Are we really suppose to take global warming cultists seriously?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...#StartComments

I mean, come on, look at this fruit. Sorry, when your spokesmen for your cult is Al Gore and Mr Silly Shirt man, how are we suppose to buy into this scam?

Are we really suppose to take Devastatin Dave seriously?

Because sometimes i don't know if you're serious, or just one big sarcastic jokey stereotype of a right-wing 'americun', being operated by some hippie out of his arthouse studio apartment in San Francisco.

one so prone to vanity is probably easily swayed by the thin arguments of global warming advocates.

It's "supposed", everyone who wants to be taken seriously should know that. ~;p

And what's so bad about a dutchman showing that he really cares? :inquisitive:

Maybe it doesn't suit the macho attitude of those who don't but then I don't really care about them. :dizzy2:

Cult or non cult, I'm still a little sceptical full stop.
I don't argue with the fact that the planet is getting warmer but doesn't our planet have a history of hotter and cooler phases? I'm just a bit fed up with it all, and feel that if we knew the next ice age was going to happen in 100 years time we'd be finding reasons to blame ourselves for that too in spite of the fact that we've had ice ages before mankinds industrial revolution.
Sigh... I think if we had been around when Pangaea first split we'd have blamed ourselves for that too. :oops:

What he said.

I don't disagree with the concept. But I'm sick to death of hearing about it. :skull:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justiciar

What he said.

I don't disagree with the concept. But I'm sick to death of hearing about it. :skull:

---

Sick of the clowns which are trod out center stage to advocate their cause. It makes me want to burn half the trees in the US. China doesn't care and reason is AWOL.

Bored to death with it.
And we have a BBC radio station dedicated to news (radio 5) which was reporting a few months ago that 56% of scientists surveyed were not convinced that humans were to blame for global warming. So why am I getting it shoved down my throat every day that it's my fault when the majority of the scientists were still sceptical? The station then went on to mention later in the show that "scientists" were telling us how naughty we are and how we need to stop farting etc to save the planet. Is that the minority scientists then?
I'm confused, bored and alienated when it comes to this subject now. :help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar

Are we really suppose to take Devastatin Dave seriously?

Because sometimes i don't know if you're serious, or just one big sarcastic jokey stereotype of a right-wing 'americun', being operated by some hippie out of his arthouse studio apartment in San Francisco.

---

You should see me in chaps....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

You should see me in chaps....

---

Sure, that would be a laugh :beam:

With regards to the global warming issue - i do kind of agree with the rest of you. I am sick of it being constantly on the news (it's like the case of Madeleine McCann - sure, it's terrible, but i don't bloody care 4 months later!) and do believe that it's not entirely our fault - that the natural warming and cooling periods of the Earth are also responsible, it's just our bad luck that we decided to go and build up civilisation during a warming period.

Oh come on Dave. We all know the only reason you don't agree with global warming and Al Gore is because you're secretly gay. When you start threads like this, it's like a cry for help... "Please, love me. Recognize me for what I am... gay and stuck in a closet".

You got it snoogums. I'm here for you. :kiss2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Oh come on Dave. We all know the only reason you don't agree with global warming and Al Gore is because you're secretly gay. When you start threads like this, it's like a cry for help... "Please, love me. Recognize me for what I am... gay and stuck in a closet".

You got it snoogums. I'm here for you. :kiss2:

---

And all this time I thought that only one person here on the org understood the REAL me...
Thanks Don to being sensitive to my not so obvious cries. I'm off to pick out some drapes...

So, more seriously now, the apparent trend in this thread is that overexposure to the issue is causing apathy and skepticism, correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

So, more seriously now, the apparent trend in this thread is that overexposure to the issue is causing apathy and skepticism, correct?

---

Correct.

At least, that's the case among us. I think the general population is yet to catch up with us, the intellectual elite.

Well it kinda hurts when the most polluting conference in history doesn't give any results. Love the Mandela shirt, oh teh martyr, don't want to see him here anymore unless he rows back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

So, more seriously now, the apparent trend in this thread is that overexposure to the issue is causing apathy and skepticism, correct?

---

Overexposure could be worse. I think it's more the removal of the actual scientific debate from headlines, replaced with the essentially political side of things (on either side here) which anyone can see for what it is: a sham which isn't about the actual issues at hand.

It's kind of hard to believe that these folks running the conference really consider the issue of man-caused global warming to be serious when each of them flew there in their own personal jet to a South Pacific island.

Maybe if the oceans start rising slightly, or more devestation affects the landscape one of you brilliant minds will come up with a remedy?

Of course the global warming community is overblowing the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere, but is anyone here denying it? I'd like to think of myself as a moderate but Im not hearing a whole lot of moderate solutions.

Its like the democrats circa 2002-5 they had no platform of thier own they just pissed and moaned about what the other party was doing.

any takers on a course of action or am I imagining all the stuff thats occuring environmentally? Its okay if you think I am, I've been accused of living in a fantasy world in my mind for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Maybe if the oceans start rising slightly, one of you brilliant minds will come up with a remedy?

---

sure we will, its called sea defences and they'll work just fine.

it's bangladesh that will suffer, but because they are poor rather than the fact the sea will be higher there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

sure we will, its called sea defences and they'll work just fine.

it's bangladesh that will suffer, but because they are poor rather than the fact the sea will be higher there.

---

Ah, thanks for falling into the trap.

So we will react when the event occurs, not be proactive to prevent the event?

I'm not sold on doom and gloom yet, but there are a lot of people poo pooing the fact that we are emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere then ever.

Eventually its going to bite us in the behind, and the price is going to be high.

