659 replies to this topic

[suspire]

I also believe that there's too much panic around man-made global warming. Nothing is proven yet; far from proven, actually. We shouldn't damage the economy by dropping a big part of our current energy production methods to focus on expensive and innefective ways to get clean energy, at least for now and the near future, while we still don't have much technology to get it in an effective way, like more sophisticated solar panels that will come with further advances in nanotech.

Yeah, you're right. Probably best to just wait until the temperature of the planet or the climate changes substantially. I am sure we'll be able to deal with it then. Just like the economy--no need to plan ahead, things are going just fine! Oh wait...

[forever freedom]

I also believe that there's too much panic around man-made global warming. Nothing is proven yet; far from proven, actually. We shouldn't damage the economy by dropping a big part of our current energy production methods to focus on expensive and innefective ways to get clean energy, at least for now and the near future, while we still don't have much technology to get it in an effective way, like more sophisticated solar panels that will come with further advances in nanotech.

Yeah, you're right. Probably best to just wait until the temperature of the planet or the climate changes substantially. I am sure we'll be able to deal with it then. Just like the economy--no need to plan ahead, things are going just fine! Oh wait...

No, it's best to wait until it's proven that we are causing global warming, or until we find efficient ways to get clean energy. Spendind huge sums now in clean energy is really foolish.

[suspire]

I also believe that there's too much panic around man-made global warming. Nothing is proven yet; far from proven, actually. We shouldn't damage the economy by dropping a big part of our current energy production methods to focus on expensive and innefective ways to get clean energy, at least for now and the near future, while we still don't have much technology to get it in an effective way, like more sophisticated solar panels that will come with further advances in nanotech.

Yeah, you're right. Probably best to just wait until the temperature of the planet or the climate changes substantially. I am sure we'll be able to deal with it then. Just like the economy--no need to plan ahead, things are going just fine! Oh wait...

No, it's best to wait until it's proven that we are causing global warming, or until we find efficient ways to get clean energy. Spendind huge sums now in clean energy is really foolish.

Right, because once it has been absolutely proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt of any detractor, we probably won't be in a time crunch to solve the problem. There is probably no chance we'll be past a tipping point. And at the same time, it is probably a great idea to continue to pump fossile fuels at an ever-increasing rate, especially with India and China turning in record levels, into the atmosphere. No chance of adding to global warming, even if it isn't entirely man-made and no chance of it causing other environmental and health problems.

And yeah, I am sure clean energy will just invent itself without massive amounts of money invested into the industries, or tax incentives on par with those given to the oil industries, because every other industry prior has simply sprung whole out of Zeus's head. I mean, that's the way we beat the Russian's to the moon: We just decided not to invest enormous amounts of money and research into NASA until NASA figured out how to get to the moon on a shoe-string budget. And plus, why bother creating entirely new 21st century industries that would help grow our economy and provide a new stable of jobs in emerging technologies when we can just stick with the good ole 20th and 19th century industries?

Edited by suspire, 08 November 2008 - 03:19 AM.

[Zenob]

It's amazing how the right wing of the political spectrum is so willing to believe junk science over real science. It's like they just hate knowledge in general. For one thing, who in their right mind is going to try and judge the veracity of global warming by whether or not it's really hot or snowing on a given day. Global warming is just that, global. There are variations regionally. Not to mention NOTHING moves in a straight line. Every year isn't going to be hotter then the year before it, but the AVERAGES are what's going up.

The strategy that is being employed to try and cast doubt on global warming is the "Tobacco Strategy". Basically they pay for "research" that claims to cast doubt on global warming in order to trick people into thinking that there isn't a scientific consensus when in fact there IS. This strategy has gone through several variations. At first it was blanket denial, just deny that global warming was even occurring. Then when it was impossible to deny any longer, then claim that it's happening, but it's "natural" and not caused by human activity. The current flavor of the month is "global cooling". Here's some information from actual climate scientists instead of brainless hacks like Michael Savage. It also includes the source of the "global cooling" nonsense : Link

Edit:

I just wanted to add some more links here for information's sake. Here is a quick fact sheet on global warming. It has an interesting section.

