The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Bonez]

Is it really as bad as it's made out?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/globalwarming.html

[Indiana_Jones]

It's on the internets! it's true! We're all dead!!!

ahhhhhhhhhhh!

-Indy

[N1CK]

Is it really as bad as it's made out?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/globalwarming.html

No its the humans i tell you!

Oh, wait...hold on

[Jantar]

It says GISS on that nasa data. Goddard Institute of Space Studies, yet the info I've found on their website is not consistent with the info you have presented.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/
Five warmest years since 1890.

I must confess that comment and link caught me by suprise, and having just arrived home from the motorcycle Club meeting I suspected I'd have to bookmark the link and return to it tomorrow. Fortunately, the reason for difference was soon apparent. Your link is dated 20070208, but in August 2007 it was revealed that NASA scientists had corrected an error that resulted in 1934 replacing 1998 as the warmest year on record in the U.S. See http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...=128&Itemid=30

NASA refer to this in http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html but minimise the impact by saying the global correction was less than 3/1000 of a degree. In march this year they commented. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Several minor updates to the analysis have been made since its last published description by Hansen et al. (2001). After a testing period they were incorporated at the time of the next routine update. The only change having a detectable influence on analyzed temperature was the 7 August 2007 change to correct a discontinuity in 2000 at many stations in the United States. This flaw affected temperatures in 2000 and later years by ~0.15°C averaged over the United States and ~0.003°C on global average. Contrary to reports in the media, this minor flaw did not alter the years of record temperature, as shown by comparison here of results with the data flaw ('old analysis') and with the correction ('new analysis').

But the important thing to note is that all of this discussion is based purely on SURFACE TEMPERATURE records. The data presented to me, and that I have included earlier is a combination of sea, surface and satellite data. This also fits better with the MSU satellite data.

[Skyryder]

Is it really as bad as it's made out?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/globalwarming.html

You decide, but bear in mind "You can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink."



http://www.benzworld.org/forums/off-...tists-say.html

Skyryder

[Patar]

I have a question because quite frankly I don't care much for the debate on global warming and whether or not it really is happening. Any kid with an I.Q of 27 can slap together a graph showing what ever the hell it is he wants it to show, I'll make you all a graph showing that global temperatures are a function of underwear purchases.




The real question that should be asked, especially for all those of you who are opposed to the idea of global warming, is the shift to sustainable and more efficient technologies really such a bad thing?

The culture of waste adopted by, well, every single country in the world today is bad. You can spin it 34 ways from yesterday but bottom line is humans need to change.
If what is required to instigate a change to environmentally friendly technologies and lifestyles is scaring the general public with global warming, then so fucking be it.

[Winston001]

Ok, just for a breather, Dennis Dutton and his team who run Arts and Letters Daily (http://www.aldaily.com/ - news clipping site used world wide) are smart cookies. And they couldn't make head nor tail of the climate change debate.

So they set up http://climatedebatedaily.com/ which takes no sides. It simply lists articles and reports from both ends and lets you make your own assessment.

Beyond that, RealClimate is run by climatologists who know what they are talking about. http://www.realclimate.org/

[hellkat]

I agree that the general public could do with a bit of a memory jog about how to be better at recycling, looking at what is happening to the remaining natural habitats and resources left in the world, and stuff like that.

Sadly, I think many MANY people are hearing that the global warming thing is not so much 'our' fault as we have been led to believe, and are not taking a lot of notice any more.

But we really certainly could do with having people still believing that environmental stuff is a positive thing to do, rather than than they aren't able to make a difference, and keep throwing away more trash, wasting more resources, etc.

[Jantar]

The real question that should be asked, especially for all those of you who are opposed to the idea of global warming, is the shift to sustainable and more efficient technologies really such a bad thing?

The culture of waste adopted by, well, every single country in the world today is bad. You can spin it 34 ways from yesterday but bottom line is humans need to change.
If what is required to instigate a change to environmentally friendly technologies and lifestyles is scaring the general public with global warming, then so fucking be it.

A different debate and for a different reason. Go back to posts #107 & 109.

[Skyryder]

I have a question because quite frankly I don't care much for the debate on global warming and whether or not it really is happening. Any kid with an I.Q of 27 can slap together a graph showing what ever the hell it is he wants it to show, I'll make you all a graph showing that global temperatures are a function of underwear purchases.

