Google are also part of the global conspiracy to rob the poor and give to the rich under the guise of climate change.
The new Ice Age Cometh!
by Gill 221 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Gill
Isn't everybody?
Time will tell and the problem can be that we are so close to 'the picture' that we can't see 'the picture'.
Let's see how the next few years go.
It is fashionable and always has been for scientists to speculate, after all that is what we pay them for, and they tend to wax and wane in opinions along with the results.
We will all see in time. At one point we the ozone layer was going to disappear and so would we....
Till then.....we must just let the reality of the situation unfold.
-
Gill
One thing our discussion has taught me is to keep all links and newspaper articles.
The expanding of anatarctic sea is and expansion of arctic ice in winter has not only been see in the above article, fraud or not.
Let's bear in mind also, that global warming is different from climate change, and global warming is what we are meant or were meant to be concerned about.
But, extreme weather including extreme cold is part of change along with the massive reduction of the earth's magnetic field, the becoming lost of animals who rely on the magnetic fields to travel, etc All these things are changing and magnetic field has nothing to do with how much CO2 your car is pumping out.
-
Gill
Wasn't it once 'fashionable' to worry about how much lead and other noxious chemicals your car was pumping out?
Something to FEAR and worry about changes as much as the climate change debate.
-
Witness 007
Like a Prophet I told Gill at the very beggining that this was going to be a huge debate and contraversy.....see 5 pages!
-
besty
One thing our discussion has taught me is to keep all links and newspaper articles.
I will be happy with evidence for your twice stated claim that global temperatures dropped 0.72 (no scale specified) last year
Wasn't it once 'fashionable' to worry about how much lead and other noxious chemicals your car was pumping out?
Yes - until fuel injection, unleaded petrol and catalytic converters cleaned up the problem - some initial investment by the auto industry resulting in increased efficiency and reduced air borne pollutants. But don't change the subject.
It is fashionable and always has been for scientists to speculate, after all that is what we pay them for, and they tend to wax and wane in opinions along with the results.
Yes it is likely that scientists will push the envelope of knowledge - that is part of their raison d'etre. It is also thanks to the scientific method equally likely that other scientists will attempt to replicate their results - thank you peer review. Hence my loyalty to the scientific consensus. I wouldn't say they wax and wane according to the results - I would call it progress - knowledge is not like a tide coming in and going out and ultimately making no progress. That sounds more like conspiricism.
-
Gill
Besty - This article on global temperature fall might be of interest to you. Four agencies including NASA confirm a fall in global temp in the last decade. Could be a fluke - maybe.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html
-
besty
Thank you Gill - the astronaut who wrote this piece hasn't retracted it yet but it has been firmly de-bunked by a Professor at Melbourne School of Earth Sciences.
Whilst acknowledging the Jan 2007 to Jan 2008 temperature drop, the astronaut fails to account for El Nino to La Nina shifts and also his sunspot numbers are just plain wrong. Most obviously to the layperson surely is:
the main flaw in Chapman's opinion is trying to infer long-term climate trends from short-term (one year) variations of global temperature. It is well known (among climate scientists) that there are large inter-annual variations of global temperature caused by a number of factors, including El Nino, big volcanic eruptions, or just the chaotic variability of the climate system. It is not possible to make conclusions about long-term climate trends from inter-annual climate variations. Many lines of evidence support the conclusion reached last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal", referring to changes over the past 100 years. Even when we consider only the global average temperature during La Nina episodes, such as the present cool period, we find that we are experiencing the warmest global temperature of any strong La Nina episode in the past 100 years, again showing clear long-term global warming.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23612876-11949,00.html
-
besty
Four agencies including NASA confirm a fall in global temp in the last decade.
1 - this is not a peer reveiewed scientific paper - its an article written by an astronaut for the purpose of selling newspapers - beware Gill - The National Enquirer beckons.....
2 - the four agencies he mention all agree that anthropogenic climate change is occurring - somewhat ironic...
3 - I have still not seen primary source (ie directly from the one of the websites of any reputable agency) evidence that 0.7C fall happened from Jan 2007 to Jan 2008 (not a decade as you mention incidentally) - perhaps 0.07C or some other smaller figure?
and in any case...or indeed multi-year drops (or rises) is not significant
4 - a single year drop (or rise) is not out of line with the overall trend - in the words of the song - thats what trends are for - sorry :-)
-
FreeWilly
Well I see Besty has hit the exits without addressing any of the evidence or defending his wishful economic theories.
Questions still unanswered:
What is the factual basis of your claim (besides Al Gore) that there exists a "consensus" among scientists?
How do you explain the fact that CO2 has never been a climate driver in all of Earth's History?
What is the basis for thinking it will start driving climate? (you spout off about your knowledge of the "scientific method" so please incorporate this in you answer)
How do you explain Ice ages at CO2 concentrations over 10x what they are now?
Since CO2 has typically lagged global temperature rise, would you describe it as a cause or an effect?
What makes you confident in the computer models on which ALL of the climate projections are based in the face of their spectacular failures to date?
Please explain the graphic below along including your bit on Occam's Razor:
Surely you have more substance to your arrogant posture. Or did you just jump on the bandwagon?