"• The ocean's circulation system, known as the ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a mini-ice age in Western Europe and other rapid changes."
Link

Here's a quick link to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Basically it's a collection of several thousand climate scientists from all over the world and their findings on climate change. I guess they must all be part of some "liberal conspiracy" because they all agree that climate change is real and it's man made.
Link

Edited by Zenob, 08 November 2008 - 03:58 AM.

[niner]

Cooling in London is weather. Cooling all over the world at the same time is Climate Niner..

I'm glad you and I agree on the weather. Cooling all over the world at the same time, for a significant length of time, would in fact be climate. Is that happening? My impression is not, considering what's been going on in the arctic. We would also need to factor out the effect of particulates/aerosols.

[niner]

It's sad that Michael Savage, and presumably you as well, don't seem to know the difference between weather and climate. One of the consequences of global warming is in increase in the variability of weather.

If the snow is part of a longer term trend (a few years, or a decade or weather getting cooler or snow increasing) then it would be a significant event.

But if you want to go down that road......

Nearly every SINGLE weather event from the French heat wave to California wildfires to Katrina and even a non weather event like the Sumatran Tsunami have been blamed on AGW (anthropognic global warming). This has come from non-scientists like Al Gore (many many many many times) and even from the scientific community. Every chance they get, they blame it on AGW. Yet for some reason no one ever tells them "you don't know the difference between weather and climate" (or plate tectonics....lol).

I don't think I've ever heard a real climate scientist blame a weather event specifically on global warming. They are always pretty careful to point out that the connection is statistical. The amount of weird weather has been increasing, and that is consistent with GW. You may have heard sloppier language from people like Gore or others with an agenda to push. If I heard any of them actually conflate weather and climate, I'd certainly tell them they were wrong. So far I haven't heard that from the science community.

[biknut]

Cooling in London is weather. Cooling all over the world at the same time is Climate Niner..

I'm glad you and I agree on the weather. Cooling all over the world at the same time, for a significant length of time, would in fact be climate. Is that happening? My impression is not, considering what's been going on in the arctic. We would also need to factor out the effect of particulates/aerosols.

Yes. Four years in a row and counting. Ten really, but the last four in a row. 0.482, 0.422, 0.404, 0.301. The last one is this years total not complete yet. Want to bet it's going to end up less?

The indications are that the next 20 to 60 years, or longer are going to be cooler.


,

[Mind]

I don't think I've ever heard a real climate scientist blame a weather event specifically on global warming

Now you are just cherry picking your sources. I have seen plenty of REAL scientists hyping global warming and individual weather events as a direct result of it (when quoted in the popular media). You can't pick on biknut about singular weather events and then ignore all the AGW theorists and their hand-maidens in the press when they do it.

Here is one example of: James Hansen of GISS (who earlier this year said "we are toast" when asked about global warming - real objective, eh). Earlier this year there was a report about "the warmest March on record". In the GISS press release they stated it was the warmest march on record. What was left out is that it was their internal analysis. As everyone knows there are a handful of other climate monitoring groups in the world using slightly different data sets and methodology. I contacted Hansen about the fact that the GISS press release did not state that the data and methodology was from the GISS - it just plainly stated as a matter of fact that it was the warmest March on record - as if their data set was the only one that mattered and the only true measure. He said it was an oversight. I am slightly suspicious that GISS continually forecasts the warmest climate and their measurement always shows the warmest temps (as compared to other data sets).

Yeah, you're right. Probably best to just wait until the temperature of the planet or the climate changes substantially. I am sure we'll be able to deal with it then. Just like the economy--no need to plan ahead, things are going just fine! Oh wait...

Since you brought up the economy. Right-wingers aren't the only ones in the practice of denial. Democrats were warned year after year after year for more than a decade about Fannie/Freddie and the housing debacle. Things were going just fine! Oh wait....

