I only make a short jump-in-and-out, since discussions of this type are proven useless.

Global warming has been predicted to produce paradox effects that give the impression of that actually a cooling is taking place , and years in advance, long before climasceptics observed them in reality and started enthusiastically yelling about them. the thickening of ice in the arctic for example: it is a very old story. there is a raise in temperature, the total temperature nevertheless still staying below freezing point, due to higher temperature more moisture from evaporation is in the air, this meets the ice, you get condensation, then it freezes et voila: you have thicker ice for the imminent future because it is warmer. At the same time you make observations that the ice gets more brittle, and more and more often huge parts break off, while glacier disappear faster and faster due to the melting water creating almost a sldiing chute beloiw the ice so that it moves faster and gets additionally pierced from top to down, letting warmer air circulate and melt the ice even faster. the thickening of the ice: is a predicted, temporary effect that will reverse more sooner than later. It is a delayed effect, so to speak.

Same with models saying that CO2 increase helps to foster the green. This too is a long predicted, temporary effect, which will be followed by an even greater devastating desertification once the green has grown beyond a certain threshold level. I linked it at least two times over the past year. It is known. It is not sensational. It does not support that CO2 is good and we must not mind about how much there is. It is predicted an effect. There is nothing in it supporting that global warming does not take place or CO2 is good for the atmosphere. It is a poisoning that shows its poisenous effect with a delay.

Methane: many made ridicule of suddenly methane being considered a threatening variable for climate. they argued by a scheme of "if now methane is an argument, than the arguments before obviously must have been proven wrong". That is Quatsch. It only means that a new, an additional threat has been identified. I do not judge it, since I have not read enough on methane. but that there is a high concentration in areas where for example rice is cultivated, is self-explanatory. At least it seems to me that methane maybe is an even greater accelerating agent for climate change, than some others.

We have had temperature records in recent years, last winter was very cold in America, two winters ago we had such a record in Germany and Europe. At the same time we see records in high temperature during summer. 2003 was a pain over here, and meteorologists predict with a 70% chance that this summer will become the hottest in the past 16 years, they say. The general trend of global temperature also points upwards, not downwards, we see a massive warming of the oceans. We see a raise in weather extremes, both frequency and intensity - this is what it all is about, and again: this has been predicted, because the higher temperature increases the energetic activity in the atmosphere and speeds up evaporation and condensation cycles. more cloud activity. more thermal activity. More winds. Faster transportation of temperature fields. We see far more storms, and wee see them taking place at higher intensity. In Germany, it has multiplied by a factor of five over the past 20 years. We see more and bigger floodings worldwide. In Germany, statistics show us that floodings now take place 3-4 times as often as before. Hurricanes happen more often, and tornadoes, especially hurricanes showing a trend to increase in intensity.

we see the equatorial deserts expanding to the south and north, and the huge deserts becoming bigger, we see new species in our countries that before were not here because it was too cold. We see pathogens from the tropics moving north. We see desertification speeding up, and expanding. we see sweet water becoming a rare good, and a shrinking of farming lands in equatorial regions, one reason is "Überweidung" (over-farming?), the other is climate change making the ground infertile. We see on land and in the ocean animals travelling into Northern waters and lands that before were too cold for them. We see plants and micro-organisms doing the same. We see - if only we want to.

Some even say their data shows them that the activity of the gulf stream has lost 15-20% in activity already. Hooray, if that activity falls below a certain threshold level, it becomes cold in Europe - global warming? nonsense, a new ice age! Nevertheless, this loss in activity is due to a process called "Entsalzung", it means that too much sweet water from the melting ice at the poles has made the mechanism by which sweet water and salt water create maritime tidings like a huge pump is no more efficient. It is global warming creating this.