It's almost christmas and still no snow here. :furious3:
I wouldn't be surprised if we get almost none at all this winter, been that way for a while now. I'm repeating myself but I don't care why that is, I just want my snow back. :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

It's almost christmas and still no snow here. :furious3:
I wouldn't be surprised if we get almost none at all this winter, been that way for a while now. I'm repeating myself but I don't care why that is, I just want my snow back. :furious3:

---

Take some of mine. We've gotten 2 1/2 feet in the past 2 weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Take some of mine. We've gotten 2 1/2 feet in the past 2 weeks.

---

Thanks, very nice of you. I can PM you my adress if you cannot afford to deliver enough to cover all of NRW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Ah, thanks for falling into the trap.

So we will react when the event occurs, not be proactive to prevent the event?

---

If that is the most cost-effective and efficient way to handle a problem? Of course. Again, let me summarize:
1. We don't know what role, if any, we're playing in global climate change.
2. Even if it were man-generated CO2 causing all the warming, it's impossible for us to make the needed cuts in time to stop it.
3. We don't know how much warming there really is and if it would really be such a bad thing.
4. Since we don't know if there is a problem, nor can we do anything about it if there is one- the only choice is to continue being as prosperous as possible so as to be able to deal with any consequences when, and if they occur.

Quote:

---

Eventually its going to bite us in the behind, and the price is going to be high.

---

That's far from clear.

Quote:

---

Well it kinda hurts when the most polluting conference in history doesn't give any results. Love the Mandela shirt, oh teh martyr, don't want to see him here anymore unless he rows back.

---

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll be crying the whole flight home on his private jet while pondering global warming. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

It's kind of hard to believe that these folks running the conference really consider the issue of man-caused global warming to be serious when each of them flew there in their own personal jet to a South Pacific island.

---

It's even better than that, iirc. I'd heard that there wasn't room enough on the island's airport to park all of their private jets that they're flying in on- so many of them, after dropping of their kook environmentalist payloads, had to take off again, empty, and travel to nearby airports with larger hangers. Of course, they'll then have to fly back empty as well to pick up their 'deeply concerned for the environment' passengers before they leave their island resort. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

1. We don't know what role, if any, we're playing in global climate change.

---

Can we agree that we are emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere? I'm no scientist so I wont sit here and claim an absolute that we are the cause of global warming. I will claim we are emitting to much CO2 into the atmosphere, do you agree with this claim? If not then that would be unsurmountable position for us.

Quote:

---

2. Even if it were man-generated CO2 causing all the warming, it's impossible for us to make the needed cuts in time to stop it.

---

So remain status quo and hope for the best? How did that work out in New Orleans (as an abstract point of reference of course :wiseguy:)

Quote:

---

3. We don't know how much warming there really is and if it would really be such a bad thing.

---

I can agree on that, I am not above backing down from my position either. However since we cant prove or disprove it either way, I much rather go the prevention route. Better to be safe then sorry IMHO.

Quote:

---

4. Since we don't know if there is a problem, nor can we do anything about it if there is one- the only choice is to continue being as prosperous as possible so as to be able to deal with any consequences when, and if they occur.

---

Thankfully a lot of other intelligent people in the world have the opposite position than you. because now your talking about absolutes yourself "the only choice" isnt the only choice. Again, I dont think the end is near but I do think reducing CO2 emissions should be a goal and is attainable if we try and fail at least we tried.

Of course if you dont believe the problem will end up being tangiable down the road then thats certainly your perogative, however heat waves in the EU killing people, fires on the west coast, floods in the mid west, drought in the east and down under they have had a drought for years.

Best answer I have gotten from the poo pooers on these events are its the natural course of nature, or historically this is normal fare yadda yadda but the ivory tower mentality is cynical at best at this point.

Its a simple enough equation even those committed to shouting down the environmental left certainly cant deny the one signifigant point, can the earth consume our CO2 emissions without having a devestating effect?

Maybe some of you are gamblers, thats cool. I much rather spend a little coin now and eleminate a potential threat down the road. As they say, a little money up front can save you money down the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Overexposure could be worse. I think it's more the removal of the actual scientific debate from headlines, replaced with the essentially political side of things (on either side here) which anyone can see for what it is: a sham which isn't about the actual issues at hand.

---

Well said! These days it's harder to find a graph of all temperature increase data, than it is to find 500 bloggers, politicians, lobbyist groups and general scumbags speaking about how the global warming should be solved by handing them millions of dollars. Worst example I came across lately, was some company owner who said we should stop recycling and taking care of heavy metal pollutions (which are very easy to solve, and in fact all of us are, knowing or not, actually taking care of this at the moment), and instead buy products from his company. Truth is, his company's impact on environment will be 1/1,000,000 of the damage he would cause if people would listen to his BS about not keeping the current systems for reducing heavy metals emission into lakes and similar.

The matter of most interest to everybody is exactly how serious the problem is, with as exact numerical data as possible. (Most) People are not too stupid to realize what needs to be done when they see the hard facts. No, the current mass media coverage focuses less on the hard scientific data than on:
1. presenting a person who is working with the issue, showing how he toasts his breads in the morning or what clothes he is wearing
2. talking about some useless meeting that is being held about the issue - meetings were total idiots who know almost nothing about the issue meet, after getting there by polluting jets, to discuss whether their Dom Perignon or Beluga caviar was most fresh today
3. talking about people who are talking about people who are talking about global warming
4. telling what the consequences could be if the consequences of the consequences of global warming would arise
5. trying to undermine the credibility of the global warming research by not mentioning anything except bogus reports and research made by lobbyist organizations such as oil companies and weapons manufacturers who are seeking to prevent a solution to the global warming problem from happening

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

1. We don't know what role, if any, we're playing in global climate change.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

2. Even if it were man-generated CO2 causing all the warming, it's impossible for us to make the needed cuts in time to stop it.