The real question that should be asked, especially for all those of you who are opposed to the idea of global warming, is the shift to sustainable and more efficient technologies really such a bad thing?

Graphs are based on data. That data has to be based recorded in an accurate and verifiable manner if the graph is going to have any relevance to what it purports.
Sure you can show a graph related to temperture changes and underwear purposes but what is the relevance if the data is wrong and unrelated.

The history of man is that he does not change unless circumstances force him to do so. Global warming is a new 'threat' that poses substantial changes to our modern society. Misplaced science that proposes natural causes for global warming just makes it that more harder for changes to occur.

My geneation is not going to see the full effects of this as we will all be dead. But you can be sure that we will get the blame, not necessarily for its cause but for doing 'nothing' about it.

Skyryder

[skidMark]

To what extent may the Earth's rotation around the sun, and the actual tilt of the earth [eg true north and magnetic north] impact upon climate change?

The extent to which there was an ice age, and now conversely a gradual shift in global temperature....I often wonder whether science, scientists and governments have an inside running on this sort of data and of course how any disinformation may be released.

Dang should write a novel but I think there is a good sci-fi film 'The Day the Earth Caught Fire (1961):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054790/

Heads Up and Enjoy [I think]

I still reckon the whole world revolves around me.

[Jantar]

...Beyond that, RealClimate is run by climatologists who know what they are talking about. http://www.realclimate.org/

The dutton site is a really good one in that it has data and comment from both sides of the debate.

The realclimate site is not so good. It is run by a group of climate scientists led by Michael Mann. The same scientist who has been discredited for his work on the hockey stick temperature curve. He was lead author for the IPCC, and reviewer of his own work. Then it came out that he used a mathmatical model that would produce a hockey stick irrespective of what data was used. In addition the data that he did use was cherry picked, and altered to give the result he desired. His work is no longer used by the IPCC. So if you wish to call this a site run by Climate Scientists, then you are technically correct, but other scientists no longer honour Mann with that title.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309102251

[Patar]

Graphs are based on data. That data has to be based recorded in an accurate and verifiable manner if the graph is going to have any relevance to what it purports.
Sure you can show a graph related to temperture changes and underwear purposes but what is the relevance if the data is wrong and unrelated.

The history of man is that he does not change unless circumstances force him to do so. Global warming is a new 'threat' that poses substantial changes to our modern society. Misplaced science that proposes natural causes for global warming just makes it that more harder for changes to occur.

Graphs, just like statistics are highly influence by what the person creating them wants to show, it is purely dependent on what data is selected for use. We all know how often pretty pictures are used by campaigners on both sides of the argument.


Personally I don't know, nor do I really care if global warming is actually happening. That does not mean I don't make an effort to reduce wastage and choose to use the most efficient option where I can.
The main thing that annoys me about the "Global Warming is a sham" crowd is that pretty much all their arguments imply that humans aren't having a negative effect on the environment around them, which is definately a lie.

[Skyryder]

Graphs, just like statistics are highly influence by what the person creating them wants to show, it is purely dependent on what data is selected for use. We all know how often pretty pictures are used by campaigners on both sides of the argument.


Personally I don't know, nor do I really care if global warming is actually happening. That does not mean I don't make an effort to reduce wastage and choose to use the most efficient option where I can.
The main thing that annoys me about the "Global Warming is a sham" crowd is that pretty much all their arguments imply that humans aren't having a negative effect on the environment around them, which is definately a lie.

I'm not in any kind of disagreement with you on this but as I have said in my earlier post if change is going to happen then there needs to be a reason.
Doco's such as the 'Swindle' that purport a natural explanation for global warming just make the 'accepatance' for change so much harder.

Skyryder

[Winston001]

The realclimate site is not so good. It is run by a group of climate scientists led by Michael Mann. The same scientist who has been discredited for his work on the hockey stick temperature curve. He was lead author for the IPCC, and reviewer of his own work. Then it came out that he used a mathmatical model that would produce a hockey stick irrespective of what data was used. In addition the data that he did use was cherry picked, and altered to give the result he desired. His work is no longer used by the IPCC. So if you wish to call this a site run by Climate Scientists, then you are technically correct, but other scientists no longer honour Mann with that title.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309102251

Fair comment but the site is viewed and contributed to by other climatologists, not just Mann. We get an idea of the depth of debate by reading the posts of readers following each article - that is usually a good test of scientific discussion.