The REAL global warming

[zambuck]

This recycling crap that has been touted nowadays has been practiced for years in part of this world....

Here is a story of a shirt in India....

It was a brand new and fashionable shirt manufactured to measure for party ware...

It was used on the day and the wearer was impressed with the design and cut..

After a year wearer got tired of that shirt as new fashion was on..

He sold the shirt to guy selling untensils for a stainless steel pot....

The buyer's son was getting married and he gave that shirt to his son to wear at the wedding..

His son used it for a while and then a ole appeared at the elbow...He repaired it and sold it at village market..

A poor vegetable seller saw the shirt and bought it for his son..

His son wore it for few years and then th shirt just started to disintegrate after a years use..

He sold it to a rope maker who bought all tattered clothes...

The rope seller cut the shirt in strands and then made rope out of it...

The rope was sold to the village shopkeeper who used it to tie his bundles of news paper..

Rope was used few times and then discarded...

Rope was collected by the poor slum dweller, who used it to light the fire to keep warm and to cook rice.,..

The ashes were picked up by the houseboy to polish the metal utensils who worked at the original shirt owners house....

Any similar story of shirt in Britain or US...?

 

[Ingot54]

This is just so much intellectually dishonest tosh.

When all the weight of evidence and informed scientific opinion is that human emitted C02 is causing global warming, what do the deniers do? - cry persecution. After all, it is far easier to do that than produce real scientific research.

This is the lie propagated by Climate Change Alarmists.

Unfortunately we have yet another victim here - a Climate Change proselyte who is happy to describe the position of anyone who differs, as "just so much intellectually dishonest tosh".

How sad. Sad that one would dismiss an opportunity to have intelligent conversation about the matter, based on the pronouncements of others whose agenda has been shown to be less than honorable.

The truth, in the case of CO2, is that a rise in temperature ALWAYS precedes a rise in CO2 levels.

Now that is a fact ... an inconvenient fact.

Look elsewhere for your warming demon ... CO2 is NOT it.

 

[Ingot54]

Truly amazing to come across such a well put position from a denier.

Now, what was that you were saying about rationality?

List of scientific bodies that affirm human-caused global climate change

*Academy of Sciences Malaysia
*Academy of Science of South Africa
*American Association for the Advancement of Science
*American Astronomical Society
*American Chemical Society
*American Geophysical Union
*American Institute of Physics
*American Meteorological Society
*American Physical Society
*American Quaternary Association
*Australian Academy of Science
*Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
*Brazilian Academy of Sciences
*Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
*Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
*Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
*Caribbean Academy of Sciences
*Chinese Academy of Sciences
*European Academy of Sciences and Arts
*European Geosciences Union
*European Science Foundation
*French Academy of Sciences
*German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
*Geological Society of America
*Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission
*Indian National Science Academy
*Indonesian Academy of Sciences
*InterAcademy Council
*International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
*International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
*International Union for Quaternary Research
*Mexican Academy of Sciences
*Network of African Science Academies
*Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
*Royal Irish Academy
*Royal Society of Canada
*Royal Society of New Zealand
*Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
*Russian Academy of Sciences
*Science Council of Japan

All of whose papers you have read and digested, questioned and accepted, DCraig?

Must have taken you years - however did you provide for your living while doing all that research and study?

Of course the short answer could just be that you have merely stumbled upon a list of collusionist Stable Climate Deniers and copy/pasted a list the lot, without being remotely aware of a single word inside even one paper.

Sort of shreds the credibility a tad, no?

I won't condescend to Google a list for Stable Climate believers ... but I'm hoping DCraig will to balance his/her view. I am certain the pro's and con's are equally abundant.

 

[dcraig1]

This is the lie propagated by Climate Change Alarmists.

Unfortunately we have yet another victim here - a Climate Change proselyte who is happy to describe the position of anyone who differs, as "just so much intellectually dishonest tosh".

How sad. Sad that one would dismiss an opportunity to have intelligent conversation about the matter, based on the pronouncements of others whose agenda has been shown to be less than honorable.

The truth, in the case of CO2, is that a rise in temperature ALWAYS precedes a rise in CO2 levels.

