Ironic a thread on global cooling has become Sky's birthday thread. But then most of us are not going to comment on an article from the daily mail.


Happy belated birthday Skybird and many more :DL

Nobody hijacks threads like I do...! :D In the Chinese calender it is the year of the buccaneer!

Happy bday sky...

Now heres something from a 'little' bit more reputable source than the daily mail.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ns-to-unravel/

Dont see much mention of the current weather conditions there.

I like this part:

This guy takes it seriously !

http://www.viddler.com/explore/failblog/videos/454/17/

Because it's laughable to think that man can change the environment. Just ask the herds of buffalo on the Great Plains, the Dodo birds and the passenger pigeons.

And what effect exactly did the extinction of a couple species of birds have on the worlds climate?

Oh and I had extinct buffalo steaks this weekend. hmmm hmmm good!

Late congratulations from me too Skybird :woot:

Typichal Skybird reply: Don't use sheer force little grashopper, use his force against him and let his attack bleed his force, then strike back :haha:

For shame! Were they any good?? :D

What part of
didn't you understand?:o
;)

My brother in law is eating buffalo burgers now. He said the meat is fantastic. Not sure if I can try it myself. :hmmm:

IMO most of the anti global warming articles/posts/research/etc, is all politicaly inspired BS from industrial special interest groups who have a vested interest in keeping things status quo. Going green cuts into the profit margins and CEO's golden parachutes. Not to mention peoples natural resistance to change. There's alot that is so much engrained in our society we can't imagine the world differently.

The green movment, IMO was inspired by a bunch of tree hugging hippes. That said, i think they have something resembeling a point, or at the least, cleaning our act up couldn't hurt. As much as i hate the California smog gestapo, i remember how the LA basin looked before they really cracked down and got rid of leaded gasoline. (kinda looked like pictures of Bejing smog back then)

In any event, who's right or wrong doesn't matter to any of us personally and won't effect our lives, because none of us will be around to suffer the consequences if they are indeed real and valid. Your decendants might, but you won't, if thats any comfort.

I had completely missed this thread till now!!:yep:
A bit late but I hope you had a happy birthday Skybird, Cheers!:yeah:

Hmmm hmmm hmmm. :O:

Edit. This thread is totally derailed. :D

I had. Thanks to both of you! :salute:


:salute:

Hardly.

There has been a discrediting of climate science in the past weeks, no denial. the email "scandal" however, claimed to have been the first step in this, still lacks the substance for quaolifying that - no matter how often you repeat to refer to it.

However, the reputation of the IPCC has been damaged in later reveleation following the - pretty much fabricated - email row. But one has to look closer here. The material in chapter 1 of the IPCC reports is the volume which is the important part that is used for political decisions. the basic statements in it are not opposed until today. there is global warming taking place, that is beyond doubt, and it also is pretty much beyond doubt that the major cause of it is man-made.

However, it seems there has been done a lot of dramatisation of effects in order to increase chances for wanted political agendas for greener policies being accepted - by spreading fear. This seems to have been possible by science heavily being corruoted by politxal lobbyists or scientists who at the same time served in a politcal and/or private-economy-related function, which is a sin for any science that tries to avoid getting corrupted. the most obvious signal for this is the controversy about the head of the IPCC board himself. But many scientists point out that this problem, that corrupts science by accepting to let science be influenced by classic interest conflicts of several of it'S influential actors, is not just about this single man. There is a self-made crisis of trustqworthiness of sciences, therefore, and that is where sceptics get their current fuel from. However, as much as the green propagandists pull the manipulative rope at their end of the spectrum, sceptics pull at their own end of the same rope. Many claims beihng raised by them, still lack ground and informational basis, or are in ignoration of data that until today is beyond doubt. the current winter this year, is shorttermed weather only. the January still has been the warmest January sinc eth ebeginning of satellite weather obsrvation, and the past ten years still have been the warmest decade since the beginning of weatehr recoridngs. A current discussion about american ground temperature measurements eventually delivering misleading data, means nothing here. Their is pretty much a cionsensus, that temperature measurements of satellites are far more reliable anyway.

As already said, the problem in trustworthiness of climate sciences is home-modade, but the scale of the substantial fraud that took place in several aspects, by far gets blown up in importance by sceptics, who see the chance to change the course of public discussion even if many of their own claims still are not suppported. It is a propaganda war going on, with massive financial interests at stake. And the green lobby allowed to get caught in this without need. Seen that way, they deserve the crisis they are in. but that does not really matter. Becasue the climate still is getting warmer, and this inevitably will have consequences. Maybe not that drastic consequences the fearmongers predict, nevertheless the changes will be massive, and global, and they will reach us - sooner or later.

And only acceopting that this developement in principle still is true can be seen as a reasonable basis for action and decision on our side. the rest is fruitless, self-destryojng conflict of ours,f ought on behalf of the ideoliogiuc or short-termed material profit of some lobby groups. We must not be so stupid to let them have their way - both the green fearmongers, and the sceptics.