---

These two statements are somewhat contradictory. How can you "know" (read: completely without supporting argumentation or scientific data claim) that we can't solve the problem if we've caused it, if you simultaneously claim we don't know how much effect our actions have? If we don't know which part of our actions causes the warming as you claim, then how can you be so sure that we can't eliminate that cause? :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

3. We don't know how much warming there really is and if it would really be such a bad thing

---

Have you heard of thermometers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

5. trying to undermine the credibility of the global warming research by not mentioning anything except bogus reports and research made by lobbyist organizations such as oil companies and weapons manufacturers who are seeking to prevent a solution to the global warming problem from happening

---

You forgot to say military industrial complex! :wall:

This the the 'amersfoortse kei'

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...oortse_Kei.jpg, but it's really from Norway, last ice-age ended right here so we have these big stones. It's solar activity not CO2. CO2 is just a stfu to raise taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...#StartComments

I mean, come on, look at this fruit. Sorry, when your spokesmen for your cult is Al Gore and Mr Silly Shirt man, how are we suppose to buy into this scam?

---

Oh, look at Mr. Scientist speaking. :rolleyes:

Some background info on the credibility of environment research:

- Ozone layer crisis - CFC gases used in refrigerators and similar caused severe damages to the ozone layer, threatening to remove all protection against UV light, which can break down DNA and cause mutations and cancer. A continuation of use of CFC gases up till now, instead of the prohibition of it and active research gone into finding alternatives, would likely have increased skin cancer rates by up to 100% today, if not even more. There are still irrepairable damages to some parts of the ozone layer, especially near the South Pole, but the problem is not increasing any more. The switching from CFC gases to alternatives was NOT giving any competitive advantage to the companies that switched by free will, so in order to create any incentive to stop destruction of the absolutely vital ozone layer, prohibition was needed. The combined efforts of science, and political actions by prohibition solved a problem which in a matter of 50 years could have resulted in world-wide skin cancer mass epidemia.
SOLVED

- Acidification problem - the acidification of lakes led to mass death of species in lakes, and damages to trees and other vegetation. The damages to vegetation in general contributed to climate changes as CO2 binding was reduced, but also to many other problems, such as decreasing water quality and difficulties obtaining fresh water. This was solved by a number of measures to reduce certain especially harmful substances, the introduction of catalysts to car engines, and decrease in pollution of various other substances (through putting bans on certain substances, and maximum content percentages on other). Halting increase of this problem has been solved, but the damages made to the environment will take approximately 100-500 years to recover.
SOLVED

- TBE disaster - causing massive damages to human beings and animals alike, by assembling in fat tissue, this substance was banned, even though the replacements could be more expensive and less effective. The ban was necessary to give a market incentive to prevent usage of the harmful, cheap and short term effective substance over the use of better alternatives.
SOLVED

- Heavy metal emissions - caused mass-death of fish in lakes, among other things. These heavy metals can also be radioactive (causing cancer etc), and/or poisoning of humans. Drinking water quality was heavily threatened. Bans and maximum content percentage laws were passed after accurate information was provided by researchers, and the problem has been solved (as in that it won't increase much if the current policy is maintained). Industry had no major problems transferring to alternative materials even though they could be more expensive or require more complex architecture/design of the products.
SOLVED

- Eutrophication - not yet solved, but thorougly analyzed. Caused problems in supply of clear drinking water, and also causes major lakes to disappear by becoming land out of the earth bound by the dense vegetation. A lot of solutions are being developed to decrease the problem, by support from research and bans and restrictions on the most dangerous substances. Part of the problem still remains to be solved. It is critical to our food supply, because the undermined soil quality caused by too quick growth-harvest cycles is dealth with by increased use of chemical fertilizers, which are a major cause in eutrophication. This problem has been recognized by research but is not expected to be solved completely any time soon by simple technology improvements, but may rather require halting of the population growth to work.
SCIENTIFIC PART ALMOST SOLVED, POLITICAL PART HALFWAY SOLVED

- Global warming - accurate data for the problem exists, but the problem is not yet solved. The biggest problem lies entirely in the sphere of politics and mass media. Researchers have classified the problems and substances very well and have provided many different possible ways of solving the problem, depending on which policy the politicians prefer to choose. The problem now lies entirely in the hands of the politicians and mass media.
SCIENTIFIC PART ALMOST SOLVED, POLITICAL PART NOT SOLVED

The difficulty now compared to the previous problems, is that China and India and various other countries in the world, where education levels are low, and democracy more or less non-existent, have to take part in the negotiations. Back in the 50ies to 90ies, when the other problems were solved, we only needed to discuss within Europe and America, and had no problems reaching agreements, since the level of trust was high among the negotiating parts, and no countries which were at war with each other or in aggressive economical competition were on the opposite sides of the negotiation table.

All these environment negotiations are like the prisoner's dilemma (see wiki: Prisoner's dilemma), i.e. where both you and an opponent have one option "nice", and one option "aggressive". The rules are that if both choose "nice", both will win much, if both choose "aggressive", both lose a lot, but most of all is lost by one who chooses "nice" when the other chooses "aggressive", and most is won by one who chooses "aggressive" when the opponent chooses "nice". The problem is to correctly choose between "nice" and "aggressive" to get the best possible outcome. Typically over a long period of time, those who manage to cooperate and trust each other win compared to any who ever used the "aggressive" option. Conversely, those who are hesitant to use force to respond to offenses, and refuse to switch to "aggressive" to respond when an opponent chooses "aggressive", end up losing the most. What we need to do, is to ensure that all parties choose "nice", or otherwise we will have to make them do so.

The prisoner's dilemma gives no problems when both parties trust each other: then both will choose "nice". When there's lack of trust, both will have problems choosing, since they expect that the opponent may very well choose "aggressive". The only solution is to form pacts among those who are prepared to cooperate, and invade countries who try to sabotage peace and justice for all other countries in the world. If the enviromental problems aren't solved, just as much is at stake as in the previous environmental problems which we DID solve. I think it's time we start considering using military threats towards China and India if they refuse to cooperate and accept treaties on reducing emissions of the most dangerous substances. However, to facilitate negotiations we should still leave out most poor countries in Africa, South America and central Asia, because this will make the countries in Europe, America and China and Asia more likely to reach an agreement, and we have the largest emissions and industrialized populations. After that, it would be much easier to press other countries to join, by force or not. European and American armies are perfectly suited to that type of war: it includes no occupation phase whatsoever, just a bomb-every-factory-to-pieces campaigns, which could be carried out with minimal casualties.