Now that is a fact ... an inconvenient fact.

Look elsewhere for your warming demon ... CO2 is NOT it.

It is always amuses me to see this kind of stuff from the deniers. In the repertoire of lies, half truths and misinformation that forms the substance of denial such utterly contradictory propositions as:

1. You cannot predict climate - it is too complicated.
2. a rise in temperature ALWAYS precedes a rise in CO2 levels

You cannot subscribe to both of these assertions at the same time - it is completely inconsistent. But it is so typical of 95% percent of the denialist stuff published. One week, it's the sun, next it's cosmic rays, next it's all the other planets are warming and on and on. It's a complete mishmash. This is why the deniers are called deniers - because their only goal is denial and most certainly not knowledge and truth.

Returning to the assertion that "a rise in temperature ALWAYS precedes a rise in CO2 levels" it is just not true. And most importantly it is not currently true. The most cursory glance at charts of rising CO2 levels and rising global temperature clearly shows that.

Just as importantly, there is no law of nature that says rise in T precedes rise in CO2. Never was and never will be. It is just a nonsense.

Mainstream climate science never claimed and never will claim that CO2 levels are the only source of climate forceings. In some instances in the past it is thought that large methane outgassings (another GHG) triggered temperature increase and CO2 followed. Today basic physics, direct observational measurement and climate models confirm that CO2 in the here and now is the most important positive forcing. You have to do the science or at least have the common sense to listen to those who do the science. Just parroting sound bites in not good enough.

 

[Ingot54]

Well, most people aren't skeptical. Here in Australia, public opinion has consistently and repeatedly supported action to mitigate climate change. It very much looks like there will be a double dissolution (complete spill of all House of Reps and Senate seats) election early in the new year. And here is another prediction - the right wing loony deniers will be wiped out in an election that is fought on the single issue of climate change. This election may finish the right in Australia for a generation. And it may be the first election in the world contested on the issue of climate change - watch this space.

Speak for yourself DCraig, and watch this space we will!

Your assumptions are astounding. As a daily reader of the abc.net.au/news I can categorically state that what you are stating as a national opinion is untrue. Kevin Rudd has stated there will be NO double dissolution over the CC rejection. What rock are you hiding under? Why resort to falshood to support your position - you disgust me.

Amazingly, since Tony Abbott rolled Mal Turnbull over his attempt to hijack the conservative side, there has been an amazing resurgence in popularity and support for the conservatives. Tony Abbott is not a Stable Climate Denier like Turnbull was.

You have seriously discredited yourself with your lies and assumptions my friend - worse - you have construed as such your own viewpoint to the rest of the unsuspecting and unknowing world outside of Australia.

The debate is still VERY MUCH alive in this country, as it is in all countries. We seek the truth - we don't need YOUR truth to be rammed down our throats as if we are imbeciles for not drinking from the same jug of Kool-Aid you swallowed.

Wrong again. The latest studies show both the West Antarctic and East Antarctic ice sheets losing mass. There is no dispute that Greenland ice sheet is losing mass and the polar ice is melting. http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

What?

I thought the latest figures showed the Antarctic Ice Shelf has been growing by 100,000 sq klms per decade for the past 30 years!!
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2550320.htm

Oh well ... deluded again.

Point being that I am not here to dazzle you with science or figures. I am not privy to the writings and discrepancies of politicised science, so I won't drink from that cup.

What I will do is ask you to explain just how much research you have done outside of Google?

And how much of the opposite view you have considered - again, outside of Google?

Look mate - I remember the nuclear winter scare of the 1970's - and yes, there WAS consensus - they used that hysteria to flog every ounce of mileage they could. Fear-based-myth.

What we have today is ... yes ... fear-based-myth.

It sells papers and draws an audience. It allows governments to raise new taxes, and it allows governments to do so by protecting their mates in the biggest polluting industries, and I suspect, for the reason that the polluters contribute the most to the re-election campaigns of said politicians.

Don't be so apologistically naive. Hysteria and news-mongering. Learn from CRU - the exposure was real. The truth is out.

 

[Splitlink]

This recycling crap that has been touted nowadays has been practiced for years in part of this world....

Here is a story of a shirt in India....

