In 1963 I visited Salt Lake City, eight years before I actually moved here. At that time local scientists were predicting that at the then-current rate of receding, the lake would be nothing but a salt flat by the end of the century.

In 1975 they noticed that the lake had stopped drying and had stabilized. They said that the likely answer was that at some point the salinity was so high that the water stopped evaporating.

1983: After two record winters (Alta had almost twice its 500-inch fall, and at some points the snow was over 200 inches deep), the huge underwater storage tanks were full and Salt Lake City got flooded. State Street was turned into a sandbag river for several months.

1985: The Great Salt Lake had risen from 29 feet at the deepest point to 34 feet, and some folks were worried that the city itself would be threatened. The worst that happened was that the water table under the airport came close to making the runways sag, but the only real problem was that the freeway and railroads had to be raised and moved at quite an expense.

The point is that once again the experts had no real clue as to what was going to happen.

No, you Americans are right. Why the hell should you stop consumption at any rate, even if your CO2 emissions per capita are 19.1 tons. Why care about other areas of the world, where climate change is already visible and people are on the verge of quite literary loosing the land under their feet?

Of course science changes. That's what it does. If the variables change, so does the end result of the equation. That doesn't mean that the equation is wrong and this is what it is all about. Yes, climate change advances differently that we predicted and it will do so to a varying degree as long as Earth has an atmosphere. That in no way means that it isn't here, human made or otherwise. But in a fragile system that is our environment, a single grain of dust at the wrong place at the wrong time can cause catastrophic consequences. Global warming? Bah! If the Atlantic current stops once more when all the of Greenland's ice melts and when the Arctic is just another battleground for oil and gas, then we'll all see global warming :shifty:

Just so you know, as I haven't seen any of this data posted here, yet it was presented to us by the Slovenian IPCC representative (deserves all the respect, so I won't have any attacks just because you feel like it), we are already masking around 2 degree increase. Over one degree is covered by the world oceans, with the Pacific having the greatest effect right now. Half a degree is masked by aerosolic particles in the air due to air travel. And over half a degree is already visible.

So much about conspiracy theories.

"You Americans"? America is hugely divided on this question. I agree consumption should be cut by any reasonable means. I agree that we need to react as if every single claim about warming and greenhouse gasses is true. And I also think Al Gore is an idiot.

And I also see the need not to blind ourselves to the possibility that some folks are indeed lying about the numbers. Dishonesty in a noble cause is still dishonesty.

What people are ignoring the most is that, even if the claims about the planet's climate changing due to man are false, that doesn't change the fact that these emissions from factories and cars and the like still dump large levels of pollution and poisonous gases into the atmosphere (like arsenic, radon, oxygen difluoride, phosphine, dinitrogen tetroxide, etc.). So if we do start cutting down on these emissions, we'll also be significantly reducing the number of these hostile gases to life here on Earth in general. Granted the whole thing about climate change by man will be false, but the effects of cutting emissions would nevertheless be great.

Furthermore, we're passing conclusions when we still don't know much about these emails... or the hackers who stole them for that matter. We don't know who's hands they've passed through, we don't know if they've been changed or not, we don't know if it's all some kind of huge hoax, we don't know what the scientists (if they are real) meant by their wording (we can guess and claim to know, but the fact is it's all a matter of interpretation of the "documents"). . . there's hardly any answers coming in on this. The only people eating up the claim that this proves it's all a fabrication are ones who've been skeptical from the beginning, and even then they're only doing so because it supports their position. And then you've got the big businesses and industries going along with this lot because it's good for their business; if they don't have limits on emissions and their pollution levels they can continue dumping out as much crap as they want and take in huge profits while producing more at the cost of the environment.

Now I'm not on board with people like Al Gore, but plain logic and common sense dictate that you can't have tens of thousands of these factories in places like China, India, Mexico, etc. dumping out tons of pollutants into the atmosphere (or into/onto the terrain) and not have any nasty consequences on nature as a result. And that's exactly what we're seeing. Look at China: the air is sometimes so toxic they have to issue alerts to their people to stay inside their houses until it clears off (I don't think anyone here has forgotten the Olympics and what happened then...). Mexico is no different. And don't even get me started on India's air and water. What they're proposing at Copenhagen is simple: cut emissions, tax anyone who pours out too much crap, save the planet. Again, even IF man-made climate change is a hoax, it's very plain to see that we need to cut emissions and pollution because of it's negative effects it has on a whole. Tax penalties offer up one solution, especially when it comes to big businesses and industries; money is something that they hold very dear. I already mentioned the poisonous gases we get from factories and cars, the degrading quality of water as a result, but what about other things like a more acidic and deadly soil quality? What about the harmful mutations caused to organisms the world over (extra legs, tails, multiple heads, etc.; ever wonder why India gets so many of those cases?)? And while some governments would abuse this tax idea to profit, the cutting of emissions is still what matters the most in the end. And that's still what we'd see overall.