[Mind]

Here is an interesting quote from Nassim Taleb:

Let us apply the point to the current debate on carbon emissions and climate change. Correspondents keep asking me if the climate worriers are basing their claims on shoddy science and whether, owing to nonlinearities, their forecasts are marred with such a possible error that we should ignore them. Now, even if I agreed that it was shoddy science; even if I agreed with the statement that the climate folks were most probably wrong, I would still opt for the most ecologically conservative stance. Leave Planet Earth the way we found it. Consider the consequences of the very remote possibility that they may be right—or, worse, the even more remote possibility that they may be extremely right.

We here at Imminst and other future oriented organizations deal with this all the time. The risks of future technologies are huge (vastly greater than climate risks, in my view). We won't end up with radically extended lifespans without taking some risks. We can't take the most conservative approach (do nothing) and expect to get results. Risk vs. reward. Always tough to balance.

[suspire]

Yeah, you're right. Probably best to just wait until the temperature of the planet or the climate changes substantially. I am sure we'll be able to deal with it then. Just like the economy--no need to plan ahead, things are going just fine! Oh wait...

Since you brought up the economy. Right-wingers aren't the only ones in the practice of denial. Democrats were warned year after year after year for more than a decade about Fannie/Freddie and the housing debacle. Things were going just fine! Oh wait....

Uh, a little defensive, maybe? I understand that the Republican/conservative position on science has historically been behind the curve on all fronts, but I didn't say denial was the purview of only Republicans or conservatives. You're mistaking me for someone else. I'll leave aside the flawed position that the economy was solely, or even primarily a Fannie/Freddie issue or that it was simply Democrats ignoring warning signs. My argument is simple: We've been warned. Again and again. But we continue to hand-wring over the issue, as we continue to increase, not decrease our carbon emissions. Emerging powers like China and India are now contributing heavily, too, much more so than they were just one decade ago. To do nothing seems, well, remarkably short-sighted at best and apocalyptic at worst. Even beyond the issue of climate change--there are a number of other health and environmental issues that come into play.

[luv2increase]

It's amazing how the right wing of the political spectrum is so willing to believe junk science over real science. It's like they just hate knowledge in general.

I think you need to quit the hate talk. When liberals continue delivering their hate talk and the conservatives likewise, this country will continue to be ever more divided. Just about every one of your posts is negative. That isn't good for your health nor the health of America. Go to emofree.com and get your bitterness resolved. It will give you a heart attack if you keep it up.



As for the Global Warming, a few things can be agreed upon by all scientists; the ocean water temperatures are rising, the polar icecaps are disappearing, the weather is becoming more sporadic and extreme, and there is a global rise in CO2. One thing scientists have forgotten is what they've learning in their freshman levels science courses; correlation is not causation. When one takes into account the aforementioned and the proof that our planet has had many extreme climate changes throughout its life which were obviously not attributed to man, they would conclude that either this is just a natural cycle taking place, or it is a combination of man and a natural cycle. I believe that man is just speeding up a natural cycle that may have not taken place for another 1000-2000 years from now; therefore, man has attributed to this global warming, but one must not rule out nature as a culprit as well.


When you think about it folks, man has in its power to rid our use of oil, coal, propane, and the natural gases if we truly wanted to! It is the greed that I talked about in my financial crisis thread that is a reason this hasn't been done. Have you ever heard the saying, "money is the root of all evil"? Well, because of the love of money, we still have these primitive energy sources grabbing us by our balls. I believe if we put in a global effort to build millions of solar panel power stations, millions of windmills, used hydrogen as our fuel for anything with an engine along with advanced lithium fuel cell technology (which is advancing by an exponential rate btw), and focused on improving the efficiency all all the aforementioned: we could be completely off the primitive stuff within 10 years no problem...


Has anyone ever thought about what the consequences if any are of all the oil and natural gas being taken out of the Earth's crust is having? Do you not think that nature has it there for a reason? Do you not think that it may be having a play in our climate situation as well?

[Mind]

Uh, a little defensive, maybe? I understand that the Republican/conservative position on science has historically been behind the curve on all fronts, but I didn't say denial was the purview of only Republicans or conservatives.

Hmmm, yes, maybe wrongly directed to you.