Additionally, we need to heavily fight the problems that spreading of false information about the problem is. Boycott all global warming sources that have any profit interest behind them. That includes Al Gore's movie, various other documentaries not made by non-profit organizations or representatives of states, and newspapers that publish sensationalist stories about the problem.

Piers Corbyn.

Nuff said.

scientists are further critical of his methods due to the low probability of his results

hmm, I would call 80% quite something.

"As Corbyn refuses to publish his methods in any journal, scientists are further critical of his methods due to the low probability of his results"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

"In October 2007 Corbyn predicted a superstorm for Great Britain and The Netherlands at the end of November 2007[8]. Satellite images on 20 November 2007 though prove that this prediction is false.[9] Many people in the Netherlands (mostly older people) were very concerned and some people even started to lock themselves up in their houses, thinking the predicted 'superstorm' in the last weekend of november would cause a lot of damage. When the storm did not occur, Corbyn started changing the date, and still said the storm would come (later in 2007)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

"Corbyn is also a global warming sceptic. His beliefs stem from the same solar forecasting he uses for his predictions [...] predictions [...] based on what [he calls] 'The Solar Weather Technique'. [...] combines [...] analysis of over a century of historical weather patterns with [...] solar observations. [...] He considers past weather patterns and current solar observations, drawing correlations between cosmic radiation and cloud cover."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

No offense meant, but he sounds like a good old Nostradamus to me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Ah, thanks for falling into the trap.

So we will react when the event occurs, not be proactive to prevent the event?

I'm not sold on doom and gloom yet, but there are a lot of people poo pooing the fact that we are emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere then ever.

Eventually its going to bite us in the behind, and the price is going to be high.

---

What trap.................? :inquisitive:

Let me be clear:
> I am not against reducing emissions and pollution, it is a good thing and results in less local ecological stress.
> I am totally for some level of renewable energy as diversification of supply is another way of saying energy security.
> I am very much in favour of energy saving measures because using 1KW/hour of electricity a day to heat your home is always going to be better than using 10.
> I. Agree. That. The. World. Is. Warming.

But it is the poor that suffer from rapid-change and extreme-variation of weather and climate patterns.

So before we engage in gargantuan legislative monstrosities such as kyoto i would like to know that the trillions spent would be better directed at ending poverty, i.e. building the bangladeshi's some houses that won't get washed in the hundreds of thousands by a nasty monsoon in 50 years time.

I would also only like to do the above on the condition that everyone piles in as there is not much point if India, China and co don't join the party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

These two statements are somewhat contradictory. How can you "know" (read: completely without supporting argumentation or scientific data claim) that we can't solve the problem if we've caused it, if you simultaneously claim we don't know how much effect our actions have? If we don't know which part of our actions causes the warming as you claim, then how can you be so sure that we can't eliminate that cause? :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

---

It's pretty obvious, but I'll explain it anyway. If man-generated CO2 is the problem, which we've been generating more and more of since the industrial revolution, it would be utterly impossible for us to stop producing CO2- period. The claim isn't that it's just current levels of CO2 that are too much, the claim is that it's been happening for decades. Making the kind of cuts that would roll our energy consumption back to the 1960's or earlier would be akin to suicide- it's not going to happen. Thus, if it is a problem(I have some serious doubts), we can't stop it.

Quote:

---

Have you heard of thermometers?

---

Are you serious? :no:

If you want to actually debate the science, get up to speed on this thread and then make any points there. I'm not interested in simultaneously re-arguing the exact same things over again here.

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

So remain status quo and hope for the best? How did that work out in New Orleans (as an abstract point of reference of course :wiseguy:)

---

What about New Orleans? I'm not seeing the relevance.

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

What trap.................? :inquisitive:

---

In your 1st post in response to my hypothetical of the ocean rising you said you would build sea defenses. Did I take you the wrong way? Would that be a reaction to the issue? Or a choice to do so before it happened? I suspect you meant it as a reaction, and thats the trap we cant fall into. Did I read you wrong? :inquisitive:

Capital exprenditures always seem to cost more when the problem is present, as opposed to anticipated.

Quote:

---

Let me be clear:
> I am not against reducing emissions and pollution, it is a good thing and results in less local ecological stress.
> I am totally for some level of renewable energy as diversification of supply is another way of saying energy security.
> I am very much in favour of energy saving measures because using 1KW/hour of electricity a day to heat your home is always going to be better than using 10.
> I. Agree. That. The. World. Is. Warming.

But it is the poor that suffer from rapid-change and extreme-variation of weather and climate patterns.

---

a proactive solution based on your above comment would help to address the comment below with the noted exception of high lighted part.

Quote:

---

So before we engage in gargantuan legislative monstrosities such as kyoto i would like to know that the trillions spent would be better directed at ending poverty, i.e. building the bangladeshi's some houses that won't get washed in the hundreds of thousands by a nasty monsoon in 50 years time.

---

We dont need kyoto or any other binding international treaty on this issue. What we need is for countries to be proactive now, before a binding treaty like this is needed and we are up to our behinds in the muck and everyone needs a bail out.

