning.

[aaaae]

It's not a moral issue, it's a fact analysis issue.

I agree.

See Michael Mann vs Steve McIntyre.

[SaigonSaddler]

I just follow the evidence. If you were to bring up a whole series of mutually supporting data that comprehensively eroded the climate change correlations - then I'd be more inclined to subscribe to the neutral standpoint. All the evidence points one way though.

What evidence are you following though? If you're getting your reports from the BBC, Greenpeace, Al Gore and Real Climate then you're being led up a garden path rather than following real science.

It's not a moral issue, it's a fact analysis issue.

Then analyse the facts. Look at CO2 and radiative forcing, the logarithmic way it absorbs heat radiation and how the global energy budget stacks up (and why there's no tipping point to worry about). Have a look at how the oceans work, how the atmosphere interacts, how clouds and water vapour play a huge part and how the UNIPCC computer models for global warming have all systematically failed in the last decade (and why that may be). Check out tropospheric atmosphere modelling (to see the problems the UNIPCC have with their limited vision), have a look at how the Sun and the whole solar system work (especially with regard to orbital variations, wobbles and sunspots).

It's an eye opener. The whole AGW thing is less than a hypothesis, let alone a theory, and it's been sold to us as fact. Utter cack.

Ah, another vertitable shotgun salvo of informatics from the thread author. I assume you have an understanding all these various concepts rather than a desire to burden the argument with a load of science speak. Please feel free to describe the most critical processes at work in laymans terms, and how these erode the CO2/warming correlations. Anyway, you never did seriously reply to my attack on your ice cap analysis. The one where you think the ice cap isn't melting because of that pretty graph you pasted. Pity it doesn't take into account the ice depth/density/composition. Or have you finally reached consensus as to whether the earth is actually warming at all?

Why are you so quick to swallow alternative explanations - some of which do have an input, yet are so keen to run and hide from the weight of evidence that has convinced the mass of scientific community?

Never mind, it's all a load of 'utter cack'. The Maldive Islands will be thrilled. :wink:

[ShyTallKnight]

I have been taking temperature readings outside in my back yard since Dec 1st. Analysing and extrapolating the data I can say with some certainty that there will be another global ice age within the next two thousand to two billion years. So we should all start worrying.

[Exile]

Anyway, you never did seriously reply to my attack on your ice cap analysis. The one where you think the ice cap isn't melting because of that pretty graph you pasted. Pity it doesn't take into account the ice depth/density/composition. Or have you finally reached consensus as to whether the earth is actually warming at all?

If you check my posts back I'm in full agreement that some warming has occurred over the last century, but in complete disagreement that this warming is anthropogenic (or Mann Made, to use a topical pun) in any significant, measurable, statistical way. On the Arctic, in the time that the sheet has been measurable accurately sea ice has remained remarkably steady, fluctuating in accordance with the natural Arctic Oscillation (AO) [this is an oceanic pattern which leads to warmer (positive) currents or cooler (negative) currents affecting ice formation], with iceflow rates (it acts in a mannere rather like putty in the long term) ranging from 3m/yr up to 4m/yr. it's been at the upper end of this for some time, and although this hasn't had a huge effect on the extent of sea ice it has affected thickness.

The AO has recently swung back into the negative, meaning that sea ice thickness will increase, and extent may increase too, over the coming few months - expect a record high by March. This is a natural climate pattern for the Arctic region, and is exacerbated by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) - these, when in phase and positive, lead to more thinning, and as has happened previously can lead to the NorthPole being icefree. The AO is now negative, the others neutral from recent positives, which led to the decrease in sea ice leading into the early part of this century. The AMO also affects hurricane formation, and you'll see from records that the last hurrcane season was rather quiet compared to historical averages.

Why are you so quick to swallow alternative explanations - some of which do have an input, yet are so keen to run and hide from the weight of evidence that has convinced the mass of scientific community?