Although you might not get the impression from this thread, my argument is primarily not about the science or the risks but how to best achieve a safe outcome. I favor the carrot over the stick. Investment over punishment. I would rather see progress than regress.

[suspire]

It's amazing how the right wing of the political spectrum is so willing to believe junk science over real science. It's like they just hate knowledge in general.

I think you need to quit the hate talk. When liberals continue delivering their hate talk and the conservatives likewise, this country will continue to be ever more divided. Just about every one of your posts is negative. That isn't good for your health nor the health of America. Go to emofree.com and get your bitterness resolved. It will give you a heart attack if you keep it up.

Uh, irony a little?

As for the Global Warming, a few things can be agreed upon by all scientists; the ocean water temperatures are rising, the polar icecaps are disappearing, the weather is becoming more sporadic and extreme, and there is a global rise in CO2. One thing scientists have forgotten is what they've learning in their freshman levels science courses; correlation is not causation. When one takes into account the aforementioned and the proof that our planet has had many extreme climate changes throughout its life which were obviously not attributed to man, they would conclude that either this is just a natural cycle taking place, or it is a combination of man and a natural cycle. I believe that man is just speeding up a natural cycle that may have not taken place for another 1000-2000 years from now; therefore, man has attributed to this global warming, but one must not rule out nature as a culprit as well.


When you think about it folks, man has in its power to rid our use of oil, coal, propane, and the natural gases if we truly wanted to! It is the greed that I talked about in my financial crisis thread that is a reason this hasn't been done. Have you ever heard the saying, "money is the root of all evil"? Well, because of the love of money, we still have these primitive energy sources grabbing us by our balls. I believe if we put in a global effort to build millions of solar panel power stations, millions of windmills, used hydrogen as our fuel for anything with an engine along with advanced lithium fuel cell technology (which is advancing by an exponential rate btw), and focused on improving the efficiency all all the aforementioned: we could be completely off the primitive stuff within 10 years no problem...


Has anyone ever thought about what the consequences if any are of all the oil and natural gas being taken out of the Earth's crust is having? Do you not think that nature has it there for a reason? Do you not think that it may be having a play in our climate situation as well?

It almost pains me to say this, but believe it or not, I agree with almost everything you said in this section.

[suspire]

Uh, a little defensive, maybe? I understand that the Republican/conservative position on science has historically been behind the curve on all fronts, but I didn't say denial was the purview of only Republicans or conservatives.

Hmmm, yes, maybe wrongly directed to you.


Although you might not get the impression from this thread, my argument is primarily not about the science or the risks but how to best achieve a safe outcome. I favor the carrot over the stick. Investment over punishment. I would rather see progress than regress.

I think all parties, Democrats and Republicans, are responsible for this head-in-the-sand approach to switching from outdated fossil fuels to new energy technologies. And I think both sides have been motivated by lobbyists and money. I may sound like a Democrat in many of my posts, but I generally consider myself an Independent. My vitriol that is primarily directed at Republicans now is a backlash to my perception of the last 8 years--not just Bush, but Congress. But during the Clinton years, I swung the other way. Leaving that aside...

...I agree. Or at least a mix of the two. Sometimes you need a mix. Some dire warnings and lobbying by the scientific and environmental communities. Some penalties on carbon emitters and polluters. Removal of tax breaks for the oil corps and in their place, large tax breaks and federal subsidies for alternate energy corps. Carter did this and new technologies began to thrive under him--then Reagan came in, was beholden to the oil industries, and he systematically cut all support for alternate energy corps. They all but went bankrupt and so foreign companies, based in places like Denmark and Japan, bought up the companies and tech. Now we're playing catch-up and are some 20+ years behind and so any real progress that has been made in those fields have been made primarily by other countries.

That sort of approach is neither good, scientifically, or good for us competitively in the global market place. Just think where we'd be now if the resources and power of the U.S. had been behind this thrust into new tech.

Edited by suspire, 08 November 2008 - 03:30 PM.

[Zenob]

Yes. Four years in a row and counting. Ten really, but the last four in a row. 0.482, 0.422, 0.404, 0.301. The last one is this years total not complete yet. Want to bet it's going to end up less?