Now, a word on microcycles and macro-cycles. People need to learn to separate them, espeically climate sceptics who often show up with observations regarding micro-cycles and think that is an argument to question an unwelcomed macro-cycle, and vice versa. the changes of Earths climate of time frames of hundreds of thousands of years, and millions of years, are macrocycles. changes in sun activity, and the yearly differences in weather and mean temperature, are microcycles. Macrocycles in earth's climate in the past have often been due to fundamental changes of atmosphere composition. Fundamental means not necessarily massive and voluminous, but sufficient changes. there were times when existing life forms on earth almost completely ere wiped out due to sudden changes of atmosphere composition, making it almost poisonous. Also, there have been massive temperature differences, resulting in long times of ice ages, and tropical heat around all the globe. But we talk about things here that lasted usually over hundreds of thousands and millions of years. If the intensity of changes in earth's present atmosphere and temperatures are calculated against the amount of time in which they took place, you see a sudden speed increase of the process that is calculated in the range of factor between 500 and 1000. Some give even higher numbers, in the five-digit-range, but let's not doing academic hair-splitting, the point is: it has accelerated beyond reason and madness. And that has nothing to do with sun activity and changes in the solar system and weather on Mars anymore. Such a sudden acceleration means there has been an artificial variable interfering that before was not there. And this variable strangely corresponds with the time table of human history. In science there is the principle of picking the explanation that makes sense and is the less complicated. Man's activity has caused the global warming, that is. Voilá, you're done, lets switch from the theory on why it happened to the practise of how to survive it.

the IPCC has been wrong in one major thing: that they painted a picture of as if we still could delay and maybe prevent global warming and climate change if only we implement the correct measures over the next 15 years. That is total BS to not worry the crowds and make them vote for the correct party. They also based their projections on hopelessly optimistic assumptions on future energy needs declining, and the willingness of nations to reduce polluting levels. they have been criticised for this by I think American scientists and former IPCC members, I linked the article just days ago.

Not every "solution" Greens propagate is reasonable and realistic, and sometimes their thoughts even backfire and even increase the mess instead of reducing them. But to make that an argument to mock at climate change in general and argue: if their solutions are wrong, then the whole idea of global warming must be wrong, disqualifies for any further debate.

I again point out that there is a a very strong economic lobby that spends hundreds of millions of dollars on projects and PR campaign whose only purpose is to discredit scientists, make ridicule of their data, and replace their theories (sending reminders for changes) with more welcomed theories of that no changes need to be done, and the level of distortion of sometimes most elemental principles of scientifically working and data analysis is nothing less than hair-raising. I live by the impression that the profit-greedy industry was successful in making the climate debate an almost religious issue in which you either believe, or not. That's why I for the most do not debate these things anymore - there is nothing to debate, for the facts are clear and lay in the open for everybody to see - if he wants to see. And if he deliberately chooses not to look at them and instead turn his back and telling jokes to enjoy his audience cheering and laughing, then discussion is both impossible and pointless. It's waste of time.

But that does not free us from the facts of the situation we are in. We already pay the price for how we live. Our children will get hit by the consequences multiple times as hard. As parents, our generation is an almost criminal failure, for we steal our children's chances and make our living by eating up their future. Shame on us being haughty at the same time and celebrating ourselves for how responsible and civilised we are. We are cannibals.

Still can't answer the question huh. You think if you say something stupid and throw up some smiley faces it will deflect from the question. At least explain why you think it's stupid. That should be a good one. Put some of that paid college educated research you have to work.

What causes me to believe this global warming phenomenon is a load of tripe? It is the politicians, as soon as they became the leading force in promoting it, it immediately became suspect. To use general consensus, feeling or open mindedness convey a global enviromental problem is not science it proves nothing. Couple that with a politician/government leading the way it is something to be wary of. But some will be sheep.

So far all that has happened is, they have promoted warming to attain power, raised my taxes, and travelled the world in their private jets and talk.

Can you imagine what the earth would have been like if the politician and so called scienctists had there way back in the seventies? I was old enough to hear the ice age scare. Cover the polar caps with soot was their answer, start planting crops and storing food ice is going to cover the earth!