It was a brand new and fashionable shirt manufactured to measure for party ware...

It was used on the day and the wearer was impressed with the design and cut..

After a year wearer got tired of that shirt as new fashion was on..

He sold the shirt to guy selling untensils for a stainless steel pot....

The buyer's son was getting married and he gave that shirt to his son to wear at the wedding..

His son used it for a while and then a ole appeared at the elbow...He repaired it and sold it at village market..

A poor vegetable seller saw the shirt and bought it for his son..

His son wore it for few years and then th shirt just started to disintegrate after a years use..

He sold it to a rope maker who bought all tattered clothes...

The rope seller cut the shirt in strands and then made rope out of it...

The rope was sold to the village shopkeeper who used it to tie his bundles of news paper..

Rope was used few times and then discarded...

Rope was collected by the poor slum dweller, who used it to light the fire to keep warm and to cook rice.,..

The ashes were picked up by the houseboy to polish the metal utensils who worked at the original shirt owners house....

Any similar story of shirt in Britain or US...?

I always buy new and, believe me, when I throw them out they are not much good for weddings!

 

[zambuck]

I always buy new and, believe me, when I throw them out they are not much good for weddings!

If that is the shirt story from Spain, then that's the reson why most of the people who are trying to Lecture India and China should visit the countries to know that they do more than fair share of recyling and it is West who has just woken up from a 'throw away slumber' and started to lecture India and China...

It is time Europe and US get their house in Order in recycling BEFORE they generate Meetings and dragging whole world and to resolve Global Warming...!

Global warming - if that is there in the first place - is a creation of US and Europe....!

 

[Ingot54]

It is always amuses me...

... But it is so typical of 95% percent of the denialist stuff published.

Returning to the assertion that "a rise in temperature ALWAYS precedes a rise in CO2 levels" it is just not true.

Just as importantly, there is no law of nature that says rise in T precedes rise in CO2. Never was and never will be. It is just a nonsense.

You have to do the science or at least have the common sense to listen to those who do the science. Just parroting sound bites in not good enough.

You, sir, are a condescending apologist for the Stable Climate Deniers.

You've lost me in your dishonesty in misrepresenting truth, both in Australian domestic politics, and the current topic, and in belittling your detractors.

You choose to use disparagement, belittlement, put-downs and stereotyping to silence your detractors, yet you have the temerity to argue that you "listen to those who do the science."

I have news for you ... the "science" is NOT settled. What we have insitu is a cover-up, and a grab for more taxes that will spare the big polluters, and hammer the end-user ... you and me ... and at the expense also of the smaller vulnerable nations who are NOT "polluting".

Science is its own judge - it is open and it is honest. It does not need story-tellers to support it. Science relies on truth to support its case, not lies.

You have not stuck to the facts, or even the theory.
What's your agenda?
Do you work for Goldman Sachs?
You parrot on about "science" but your "proof" is far from accepted nor settled.

The "rise in sea level" will be a big eye opener for most objective observers - especially when it has not yet commenced ... strangely. That will surely be the very FIRST sign that things are warming up,no?
A link has already been provided to show that isn't happening.

Why do you think there is currently huge dissent amongst the poorer nations represented at Copenhagen?

Oh - they too are fools ... right?

If only your intellect was as big as your ego DCraig - sprouting your "science" - picked up from the University of Google - then I would stay to debate this with you. But while you continue to take the tack that any who take an opposite view to your own are deniers, you will lose listeners to your views.

1. You cannot predict climate - it is too complicated.

Don't put words into my mouth - I did NOT say that. Your generalisations and use of the white-wash brush are poor form DCraig. Do you want a discussion, or total subservience and adoration from an enslaved audience?

But yes - that's what many scientists are saying - just not the ones you listen to. Remember the nuclear winter hysteria of the 1970's?

Of course you don't - you were not born then.

2. A rise in temperature ALWAYS precedes a rise in CO2 levels

More of your convenient assumptions!

Do a Google search for it - you will find that "your own" scientists state that temperature rises PRECEDE CO2 rises by 800 years. In other words, CO2 rises lag temperature rises. Now if this is true, then we are 800 years too late - we are already doomed!