Wrong. Eleven of the hottest years on record occurred in the last 13 years Link. Look at this chart and tell me if it looks like "global cooling" to you.

Attached Files

•  median_temperature.jpg   26.81KB   0 downloads

[Moonbeam]

from MichaelSavage.com
It's sad that Michael Savage, and presumably you as well, don't seem to know the difference between weather and climate. One of the consequences of global warming is in increase in the variability of weather.

So the OP isn't Michael Savage, just somebody who uses his name cuz he likes him a lot?

I'm glad global warming is over. Snow in London is definitely proof of that. Gas prices are down, so the energy problem is gone too! Of course, claiming that oil could actually run out was just another trick the stupid, evil scientists were playing on us. I don't think we should ever listen to them if it inconveniences us in any way, because they are always wrong!

I feel so much better now, thanks.

Edited by Moonbeam, 08 November 2008 - 06:13 PM.

[biknut]

Yes. Four years in a row and counting. Ten really, but the last four in a row. 0.482, 0.422, 0.404, 0.301. The last one is this years total not complete yet. Want to bet it's going to end up less?

Wrong. Eleven of the hottest years on record occurred in the last 13 years Link. Look at this chart and tell me if it looks like "global cooling" to you.

Zenob, the link you provide to Science Daily sites that their data comes from the University of East Anglia and the Met Office's Hadley Centre. That's the same place I get my data from. This is their chart. Notice no year is even up to .5 except 1998. Here's a link to the raw data. That's were the numbers I'm posting come from.

http://www.cru.uea.a.../hadcrut3gl.txt

[biknut]

Yes. Four years in a row and counting. Ten really, but the last four in a row. 0.482, 0.422, 0.404, 0.301. The last one is this years total not complete yet. Want to bet it's going to end up less?

Wrong. Eleven of the hottest years on record occurred in the last 13 years Link. Look at this chart and tell me if it looks like "global cooling" to you.

Zenob, the link you provide to Science Daily sites that their data comes from the University of East Anglia and the Met Office's Hadley Centre. That's the same place I get my data from. This is their chart. Notice no year is even up to .5 except 1998. Here's a link to the raw data. That's were the numbers I'm posting come from.

http://www.cru.uea.a.../hadcrut3gl.txt

I think your chart might only be for the Northen Hemisphere

[Zenob]

Zenob, the link you provide to Science Daily sites that their data comes from the University of East Anglia and the Met Office's Hadley Centre. That's the same place I get my data from. This is their chart. Notice no year is even up to .5 except 1998. Here's a link to the raw data. That's were the numbers I'm posting come from.

http://www.cru.uea.a.../hadcrut3gl.txt

Do you realize how big of a jump .5 is? Do you realize how much more energy has to be in the entire global system to pull that off? Not to mention the fact that you have a clear trendline there on that chart. Which direction is that trend going? Does it look like it's going down to you?

Since you don't like that chart, here are a couple more. The first one is a satellite records going back to the 70s. You can clearly see solar cycle as oscillations on the chart and you can clearly see it trending up. The second is a composite of TEN separate temperature studies. Notice how ALL of them are trending the same way. Look at both of those and then tell me again that the global climate isn't getting hotter or that we are actually in some kind of global cooling trend.

Attached Files

•  Satellite_Temperatures.png   30.3KB   1 downloads
•  2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png   38.59KB   0 downloads

[biknut]

[/b]Do you realize how big of a jump .5 is? Do you realize how much more energy has to be in the entire global system to pull that off? Not to mention the fact that you have a clear trendline there on that chart. Which direction is that trend going? Does it look like it's going down to you?

Since 2004 it clearly shows a downward trend line. If you consider the trend line compared to whats actually happened the last couple of years you can see that if this keeps up the trend line is going to start doing a nosedive.

This is exactly what many scientists are predicting based of projections of what they think sun is going to do.

[niner]

I don't think I've ever heard a real climate scientist blame a weather event specifically on global warming

Now you are just cherry picking your sources. I have seen plenty of REAL scientists hyping global warming and individual weather events as a direct result of it (when quoted in the popular media). You can't pick on biknut about singular weather events and then ignore all the AGW theorists and their hand-maidens in the press when they do it.