How pathetic can you be?
Those links are talking about Gores movie! Whoop-die do!
What contempt am I supposedly showing?
Show me! Show me!! The links I showed you above show you don't know what you are talking about. So show me one thing that says the spike leveled off. You can't simple as that. I've already shown you what that one degree accomplished. I even put it in bold fonts so even you should have no problem reading it or is it another example of it's not saying what you want to hear so you ignore it?
Well you sure as hell can't do it so it must not be that easy. Is the data wrong that I show you? No it's not. So tell us how you do your research. You don't! You pull some crap out of your butt and expect people to believe it. If you haven't figured it out already I research every point you attempt to make and no surprise, there is nothing that supports your "facts", or you grossly exaggerate. I suggest you do the same to me and research what I say. You might actually learn something.
Show me. That should be simple enough with your superior research skills.
So now it's whats underneath huh. It's a read between the lines type thing? Show me! I have no problem showing you all the data you want to see even if you ignore it. Do the same for me with your superior research skills.
This is funny. I'm glad you finally see that what you are putting out is spin.
Cooler than normal temperatures were observed over less than 15% of the globe, and nowhere did the cooling exceed 3 C.
I won't say one way or another. It depends on the data you read and there are too many different theories out there. If you are basing on Mars ice you are wrong.

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/images/gltemp.gif

I'm more than a little surprised your high school education didn't cover this let alone your college education. Must be the same people who taught you how to research.
Carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2)
Carbon dioxide is generated as a byproduct of vegetable matter, the combustion of fossil fuels and other chemical processes.

What an absolutely impotent response. It's stupid because they've been doing this for over 50 years. Not only weather scares, but opposite outcomes of their failed assertions. You're oblivious to any of it obviously. From false mass erosions, to acid rain scares, to false ocean depletions, to increased hurricane activity etc.. They never come true. This story looks exactly like that particular april fool's piece. I love how people are now making fun of how the warmers will blame everything on global warming. Comedy is funniest when there's a drop of truth in it. It deserves the ridicule it receives. They just seem to throw everything and anything out there. Weather alarmists are like the boy who cried wolf, with no wolf at the end of the story. There need not be any "paid college research" you so readily and clearly dismiss. Education is not your enemy brad. Perhaps it's only independant thought that troubles you. Maybe you want to have everyone who disagrees with you arrested like your lazy scientist warming friend. The fact that they're now trying to appeal to the guy at the bar who wants his beer on football Sunday is obvious. I need not explain the ludicrous. I know there are many people who smell the rat. Mass cannibalism and no beer!!! Geez. Someone who wants to ridicule the warming movement couldn't have planned it better. That's as scaremongering and playing to false fears as you can get. You're being played once again.

Oh, they talk about alot more than that. It's too bad for you as well, that so many use Gore's movie as a basis in the belief in man-made warming. Somehow, this graduate school failure is a climate expert? Gore's movie will go down in history as a flop. Within 20 years it will be an example of false alarm, political scare-mongering, and false data manipulation.

More delusion? I think so. ;) You show nothing but contempt for independant thought. And you rail against oil companies, and energy partners as though they were the devil himself. These people make your life possible.

It's your problem if you can't look at all the data and see that increasing levels of CO2 are not giving you what you think it's giving you. You've shown, nor have you proven nothing. You have shown that there are people who think one degree is Earth shattering, but in the real world, there is no devastation occuring. You are the one who appears to believe that warming and cooling (even naturally occuring???) is a harmful event.

You're not worth the time. Nor the effort. You don't research squat. You google up articles. Alot of them obsolete. Alot of them with assertions made in the past, but the conclusion now looks to be incorrect. You don't look further than google for your answers.

Been done in three major threads. But you are only receiving of knowledge that gives you the doom and gloom you love. It doesn't take anything to really see how crazy you are on this issue.

Been done several times. You are apparently incapable of understanding anything other than what some politically motivated "scientists" from some article says. "Reading between the lines" is not necessary. Your inability to absorb any explanation beyond a google article that says what you like is your problem not mine. I've seen plenty of your rehashed "data". I need not see more.