I don't think so.

I'm off to take a cold shower, while the taps still produce cool water!

 

[dcraig1]

All of whose papers you have read and digested, questioned and accepted, DCraig?

Must have taken you years - however did you provide for your living while doing all that research and study?

Of course the short answer could just be that you have merely stumbled upon a list of collusionist Stable Climate Deniers and copy/pasted a list the lot, without being remotely aware of a single word inside even one paper.

Sort of shreds the credibility a tad, no?

I won't condescend to Google a list for Stable Climate believers ... but I'm hoping DCraig will to balance his/her view. I am certain the pro's and con's are equally abundant.

For most people applying terms like "collusionist" to the most highly regarded peak bodies of world science would be considered delusional. This should come as no surprise as it in fact - delusional.

But you of course know better and have been unable to uncover the conspiracy by diligent research on web sites like err.... PrisonPlanet.

 

[Splitlink]

Things can only get worse. The fact that we are all arguing the toss about what is what proves that what we, really, mean is that it is that the rest have to do the climate changing, not us!

There will be 9 billion people on the planet within 40 years. No one has mentioned how many there will be by the turn of the century. How can co2 be cut? This whole thing is laughable. They want us to cut fossil fuels? What will be the alternative with this population increase, many of them with increased standards of living and, therefore, consuming more of everything?

Spain is producing 40% of its electricity with wind farms. If the rest of the developed world could say the same that would be, at least, a start. Here we are again, the same as Kyoto, promising the financial aid to the developing world. Most of that will go into corruption.

What needs to be cut is the population. That is the only solution.

 

[maiden22]

financial aid to the developing world. Most of that will go into corruption.

Now that's something we can all agree on!

But what is the exact nature of the relationship? Do rising levels of aid cause greater corruption, or do manmade corruption increases give rise to catastrophic levels of aid?

No matter, the science on this at least is settled. The developing world is doomed unless we can reduce the amount of aid emitted by selfish westerners.

 

[zambuck]

Most of that will go into corruption.

This is a typical sweeping statement generaly and mostly touted whenever issue about so called Third World is discussed....

It has no basis and when one discusses two of the largest population mass - India and China - which forms probably about one third of this planet then it is totally wrong...!

Corruption has been in 'ideology' of West...!

 

[Splitlink]

Now that's something we can all agree on!

But what is the exact nature of the relationship? Do rising levels of aid cause greater corruption, or do manmade corruption increases give rise to catastrophic levels of aid?

No matter, the science on this at least is settled. The developing world is doomed unless we can reduce the amount of aid emitted by selfish westerners.

Rising levels of people give rise to higher levels of everything, except what nature provides i.e. clean air, water, space and food. This is all finite.

 

[Black Swan]

Do you really think that cut and pasting a load of old nonsense from the comments section of newspapers is indicative of anything at all?

Yes it gives an indication that the utter bull5hit is not working. The Times' comments section is IMO a good spread of opinion. I fully expect an army of zealots to start policing and swooping on any anti forum attempting to steer opinion though...but for now it's a good gauge.

If you look at The Daily Mail's comments section, by far the most prolific in the UK and the one used by many politicians to attempt to steer their policies in public favour, then the majoirty there are sceptics and far more vocal.

The evidence isn't clear that the planet is warming, even less so that it's man made. If it is man made the only reason the US/UK want energy consumption slowed down is to use more of the finite fuel themselves whilst they cook up 'ideas'...

The elite powers are attempting to sell this bull5hit agenda to finally charge you for the air you breath, because once fossil fuel has gone, (at current rates 50-70 years), the power to tax will have gone. What better tax, in a totalitarian global society that pays huge percentages of tax for simply breathing not very fresh air, than a tax for being a good citizen...

You're deluded pal, the problem is you've bought into the nonsense so deeply you can't rewind as you feel you'll be made a fool of...guess what...too late....

 

[Splitlink]

Yes it gives an indication that the utter bull5hit is not working. The Times' comments section is IMO a good spread of opinion. I fully expect an army of zealots to start policing and swooping on any anti forum attempting to steer opinion though...but for now it's a good gauge.