I'd answer that with another question - why are you so quick to swallow a line from a small minority of scientists working under a suspect political umbrella with various vested interests? The chair of the UNIPCC is also on the board of the Chicago CO2 exchange (biggest on the planet), and the chief scientists responsible for the hypotheses (I won't deign to call them theories) are keen to scure tenure and funding for their 'research', such as it is. When the original IPCC report came out, it's true that many scientists' papers were considered, but what's not so widely known is that those that disagreed with the AGW hypothesis were ignored, while those that agreed (again, the minority) were included, and the results from these distorted when the report was written. it's worth pointing out that the IPCC reports themselves are written by politicians not scientists, and overstate, exagerrate or make up the doom-laden headline-grabbers from the executive summaries for each chapter, none of which have any basis in reality. Note also that when the media speak of the consensus of 'thousands of scientists' they mean those that submitted the original work. Now it's more like 60-100 with UN political types writing it all up.

Finally, there are no CO2/warming correlations. None whatsoever. If you can find some proof please post same. Here's mine:

Firstly - CO2 and temperature in the geological record:


Secondly, temperature obsevations at Armagh Observatory, showing no correlation between increasing CO2 and observed temperature:


Finally finally (sorry), science is not about consensus. Science is about forming a hypothesis, testing and researching that hypothesis to come to a working theory, then publishing that theory for other scientists to pick holes in, refine and develop. With AGW, there is so much conflict regarding climate that it still sits in the hypothesis category, and many, many scientists are suspicious, especially when those whose data is questioned refuse to release said data, or explain how it's been used, so that nobody else can review their work, see how they drew their conclusions or replicate it. The AGW hypothesis is right up there with cold fusion in terms of proof (i.e. there is none).

Trust this puts your mind at rest. :D

[Exile]

PS - sorry - that was a post of whiting-esque proportions.

[Exile]

I have been taking temperature readings outside in my back yard since Dec 1st. Analysing and extrapolating the data I can say with some certainty that there will be another global ice age within the next two thousand to two billion years. So we should all start worrying.

:lol:

[aaaae]

Finally finally (sorry), science is not about consensus. Science is about forming a hypothesis, testing and researching that hypothesis to come to a working theory, then publishing that theory for other scientists to pick holes in, refine and develop. With AGW, there is so much conflict regarding climate that it still sits in the hypothesis category, and many, many scientists are suspicious, especially when those whose data is questioned refuse to release said data, or explain how it's been used, so that nobody else can review their work, see how they drew their conclusions or replicate it. The AGW hypothesis is right up there with cold fusion in terms of proof (i.e. there is none).

This is the absolute killer for me. If the AGW fraternity are so sure that they are right, why do they refuse to release the raw data and let us all see the proof? It just stinks to high heaven. Especially since anyone who tries to challenge them is attacked and labeled a "denier".

Surely this is the very epitome of proof, prove to someone that disagrees with you that they are wrong? AGW has in effect become a quasi-religion requiring faith not evidence. But because it is wrapped up as "science" many rational people that would normally challenge a faith based religion are blinded (as Thomas Dolby once said).

Steve McIntyre was able to destroy Michael Mann's hockey stick graph at a stroke, once he had the raw data Mann had used (you know the one that won Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize :shock:). This still doesn't stop the graph being plastered everywhere as "proof" several years after it was shown to be a fake, of course.

[SaigonSaddler]

If you check my posts back I'm in full agreement that some warming has occurred over the last century, but in complete disagreement that this warming is anthropogenic (or Mann Made, to use a topical pun) in any significant, measurable, statistical way. On the Arctic, in the time that the sheet has been measurable accurately sea ice has remained remarkably steady, fluctuating in accordance with the natural Arctic Oscillation (AO) [this is an oceanic pattern which leads to warmer (positive) currents or cooler (negative) currents affecting ice formation], with iceflow rates (it acts in a mannere rather like putty in the long term) ranging from 3m/yr up to 4m/yr. it's been at the upper end of this for some time, and although this hasn't had a huge effect on the extent of sea ice it has affected thickness.

The AO has recently swung back into the negative, meaning that sea ice thickness will increase, and extent may increase too, over the coming few months - expect a record high by March. This is a natural climate pattern for the Arctic region, and is exacerbated by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) - these, when in phase and positive, lead to more thinning, and as has happened previously can lead to the NorthPole being icefree. The AO is now negative, the others neutral from recent positives, which led to the decrease in sea ice leading into the early part of this century. The AMO also affects hurricane formation, and you'll see from records that the last hurrcane season was rather quiet compared to historical averages.