The problem seems to be is you have people, intelligent people too (see Xiahou) who simply are prepared to hope for the best. Short of proof I sympathize with thier position, however shouting down the other side without proof to the contrary rings just as hollow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

"As Corbyn refuses to publish his methods in any journal, scientists are further critical of his methods due to the low probability of his results"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

"In October 2007 Corbyn predicted a superstorm for Great Britain and The Netherlands at the end of November 2007[8]. Satellite images on 20 November 2007 though prove that this prediction is false.[9] Many people in the Netherlands (mostly older people) were very concerned and some people even started to lock themselves up in their houses, thinking the predicted 'superstorm' in the last weekend of november would cause a lot of damage. When the storm did not occur, Corbyn started changing the date, and still said the storm would come (later in 2007)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

He sounds like your average sensationalist Nostradamus...

---

Why bother with political scientists? He has an 80% succes, nobody can claim that. He is right not to bother with extremists, we have a market for smart people, let's leave the propaganda to screamers and their funders.

By the way, superstorm didn't happen, it was a normal one. Wasn't a superstorm that led to the flood in the fifties, just verything that could go wrong did. Look at a map, when we have a certain wind and a certain stream we are a bottleneck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Piers Corbyn.

Nuff said.

scientists are further critical of his methods due to the low probability of his results

hmm, I would call 80% quite something.

---

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/20...ith-piers.html

"Moreover, he refuses to detail his techniques or even test his skill in any objective manner"

"It seems likely that much of his "success", such as it is, is based on issuing forecasts that read like horoscopes, where an optimistic assessor would find merit, but a critical assessor would find fault"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/20...ith-piers.html

"Moreover, he refuses to detail his techniques or even test his skill in any objective manner"

"It seems likely that much of his "success", such as it is, is based on issuing forecasts that read like horoscopes, where an optimistic assessor would find merit, but a critical assessor would find fault"

---

If someone has an 80% succesrate I don't have to know why, let the numbers speak. Let the screamers explain why there was an iceage in saudi arabia and why antartica was heaven even before the SUV. You will find that the earth doesn't make a perfect circle around the sun because of the gravity from other planets, it's in fact an oval. Happens every 30.000 years or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It's pretty obvious, but I'll explain it anyway. If man-generated CO2 is the problem, which we've been generating more and more of since the industrial revolution, it would be utterly impossible for us to stop producing CO2- period. The claim isn't that it's just current levels of CO2 that are too much, the claim is that it's been happening for decades. Making the kind of cuts that would roll our energy consumption back to the 1960's or earlier would be akin to suicide- it's not going to happen. Thus, if it is a problem(I have some serious doubts), we can't stop it.

---

We removed almost all cavalry from our armies when the tanks begun mass production. We had been using cavalry for 2,000 years when it happened, but nevertheless it was not difficult to remove the obsolete cavalry. Your argument that "just because we've used it a long time we can't remove it" makes no sense. We've made cuts in many substances in recent years. Science and technology has improved a lot since we removed the harmful substances - in most cases we've not lost any life quality. Rather, the opposite, I would claim. In the last 50 years we've introduced more technology than ever, even though we've been more restrictive than ever before in history by passing laws against many substances.

Next will you start telling us to remove our tanks and start using men armed with spiked clubs instead? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Are you serious? :no:

---

Eh? Are you claiming we don't know how much temperature has increased year by year since 1950? :dizzy2: Or what exactly do you try to say by writing like this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

3. We don't know how much warming there really is

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Edit:What about New Orleans? I'm not seeing the relevance.

---

I'll have to go do a search if you want links but I recall at the time the levy system had been underfunded for maintence/updating by the state legislature. Basically they let it remain status quo and hoped for the best, and they got the worse.

Im not saying that it would have saved the city if they had made capital improvement investments, but it might have, and we will never know now will we.

Got it now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

If someone has an 80% succesrate I don't have to know why, let the numbers speak.

---

In that case, I presume you're an ardent supporter of Nostradamus' 99% "successrate" as well?

Let's face it - if a person can't reveal his method, his claims can't be taken as scientific. For now we can just guess - either he has a method, or he is just chancing or phrasing his predictions like an Atrologer formulates horoscopes. As such, nothing he says should be trusted blindly. To do so is somewhat similar to claiming that the average Russian citizen in 1922 should blindly trust Stalin in everything because the first 5 years of Communism in USSR had actually brought economical improvements and shown that their "method" had a high "successrate". We all know how that ended.

No, it's not sensible to blindly trust anyone who can't demonstrate his method. Especially when he, like this Astrologer dude, is making personal profit from his claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

In that case, I presume you're an ardent supporter of Nostradamus' 99% "successrate" as well?

---

If he in fact had that, yeah. Even if it was 80%, and I would settle for even less. Are you in fact saying that mathematicians aren't scientists? They would call 80% rather significant statistically speaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

If he in fact had that, yeah. Even if it was 80%, and I would settle for even less. Are you in fact saying that mathematicians aren't scientists? They would call 80% rather significant statistically speaking.

---

Yes, but he has to agree to having his method tested objectively. Additionally, his method should be analyzed to see if it consistently tends to overestimate or underestimate some particular phenomenon a lot, to evaluate it properly. Third thing is that one should analyze how large his deviation from the correct value is in the cases when he is wrong. The "80% successrate" is his own claim, but what would his success rate be if it was objectively evaluated? What if it is just 5% successrate?

Again, let me take the example with Stalin (yes maybe a bit out of place and extreme example, but incorrect claims are best refuted by taking extreme examples where the fallacy becomes obvious - fallacies are usually not as obvious in everyday examples): the communist regime had by 1922 had an extremely high successrate in improving a lot of things for the average Russian citizen. Should the average Russian citizen in 1922 have reasoned "OMG high successrate but unofficial, secret methdology - yay, that sounds good, now I should blindly trust these guys forever". Or should they reason: "they claim to have a high successrate. First of all, this successrate should be investigated objectively. If it is incorrect, they should be mistrusted more than before for trying to lie. However if the investigation shows that they indeed have a high success rate, then we should ask ourselves - will they maintain the high success rate in the future? That, we will only know if we know if they're using sensible methodology, and argue that there are certain guarantees coming with their method. We should ask ourselves, if the success up till now is just a coincidence."

