@Liam09

So by pointing to the fact that there is huge conclusive evidence for the earth going through extremes (that couldn’t possibly be man made or man-contributed), you don’t see how that isn’t a point?

No I don’t. You seem to be suggesting that because earth has gone through extremes temperature before without contribution from Man then any change we might be seeing now couldn’t possibly be aided by Man. If that is the case – then that patently doesn’t make sense. I’ll give an example that I gave in an another thread. Thousands of species have gone extinct before Man walked on the planet but over the last few hundreds of years Man has contributed to the extinction of some species. Whilst not all recent extinctions are the fault of man – I don’t think anyone would deny that Man has contributed to plenty of extinctions. To say – extinctions have happened in the past which weren’t due to man – therefore man cannot be responsible for ANY extinctions in modern times would be absurd.

I’m sure those Paleoclimatologists who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming are more than aware that climate also has changed in the past before, will do so when Man is no longer on the earth and that current climate change is not soley caused purely by Man….That’s what they do! But conversely because we use the figures from ice cores etc which give us indications of what the climate was like hundreds of thousands of years ago from Paleoclimatologists research – it doesn’t automatically we have to go further and automatically believe in AGW just because some of those (I suspect the majority) of Paleoclimatologists believe in AGW. Either way when any Climate Skeptic mentions that climate has changed in the past and is always changing irrespective of what man does – that’s like saying the sky is blue – basically it’s an irrelevant point and neither proves or disproves AGW.

That just possibly, man is again looking at irrelevant data in support of a cause that just so happens, to be making other people /very/ rich?

Seperate point from above. And a more valid point. There is a chance that there is some vast global conspiracy where a large number of scientists have got together and have decided to completely make up a theory due to political reasons (e.g. they are socialists and are trying to bankrupt the US etc) or for monetary reasons. I give this as much credence as those conspiracy theorists who believe that the US government was behind 9/11. It stretches credibility that so many are involved with such a conspiracy. For instance because Haliburton and Cheney made money due to the Iraq War I don’t therefore believe the Iraq War was purposefully caused just to make money. No doubt that Bush and the neo-cons believed in what they were doing in some grand strategy. They no doubt believed that Saddam had WMDs and was a threat. I think oil played a part etc – but however mistaken – I believe Bush & co did it for the reasons they state.

Soooo we can’t drive data off local samples, we have to look at global samples. But only at the global level can we look at local samples and fit them into the model?! In other words, anytime there is a heatwave in a cold place, GLOBAL WARMING! Not exactly taking the road of truth to see where it leads now are we.

That’s just you being cynical. Not all parts of the earth will warm at the same pace. You have to take into account seasons, solar activity, earth’s tilt/path, localised weather patterns etc etc. But you can collate these figures over a period and put them into a global picture WITHOUT having to force into proving a theory. For instance – take glaciers. It’s true that some glaciers aren’t retreating.

http://www.emeraldarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/glacier_mass_balance_map.png

So some skeptics would and have jumped on this to prove AGW is false. However now look at the bigger picture over the last few decades and you can see the proportions of glaciers retreating BY FAR out weigh those which are not.

‘Scientists say…’ in the general sense to help along their phraseology of the subject. Factualize by using generalizations, and create a presupposition in peoples minds as to the current state of what ’science’ believes. Has always worked, and will always work, on the ignorant masses.

I agree – both sides on most debates use generalisations which aren’t helpful.

A little bit unclear what what will happen this year, he said… hmmm. I have seen the models that put most of florida under water, but hell, things are a little unclear as to what will happen this year.

That doesn’t surprise me. No doubt the models that put Florida under water don’t state exactly what year that will happen. In the same way – those who believe in AGW (and I have never been 100% convinced – I feel so far they have been more convincing as a whole than the skeptics who throw out red herrings etc) – believe within the next few decades the global average temperature will climb higher. That doesn’t mean it will get hotter day in day out – but the general direction will go up.

Because most of the other conclusive proof, such as the fact the earth goes through cycles of hot and cold, does not point to man made intervention.

Oh dear – so you do believe that this rules out AGW. Again that doesn’t contradict AGW one iota. You know the two can coexist – it’s not black or white – as in either nature cause climate change or man does.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@yonason: You’re right. Every time I think he’s showing a glimmer of common sense he goes off the reservation.

