Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a laugh...You can show no such thing, because first it doesn't exist, and if it did you would have done so long ago...All you can show me is blogs, and how deniers have twisted the science....I don't know why you would even say something that is so blatantly false.
For those who saw Al Gore’s “documentary”, it was very convincing of its hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has the potential to kill us all and end humanity. After all, the film was filled with graphs and charts, so it must be true. Let’s just get something straight here, Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. And as we all know, politicians always tell the truth. However, as Al Gore’s popularity grows and with his recent winning of an Academy Award for his movie, the issue has spiraled into massive push for quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore’s film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is “a sham”. They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to prove that theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar activity being the cause of climate change.
Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, recently wrote an article addressing the issue of why no one seems to be listening to scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made. He starts by writing, “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science”. He continues, “We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.” Then he mentions how Environment Canada is spending billions upon billions of dollars on “propaganda” which defends an “indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.” Then Dr. Ball brings up a very interesting point that everyone should take into consideration, citing that 30 years ago, in the 1970s everyone was talking about “global cooling” and how it was the defining issue of our lives, our species, that our very survival depended on what we did it about it. Interesting, sounds like every Canadian politician. Ball continues to explain that climate change is occurring, but that it is because it is always occurring, it is a natural change that is a result of the changes in the Sun’s temperature. He explains that we are currently leaving what was known as a Little Ice Age and that the history of Earth is riddles with changes in the climate. That’s what climate does and is always doing, changing. Dr. Ball claims that “there is nothing unusual going on,” and that he “was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as [he was] to the threats made about Global Warming.”
Dr. Timothy Ball later wrote, in commenting on the problems that arise for scientists who speak out, that, “Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.” He also mentions how he “was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies.” He concludes in referencing others who have and continue to speak out against the prevailing myth of man-made global warming, such as author Michael Crichton, who’s book, ‘State of Fear’, explains the inaccurate science behind the man-made myth. Another prominent name is that of Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, who often speaks out against the man-made theory, yet no one seems to be listening to him.
It was recently revealed that Al Gore doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech, “People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It’s not a political issue; it’s a moral issue.” Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore’s mansions uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average American does. It was also reported that Al Gore consumes twice as much the electricity in one month that the average American consumes in one year.
It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty.
As you can (very) plainly see, 2014 was warmer than 2005 and 2010. That means temperatures have increased.
Well it isn't quite that plain to see. First, NOAA and NASA have said repeatedly that the difference in temperature is within their "margin of error", so there isn't any way to actually know whether 2014 was actually the hottest year ever.
Secondly, the satellite records don't say that 2014 was the hottest year on record. They say it was the third hottest year on record.
Secondly, it doesn't explain the discrepancy between what the satellites are recording and what the ground stations are recording. Basically, the ground stations seem to report higher temperatures than the satellites. Why? Well, probably because ground stations tend to be in "built-up areas"(heat-island effect). So the ground stations probably aren't very reliable.
But even if 2014 was actually the hottest year since 1880, it would be the hottest year by a tiny fraction of a degree. It certainly isn't cause for alarm. If the warming hasn't paused or stopped, it certainly appears to be slowing significantly, and is definitely far far far less than what the CO2/warming models say it should be.
Lastly, the statement "hottest year on record" always feels a little dishonest to me. It always makes me feel like they are saying it is the "hottest year ever". As if to say the Earth is hotter than it has ever been in the past. But in reality, the Earth was probably hotter than it is today many times in the last 12,000 years alone, especially in the northern hemisphere. And the Earth is downright cold compared to what it was during the peak of the last interglacial period(about ~115k years ago). And yes, polar bears were around back then.
Basically, even if 2014 really was the hottest year since the end of the little ice-age. What does it really matter? What does it really say about the future?
Furthermore, I also get so tired of hearing about how "the ten hottest years on record have been since 1998". Yeah, but if you were to go back to 1940, the ten hottest years on record had all been since 1925. Obviously if temperatures are going up, the most recent years will be the warmest.
Regardless of what has been repeated over and over, the current warming really isn't abnormal. According to the paper Loehle and McCulloch, the tempertuares during Medieval Warm Period were roughly the same as today. This is true of many other studies as well. In fact, there are more studies that show a warmer than now MWP than there are studies showing a cooler than now MWP. And CO2 levels were much much much lower then than they are now.