Is it not understandable that you could suffer an emotional breakdown if you had worked for 12 days arguing over the WORDING of a road map, ie plans about what we will TALK about doing to prevent too much damage to the world, and then on top of that being accused of not doing your job properly.. ?

Or are grown men not allowed under any circumstances to shed a tear..?
(As an example, Saladin I believe is reported to cry publicly at one or more occassion, and he managed to boot the Franks out of Jerusalem and most of the Holy Land..)

The impression I get of the article is exactly that, haha look at the week man crying... Does this matter if the goal he is working towards is a good one?

Oh, and this gem: "Three colleagues - one of them a woman - formed a protective group around him and escorted him out of the hall. It was all very dramatic." (bolding by me)

Of what importance is it that one of the colleagues was a woman?

The main point of this rant is that the people who are in the spotlight in the work on halting global heating does not matter as much as making a choice between being proactive or reactive..

But what do I care, burn in your dessert when it comes, race you to Svalbard when it turns green.. ~:flirt:

(Oh and just for the record I totally agree with Don when it comes to their planes, but what did you expect..? They are politicians, they talk, it does not mean that they think.. Sadly because of the selfish nature of man we need someone on top in matters like this to coordinate the actions needed)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

If he in fact had that, yeah. Even if it was 80%, and I would settle for even less. Are you in fact saying that mathematicians aren't scientists? They would call 80% rather significant statistically speaking.

---

The problem is how you get the 80%, I could claim every day that my table will be in the same position tomorrow as it is today, as long as I won't move it my successrate will be 100%, then a year later I shall claim that a big cockroach will eat the planet earth within a year. Given my 100% successrate concerning predictions, would you believe me? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

Yes, but you have to agree to having your method tested objectively. Additionally, his method should be analyzed to see if it consistently tends to overestimate or underestimate some particular phenomenon a lot, to evaluate it properly. Finally, "80% successrate" is his own claim, however nobody has been able to critically and objectively evaluate his method.

---

So? It's called patent, he invented a method and decided to go commercial. Don't blame him considering his company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dîn-Heru

Of what importance is it that one of the colleagues was a woman?

---

Because women are weak and their place is the kitchen. You already knew that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

So? It's called patent, he invented a method and decided to go commercial. Don't blame him considering his company.

---

Think of the reason why you don't worship Nostradamus. That is the reason why I don't worship this astrologer dude. Also see Husar's post with the example with the moving table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dîn-Heru

Is it not understandable that you could suffer an emotional breakdown if you had worked for 12 days arguing over the WORDING of a road map, ie plans about what we will TALK about doing to prevent too much damage to the world, and then on top of that being accused of not doing your job properly.. ?

Or are grown men not allowed under any circumstances to shed a tear..?
(As an example, Saladin I believe is reported to cry publicly at one or more occassion, and he managed to boot the Franks out of Jerusalem and most of the Holy Land..)

The impression I get of the article is exactly that, haha look at the week man crying... Does this matter if the goal he is working towards is a good one?

Oh, and this gem: "Three colleagues - one of them a woman - formed a protective group around him and escorted him out of the hall. It was all very dramatic." (bolding by me)

Of what importance is it that one of the colleagues was a woman?

The main point of this rant is that the people who are in the spotlight in the work on halting global heating does not matter as much as making a choice between being proactive or reactive..

But what do I care, burn in your dessert when it comes, race you to Svalbard when it turns green.. ~:flirt:

(Oh and just for the record I totally agree with Don when it comes to their planes, but what did you expect..? They are politicians, they talk, it does not mean that they think.. Sadly because of the selfish nature of man we need someone on top in matters like this to coordinate the actions needed)

---

Words like rationalism appears not to be a part of dev's vocalbury, rest assured. There is a saying "tackle the ball, not the player", but of course it is the easiest to tackle the player. Got any hopes for tackling the science, Dave? ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Because women are weak and their place is the kitchen. You already knew that.

---

:shame: Oh, yes of course, silly me, a bit tired today..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

Think of the reason why you don't worship Nostradamus. That is the reason why I don't worship this astrologer dude. Also see Husar's post with the example with the moving table.

---

He does weather forecasts, company's have little use for astrology unless women are their target area. They love people who can claim a 80% succesrate though.

@ Viking

Dev. Dave is one of a kind and I would not have him any other way for all that I disagree with his views and manner of expressing them at times.

My argument was about the article itself, and how it focuses on a person rather than the issue at hand. (This sentiment is also not limited to this particular case, but what seems to have become the normal state of things..)

Like you said we seem to be more prone to tackle the player rather than the ball, and I am just getting tired of it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dîn-Heru

@ Viking

Dev. Dave is one of a kind and I would not have him any other way for all that I disagree with his views and manner of expressing them at times.

My argument was about the article itself, and how it focuses on a person rather than the issue at hand. (This sentiment is also not limited to this particular case, but what seems to have become the normal state of things..)

Like you said we seem to be more prone to tackle the player rather than the ball, and I am just getting tired of it...

---

It has been like this all the way, the ad hominem from these self-labeled "sceptics". It is not at all aimed at certain posters in particular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

:inquisitive:

In your 1st post in response to my hypothetical of the ocean rising you said you would build sea defenses. Did I take you the wrong way? Would that be a reaction to the issue? Or a choice to do so before it happened? I suspect you meant it as a reaction, and thats the trap we cant fall into. Did I read you wrong? :inquisitive:

Capital exprenditures always seem to cost more when the problem is present, as opposed to anticipated.

---

i am all in favour of pro-actively building flood defences, decent homes, and clean water supply in areas where this doesn't exist.

