Man made global warming is the biggest danger to us all

[d.reamonn]

I should also mention that andydes recently lost her vagina in a recent mix-up with a local kebab store owner, and on behalf of her mutilated meat and her family, I'd like to apologize for any emotional outbursts she may have.

[beatmunga]

Climate change appears to be happening. As it has for thousands of millenia.

Whether we as humans decide to flatter our significance by assuming we are the primary factor in the most recent fluctuations is a fascinating area that speaks volumes of our self induced hyperbole.

[d.reamonn]

Game on. Care to cite some evidence that we are in a cooling period?

You say governments are trying to expand their powers, but the American government denied AGW until recently, and people like Jim Hansen say they were repressed.

You say private individuals who promote hysteria. Well global warming was discovered 100 years ago, and it was American defence scientists in the cold war, studying everything they could about the atmosphere, who accidentally took the scientific understanding to a new level. Nowadays hardly any serious scientists in the climate study fields is in much doubt, and no national scientific body refutes the scientific consensus.

Personally, I studied geology, so I am well aware that there are natural mechanisms that cause the earth to warm up. The greenhouse effect keeps the planet at a temperature that makes it inhabitable for humans, so it is quite handy.

So, what natural mechanisms do you propose? You mentioned the sun, but the experts who study the sun have said it can't account for recent warming. I'm including people like Sami Solanki here.

Also, let me ask you this. CO2 accounts for 10-25% of the greenhouse effect. Man has increased the atmospheric CO2 by 35%. Why would that not cause warming?

http://lewrockwell.com/spl4/global-warm ... s-ago.html

[Forge.]

What I mean is there is perception amongst the public that there is still doubt about whether it's happening and whether we are the cause.

This doubt is only in the minds of people who don't have the information.

Scientists working in the relevant fields are in agreement.

The debate now is on specific effects, what can be done to limit the damage and how we can adapt to it.

The informed debate about whether it's happening or not is over. It should be treated as such.

No I wouldn't trust governments to have control over the topic, just saying I regard climate change denial as dangerous as holocaust denial.

I watched a fairly convincing talk by a geologist describing a 3rd possibility: that it's definitely happening but we're only contributing and not outright causing, based on 400, 000 years of ice core samples showing that it keeps happening in cycles.

He definitely wasn't saying there was no danger or that we don't need to stop contributing to it, he was more saying that it's going to happen anyway no matter what we do, so we should be putting a lot more effort into just figuring out how we might be able to survive it. But he was definitely saying we don't want to make it worse.

I guess this helps the debate in the sense that people want it to not be man made so we don't have to change our behaviour because it's too hard to give up our addictions. But this guy was kind of destroying that argument too by saying it's not completely man made but we do need to change our behaviour anyway.

Maybe even more compelling is David Attenborough's perspective. He is right there in the thick of it seeing first hand just how many species are going extinct as a result of human behaviour, a lot of it more related to pollution and deforestation and us just taking over their habitats than climate change at this stage. That's far more alarming really from our point of view in our time where we're not really seeing the extreme effects of climate change yet, but we are already seeing massive levels of extinction. That is something we should be deeply alarmed and ashamed of.

[d.reamonn]

CO2 is plant food. Good for us.

[d.reamonn]

First of all, cheers for actually reading what I sent you. This could actually get interesting.

As we both know, there are a million ways to analyse data. And by way of example, let's take a look at yours:



One of the common critiques levelled against AGW is the compete failure of scientific models. This lovely little graph you provided illustrates this wonderfully: for a 0.03% measured increase, scientists predicted up to 0.7%. Such a gap fully doggy-styles any reasonable margin for error.

I also like how your author begins by saying "many different statements can be true at the same time, but very few of them are informative about future trends". Well most of what I say is true, a lot of it is self-contraditory, depending on your definition of "wait, what?", but one thing I won't do with such a "noisy record" is go around telling other people what to do with their used diapers. That's just not cool, man. A man's diapers is a man's business.