If you look at The Daily Mail's comments section, by far the most prolific in the UK and the one used by many politicians to attempt to steer their policies in public favour, then the majoirty there are sceptics and far more vocal.

The evidence isn't clear that the planet is warming, even less so that it's man made. If it is man made the only reason the US/UK want energy consumption slowed down is to use more of the finite fuel themselves whilst they cook up 'ideas'...

The elite powers are attempting to sell this bull5hit agenda to finally charge you for the air you breath, because once fossil fuel has gone, (at current rates 50-70 years), the power to tax will have gone. What better tax, in a totalitarian global society that pays huge percentages of tax for simply breathing not very fresh air, than a tax for being a good citizen...

You're deluded pal, the problem is you've bought into the nonsense so deeply you can't rewind as you feel you'll be made a fool of...guess what...too late....

Well, they,ve been telling us that fossil fuels (oil) will exhausted within 50 years for decades, so we can't depend on that information. What I believe will happen is that it will be more difficult to get it out economically. That means that "the haves", which include politicians, will be able to afford it. while the rest of us scrubbers will have to use the bike and plenty of sweaters while we are watching the telly.

Those who are telling us to be careful are being careful themselves. They intend to be on top of the heap, don't worry!

Repeat. While population continues to grow, there is no solution, Europe is already being invaded by the homeless and hungry. That will only stop when we are as hungry as they are.

 

[Black Swan]

Well, they,ve been telling us that fossil fuels (oil) will exhausted within 50 years for decades, so we can't depend on that information. What I believe will happen is that it will be more difficult to get it out economically. That means that "the haves", which include politicians, will be able to afford it. while the rest of us scrubbers will have to use the bike and plenty of sweaters while we are watching the telly.

Those who are telling us to be careful are being careful themselves. They intend to be on top of the heap, don't worry!

Repeat. While population continues to grow, there is no solution, Europe is already being invaded by the homeless and hungry. That will only stop when we are as hungry as they are.

The speed with which governments are now attempting to herd the populus into a penned mind set and their willingness to prosecute illegal wars on fraudulent 'evidence' in order to ring fence the product, (for the use of the chosen few), gives you an idea as to how urgent this situation now is...

It's not simply the finite use of the product, the cost of extraction/production will unleash its own capitalist hell once oil reaches a fundamentally unerpinned 200-250 (with no chance of crashing through a support level ) dollars a barrel inside the next decade...

 

[dcraig1]

Yes it gives an indication that the utter bull5hit is not working. The Times' comments section is IMO a good spread of opinion. I fully expect an army of zealots to start policing and swooping on any anti forum attempting to steer opinion though...but for now it's a good gauge.

If you look at The Daily Mail's comments section, by far the most prolific in the UK and the one used by many politicians to attempt to steer their policies in public favour, then the majoirty there are sceptics and far more vocal.

Well, you just go reading the comments section of the Daily Mail - the ultimate arbiter of scientific fact or fiction.

The evidence isn't clear that the planet is warming.

The evidence is very clear that the planet is warming. It is in the temperature record. It's that bloody simple. There is no serious question of the general validity of the instrumental temperature record. No amount of lying - and that is just what is going on - is going to change the fact.

, even less so that it's man made. If it is man made the only reason the US/UK want energy consumption slowed down is to use more of the finite fuel themselves whilst they cook up 'ideas'...

Well is the planet warming or not? Is the warming man made or not? You can't have it both ways. The climate doesn't know nor care about conspiracies.

The elite powers are attempting to sell this bull5hit agenda to finally charge you for the air you breath, because once fossil fuel has gone, (at current rates 50-70 years), the power to tax will have gone. What better tax, in a totalitarian global society that pays huge percentages of tax for simply breathing not very fresh air, than a tax for being a good citizen...

You're deluded pal, the problem is you've bought into the nonsense so deeply you can't rewind as you feel you'll be made a fool of...guess what...too late....

I will change my opinion iff (which means "if and only if") I see credible scientific evidence to the contrary.

You on the other hand are unlikely to change yours because it is based on a conspiracy view of politics (and science) that runs round and round in your head and never intersects with the physical world. A world that at the end of the day we all inhabit.

