------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[JustTheFacts]

Originally Posted by prashamk

Huge compilation dear. Do you have links to any of the article mentioned in your list.

I am not doubting you. I just want to read them myself and derive a conclusion on the matter.

Unfortunately, journals charge big bucks for their magazines - that's how they stay in business. You can try copying each article into Google to see if the article or abstract is available online.

On second thought... I found a website with links to many of these papers: http://www.warmingscaretactics.com/P...iew_Papers.php

[JustTheFacts]

Then there are these 60 scientists that say that anthropogenic global warming is crap:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...e-4db87559d605

[prashamk]

Thanks for the links.

[ThankyouMoneypenny]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

And this is the thing about deniers, they don't believe science.

Which is fine, because neither do intelligent design believers nor flat earthers. But deniers
claim that they have scientific backing, but they do not.

I believe in science when it is backed up by proof.
I do not believe the Earth is flat. It has been proven not to be so.
I do not believe in the Intelligent Design Theory. It has no proof to back it up.
Science is proof without belief. Religion is belief without proof.
Go figure.


Oh, the irony.

Oh, is that like "anthropogenic rain on your wedding day" (apologies to Alanis Morrissette) irony? Or maybe the irony of a bunch of scientists screaming to the world that man-made CO2 is directly responsible for global warming, then trying to explain why 'other factors' may be the cause when the temperature stops rising?

We get it. Science is real. The greenhouse effect is a consequence of well understood optics. This is why there are no scientific organizations nor scientific papers that support denial. It's not science. It's another example of the loony fringe. Like homeopathy and astrology.

Of course the Greenhouse Effect (GE) is real. It is the reason the Earth's atmosphere is 33 deg C warmer than it would be without GHGs. What's your point? Who says it is not real? Who on this thread is denying the GE? Stop making stuff up.


Well, no. The costs of global warming are about 20 times the cost of acting. So we don't need proof, we need a greater than 5% risk.

Oh yeah? Says who?

What we have is evidence beyond all reasonable doubt, the backing of the world's scientists supported by a plethora of evidence as layed out in about 2000 papers in the last 15 years about "global climate change", and a great many others on it's consequences.

This is what you don't get. There is no point in using your scientific peer-reviewed papers as proof of your argument when we 'sceptics' distrust the the AGW alarmist-scientist-lobby in the first place! Give us some facts and we may take some notice. You can have 20,000 papers as far as I am concerned. Until their hype is backed up by the planet, they are meaningless drivel. And, despite what you may think, there are a large number of climatologists who disagree with you.


Rubbish. Utter rubbish. What crap. Go read some science. There's a plethora of current effects out there from global warming and many of them have been tied to anthropogenic global warming.
I don't get how you can even try to say that all we have is models predictions and theories. How can you be so ignorant of the subject and yet post at such length on it? How can you be so adamant in your position if you have done no research? Have you not even followed the links on current human mortality due to climate change, on the movement of ranges, of the invasion of sub arctic and alpine ecosystems by temperate species, of the phenological changes, of glacier reduction, of sea ice loss, and of disease range spread, (to name a few off the top of my head)?

'Rubbish. Utter rubbish. What crap.' Oh, nice line in debating, BW. Current human mortality due to climate change? Is that what it said on their death certificates? Amazing. I agree there has been a drop in biodiversity but how do you know it is caused by climate change, as opposed to man's mismanagement of resources? And just because the climate is changing doesn't mean that man is responsible. The climate has been changing for the past - oh, 2 billion years?


Well, it's more than 0.6, you are yet to produce a paper that claims that there has been a recent cooling, and sea level rise is non-linear. It is also almost entirely due to the temperature of the ocean, and it shows no evidence of your "recent slight cooling", so your scope of integrating evidence doesn't even include thinking about things that you put adjacent in a sentence.
Willful idiocy.
There is one Kyoto protocol. What are Kyoto agreements? I've never heard of them, heard of things that have had $50 billion spent on them, so strongly suspect that you don't know what you're talking about here too. Although economics is not my field, and I am more confident that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the science.

More than 0.6 deg C between 1950 and 2000? I've looked at the graphs again and, nope, it looks like about 0.6 to me. Maybe 0.7 on a bad day. Look again.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research.../HadCRUT3.html

As for sea-level. What do you mean it is non-linear? Don't you mean non-existent? Please show us some proof of significant sea-level rise.
And as for Kyoto. You say 'What are Kyoto agreements?' Are you serious? How do you think they arrive at a Protocol? Here is a description from Wikipedia:
The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reducing their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases (GHG), or engaging in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these green house gases.
See: Kyoto Protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you seem not to have heard of 'agreements', I wonder if you have also not heard of the word 'sanctimonious'?