@ Viking
Yes, quess you are right, it has been a favorite method of many throughout history to get things their way by ad hominem arguments. Still tired of it though..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

Next will you start telling us to remove our tanks and start using men armed with spiked clubs instead? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

---

This is absurd. You're trying to comparing replacing animal labor with machinery to replacing fossil fuels... with what again? :idea2:

Quote:

---

Eh? Are you claiming we don't know how much temperature has increased year by year since 1950? :dizzy2: Or what exactly do you try to say by writing like this:

---

Um, it hasn't increased year by year since 1950- Even using current measurement techniques. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

I'll have to go do a search if you want links but I recall at the time the levy system had been underfunded for maintence/updating by the state legislature. Basically they let it remain status quo and hoped for the best, and they got the worse.

Im not saying that it would have saved the city if they had made capital improvement investments, but it might have, and we will never know now will we.

Got it now?

---

No, I still don't see the relevance. You're saying that because preventative measures may have helped New Orleans that they are therefore the best choice in every other single instance anywhere? You may need your appendix removed at some point in your life. By your line of reasoning, you should have an operation to cut it out now as a "preventative" measure. Although, that is even more reasonable than the suggested preventative measures being suggested on global warming. Maybe something more like, getting a pre-emptive heart transplant (without a donor lined up) might be a better comparison. :beam:

Personally, I think about 80% of New Orleans should never have been built- or at the very least, shouldn't have been insured. Most of it was below sea level and in a hurricane/flood prone area. But again, I don't see where any of that is relevant to global warming. :shrug:

"This is absurd. You're trying to comparing replacing animal labor with machinery to replacing fossil fuels... with what again?"
Eh? You're trying to make the argument that we shouldn't improve our technology because we've used the technology for a long time and "therefore we can't change it". That is a logical fallacy. We replaced cavalry with tanks when cavalry proved unsustainable. Do you think technological progress is fostered by the attitude of not changing a losing team?

"Um, it hasn't increased year by year since 1950- Even using current measurement techniques"
Correct, I made a typo. I mean "If you smoothen the curve by filtering out all high-frequency noise, the temperature measurements increase steadily year by year from 1950". Not that I suppose you will understand it better put that way, than when using the simplified formulation I used above, since you seem more interested in focusing on the high-frequency noise than on the speed and magnitude of the larger variations - which is what matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

You're saying that because preventative measures may have helped New Orleans that they are therefore the best choice in every other single instance anywhere?

---

you know thats not what I'm saying Xiahou, who's being absurd now? Of course it isnt the

Quote:

---

best choice in every other single instance anywhere?

---

Its an example of the potential of prevention.

Quote:

---

You may need your appendix removed at some point in your life. By your line of reasoning, you should have an operation to cut it out now as a "preventative" measure.

---

My reasoning isnt linear its specific to the potential impact of global warming. Your being lazy because your not reading my posts, which is fine. Your attempting to paint my point with a broad brush, might work with the passionate ones but not in my case.

its very simple, even you can understand but if you want to stubborn thats fine too. you know what preventative steps are, of course you have to believe there is something to prevent, if you dont then the point is moot with you.

Quote:

---

Although, that is even more reasonable than the suggested preventative measures being suggested on global warming. Maybe something more like, getting a pre-emptive heart transplant (without a donor lined up) might be a better comparison. :beam:

---

Maybe more like knowing something like smoking can damage your heart and shopping around for the best price on a carton? :beam: Smoke um if you got em sport ! :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Personally, I think about 80% of New Orleans should never have been built- or at the very least, shouldn't have been insured. Most of it was below sea level and in a hurricane/flood prone area. But again, I don't see where any of that is relevant to global warming. :shrug:

---

Its relevant for the simple reason that New Orleans was built, levies were put in place to prevent it from flooding. They were not maintained or reenforced and they failed. The relevancy? If an investment had been made the situation might have been prevented. reducing CO2 emissions now might prevent a negative situation in the future.

It might also do nothing, or be a waste of money but it might also be a complete disaster. Basically one has to believe there is an issue in the 1st place, apparantly you dont. Thats fine, we'll end up dancing around all afternoon then. for me, I'd rather be preventative now and find ways to reduce CO2 emissions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

reducing CO2 emissions now might prevent a negative situation in the future.

---

What are you basing this on, speculation? If we are causing global warming via CO2, the amount of cuts and the timeframe they would need to be done in is insurmountable. Full stop. Stopping the growth of CO2 emissions would be economically painful- let alone cuts. At Bali, they're bandying around figures like 40% below 1990 levels to make an impact and even that's uncertain- some pro-AGW scientists are saying it's already too late to stop it.

When it's a problem that we're not sure exists, not sure what the damage will be if it does, and not sure what, if anything, would avert it, cripplingly expensive preventative measures (that may not even work) aren't the way to go.

Quote:

---

My reasoning isnt linear its specific to the potential impact of global warming. Your being lazy because your not reading my posts, which is fine. Your attempting to paint my point with a broad brush, might work with the passionate ones but not in my case.

---

You're clearly missing the point if that's what you think. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Why bother with political scientists? He has an 80% succes, nobody can claim that. He is right not to bother with extremists, we have a market for smart people, let's leave the propaganda to screamers and their funders.

By the way, superstorm didn't happen, it was a normal one. Wasn't a superstorm that led to the flood in the fifties, just verything that could go wrong did. Look at a map, when we have a certain wind and a certain stream we are a bottleneck.

---

Two questions.
Are normal winter storms common (occuring yearly)?
Is this normal storm counted against his success rate or failure rate?

Against, he was spot on about the tidal waves/storm combo though.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...12_468x293.jpg

What's up with his shirt?

Why do lefties mistake traditional attire for an appropriate wardrobe when dealing with non-Westerners? If an Indonesian diplomat goes to a convention in the Netherlands, he doesn't wear clogs. He will wear a suit, like all Asians do - the international business standard, modern.

If this De Boer insists, he himself can wear clogs and Dutch costumes. But the thought would of course never cross his mind.