You seem to believe in climate beign something that reacts faster than chemcial agents need time to react, and that it can be affected by switching it on and off like the light. You also ignore - by intention I a,m now sure - that alot has chnaged since 1975 that indicates that the trend towards warmer climate indeed is true.

If you fall out of the window in a high tower and fall down, don't be worried by people telling you that yoiu better shouldn'T have fallen out of that window. Becasue, in your thinking, ten floors deeper you see you are still alive and so things can'T be that bad, can they.

I don'T know for sure if the climate chnage will indeed kill human civilisation as we know it, but it certainly will force us to adapt to conditions that have changed more seriously than you want to imagine now. And for many people it will mean misery, suffering and death through weather phenomenens and extreme climate symptoms. In fact it already does. You just actively refuse to see that.

Micro cycles and macro cycles and meta cycles, the constant natural fluctuation that means that just one day'S weather does not define the average weather of the whole year and... wait, I explained these things several times now. If oyu haven't understood these very basics by now, than either you never will, or you have refused to understand them . and before you accuse me of being an expert for it and having read about it and made experiences - I am no meteorologist. But one muts not be an expert to understand these basic things, or to understand what the difference between summer and winter is and a high prssure and a low pressure weather front. Or to understand what micro, macro and meta cycles are.

As so very often on this issue, somebody raises just an arbitrary doubt and then demands that it should be seen as valid scientific counter argument, just doing so. But that demands a little bit more than just random claims - or fabricating a scandal over the emails that so far seems to have been rejected by any serious scientific source in the field, is so far unproven over the nature of its allegations, and just sees a loud and violent yelling that this known sceptic and that known media lobbyists there has raised and repeated this accusation time and again - although by now we already have been demonstrated that quotes were taken out of context and manipulated, and saw additional, false remarks added to them, and this poisonous message now spreads like the plague in the media - by volume and endless repetition only, not by reason or aergument.

A Republican group thought they must take it nupon themselves to go to Kopenhagen to correct Obama and to save America's reputation by not making it committing to emissions cuts. I laughed this morning when reading this.

BTW, Kopenhagen is no holy grail for me. I know that when the climate can be affected by emission cuts to a given agent by 90% only, a discussion on whether or not to cut it by 20% according to the standard of 1998 or better 2005 (would be even less a total cut) is pointless. I also do know that there is no st of switches with numbers from 1 to 10 by which poltiiians can decide how many degrees the world is allowed to warm - and gets threatened by sanctions of the UN when exceeding them. :)

The Spiegel article I linked to, on why a failure in Kopenhagen maybe would be a win, is very much my position. Whatever they decide there and will sell as a big boxoffice hit, it will in no way be sufficient, but cinsumes a hilarious ammount of money for somethign that will not change the trend. A much higher contribution to battling climate consequences is needed, a much more far-reaching chnage in production styles and living styles is needed that so far no politicians ever has dared to speak out about, and most people do not wish to even think abiut for a moment. And even then we cannot be sure that we could brreak through the inner dynamic that we have unleashed in the past 150 years or so. If you accelerate a high speed train to 350km/h, there just is no way to make it going reverse by flipping a switch et voila: there you go in reverse, there is no way without breaking first. and at that speed the breaking distance is not measured in dozens or hundreds, but thousands of meters (around 3.5-4 km). You better think ahead when plannign for your next halt. when you already see the next station, it's alredy too late.

ok - let me start with Respensus. My friend - realize that the IPCC data you were presented with - relies almost exclusively on data from the CRU - the institute where every indication shows they manipulated data to get the results they wanted. I do NOT blame the IPCC for the outcome - but you have to be willing to look with a critical eye at the data and its source before you accept its validity.

Stealth hunter - for the record - the CRU knew in advance this data was out. RealClimate reported they had the data on Tuesday morning - and notified the CRU. They had 3 days to come up with a plausible cover story. Yet when the story hit broader display - what was the response from those involved? No denials of the validity of the emails and their contents. Instead - one of the main participants - Phil Jones - the head of the CRU at the time (and thus an immensly powerful player in the climate change hoax) stepped down with his tail between his legs. There has been no defense - but then again - how can you defend things like emails stating that INSTRUCT people to delete data so they can circumvent FOA requests? As for the source of the hackers - its now known the data first appeared in the public domain from a small town in Russia - where other major hacks sponsored by the Russian govt have sourced from. Though "who where the hackers" is just a way of trying to get people to not look at the facts of what has been uncovered. Its a "look over there for a second" trick - and rather indicative of how thin climate change arguements are in light of the reality.

i think this shows the real reason for the rise in temperature
http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archi...tesarecool.jpg

you cannot deny it :arrgh!:

Simply brilliant! :DL

That's really damning because, as we all know, Newsweek is a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms

Meh all that proves is that pirates are uncool ! :D

Of course I can. I can deny anything. Watch me.
:rotfl2:

No, not at all. But Newsweek (and other sources of reporting) is how 99% of the "informed masses" get their opinions fed to them. ;) Good video, btw, Thanks!



