Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[retep 68]

It looks like the Register has come to a subtly different conclusion than the researcher.

 

 

 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/cooling-plant-growth.html

 

Odd how the Register consistently twists and distorts global warming stories isn't it?

 

Bit like yourself then wiki.

[Wildcat 10]

Says it all doesn't it retep? You're not bothered with facts. Just enough hot air to warm the planet on your own!

 

Have you based ANY of your opinions on respected data, or, are all your comments just wild conjecture and personal opininion based on the fear that it's going to cost you money to put right?

 

I am not sure retep even has an opinion. I have not noticed one on this thread yet just links to dodgy sources of information and smug insulting comments.

[retep 68]

I am not sure retep even has an opinion. I have not noticed one on this thread yet just links to dodgy sources of information and smug insulting comments.

 

My opinion is the weather or climate will change as and when it pleases, if it gets rid of a few of us there isn't much we can do about it (even if we turn all the lights off) and there'll be less to pollute, but you can sit wringing your hands if it makes you feel better, just don't ask for my money to fuel the next party for your highly respected carbon footprint making mob with their 100 billion dollar fiddle pot.

 

Stick to your own links you'll feel safe there.

 

As for the smug insulting comments you can have them, you deserve them.

 

Chuck another polar bear on the barbie, no use letting em go to waste.

Edited December 15, 2010 by retep

[convert 10]

My opinion is the weather or climate will change as and when it pleases, if it gets rid of a few of us there isn't much we can do about it (even if we turn all the lights off) and there'll be less to pollute, but you can sit wringing your hands if it makes you feel better, just don't ask for my money to fuel the next party for your highly respected carbon footprint making mob with their 100 billion dollar fiddle pot.

 

Stick to your own links you'll feel safe there.

 

As for the smug insulting comments you can have them, you deserve them.

 

Chuck another polar bear on the barbie, no use letting em go to waste.

 

Well said. To be brutally honest there is no point in arguing with the majority of the green acolytes on here; to them AGW is almost a religion.

 

The general public, however are beginning to see through the male cow droppings, and they'll see through it even more when they have to contribute towards the $100Billion dollar deal done in cancun (through increased energy costs in our own domestic market).

 

The writing has been on the wall for AGW for a long time now, however they are just going to try and sting us with ocean acidification (still alkaline as far as I can see) and biodiversity loss (evolution?).

 

In the meantime all we can do is buy shares in Damart and keep the snow shovels on standby.

 

 

PS I'm fed up of this cold so I'm going to buy another V8. Keep burning those carbons to keep warm folks.

[Wildcat 10]

Well said. To be brutally honest there is no point in arguing with the majority of the green acolytes on here; to them AGW is almost a religion.

 

The general public, however are beginning to see through the male cow droppings, and they'll see through it even more when they have to contribute towards the $100Billion dollar deal done in cancun (through increased energy costs in our own domestic market).

 

The writing has been on the wall for AGW for a long time now, however they are just going to try and sting us with ocean acidification (still alkaline as far as I can see) and biodiversity loss (evolution?).

 

In the meantime all we can do is buy shares in Damart and keep the snow shovels on standby.

 

PS I'm fed up of this cold so I'm going to buy another V8. Keep burning those carbons to keep warm folks.

 

Since when have advocates of a religion formed their opinions purely through scientific evidence?

 

In contrast, have you actually provided any scientific evidence yet that is relevant to the scientific arguments? You have been asked numerous times through this thread and have not managed it yet.

 

You appear to be unable to understand the words you are using or are deliberately and intentionally lying to make rhetorical points without any substance.

 

As for public opinion I can't see the relevance to whether Global Warming is happening or not, but perhaps as an indication to support your point you might look perhaps at tickets sales for Lomborg's recent denailist film.

 

According to Box Office Mojo, in its first month (from 11/12 to 12/12), the movie made a whopping $61,967. Last Sunday, for instance, the movie played in 10 theaters and made a total of $279.

 

Ohh maybe not, that is a bit poor isn't it..

 

http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/14/still-bjorn-now-that-his-movie-is-failing-lomborg-is-back-to-telling-folks-go-ahead-and-guzzle/

 

And it is not like the media reporting on Climate Change has been anything other than unbiassed....

 

Ohh except what is this NewsCorp executive saying....

 

...we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.

 

Ohh dear News organisations appear to have their own agenda...

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004

[Wildcat 10]

Interesting article in the Huffington Post:

 

As the Earth's climate continues to change at an accelerating rate, the juggling and magical thinking and outright hypocrisy of climate change deniers continues to accelerate as well. While there are many examples of the remarkable ability of deniers to hold onto mutually contradictory beliefs and ideas, here are four well-worn arguments regularly put forward by deniers in public forums despite the fact that they've all been debunked (over and over and over) by scientists:

 

Deniers claim that climate models are bad, but they're happy to rely on far less reliable economic models to argue against taking action: One of the classic arguments of climate deniers is that the multitude of climate models is bad. Yet at the very same time, they promote the conclusions of a couple of economic models that say that doing anything about climate change will bankrupt the global economy. In fact, climate models are far superior to economic models. Climate models are far more rigorously tested, far more firmly based in physical reality, and far more unanimous in their projections than the economic models that have been applied to the problem of climate change. Indeed, you can find one set of economic models that says that mitigating greenhouse gases will be relatively cheap and another set that say it will be extremely expensive. You cannot find a state-of-the-art climate model that says the climate won't change with growing greenhouse gas concentrations.