That doesn't give you what you've been asserting all along. Nor does it prove anything conclusively from IPCC. As a matter of fact, in direct correlation to CO2 averages and increasing(potentially out of control) temperatures are concerned it tells you something different. It tells you that there is more to look at than CO2 (natural or man-made). If man-made CO2 were the driver, the theory would have worked out.

Your own certainty on that is funny Mr. google. The fact that you haven't displayed the knowledge necessary as to what changes the climate of a given system, I don't know how you can know that. Oh, maybe your googled up IPCC "scientist" gave you your talking point spin. That's all it is.


The fact that it comes out of the back of a car in trace amounts does not make it a pollutant. But I'm glad to se you admit you think it is. Water vapor comes out of your car in trace amounts too. Is that a pollutant? You would be the first person I know who would label water as a pollutant.

Disprove creation (or intelligent design if you will). Prove the cosmic accident theory. I assure you, you will be unsuccessful.

Provide evidence for Creation and inteligent design. And what exactly is this cosmic accident you refer to, is that your strawman construct of various theories of science you refer to evolutionism?

Comes a man to a doctor and is constantly snipping his fingers. Asks the doctor: "Hey, why are you doing that?" The patient: "it scares the pink elephants away, else they would trample on our feet!" The doctor: "But I beg you, there are no pink elephants, or what!" Says the patient: "You see, it works!"

As I said before: some here discuss climate issues as if it were a religion. By SD's latest comment I must conclude he is rejecting global warming evidence only for one reason: because it collides with his religious views that have no space for man-made global warming.

Religious motivation is the most dangerous of all types of ignorrance, and the most stubborn one and impossible one to convince of somethign that is not covered by the dogma. Any argument is wasted, and every word is one word in vein, every discussion is doomed to be useless, and the only reply you'll ever get is "but I believe different". There is only one thing a man can do: leave such a guy alone and let life roll over him. And if he considers life rolling over hom being possible or not, is of no interest for life itself - it just rolls over him nevertheless, and nobody cares, or must care.

Here's my opinion. If the earth is warming or cooling, I dont think its because of us. And due to this, I think that all these schemes that no-one else seems to be joining the British Government in enforcing to 'reduce environmental impact' wont do a danged thing.

No. There is no strawman in that. There are theories abundant into how Earth was created. There is scientific proof in how Earth was created and when. I don't discount any of it. I think there is alot of evidence to support natural evolution of species over time. However none of that disproves the hand of God in any of it. Other than Skybird's little joke, he nor the original poster of this point can disprove God's hand in creating the process of life, or in Earth's creation over billions of years. Another poster on another thread poijnted out something good. While belief in God's role, religious perspective is a matter of faith, disbelief also is. God and science are not exclusive of one another.

Woo Hoo! I think I created a thread to compete with the bump thread! :D :up:

I can't beleive this thread is still going on!



And my two cents to the global warming crowd - I don't understand how scientists run around and tell me that a million years is a short time, even as compared to climates, and then try and convince me that 10 years of global warming data is catastrophic?

Nice, but I'm not buying it.

-S

Nope. Religious beliefs do not play on my opinion of this issue in any way. The religious like views of global warming come from advocates because they are deriving their views on blind faith. When they see a warming trend, they find the one small role man plays into it so as to assign blame to it, and ignore all other factors which pertain to climate change. Not only that when the theories derived don't work as advertised, they change labels, but don't redraw their theories. There is actual evidence which shatters many of their assertions. No such evidence exists to disprove God's existence or role.

Err. What story? I never ran any story. What I said was:
So let me get this thing on research down. You think
So what you are saying is it's okay for you to pull crap and of your butt with not a shred of evidence to show where you got your information because it's independent thinking? :rotfl:

It also is not proven that the universe is not framed by a wall of 5-dimensional licorice, and God is no flying spagetti monster. Thus it must be true: the universe is surrounded by 5-dimensional licorice, and God is a flying spagetti monster.

Logical.