http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L_861us8D9M
worth watching
.
.
really
The_observer said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L_861us8D9M
worth watching
.
.
really
Do try and apply a little scepticism to these things
.
.
.
really
The_observer said:
Precis please for those that don’t have the bandwidth.http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L_861us8D9M
worth watching
.
.
really
Michael V said:
The_observer said:Precis please for those that don’t have the bandwidth.http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L_861us8D9M
worth watching
.
.
really
.
.
really
Michael V said:
Precis please for those that don’t have the bandwidth.
we’re heading for an ice age.
> we’re heading for an ice age.
I’ve said before that it would be a very brave or foolhardy scientist who claimed to be able to predict when, in the absence of global warming, the next ice age will occur.
One of the arguments the AGW deniers claim, is that we are currently in an ice age. Not sure how they prove this.
It’s because of all the crystal meth around these days…
>>>One of the arguments the AGW deniers claim, is that we are currently in an ice age. Not sure how they prove this.<<<
.not one of my many arguments, but then I’m not a denier like most here.
I’m a realist.
But, as there have been times when the Earth has had no ice at either pole,
& global average temperature has been 5 to 10 C higher than now, even during
this inter-glacial, one may argue that we are still in the finger tips of an ice age.
beam me up Spock
From the doco, I give you Dr. James Hayes Ph.D.
The climatic record in these deep sea cores tells us that there has been eight ice ages in the last 700,000 years.
It also tells us when they have occurred.
This provides us with a test of various theories of ice ages.
We now have a theory that tells us changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit act as a pace maker for the ice age succession.
Since this theory can precisely predict when ice ages occurred in the past, which can be tested against these deep sea cores,
it can also predict when ice ages will occur in the future.
From this theory we can say with confidence we are currently heading towards another ice age.
Dr. James Hayes’ statement is 100% correct ;)
Solar powered snow mobiles?
Yes,,,yes
.
.
.
.
.YES
18:17 / 22:35
Leonod Nimoy-
“If the catastrophic events of 89.000 years ago repeats itself the ice could return within a single lifetime.
If an ice age is coming what can we do to stop it?
Nuclear energy could be used to loosen polar ice caps.
Sea ice could be melted by covering it with black soot to increase the absorption of sunlight.
“Dr Stephen Schneider is a climatologist from the National Centre for Atmospheric Research.”
“Can we do these things ?
Yes!
“But will they make things better?
“I’m not sure.
“We can’t predict with any certainty our own climatic future!
>>”How can we come along and intervene that on our ignorance!”<< (note that statement, exhibit A )
“You could melt the ice caps; what would that do to the coastal cities?
>>>“The cure could be worse than the disease. Would that be better or worse than an ice age?”<<< ( exhibit B )
(Stephen Schneider 1977)
Stephen Schneider (February 11, 1945 – July 19, 2010)
Schneider emerged as a leading public advocate of sharp reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming.
.
.
Talk about fucking intervention and an extremely expensive cure
Your a member of the climate change deniers Observer?
what on earth am I denying?
The_observer said:
what on earth am I denying?
climate change
I deny climate change?
I posted a link all about climate change & know the Earth varies from glacial to inter-glacials.
You statement is ridiculous, Sir!
you can read about climate change deniers here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
I don’t deny that using fossil fuels has increased the Earth’s atmospheric content of CO2!
I don’t deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas!
Tell me crazy; how sensitive is our climate to a doubling of CO2 in terms of equilibrium global temperature change?
The_observer said:
I don’t deny that using fossil fuels has increased the Earth’s atmospheric content of CO2!
I don’t deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas!
Tell me crazy; how sensitive is our climate to a doubling of CO2 in terms of equilibrium global temperature change?
I’m asking you if your a climate change denier
Aparently, all your good for is name calling!
Better find another name for me then son
The_observer said:
Aparently, all your good for is name calling!Better find another name for me then son
So you are a climate change denier
well then, tell me what I’m denying?
Now again,
tell me crazy; how sensitive is our climate to a doubling of CO2 in terms of equilibrium global temperature change?
As a ‘non denier’ what ever that is, you must know
are you a climate change denier?
So you are a climate change denier
even crazy neutrinos can be right.
you should just give up son,
just on your ignorance that is!
I thought we were still coming out of the last Ice Age.
Bring forth the denialsmeller pursuviant aaaaaaaaand…………the comfy chair!
>>>I thought we were still coming out of the last Ice Age.
yes, well thought
CrazyNeutrino said:
are you a climate change denier?
or are any of your family or associates?
i think you hit a nerve crazy.