I don't think it's fair to call it "cherry picking" if I'm talking about what real climate scientists actually said and you're talking about misquotes by irresponsible journalists. I don't see how irresponsible journalists become "hand-maidens"...

Here is one example of: James Hansen of GISS (who earlier this year said "we are toast" when asked about global warming - real objective, eh). Earlier this year there was a report about "the warmest March on record". In the GISS press release they stated it was the warmest march on record. What was left out is that it was their internal analysis. As everyone knows there are a handful of other climate monitoring groups in the world using slightly different data sets and methodology. I contacted Hansen about the fact that the GISS press release did not state that the data and methodology was from the GISS - it just plainly stated as a matter of fact that it was the warmest March on record - as if their data set was the only one that mattered and the only true measure. He said it was an oversight. I am slightly suspicious that GISS continually forecasts the warmest climate and their measurement always shows the warmest temps (as compared to other data sets).

So Hansen didn't quote his source, but we're talking about real scientists confusing weather and climate. He didn't do that, and I'll reiterate that I've never heard that mistake made by real climate scientists. I can't even remember the last time I heard it from a responsible journalist. I hear it all the time from the Right Wing.

Since you brought up the economy. Right-wingers aren't the only ones in the practice of denial. Democrats were warned year after year after year for more than a decade about Fannie/Freddie and the housing debacle. Things were going just fine! Oh wait....

This myth has been debunked in a number of places, like here or here. The GSEs and the CRA had little or nothing to do with the housing debacle and credit crisis. For an entertaining explanation of what really happened, see this.

[Zenob]

Since 2004 it clearly shows a downward trend line. If you consider the trend line compared to whats actually happened the last couple of years you can see that if this keeps up the trend line is going to start doing a nosedive.

This is exactly what many scientists are predicting based of projections of what they think sun is going to do.

Are you blind? Where do you see a reversal of the trendlines? I mean for crying out loud, the trendlines are DRAWN onto that second chart for you to see. I've posted three separate charts and you've made excuses to ignore all of them. As for solar forcing, solar activity is basically at the same levels as it was in the 50s. The sun ain't doing it. That myth has already been busted Link. I'm tempted to post a chart of solar activity just to see what kind of excuse you come up with for ignoring it.

Just fyi, one of those charts cuts off at 2004 so it would be impossible for you to see a downward trend line on it starting in 2004...

Here is the IPCCs report on global warming. It's the most comprhensive collection of global warming data available. Link I don't expect any of the right wingers to read it being as how science is just a big liberal conspiracy.

Aww, what the hell, I'll post another one that has carbon and solar on it just to see what kind of excuse you come up with. If I have to guess I'd say you'll whine more about 2004 since it's not on this chart:

Edit:
Just for the record I've debunked the right wing CRA/Fannie&Freddie myth several times myself. I don't know why Mind is trying to go back to it.

Attached Files

•  Climate_Change_Attribution.png   36.81KB   0 downloads

Edited by Zenob, 09 November 2008 - 03:06 AM.

[biknut]

This is exactly what many scientists are predicting based of projections of what they think sun is going to do.[/b]

Are you blind? Where do you see a reversal of the trendlines?

Zenob, The charts you're posting are not as trustworthy as this one. Do you have a problem with the accuracy of the CRU? I would point out to you that even NASA uses their data. It shows the trend line dropping since 2004. You seem married to the idea that It's going to keep getting warmer even thought for the last 4 years global temperatures have dropped each year. The idea that the sun isn't the cause is now under direct assault by many scientists. They're now being forced to rethink their positions because of unexpected solar activity (no sun spots). Each year for the last 4 years people here have said it will be warmer next year because we have global warming, but each year that proves to be wrong, and temperatures drop further.