He is a sorely mistaken leftie. The kind who thinks globalisation is only imperialism revisited, a Western dictate, instead of modernisation, driven by indigenous forces. Wearing traditional Indonesion clothing to a diplomatic summit is a slap in the face of his hosts. It achieves the opposite of what De Boer thinks it does. It doesn't show an appreciation of Asian traditions. It betrays a patronising racist attitude. What a disgrace, this.

The disdain for this buffoon on the face of Ban Ki-moon is almost painful to watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...12_468x293.jpg

What's up with his shirt?

---

hint

http://419.bittenus.com/WilliamsMuye...%20Mandela.jpg

And yeah he's a disgrace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The disdain for this buffoon on the face of Ban Ki-moon is almost painful to watch.

---

You know, I barely even noticed it until you pointed it out. I guess his shirt was too loud to notice much anything else in the photo. But yeah, you're right- disdain looks to be putting it mildly. Something to the effect of "Oh no, here goes the drama queen again."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Something to the effect of "Oh no, here goes the drama queen again."

---

I was thinking more like, "Dude, chill, we've got almost everyone fooled on this global warming scam, don't blow it now!!!".:laugh4:

On a somewhat related note.
:laugh4:

I maintain a safe distance to all cultists. :brood:

And I want to hear something new about the climate issue, not the same old junk.
Surprise me, somebody? :coffeenews:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

I maintain a safe distance to all cultists. :brood:

And I want to hear something new about the climate issue, not the same old junk.
Surprise me, somebody? :coffeenews:

---

DevDave is a closet liberal? Would that be surprising enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

DevDave is a closet liberal? Would that be surprising enough?

---

Nope. :coffeenews:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Surprise me, somebody? :coffeenews:

---

Interplanetary comparitive studies? :sweatdrop:

Venus’s climate is strongly driven by the most powerful greenhouse effect found in the Solar System. The greenhouse agents sustaining it are water vapour, carbon dioxide and sulphuric acid aerosols.

https://img528.imageshack.us/img528/...warmingla8.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

I maintain a safe distance to all cultists. :brood:

And I want to hear something new about the climate issue, not the same old junk.
Surprise me, somebody? :coffeenews:

---

Global warming? Lobal-schmarming or "You think WE got troubles...". Black hole jets fry neighboring galaxy.*

*Makes for a pretty cool new wallpaper though. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Interplanetary comparitive studies? :sweatdrop:

Venus’s climate is strongly driven by the most powerful greenhouse effect found in the Solar System. The greenhouse agents sustaining it are water vapour, carbon dioxide and sulphuric acid aerosols.

---

80% of the sunlight hitting Venus is reflected back into space and does never hit the surface; yet the temperature is 500 C higher on the surface than in the upper atmosphere. Hm....


https://img337.imageshack.us/img337/...e02l400yv8.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

80% of the sunlight hitting Venus is reflected back into space and does never hit the surface; yet the temperature is 500 C higher on the surface than in the upper atmosphere. Hm....

---

Yes. :yes:

Comparative planetology is a fairly recent sciencific discipline, enormously boosted the past decade or so by the huge amount of information send back to earth by all those probing sondes.

Give me an unlimited budget and a few decades, and I'll give you any climate you want on earth. It's not rocket science. Uh, well it is in fact, quite literally so. But it can be done. :yes:

How to heat a planet:

Quote:

---

Adding heat
Mirrors made of thin aluminized PET film could be placed in orbit around Mars to increase the total insolation it receives. This would increase the planet's temperature directly, and also vaporize water and carbon dioxide to increase the planet's greenhouse effect. Directing such reflected sunlight near the polar caps would maximize the effectiveness of this method.

While producing halocarbons on Mars would contribute to adding mass to the atmosphere, their primary function would be to trap incoming solar radiation. Halocarbons (such as CFCs and PFCs) are especially powerful greenhouse gases, and are stable for lengthy periods of time in atmospheres. They could be produced by genetically engineered aerobic bacteria or by mechanical processors scattered across the planet's surface.

---

A terraformed Mars:

https://img145.imageshack.us/img145/...tharsisjr3.jpg

Of course, heating a planet this way is not possible on Earth in any way. :uhoh:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...RSS_COMMENTARY

Quote:

---

Year of global cooling

By David Deming
December 19, 2007

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.

Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.

---

So Mr. Deming looks at some anecdotal evidence and declares 2007 to have been a freezing year...

When I visited Toronto in October it was extremely hot for that time of the year. Evidence for global warming?

Very scientific...

For reference some global temperature measurements

Quote:

---

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

---

The natural variations cannot cause cold temperatures? :laugh4:


Note: these temperatures are caused by the local climate.

Quote:

---

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation

---

Not under any circumstance is it; we are in a heating period. Some "sceptics" says the temperatures does not increase, some say anything but (anything but) human activity is the cause; the heating is real. Will they ever agree on this basic science? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

---

Put this information into context if it is to be assumed as reliabled.

Quote:

---

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.

Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.

---

Again the local climate and year-to-year differences. The global warming measured is "only" 0.7 degrees (which much or little depending on the context..), and does not create unsurpassabel troubles for new low-temperature records.

Quote:

---

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

---

These facts does not prove nor disprove anything.

Quote:

---

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

---

This man has just tried to explain the global climate by just pointing out a few issues spread randomly over the globe. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

So Mr. Deming looks at some anecdotal evidence and declares 2007 to have been a freezing year...

When I visited Toronto in October it was extremely hot for that time of the year. Evidence for global warming?

Very scientific...

For reference some global temperature measurements

---

Isn't the threat climate change, rather than just global warming? Whether specific places are warming or cooling, the fact is that communities have developed to suit the environment they are used to. A change in the weather system would mean different environmental conditions, with drastic effects for communities that aren't able to adapt, with spillover effects into their neighbours. Kind of like the refugee problem in Europe after WW2, but on a larger scale, all over the planet.