It is known to be more than "contributed (in some way)".

Known by the AGW alarmists? No-one doubts that man has contributed, it is the size of the contribution and the size of the hype that I - for one - disagree with.


Right. And so we know that you have no familiarity with the science, and you should familiarize yourself with it, pre armed with the knowledge that no scientific organization or research backs your position.

Yeah, you're probably right, I need to improve my scientific understanding. Maybe you could help me here by answering a few simple questions.
How much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made?
How much of the warming due to increased CO2 is man-made?
What will happen to the absorption levels of the CO2 in the atmosphere if the CO2 is doubled?
How will those absorption levels change when it is doubled again?
Why is water vapour not included in the graphs you guys show to 'prove' your point?
Does water vapour contribute to Global Warming, irrespective of whether it is a feedback or forcing?
Thanks in anticipation, Obi Wan.

They have said that man is mostly to blame. The strong probability is that man is entirely to blame.

Who is they? However did the temperature change before man arrived?

150,000 human deaths per year, and millions of days of sickness. More than 25% drop in biodiversity over the past 35 years, including the devastation of alpine species, sub arctic communities and coral communities. Appearance of sharks in waters previously too cold for them, the disappearance of amphibians on every continent, loss of water security and flooding on the sub continent, the disappearance at high tide of inhabited islands in the pacific, the destruction due to melting of innuit villages.

And the pending high casualty, high cost tipping point; the loss of the Northern Summer Sea ice. The climatic consequences will be sharp and in some parts of the world, severe.

Hmmm. Without wishing to disrespect the dead, you are saying that 150,000 people out of approximately 50 million died of 'climate change'. Not being very scientifically minded I may have trouble with the math but I believe that to be approximately 0.003%, which is approximately one-tenth of the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Not much of an argument, really, is it?


Science. Obviously.

This is why I've been trying to get you to produce some science to back your position. (That's peer reviewed science, not crackpot science.)

See notes on the scientific questions above.


Yeah, wake up.

For the forum, my stuff is in blue!

[Paradox]

Dear all,

FRAUDULENT SCIENCE

My advice to climate alarmists is that now is an appropriate time to start planning your exit strategy. The whole IPCC/UNFCCC edifice is about to disintegrate.

I described these events in my recent memos. My position during all these years has been very simple. I could find no evidence of unnatural changes in the officially published hydrometeorological records.

Not only is there no believable evidence in the data to support climate alarmism, but the evidence refutes the IPCC's claims and completely undermines its position.

What is the future of climate alarmism and its associated research? There is none. The globe is cooling, the glaciers are advancing and Bangladesh is not being inundated by rising sea levels. Public interest is falling and the media are becoming more critical. The possibility of nations reaching agreement on meaningful actions to control, let alone reduce, their undesirable emissions is receding by the day. The basic science underlying the IPCC's position is being eroded away, stone by stone.

If the alarmists try to follow the adaptation route, they will be squashed underfoot by civil engineers and applied hydrologists.

There is only one remaining option. Abandon ship.

Kind regards,
Will

Will Alexander is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Honorary Fellow, South African Institution of Civil Engineering; and was a member of the UN’s Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters from 1994 to 2000

Actually, the prospect of a massive cold-snap is cause for alarm... but I do agree with his assessment of the state of GW affairs. 'Abandon Ship!' .... priceless

[Paradox]

CERN PAPER - let's see if this link remains active

http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/...804.1938v1.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...804.1938v1.pdf

[ThankyouMoneypenny]

Originally Posted by Paradox

Actually, the prospect of a massive cold-snap is cause for alarm... but I do agree with his assessment of the state of GW affairs. 'Abandon Ship!' .... priceless

"Will Alexander is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Honorary Fellow, South African Institution of Civil Engineering; and was a member of the UN’s Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters from 1994 to 2000."

Yeah, but he's not a real scientist like what Al Gore is... innit?

[Paradox]

CERN announces start-up date for LHC

[Paradox]

Anchorage’s record setting cold summer

[prashamk]

Originally Posted by Paradox

CERN announces start-up date for LHC

How does it link with the topics we are discussing?