Ha, good one, Morts :up:

For the sceptics:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multime...on_656336a.jpg

For the supporters:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multime...NL_657173a.jpg

Or is it the other way around?

Slow down there, turbo. I think you're jumping to conclusions.

Newsweek may not be an accredited and peer-reviewed scientific journal, but that is no reason to discount the findings of scientists it interviewed. In fact, we should look at the findings of the dissenters more carefully than those of the majority.

Think about it. How often has humanity been mislead by the scientific majority? I think that you will find that it has done so more than you may realize.

Scientists are people, just like any others. As people, they are subject to the biological programming they were born with. Like anyone else, they seek wealth, prosperity, peer respect, and certain associated benefits on some level. Given the nature of their profession, it is only natural that they might seek to support findings most inclined towards their own benefit. Scientists who identify problems are given grants or payed to find a solution, especially when support from a fiat power with fiat funding and a vested interest in public opinion is involved. Scientists who identify non-problems are given very little. The free market is at work even when monetary gain is not a purported goal.

Ask yourself how often it has been that the scientific majority ever discovered anything of significance. It is always the few and the brilliant that have dicovered and invented things that changed the views and the lifestyles of the multitudes. The rest are simply "on the bandwagon" so to speak, and they are often associated with "backwards" ideas. Do you suppose that the theory of climate change has heralded a complete reversal of this tendency?

Of course, there are a number of scientists who refuse to compromise their beliefs for the promise of influence and wealth, but most of them do not make headlines. They continually strive to make a better life for everyone, despite the fact that they are largely ignored by the press and therefore the people and the government, but you don't hear about them very often as a result. They also get less funding.



Anthropoligic climate change is a myth, and those who support the silly, misguided, and plutocratic agenda of somehow managing to control the Earth's climate to any significant degree have been fooled by the time-tested practice of witch-doctery. Do you not see how politicians and corporations alike are taking advantage of this belief? Are you so blind as to suppose that their vested interest is due to concern for future generations or the rest of the planet's inhabitants? Can you point to an example of anything, ever, that suggests that the entities in question might act in an altruistic fashion?

Can you imagine the drastic measures it would take to reverse anthropologic climate change if it were real? I hate to break it to you, but the average human exhales 22lbs of carbon dioxide per day, to say nothing else of every other oxygen-breathing lifeform on this planet. That amounts to more CO2 than all machines on the planet can produce.... every day.

I find it ironic that so many atheists support the theory of climate change and actually think there is something we could do to prevent it. The idea of beliefs based upon faith comes to mind.

The fact of the matter is that there is no realistic solution to global climate change, even if it was caused by humans. What are we going to do? Kill a bunch of people? Reverse or hinder industrial and therefore technological progress by letting the government, of all things, dictate economic policy? I laugh at the thought.

Our best bet is to stay the course and simply allow industry to become cleaner and more efficient through satisfying consumer demand. Has it ever done otherwise? I have no problem with environmental awareness; In fact, I think environmental awareness is a good thing and I think that consumers often reflect that desire in their purchase choices, but where I draw the line is at letting a state-business complex design and appropriate funds for an imaginary climate-saving agenda. That's a recipe for disaster and I can't make it any more simple than that.

How silly would you have to be to believe the promises of politicians that we all know lie to us, financed by businesses seeking state-enforced monopoly, based upon the predictions of a scientific majority with demonstrable self-interest, as opposed to free-market businesses that literally beg for our patronage and that are more than happy to emulate our values and interests so long as we trade with them -Businesses that spend untold billions on consumer research every year, just to engage in mutually beneficial trade with consumers and employees?


Fight for the anti-climate change agenda or environmentalism or whatever you want, but for the love of God do not co-opt the state in your efforts. There is no surer path to abuse, mismanagement and waste than to freely give power to anyone or anything.

As always I ask the inevitable question: does this include or exclude economic lobbies? ;)

You are dealing with two devils: unregulated market propagators, and politicians. Why you declare the one a devil and the other a saint, probably always will escape me. All I see is two devils both doing a maximum ammount of damage.

Your image of sciences, btw, is not really unbiased, is it. While there are problems in the academic business routines, you put them to extremes, declare them a rule, and by that diffame everything they produce. listening to you makes me wonder why we should even want to have any science done independently from business interests anymore at all. and that results in what we have with the pharmacuetical industry: just inventing something that promises profit, and then inventing a fictional wide spread public suffering or disease that needs this drug. Or to add a non-effective meaningless substance to a drug that is short before loosing patent protection so that cheaper generica can be produced, by that new addition making it in legal context a new drug that enjoys full time patent protection again. And this is what is called science in business context. I hear no criticism of that, nor criticism on the fabrications in which the email "scandal" is basing on despite its now more and more obvious distortions and manipulative misquotes.