From long experience with him I can tell you that he goes first to whatever anti-American, anti-capitalist view is in vogue and runs with it without even researching the facts.

He works on Video games for a living so fantasy, not reality, is his natural state of being.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@MataHarley:

“…. and your [the Gaffer's] point would be?”

By now you know he hasn’t one, except to create a dissonance. He’s not even “debating,” as he keeps insisting, but using those techniques to undermine not be reason but by being disruptive. There’s even a name for that particular comment of his, and that is “double speak.”

In the above case he knows he has no point (or he’s incredibly stupid), but to someone who isn’t familiar with the material we are discussing he might seem to have raised an important point, even though he hasn’t. …a useless waste of time, and a deliberate spoiler.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Let’s nail this one. Can you point to any scientist dealing in climate change that has claimed otherwise?

…. and your point would be?

Does their casual acknowledgement that climate changes with, or without man, negate their political agenda to oversee sweeping global legislation and regulations that would bankrupt the developing nations? And does the truth of climate change being quite normal change any of the power grab associated with the below statement:

The Secretary-General notes that largely thanks to the IPCC’s lucid and well-documented findings, it is now established beyond doubt that climate change is happening, and that much of it is caused by human activity. As a result, there is now unprecedented momentum for action on climate change around the world, and recognition of the UN as the forum for reaching agreement on it

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@GaffaUK:
So by pointing to the fact that there is huge conclusive evidence for the earth going through extremes (that couldn’t possibly be man made or man-contributed), you don’t see how that isn’t a point? That just possibly, man is again looking at irrelevant data in support of a cause that just so happens, to be making other people /very/ rich? Shouldn’t a little skepticism be used? Also, your article was a vague and haughty example of scientism at its best.

For example, for science to work, we need to have falsifiable data. This article instead points to

Jarraud says every year, somewhere in the world weather records will be broken. He says every year, exceptional weather events will take place somewhere in the world. He says people have to look at the global picture to assess whether climate change is taking place.

Scientists say human activity contributes to climate change, but they do not agree on the pace at which climate change may be unfolding.

Soooo we can’t drive data off local samples, we have to look at global samples. But only at the global level can we look at local samples and fit them into the model?! In other words, anytime there is a heatwave in a cold place, GLOBAL WARMING! Not exactly taking the road of truth to see where it leads now are we. And oh yeah, they of course use ‘Scientists say…’ in the general sense to help along their phraseology of the subject. Factualize by using generalizations, and create a presupposition in peoples minds as to the current state of what ‘science’ believes. Has always worked, and will always work, on the ignorant masses.

I also found this just too funny

Last year, we know that part of the relative cooling was due to the La Nina phenomena, which was moderate to strong in the first part of 2008. Then in the second part of 2008, it became closer to what we call neutral condition. Now, it is a little bit unclear what will happen this year,” he said.

A little bit unclear what what will happen this year, he said… hmmm. I have seen the models that put most of florida under water, but hell, things are a little unclear as to what will happen this year.

The phenomena that man is adversely affecting the environment and going to cause cataclysmic events unless we spend billions/trillions, should be looked upon skeptically unless there were huge amounts of conclusive proof. You know why? Because most of the other conclusive proof, such as the fact the earth goes through cycles of hot and cold, does not point to man made intervention. I can only think of a couple reasons why people would so quickly buy into this: if you have the potential to make a lot of money (labs, politicians, investors etc), a conspiracy theorist, or will believe anything people feed you. I would say stupid, but I know some people are just easy to lead astray.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Liam09

I live in colorado and there are fossils of palm trees (really old) in just about every fossil bed around. But the kicker is this: except for fake palm trees, I can’t seem to find any left! There is also amazing evidence of colorado being under water and also frozen over

I don’t fully get your point. If you are saying that the current warming on the earth where man is contributing can’t actually be because of man as the climate as always changed without the interference of man (indeed even before man appeared) then that makes no sense at all – and hardly disproves the current theory.