Lastly I would like to point out that even if global temperatures had increased, which they didn't, it wouldn't have meant the increase was caused by man.

http://www.cru.uea.a...ta/temperature/

http://www.cru.uea.a.../hadcrut3gl.txt

[niner]

Biknut, given the noise in the data, you can't draw any conclusions from a 4 year sample. You need to look over a couple decades. A dip over 4 years is just noise. That is purely a mathematical issue; it doesn't matter what the data source is, or what our politics are.

[biknut]

Biknut, given the noise in the data, you can't draw any conclusions from a 4 year sample. You need to look over a couple decades. A dip over 4 years is just noise. That is purely a mathematical issue; it doesn't matter what the data source is, or what our politics are.

Ok so if the trend line keeps dropping for the next 20 years then will you agree with me, and if It turns out i'm right will you become a Republican?

[JLL]

Even 20 years is noise in the grand scheme of things. If you want to look at 20 years, fine, but then check other 20 year periods in the data as well, and you'll see that the steepness of the rise in temperature is not unusual. And if you really zoom out, you'll see that the in the past 100 years, the highest temperatures are not as high as they were hundreds of thousands of years ago.

[Zenob]

Zenob, The charts you're posting are not as trustworthy as this one. Do you have a problem with the accuracy of the CRU? I would point out to you that even NASA uses their data. It shows the trend line dropping since 2004. You seem married to the idea that It's going to keep getting warmer even thought for the last 4 years global temperatures have dropped each year. The idea that the sun isn't the cause is now under direct assault by many scientists. They're now being forced to rethink their positions because of unexpected solar activity (no sun spots). Each year for the last 4 years people here have said it will be warmer next year because we have global warming, but each year that proves to be wrong, and temperatures drop further.

Lastly I would like to point out that even if global temperatures had increased, which they didn't, it wouldn't have meant the increase was caused by man.

First off, I got some of those charts from the IPCC which is the THE leading authority on global climate change. That kills your quibbles about accuracy. Secondly, I hope you never try and become a stock trader because you obviously can't read a chart to save your life. NOTHING moves in a straight line, yet you think that if there is a slight down turn on the very edge of a trendline that somehow the entire trendline breaks. I also posted a chart which dispporves the notion that sunspots are causing global warming(basically same level of sunspots since the 50s) AND posted a link to an article that dissproves the notion of solar forcing yet you ignored ALL of that and went back to the busted claim that maybe it's being caused by solar forcing. Also, who are these "people" that have said each year will be warmer then the year before? I can tell you right now they aren't climate scientists. As for global warming being man made, look at that chart I posted and tell me which of the likely vectors was increasing with the temperature.

On a side note it's amazing how anti-science attitudes correlate so strongly with political beliefs. I find it fascinating how the right wing so blatently disregard science/reality when it contradicts their beliefs. The social conservatives will toss out the entire fields of biology/chemistry/geology/palentology/etc without a second though because it contradicts their literal belief in the bible. Classic free market conservatives will gleefully disregard scientific consensus from thousands of climate scientists on global warming if it means that they oil companies can keep cranking out carbon. Basically they all think that personal beliefs > reality.

[luv2increase]

First off, I got some of those charts from the IPCC which is the THE leading authority on global climate change.

Why do people put so much faith into so-called experts as if the experts know-all and are not biased in the least? When will people wake up and start thinking for themselves rather than having other people think for them?

Zenob, I hate to break it to you, but scientists do not know all there is to know about the Earth's climate and its ever changing patterns. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they will never attain the ability to predict weather events and/or climate changes with 100% or even near 100% accuracy. Wake up and smell the coffee and realize that this field is still yet in its infancy regardless of the vast amount of understanding we have grasped thus far.

[biknut]

IPCC = Bible Don't question it, or off with you head.

Man made Global warming = God How dare thee deny it's existence.

Anyone that doesn't believe in man made global warming = Heretic

The Sun = Nothing to do with Climate change

Scientists that believe Global Warming is natural = Atheists

Al Gore = Jesus

Lord Monckton =

[JLL]

Pointing to the IPCC for graphs is like pointing to the priest for evidence of God. The IPCC do not actually produce the data in their graphs; they get (read: cherry-pick) it from somewhere else. Best to get it straight from the sources, which - thankfully - are available to everyone.