That doesn't disprove climate-change. But it certainly puts it more in perspective. Everyone needs to chill out, the world is going to be just fine. We aren't going to do anything about the burning of fossil fuels for decades, regardless of how much we talk about it. I mean, roughly 99% of all the energy we use comes from fossil fuels. Until we get new technology, any attempt to combat CO2 is just going to be a really expensive waste of time.
Lets understand that all it really takes is a better battery and we will basically abandon fossil fuels.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-06-2015 at 02:35 AM..
Well it isn't quite that plain to see. First, NOAA and NASA have said repeatedly that the difference in temperature is within their "margin of error", so there isn't any way to actually know whether 2014 was actually the hottest year ever.
Secondly, the satellite records don't say that 2014 was the hottest year on record. They say it was the third hottest year on record.
Secondly, it doesn't explain the discrepancy between what the satellites are recording and what the ground stations are recording. Basically, the ground stations seem to report higher temperatures than the satellites. Why? Well, probably because ground stations tend to be in "built-up areas"(heat-island effect). So the ground stations probably aren't very reliable.
But even if 2014 was actually the hottest year since 1880, it would be the hottest year by a tiny fraction of a degree. It certainly isn't cause for alarm. If the warming hasn't paused or stopped, it certainly appears to be slowing significantly, and is definitely far far far less than what the CO2/warming models say it should be.
Lastly, the statement "hottest year on record" always feels a little dishonest to me. It always makes me feel like they are saying it is the "hottest year ever". As if to say the Earth is hotter than it has ever been in the past. But in reality, the Earth was probably hotter than it is today many times in the last 12,000 years alone, especially in the northern hemisphere. And the Earth is downright cold compared to what it was during the peak of the last interglacial period(about ~115k years ago). And yes, polar bears were around back then.
Basically, even if 2014 really was the hottest year since the end of the little ice-age. What does it really matter? What does it really say about the future?
Furthermore, I also get so tired of hearing about how "the ten hottest years on record have been since 1998". Yeah, but if you were to go back to 1940, the ten hottest years on record had all been since 1925. Obviously if temperatures are going up, the most recent years will be the warmest.
Regardless of what has been repeated over and over, the current warming really isn't abnormal. According to the paper Loehle and McCulloch, the tempertuares during Medieval Warm Period were roughly the same as today. This is true of many other studies as well. In fact, there are more studies that show a warmer than now MWP than there are studies showing a cooler than now MWP. And CO2 levels were much much much lower then than they are now.
That doesn't disprove climate-change. But it certainly puts it more in perspective. Everyone needs to chill out, the world is going to be just fine. We aren't going to do anything about the burning of fossil fuels for decades, regardless of how much we talk about it. I mean, roughly 99% of all the energy we use comes from fossil fuels. Until we get new technology, any attempt to combat CO2 is just going to be a really expensive waste of time.
Lets understand that all it really takes is a better battery and we will basically abandon fossil fuels.
Why should we even bother discussing anything with you? We can show you reports by NOOA, NASA, the MET office etc... which all state there has been no net global temperature increase in the past 18 years, and you just deny it. If no net global increase is not the entire globe, then what is, the Arctic, the California coast, some patch of ocean?
My objections to the dogma of the climate-change cult, are just those things which seem obvious to even the most unaffiliated. And I am incredibly disappointed with the people wanting to have government solve a problem which hasn't been proven to exist, or to ever exist.
Pretty much everything the global-warming alarmists have ever said has easily proven to be false. They have been yelling climate catastrophe for decades. Saying that hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, floods, droughts, etc, will all occur much more often. Yet, the opposite has been true. They claim the polar bears are going extinct, but they are doing just fine. Let alone the fact that the polar bears survived the Eemian just fine, when temperatures were much much warmer than they are today(or are even likely to be).
They keep going on rants about climate refugees and shouting about half of the species on Earth will go extinct. Some have even proclaimed that humans will go extinct, or that they will be forced to the polar regions to escape blistering heat and drought. They scream that the sea-levels will rise and coastal cities will be inundated. Yet, there isn't any real evidence that any of those things will actually happen. At least not on any of the time-scales which makes them an actual threat.
The only things which can actually be proven in regards to climate-change, is recorded temperatures, and sea-level rise. But yet, temperatures haven't been going up at all in nearly two decades. Regardless of the fact that the media jumped on the idea that 2014 was the "hottest year on record". Of course, it didn't actually turn out to be the hottest year at all. Even more, sea-level rise has actually slowed down in recent years.