 

[maiden22]

Well, they,ve been telling us that fossil fuels (oil) will exhausted within 50 years for decades

Oil and just about everything else you can think of. They never get tired of being wrong.

Here's a tip - a sure thing. If the Club of Rome tells you the sun will rise tomorrow, go long on candles, because it's going to be dark in the morning.

 

[Splitlink]

Well, you just go reading the comments section of the Daily Mail - the ultimate arbiter of scientific fact or fiction.

The evidence is very clear that the planet is warming. It is in the temperature record. It's that bloody simple. There is no serious question of the general validity of the instrumental temperature record. No amount of lying - and that is just what is going on - is going to change the fact.

Well is the planet warming or not? Is the warming man made or not? You can't have it both ways. The climate doesn't know nor care about conspiracies.



I will change my opinion iff (which means "if and only if") I see credible scientific evidence to the contrary.

You on the other hand are unlikely to change yours because it is based on a conspiracy view of politics (and science) that runs round and round in your head and never intersects with the physical world. A world that at the end of the day we all inhabit.

It is not a conspiracy view of politics as much as a cynical view by politicians, corporations and the wealthy to take advantage of the situation. The very wealthy will pay more for what is available. Look at the money made by the pharmaceutical companies in their production of vaccines for swine flu. A bit off topic but it is an example.

 

[Black Swan]

Well, you just go reading the comments section of the Daily Mail - the ultimate arbiter of scientific fact or fiction.

The evidence is very clear that the planet is warming. It is in the temperature record. It's that bloody simple. There is no serious question of the general validity of the instrumental temperature record. No amount of lying - and that is just what is going on - is going to change the fact.

Well is the planet warming or not? Is the warming man made or not? You can't have it both ways. The climate doesn't know nor care about conspiracies.



I will change my opinion iff (which means "if and only if") I see credible scientific evidence to the contrary.

You on the other hand are unlikely to change yours because it is based on a conspiracy view of politics (and science) that runs round and round in your head and never intersects with the physical world. A world that at the end of the day we all inhabit.

Now you're simply displaying your true tattered colours and acting silly. You've been exposed as a total fraud pal...keep on digging it's fun watching you disintergrate...

Fwiw the only newspaper I ever buy is the weekend FT, usually remains half read as my time/hands are full. However, I do keep a weather eye on all news sources, it's part of my background. The argument for MMCC is not being won in the mainstream media, despite the absolute 'pro' bombardment by the usual mainstream suspects. If the politicians don't win the hearts and minds of the populus (which they're not) they'll find it v. difficult to introduce nonsense super taxes that the public will accept. And if the planet doesn't warm by 2 degrees inside the next ten years, or sea levels fail to rise by 2 feet inside twenty, then doubtless the politicians can take the praise for taking decisive action now, its pathetic but a win win...

In some way the argument is irrelevant, the politicians are simply telling you what they're going to introduce with or without our consent and giving you fair warning it'll happen. You can be as green as you like, or not, it matters not a jot. They won't take on big business and you and your badly informed naive ilk can comfort yourseves that you had a stake, you made a diference, but in reality you're simply an insect in the debate, happy cannon fodder marching off to a false war with a silly tune in your head...

The cry of the bitter and defeated is always the same when faced wih issues this large when they can't compete with vigour and honesty. Accusing opponents of conpsiracy theories you havn't let yourself down, you've reached your level. We're deniers, flat earthers... A million marched through the streets of London to protest v the illegal warmongering before Iraq was invaded, Blair described it as "loony conspiracy theories" to suggest it was a resource war, ironic given his alarming admissions today and the fact that the second largest pool of oil was finally auctioned off yesterday.

I'll repeat, given you're hard of thinking, this climate change issue is not about the climate or the planet, it singularly concerns the economic and political interests of the elite, ensuring their status quo remains intact for decades to come.

Like you we can all 'Google' for 'evidence' and attempt to make it fit. Your attempt to ram inconclusive evidence down people's throats, and then stamp your foot like a silly girl, when they don't plug into your shallow and badly researched view, betrays your lack of in depth knowledge...you should move on or quickly add something new to the debate...