 

In addition, none of the economic models that look at the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions addresses the other, critical side of the economic argument -- the vast and exponentially increasing costs to society of doing nothing. What's the economic cost, for example, of losing California's snowpack or a species of plant or animal? What's the economic cost of a one-month acceleration in the timing of runoff in major rivers in the western U.S.? What's the economic cost of rising sea level or growing heat stress or more intense storms or changing distributions of plants and animals -- all impacts that are certainly going to occur? Perhaps we can compute some dollar values for some of these things, but we haven't yet, and so no complete estimates are included in cost comparisons. In other words, climate deniers and those who argue against action say that the cure (reducing emissions) is worse that the disease (the impacts of climate change), when we have contradictory estimates of the costs of the cure and no comprehensive estimate of the costs of the disease.

 

Government action is anathema; the answer is let the free market work (oh, but we can't have markets for carbon): Some climate deniers argue that climate science is wrong because they're driven by a strict ideology that opposes (rightly or wrongly) growing government regulation, while they simultaneously believe that economic free-market approaches are the only way to handle public policy problems like pollution. This is free-market fundamentalism, and while one might agree or disagree with that philosophy, it has no bearing on the validity of climate science. Yet these same free-market ideologues reject market solutions and strategies to control greenhouse gases, such as carbon markets, trading systems, and classic tax programs that would internalize externalities. Thus we have the odd situation where the Federal government is now being forced to regulate greenhouse gases through the USEPA and potentially awkward governmental mechanisms because climate skeptics and deniers in Congress failed to adopt their own preferred market and economic solutions.

 

Deniers argue that comprehensive observational data on the world's changing climate are wrong, but then point to cold weather in this or that location to argue that the world cannot be warming: While the public may not fully understand the difference between climate and weather, or understand how the world could be warming while it's cold outside, most well-known climate deniers fully understand these distinctions -- they just choose to ignore them in order to make false arguments to and score points with the public and gullible policymakers. Cherry-picking selected data that supports a particular point (i.e., it's cold today), while hiding or ignoring more data that points in exactly the opposite direction (i.e., global average temperatures are rising), is bad science and it leads to bad policy. Just last week Glenn Beck pointed to a snowstorm in Minneapolis as proof that global warming isn't happening. He knows better, but his audience may not.

 

Another example was the effort by the Bush Administration to argue that they were taking action on climate change and that the US was doing more and better than European countries, when in fact, the White House cherry-picked the data that showed their position in the most favorable light. All the data, analyzed together, showed exactly the opposite conclusion.

 

Oh, and by the way, it looks like 2010 will be, globally, one of the warmest years on record, after a long series of increasingly hot years. And the entire decade from 2001-2010 is undoubtedly the warmest 10-year period since the beginning of comprehensive weather records in 1850.

 

Deniers seize on a few minor mistakes in the IPCC report to claim its overall conclusions are invalid; but then use massively flawed scientific arguments to dispute real climate science: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has produced a series of reports over the past decade or more, thousands of pages in length, summarizing the scientific understanding from tens of thousands of peer-reviewed reports. It is not new science; it is a comprehensive and clear summary of the science. A few minor errors have been made (and corrected), but none of these affect the conclusions, despite the fact that they've been seized upon by climate deniers as evidence that the whole thing is wrong. Yet climate deniers use deeply flawed scientific arguments that have been debunked over and over or have little or no basis in reality. This is a double standard: it is incumbent upon scientists to produce their best work, to acknowledge mistakes, and to correct them. It is time to hold climate deniers to the same standard, rather than letting them repeat long debunked falsehoods.

 

Want examples? Just wait for the comments to this posting: you'll find plenty of tired, long-disproved arguments trotted out.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/climate-fraud-and-hypocri_b_796753.html

 

Couldn't put it better myself.

[retep 68]

Wiki what are you trying to bury, go and have a lie down

[Wildcat 10]

Wiki what are you trying to bury, go and have a lie down

 

Are you still unable to give a scientific reason to doubt all the evidence in favour of Global Warming?

[retep 68]

Are you still unable to give a scientific reason to doubt all the evidence in favour of Global Warming?

 

I'm well able to give a reason for doubt it's called money.

 

Scientific reason seems a bit too bent, sort of like a hockey stick.

[convert 10]

Wiki, I have posted scientific evidence on many occasions. The fact that you choose not to believe it, is your problem not mine.

 

I have provided links to discreditations of hockey sticks, SST anomolies, etc, etc.

 

It has been shown that the advocates of man made(up) global warming have vested interests in the 'science' confirming their agenda.

 

The IPCC is a case in point, they have lied and supplied misinformation based upon anecdotal reports of climbers for goodness sake. A more discredited organisation couldn't be found, except maybe FIFA.

 

You just seem to provide circular links to pro climate change websites. To be honest I'm of the opinion that the general public will make their own minds up; they're fed up of all the greenwash you post on here.

 

You're always trying to rubbish wattsupwiththat; the weblogs award winner in 2008 for THE best science blog.

 

 

I'd suggest that the pretty poor conferences in copenhagen and cancun suggest that the majority of the world is fed up with AGW.

[retep 68]

And whilst i'm on money here's one,

 

Bank part of global corporate craze to cash in

 

Read more: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/12/13/terence-corcoran-deutsche%e2%80%99s-climate/#ixzz18CyYVNUI

[spinac 10]

Wiki, I have posted scientific evidence on many occasions.

 

Where do you get your figures from for 2010?

 

"The latest forecast from our climate scientists shows the global temperature is forecast to be almost 0.6C above the 1961-90 long-term average," a Met Office statement said.

 

"This means that it is more likely than not 2010 will be the warmest in the instrumental record that dates back to 1860."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8406839.stm

 

If you don't trust the Met Office and the BBC, who do YOU trust?