To sum up - you don't believe in that the earth is increasing in temperature. You think the various little islands in the Pacific and other low lying areas around the world are effectively safe from flooding. The fact that you don't believe this makes man-made causes irrelevant as you just don't agree.

Evidence - some blah about north pole sea ice oscillations, including the startling fact that it is predicted to thicken during the winter.

Conclusion - bizarre and utterly irrational. I think most interested people are in agreement that the earth is and will significantly warm for a few 100 years.

I'd answer that with another question

Why? Answer the question.

why are you so quick to swallow a line from a small minority of scientists working under a suspect political umbrella with various vested interests? The chair of the UNIPCC is also on the board of the Chicago CO2 exchange (biggest on the planet), and the chief scientists responsible for the hypotheses (I won't deign to call them theories) are keen to scure tenure and funding for their 'research', such as it is. When the original IPCC report came out, it's true that many scientists' papers were considered, but what's not so widely known is that those that disagreed with the AGW hypothesis were ignored, while those that agreed (again, the minority) were included, and the results from these distorted when the report was written. it's worth pointing out that the IPCC reports themselves are written by politicians not scientists, and overstate, exagerrate or make up the doom-laden headline-grabbers from the executive summaries for each chapter, none of which have any basis in reality. Note also that when the media speak of the consensus of 'thousands of scientists' they mean those that submitted the original work. Now it's more like 60-100 with UN political types writing it all up.

To sum up - the emminent scientists involved in this specific area are, and have been for decades, in collusion with not just there own but most of the politicians of various hues around the world. Only a few of these scientists have access to legitimate data and when they try and publish they are hushed up by almost all the governments on earth, with the exception of Saudi Arabia (who have access to real data) and the Bush government up until the final 2-3 years (when Bush was leaned on by these powerful scientists and their masters).

The international body set up and make sense of all the incoming data is a monumental organisation that eliminates contrary information in order to pursue it's own perfidious aim, where it works in conjunction with mass media to scare the public with frightening dogma. Any data coming in in either ignored or re-written by 60-100 UN cadres who are under strict instructions to skew the information as much as possible in favour of the 'consensus'.

Evidence - The chair of the UNIPCC is also on the board of the Chicago CO2 exchange. That's IT?

Conclusion - You actually believe this?


Two graphs:

Firstly - CO2 and temperature in the geological record:
Secondly, temperature obsevations at Armagh Observatory, showing no correlation between increasing CO2 and observed temperature:

Armagh Observatory! Well why didn't you say so. That changes everything. :lol:

Finally finally (sorry), science is not about consensus. Science is about forming a hypothesis, testing and researching that hypothesis to come to a working theory, then publishing that theory for other scientists to pick holes in, refine and develop. With AGW, there is so much conflict regarding climate that it still sits in the hypothesis category, and many, many scientists are suspicious, especially when those whose data is questioned refuse to release said data, or explain how it's been used, so that nobody else can review their work, see how they drew their conclusions or replicate it. The AGW hypothesis is right up there with cold fusion in terms of proof (i.e. there is none).

To sum up - It's all a massive and long running conspiracy. No proof of anything at all, current trends either don't exist or have been fabricated, and scientific community riven and on two roughly equal sides.

Evidence - Some (all?) data withheld. Source?

Conclusion - This makes sj seem perfectly rational. A conspiracy of James Bondian proportions. Are there secret underground bases with men in matching uniforms and fancy helmets, pushing buttons on huge 1970s computer terminals? The scientific community is in general agreement on this issue. There are of course some people and organisations that put forward counter evidence and suppostions and these can be added into the mix, but the evidence points to one conclusion - I believe the 'interested body' set the scale at 90% probability that human influences are causing warming. The fact that you don't believe the earth is warming at all is.....odd.

Finally, I pity you. You actually believe all of this? Maybe you want to be different or are reading the wrong information from the web, but you obviously have begun down this conspiritorial track and seem intent on pursuing it. Accordingly, when further evidence of warming comes to light you may like to pass it off as an alien electro-static energy charge to save yourself embarrassment. Good luck!