@MataHarley

Taking one point…

Let’s get something truly straight. Climate changes. It’s changed in the past when man wasn’t around with technology. It will change in the future when man will no longer be around. It changes on Mars and the rest of our solar system… where man isn’t present but in his dreams.

Let’s nail this one. Can you point to any scientist dealing in climate change that has claimed otherwise?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Hard Right

So let me get this straight, we have been tracking temps only since 1850.

Yes but there also other ways to get an idea what the temperatures of earth were like. For instance looking at the ice cores you can go back 800,000 years or more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

But in the case of modern tracking of temperatures – at what point would you like tracking to continue before you believe is long enough to analyse? Another 150 years?

Yet these AGW loons want us to believe they have all the answers as to climate change?

I don’t think that is the case.

2008 10th warmest in a 159 years. Oh yes, that’s proof it’s human caused. (roll eyes)

Which scientists which deal with climate have claimed that is proof in itself?

BTW gaff, I clearly remember agw proponents blaming Katrina on AGW and other localized weather issues on agw.

Exactly and I agree localised weather shouldn’t be used either way.

Perhaps people would be less skeptical if their “solutions” weren’t to make themselves rich and powerful at our expense

Good point – although tricky. On one hand it would be better for the US and the West to turn it’s back on oil (not immediately but lowering it’s dependence – particularly on Middle East oil) and to get government and the free market involved. And if the free market is involved then you want people who sell such things as solar panels etc to MAKE MONEY. However I agree in schemes like cap & trade where there is regulation – you don’t want the regulators cashing in (like Al Gore) as it opens them up to such criticism.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Gaffa #5… the WMO? You mean the UN’s “…authoritative voice on the state and behaviour of the Earth’s atmosphere, its interaction with the oceans, the climate it produces and the resulting distribution of water resources.” *That* WMO?

The WMO who were co creators of the IPCC along with UNEP, which carefully constructed the colossal lie at the heart of the Al Gore religion, and is the platform for the universal power grap for money and regulations?

*THAT* WMO???

Why would you expect them to say anything *but* that colder weather is part of global warming? Why that would just blow their world power grab right out of the temperature rising water….

duh wuh….

Let’s get something truly straight. Climate changes. It’s changed in the past when man wasn’t around with technology. It will change in the future when man will no longer be around. It changes on Mars and the rest of our solar system… where man isn’t present but in his dreams.

Do we all want clean air? Yes. But not at the expense of the world’s economy and technological advances. It is the apocolypse? Only if the wacko enviros get their way and transform the world into third world conditions with idiocy like cap and trade… already a major debacle on record for years with other nations’ attempts. (read 2005 testimony about your own EU Emissions Trading system)

What can man do about climate change? Prepare and adapt. Not regulate the world into poverty… adapt. And right now, they ought to be thinking about another mini Ice Age and the damage that can cause. If they want us to buy into the notion that emissions cause global warming, I say let’s all buy Hummers and take road trips. ’twas a bone chilling winter compared to usual here….

And please, please… don’t be bringing in the ultimate Pinocchio – aka the UN and agencies – as your source material. It does so make you look like the fool. Might as well believe the used car salesman, selling you a thrashed and trashed MGA, when he tells you it’s 50 original miles and never been in an accident.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Fit, I’m with you on the Nuclear energy part. Funny how we promote it in the rest of the world, but not in our own country.

Gaf,
I live in colorado and there are fossils of palm trees (really old) in just about every fossil bed around. But the kicker is this: except for fake palm trees, I can’t seem to find any left! There is also amazing evidence of colorado being under water and also frozen over. The concept isn’t just believing that people are helping to change the climate, but that people are going to be the cause of mass flooding, billions of dollars worth of damage, millions of people dying, and oh man.. we will be sooo sorry that we didn’t listen to Al Gore. Did you know he also invented the internet?

That article only says to me, “We scientists know the truth. We aren’t pointing to any real falsifiable evidence. But just watch, temperature records will be broken around the world (high and low). Just because we can’t prove it, our accurate evidence/plottable points is extremely young, there are a lot of people benefiting financially from it, doesn’t mean that Man Bear Pig, I mean uh-hem, global warming, I mean uh-hem global climate change isn’t real. Man Bear Pig is real, and you-all will be super stoked on us when we kill it.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0