For decades they have given us predictions of "runaway global-warming". Yet, when the warming didn't materialize, did they say they were wrong? Could it be that CO2 isn't nearly as big a driver of climate as they imagine? Could it be that atmospheric CO2 going from .030% to .039% probably isn't going to change much. Could it be that the primary driver of the climate is something we aren't quite sure of? I mean, didn't temperatures rise significantly from 1910 till about 1940? What caused that rise in temperature? CO2? Or something else?
Might it be remotely possible that we still have a long ways to go before we really know how the climate works? Might it be remotely possible that the vast majority of climate-scientists are just shooting in the dark in regards to their climate models?
Will people like Michael Mann and his infamous "hockey stick", admit that he misrepresented or distorted the data for his environmental activist purposes? Will the regular people begin to recognize that the vast majority of people who become climate scientists, tend to be environmental activists. Will these activists masquerading as scientists ever admit that they were wrong? Will they ever admit that they have an agenda?
They won't, and to some extent they can't. Their funding relies on them appearing to know more than everyone else. They must have confidence in their models. So what do they do? They just say "the heat must be going somewhere, so it must be going into the ocean".
You basically have these people who have never been right, who continue to rant about how if we don't do something about our CO2 emissions, that life on Earth will basically come to an end. More importantly they repeat incessantly that any change to our climate or our atmospheric CO2 levels is necessarily a bad thing. They refuse to even entertain for a moment that the climate is going to change regardless of if we burn fossil fuels. They refuse to even think about the possibility that a changing climate, or higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere could be of any tangible benefit whatsoever.
They continue to perpetuate this idea, either intentionally or because they haven't thought through the implications of what they are saying, that the current climate is for all intents and purposes "perfect". That any departure from what we have today(or what we had in the recent past) would be destructive on a massive scale. It is just completely narrow-minded and/or delusional thinking.
That isn't to say that I believe global-warming alarmists are bad people. In fact, I would say that global-warming alarmists are the same type of self-righteous, holier-than-thou people as the people who are trying to propagandize everyone not to smoke, or not to drink, or not to do drugs. They are same people who repeat lies about secondhand-smoke, and pass laws to ban even "tobacco vaporizers" from any public space(including private businesses).
These people think they are looking out for the interests of individuals. Protecting them from corporations and the profit-seekers, and even trying to protect you from yourself. In this case, they truly believe that their efforts are for the purpose of "saving the world" or at least "making the world a better place".
These people pushing climate-change are environmentalists. These people hate fossil fuels, and to some extent they even hate modern civilization. If they weren't out trying to convince us of the global-warming boogeyman, they would be out creating some other boogeyman. At one time it was pollution, then it was the bees, or the trees, or plastic in the ocean. For that matter, a great many of them also hate wind turbines because they kill birds. And they definitely hate GMO's, and want to stop the Japanese whaling ships.
The only reason anyone is listening in regards to AGW, is that it is the first thing these hippies have said in decades that is remotely plausible, and governments are terrified of instability. Plus, politicians love these kinds of issues, because they get to buy votes by throwing around money.
My position is simply "hold your horses, nothing is going to happen anytime soon, the science is still unclear, the earth isn't nearly as fragile as we have been told".
Basically, lets wait until the climate models are better, and can give a more accurate prediction of what the problems are, if any problems exist at all.
Lets keep in mind that solar and wind power make up less than 1% of our total energy consumption. And they will continue to remain a trivial part of our total energy production, because there is no way to store the energy they produce. There is basically nothing we can realistically do other than a lot of "feel-good" projects that will make no difference, but cost a lot of money.
Outside of rhetoric, there will be nothing that can be done for decades. Solar panels on people's roofs can at best reduce demand for fossil fuels roughly ~10%. That means unless you want to send us back to the stone-age, around 90% of our energy will continue to come from fossil fuels for at least half this century, and probably through to the end of the century(if not longer).
With all that said, lets take a quick look at Africa during the last glacial period vs Africa today vs Africa of the "holocene climate optimum"(about 7,500 years ago).
Well that was just one long dogmatic regurgitation of strawmen, misrepresentation, conspiracy theory, cherry picking, red herrings and basic misinformation that would take much too long to correct.
For those who saw Al Gore’s “documentary”, it was very convincing of its hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has the potential to kill us all and end humanity. After all, the film was filled with graphs and charts, so it must be true. Let’s just get something straight here, Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. And as we all know, politicians always tell the truth. However, as Al Gore’s popularity grows and with his recent winning of an Academy Award for his movie, the issue has spiraled into massive push for quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore’s film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is “a sham”. They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to prove that theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar activity being the cause of climate change.
Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, recently wrote an article addressing the issue of why no one seems to be listening to scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made. He starts by writing, “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science”. He continues, “We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.” Then he mentions how Environment Canada is spending billions upon billions of dollars on “propaganda” which defends an “indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.” Then Dr. Ball brings up a very interesting point that everyone should take into consideration, citing that 30 years ago, in the 1970s everyone was talking about “global cooling” and how it was the defining issue of our lives, our species, that our very survival depended on what we did it about it. Interesting, sounds like every Canadian politician. Ball continues to explain that climate change is occurring, but that it is because it is always occurring, it is a natural change that is a result of the changes in the Sun’s temperature. He explains that we are currently leaving what was known as a Little Ice Age and that the history of Earth is riddles with changes in the climate. That’s what climate does and is always doing, changing. Dr. Ball claims that “there is nothing unusual going on,” and that he “was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as [he was] to the threats made about Global Warming.”
Dr. Timothy Ball later wrote, in commenting on the problems that arise for scientists who speak out, that, “Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.” He also mentions how he “was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies.” He concludes in referencing others who have and continue to speak out against the prevailing myth of man-made global warming, such as author Michael Crichton, who’s book, ‘State of Fear’, explains the inaccurate science behind the man-made myth. Another prominent name is that of Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, who often speaks out against the man-made theory, yet no one seems to be listening to him.
It was recently revealed that Al Gore doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech, “People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It’s not a political issue; it’s a moral issue.” Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore’s mansions uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average American does. It was also reported that Al Gore consumes twice as much the electricity in one month that the average American consumes in one year.
It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty.
Hilarious. Maybe you should do a bit of fact checking on Tim Ball. Just saying.....
Especially about how he was caught lying about his qualifications. Oh... and how he even rejects the basic physics of the greenhouse effect.
He's a class A nutter.
It's ironic that people who like to call themselves 'skeptics', gullibly swallow anything they think supports their views - without doing even a basic fact check first.
Well it isn't quite that plain to see. First, NOAA and NASA have said repeatedly that the difference in temperature is within their "margin of error", so there isn't any way to actually know whether 2014 was actually the hottest year ever.
Secondly, the satellite records don't say that 2014 was the hottest year on record. They say it was the third hottest year on record.
Secondly, it doesn't explain the discrepancy between what the satellites are recording and what the ground stations are recording. Basically, the ground stations seem to report higher temperatures than the satellites. Why? Well, probably because ground stations tend to be in "built-up areas"(heat-island effect). So the ground stations probably aren't very reliable.
But even if 2014 was actually the hottest year since 1880, it would be the hottest year by a tiny fraction of a degree. It certainly isn't cause for alarm. If the warming hasn't paused or stopped, it certainly appears to be slowing significantly, and is definitely far far far less than what the CO2/warming models say it should be.
Lastly, the statement "hottest year on record" always feels a little dishonest to me. It always makes me feel like they are saying it is the "hottest year ever". As if to say the Earth is hotter than it has ever been in the past. But in reality, the Earth was probably hotter than it is today many times in the last 12,000 years alone, especially in the northern hemisphere. And the Earth is downright cold compared to what it was during the peak of the last interglacial period(about ~115k years ago). And yes, polar bears were around back then.
Basically, even if 2014 really was the hottest year since the end of the little ice-age. What does it really matter? What does it really say about the future?
Furthermore, I also get so tired of hearing about how "the ten hottest years on record have been since 1998". Yeah, but if you were to go back to 1940, the ten hottest years on record had all been since 1925. Obviously if temperatures are going up, the most recent years will be the warmest.
Regardless of what has been repeated over and over, the current warming really isn't abnormal. According to the paper Loehle and McCulloch, the tempertuares during Medieval Warm Period were roughly the same as today. This is true of many other studies as well. In fact, there are more studies that show a warmer than now MWP than there are studies showing a cooler than now MWP. And CO2 levels were much much much lower then than they are now.
That doesn't disprove climate-change. But it certainly puts it more in perspective. Everyone needs to chill out, the world is going to be just fine. We aren't going to do anything about the burning of fossil fuels for decades, regardless of how much we talk about it. I mean, roughly 99% of all the energy we use comes from fossil fuels. Until we get new technology, any attempt to combat CO2 is just going to be a really expensive waste of time.
Lets understand that all it really takes is a better battery and we will basically abandon fossil fuels.
All you are doing is repeating a whole lot of garbage you've got from conspiracy websites, anti-science blogs and infotainment media.
GIGO.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