ChrispenEvan said:
i think you hit a nerve crazy.
agree
I think that might be…..are you or have you ever been a member of the………
Interesting how in the 1970s, schneider said, believing that a ice age might be upon us-
“”How can we come along and intervene that on our ignorance!”<<
yet, later he became a major intervener when he wrongly believed we may be headed for warmer weather>
go figure
I don’t know about hitting a nerve, but crazy has a nerve, &, as I stated,
all he;s good for is name calling!
That does upset me.
Are you a climatescientologist crazy?
Interesting how in the 1970s, …
who’d ‘ave thought, 40 years ago we’d be sitting here drinking chateau de chassalais….
I remember when there were no climate scientists. We just had meteorologists and weathermen (mostly men, not too many women back then)
Are you a climatescientologist crazy?
are you?
>>>I remember when there were no climate scientists. We just had meteorologists and weathermen (mostly men, not too many women back then)
there were lots of things we didn’t have back then that we could do without
>>>are you?
certainly not.
how much are the yearly fees anyhow chrisp
nom nom nom
The_observer said:
I don’t know about hitting a nerve, but crazy has a nerve, &, as I stated,
all he;s good for is name calling!
That does upset me.Are you a climatescientologist crazy?
No Im not a climatescientologist
see
easy
for a third time;
tell me >>>crazy<<<; how sensitive is our climate to a doubling of CO2 in terms of equilibrium global temperature change?
.
AND
.
.
what would be the perfect global average temperature of the Earth
??????
waitinggggggggggg
?????
Are you a climate change denier Observer?
still waiting
Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight
February 25, 2014
“Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies”
Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing.
In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.
After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)
“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.
These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.
Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.
Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C. This compares with a low of about 12°C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22°C during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were completely forested. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.
Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5°C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57°C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.
The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910- 1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?
It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2°C rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.
I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today. However, I am confident that history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future, and the fact that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.
If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife, and human well being, we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. We do not know whether the present pause in temperature will remain for some time, or whether it will go up or down at some time in the near future. What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this important subject.
don’t answer crazy….
>>>Are you a climate change denier Observer?
still waiting
<<<
OK then.
To be labelled a denier one must deny something which has proven to be factual.
therefore I cannot be labelled a denier.
thank you for listening
.
quickly crazy, answer the man before everyone notices our ignorant you are
The_observer said:
>>>Are you a climate change denier Observer?still waiting
<<<OK then.
To be labelled a denier one must deny something which has proven to be factual.
therefore I cannot be labelled a denier.
thank you for listening
You still have not answered the question
Are you a climate change denier
The_observer said:
>>>Are you a climate change denier Observer?still waiting
<<<OK then.
To be labelled a denier one must deny something which has proven to be factual.
therefore I cannot be labelled a denier.
thank you for listening
I was reading about Joan of Arc who at trial was asked if she was in gods grace, which was a trick question and a yes or no would condemn her either way, instead she answered “If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me” neatly sidestepping the trap.
>>>Are you a climate change denier<<<
tell me crazy, do you deny that-
*all climate models for tropospheric warming are wrong by being way overstated?
*that there has been no warming for between 15 to 17 years & six months?
*that the rate of warming in the mid troposphere has been slower than at the surface during the warming period from the late seventies to the late 1990s?
The_observer said:
>>>Are you a climate change denier<<<
tell me crazy, do you deny that-
*all climate models for tropospheric warming are wrong by being way overstated?
*that there has been no warming for between 15 to 17 years & six months?
*that the rate of warming in the mid troposphere has been slower than at the surface during the warming period from the late seventies to the late 1990s?
- and that tropospheric water vapour content has not increased?
- that stratospheric water vapour content has decreased?
- and that lower stratospheric temps have not decreased since the mid 1990s?
They are related questions, but not the question I am asking
are you a climate change denier?
apparently you cannot comprehend my answer on that question crazy.
I can only come to the conclusion that your interpretation of the meaning of the phrase “climate change denier’
is void of reality.
How about you tell me what your interpretation of that phrase is,
then maybe I’ll be able to answer in a way that makes sense to you?
Skunkworks said:
The_observer said:
>>>Are you a climate change denier Observer?still waiting
<<<OK then.
To be labelled a denier one must deny something which has proven to be factual.
therefore I cannot be labelled a denier.
thank you for listening
I was reading about Joan of Arc who at trial was asked if she was in gods grace, which was a trick question and a yes or no would condemn her either way, instead she answered “If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me” neatly sidestepping the trap.
Didn’t work in the long run though.
You still have not answered the question
Are you a climate change denier
———————————————-
What the Fuck is that?
Someone who thinks next years weather will be exactly like the long term average…
That’s a bit like saying the long term average IQ of humans… is the dumbass.