[crofter]

This,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/09 ... n_save_us/

[andydes]

http://lewrockwell.com/spl4/global-warm ... s-ago.html

The usual bollocks. Take a small sub set of data, pick the points in the graph that suit your case best, ignore contributing factors, ignore the conclusions of source data (in this case the met office), and waffle on about "alarmists" and lefties.

Try this one instead.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... ediate.htm

[d.reamonn]

The thing you need to know about earth sciences is that there are always different ideas floating around for stuff, but it doesn't mean we know nothing. I remember being told this in 1977 when I started studying it at university. I distinctly remember the lecturer saying that we would have to say what the different ideas were, and which one we favoured, and why, rather than just 'learning facts' as in some subjects. So to get someone chucking in a theory about the next glaciation coming sooner rather than later isn't too surprising. We are gonna have future glaciation, it's not in any doubt. We are still in the current ice age.

I'm planning a snowboarding holiday this winter in the Swiss Alps. Could you please tell me which month, January or February will have the best conditions (snow quality, weather)?

0.03-0.7 is an epic fail. You're not Nate Silver, you can't just randomly generate numbers, draw an average and then claim that since one of your guesses was nearly spot on that suddenly picking the best snowboarding month is a snip.

"In 2009 [...] the alarmist Met Office predicted that three of the next five years would set new world records for warming. Now that the data has proven the wildly alarmist prediction false, however, a spokesperson for the agency had no comment on it.]

- http://lewrockwell.com/spl4/global-warm ... s-ago.html

[d.reamonn]

http://lewrockwell.com/spl4/global-warm ... s-ago.html

The usual bollocks. Take a small sub set of data, pick the points in the graph that suit your case best, ignore contributing factors, ignore the conclusions of source data (in this case the met office), and waffle on about "alarmists" and lefties.

Try this one instead.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... ediate.htm

Have you considered vaginal reconstructive surgery?

[andydes]

http://lewrockwell.com/spl4/global-warm ... s-ago.html

The usual bollocks. Take a small sub set of data, pick the points in the graph that suit your case best, ignore contributing factors, ignore the conclusions of source data (in this case the met office), and waffle on about "alarmists" and lefties.

Try this one instead.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... ediate.htm

Have you considered vaginal reconstructive surgery?

Almost, but not quite as funny as "climate change stopped in 1996 and only the daily mail noticed"


For a minute I thought you were backing up my point.

[d.reamonn]

Almost, but not quite as funny as "climate change stopped in 1996 and only the daily mail noticed"


For a minute I thought you were backing up my point.

[d.reamonn]

http://lewrockwell.com/spl4/global-warm ... s-ago.html

The usual bollocks. Take a small sub set of data, pick the points in the graph that suit your case best, ignore contributing factors, ignore the conclusions of source data (in this case the met office), and waffle on about "alarmists" and lefties.

Try this one instead.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... ediate.htm

Oh you big alarmist you! Look, flat as a pancake

Bath time!

[d.reamonn]

Almost, but not quite as funny as "climate change stopped in 1996 and only the daily mail noticed"


For a minute I thought you were backing up my point.

yeah, but hold on there. The Daily Mail is widely know to be an authoritative voice on climate change , and the voice of reason generally.

being black causes cancer

So your argument is:

A. Being racist is bad.
B. Cancer is good.
––––––––––––––––––––––
C. Cancer is not racist.

Another strong moment for you there...

[d.reamonn]

So your argument is:

A. Being racist is bad.
B. Cancer is good.
––––––––––––––––––––––
C. Cancer is not racist.

Another strong moment for you there...

No. The Daily Mail has hundreds of articles saying that everything on the planet gives you cancer. My conclusion is that the people who run the 'newspaper' are mental.

look, just 3 hours ago, as if to prove my point...

Monday, Nov 12 2012 3PM

Smacking or shouting at your children 'raises their risk of cancer, heart disease and asthma later in life'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... -life.html

I believe this forum is a sort of beige colour. Look, just to prove my point:
https://forum.ableton.com/