[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Leaving us, it would appear, 1960-1974 inclusive to work with so as to come to our conclusion that man is the principal cause of global warming.
[/quote]
Yes, Bill, you are exactly correct. You know, those years when politicians and academia were running around convincing people of the oncoming and urgent Global Cooling catastrophe…
Well at that time, then those years were colder than usual. So at the time they proved global cooling and an imminent Ice Age.
Looking back at them now, they also were colder than usual. Thus, change relative to that proves global warming and imminent warming disaster.
I don’t comment on climate change that much, but I have to say the following.
This whole thing is right along the lines of all the conclusion jumping politically and financially motivated bullshit that comes out of the “healthcare” industry about which I actually have commented hundreds of times outside the PWI forum.
I do believe there are many (quite expensive) prescription drugs taken by the truckload by people in this country based on studies conducted by people with a lot to gain if certain conclusion are demonstrated. Anybody who’s followed the nutrition and physiology “science” for any length of time has seen last weeks dire warning or revolutionary breakthrough become this weeks begrudged concession to under designed and or poorly interpreted models and or methodology.
I’ll say about this what I’ve said about that 1000 times. For all the incredible advances of the last 100 years we don’t know shit. There are gaping holes in our understanding of human physiology and it’s no better and probably a lot worse when attempting to asses subtle changes in the climate of an entire planet which is part of a solar system which is part of a galaxy which is part of a universe about which we also have literally astronomically gaping holes in our understanding.
Human scientific arrogance is truly breathtaking and nothing new. I’ll say again. In 500 years much of what we “KNOW” today will be chuckled at with empathetic condescension.
Ouch! That’s gonna hurt!
Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century â?? but the report’s author now says true estimate is still unknown
These errors, tragically making AGW look bad, are clearly Bush’s fault.
How, you may ask?
Bush blew up the dikes because he doesn’t care about scientists. With their homes flooded, climate scientists were distracted, and they confused water levels in their homes with ocean water levels. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
The claim that temperatures correlate closely with CO2 is false.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_21_4_kauffman.pdf
Chemical assays done in the past, of which very many were performed and published, show IPCC claims that CO2 is now at record levels to be quite untrue.
The claim of recent temperatures being unprecedentedly high isn’t exactly true either.
But what AGW’er needs truth?
Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Issues: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
My pro-AGW “friends” won’t read anything but the fucking NYT and the New Fucking Yorker Magazine. So they may never find out that the AGW scam is over. Years may pass. And years from now, they’ll be rather like the Japanese “hold outs” found in the South Pacific who were never informed that the war was over. [/quote]
Man, the New Yorker hasn’t been a serious publication in for freakin’ ever. The coffee shop I get my caffeine injections from carries it, and I always flip through it hoping to find something valuable or erudite. I am invariably disappointed. I like literary mags, and I like art, and I used to like the New Yorker. But damn am I always disappointed to read that magazine nowadays.
[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/06/08/science/08GREENLAND_GRAPHIC.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300539,00.html
From FoxNews:
“And what is plainly obvious to all of us is that whether you think the cause is human-induced global warming or simply cyclical weather conditions the climate is changing up here and the ice cap is melting.”
Before coming onto these forums I honestly didn’t even know this topic was up for debate. I have lots of empirical/peer reviewed evidence, but I would have to go on a photocopying spree and the University Library is closed for the Olympics. I don’t care if you believe it’s man’s fault or not, but to doubt climate change, and not specifically warming, but heat and precipitation distribution, in addition to other factors, is for me at least, unfathomable.[/quote]
I’d like you to type up or link some of those articles if you could. No photocopying required, as that’s incredibly time consuming, although I have no idea why an entire university library would shut down for the Olympics.
No one here doubts that climate is changing. Even the anti-global warming people think the climate is changing. The point that always rages at the center of the debates on this forum is whether it is mans fault or not. and as a sub point a) if man is a factor is it decisive and/or the primary factor, and b) if man is a factor is it decisive enough to warrant massive policy change and new or increased tax burden.
I personally believe that the climate change is cyclical and that the science behind the AGW crowd is too politicized to be good science, whether it’s ultimately right or wrong that man is the decisive factor, and that politics is hurting the science. It seems that recent events are bearing my opinion out. Good science should never be politicized.
