Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict

[_Simpson_ 250]

So if some companies are making money and doing well, that must make the recession a hoax right?

apples and oranges, dont forget GW is a theory, there is no solid scientific evidence to prove GW and now in light of climategate we have to seriously question the speculative scientific conclusions out there.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Unfortunately for the OP, local weather IS NOT the same as global temperature conditions. But keep up the good work confusion, Danno has your back!

[Danno 1,228]

Unfortunately for the OP, local weather IS NOT the same as global temperature conditions. But keep up the good work confusion, Danno has your back!

Wait a minute sport, why is it for a decade or more we have had to listen to these preachers of Global Warming lecture us every time we had any major storm or weather event?

We heard endlessly how these things were all signs of GLobal warming.

If we had a drought it was Global Warming.

We heard the big El nino was a sign.

At every opportunity the current weather situation was "TRYING TO TELL US SOMETHING".

Now all of a sudden all we hear is "You dumb ####'s don't know the difference between Climate and weather".

Instead of feeling relief that this possibility of GW seems to be diminishing... you seem to grimace that you were wrong.

You post all the -Funny photos you want, but your domination of opinion on this topic is over.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Wait a minute sport, why is it for a decade or more we have had to listen to these preachers of Global Warming lecture us every time we had any major storm or weather event?

We heard endlessly how these things were all signs of GLobal warming.

If we had a drought it was Global Warming.

We heard the big El nino was a sign.

At every opportunity the current weather situation was "TRYING TO TELL US SOMETHING".

Now all of a sudden all we hear is "You dumb ####'s don't know the difference between Climate and weather".

Instead of feeling relief that this possibility of GW seems to be diminishing... you seem to grimace that you were wrong.

You post all the -Funny photos you want, but your domination of opinion on this topic is over.

Danno the climate is changing, always has, always will. There is some scientific debate as to our current influence over the changes taking place today, there is no real debate in the scientific community about global warming however, only in your mind, and in these like minded threads.

Sorry you feel I am dominating these threads Einstein.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

apples and oranges, dont forget GW is a theory, there is no solid scientific evidence to prove GW and now in light of climategate we have to seriously question the speculative scientific conclusions out there.

Global warming research is largely based on fairly robust, albeit largely proxy, data. Try reading scientific journals instead of forums if you want objective data. Forums are about opinions not facts, in the the main. Of course you're free to make allegations of Scientism in those journals but I personally think there is less of an agenda in the climatologist's perspective than there is in those who refute the data.

Of course you are free to disagree - but on what actual knowledge do you disagree? Maybe you've done your own first hand research, maybe you've crunched he numbers? In which case I applaud you. But if it's based just on a hunch or your own politics or some agenda or assumptions or just a dislike of science (as what seems to drive much of the anti-science arguments in general) then maybe it's time to consider the facts. And the fact remains that there is a fairly strict linear relationship between CO2 levels/industrialization and global temperature change. Could these links be coincidental? Yes - but the statistical relationship is strong and needs to be explained. Of course I'm having to take much of this evidence on trust, but surely that is the nature of any society that has such a complex division of labour as our own does. Maybe it'll turn out that I have been taken in by a global conspiracy of bearded climatologists, maybe it'll turn out that there is a fatal flaw in the evidence, maybe a lot of things, but I'm not worrying about it, because there is no counter evidence of any strength. When I go to a doctor or call in a plumber there is an element of trust there too.

Now in fairness the models are just that: models, and shouldn't be taken as gospel, but as simplistic extrapolations of the data. They're certainly not worthless, but neither are they fact and I think it's fair to say that far too much attention in the media has been given to them. Being what it is the media tends to overexaggerate things let's not forget the politicians and the green movement who are quite capable of misrepresenting (both accidentally and deliberately) statistical data for their own agenda (there is a historical precedence here, I'm afraid). Of course the climate-sceptics can and should question these models, but their own agenda also needs careful scrutiny too. Also it might help if they could come up with a robust alternative theory to explain the rise in global temp, as their BS about sunspots, etc. doesn't hold water and I doubt that you'll find a serious scientist in any of the reputable universities in the 'free' world who would agree with them.

Regardless of the cause of climate change, I do agree with the sceptics, re: the worth of trying to abate climate change. the fact remain that we live in a globalization capitalist society which is not going to go way any time soon and we are not going to stop using fossil fuels. It doesn't matter what taxes, polices, money, etc. we throw at it. I think increasingly the world will wake up from this delusion and start spending its money more wisely on trying to mitigate the effects of global warming instead of trying to stop the inevitable.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno the climate is changing, always has, always will. There is some scientific debate as to our current influence over the changes taking place today, there is no real debate in the scientific community about global warming however, only in your mind, and in these like minded threads.

While your quips were cute you never explained why "weather was meaningful" before.. but not now?

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2043047/posts

Danno you cannot argue with these people.They put any spin they want on it.

CBC.CA ^

Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 3:35:27 PM by Sub-Driver

Global warming causing California glacier to grow, scientists say Last Updated: Wednesday, July 9, 2008 | 2:40 PM ET CBC News

The glaciers on Mount Shasta in California are growing because of global warming, experts say.

"When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, a University of California, Santa Cruz, professor who studied the glaciers.

But the seven glaciers on Shasta, part of the Cascade mountains in northern California, "seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean," he said.

As the ocean warms, more moisture evaporates. As moisture moves inland, it falls as snow — enough on Shasta to more than offset a 1 C temperature rise in the past century.

The three smallest of the Shasta glaciers are more than twice the length they were in 1950.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'll keep posting this for Danno and the other deniers...

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Naomi Oreskes^*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (

1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

References and Notes

1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
   
2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
   
3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
   
4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
   
5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
   
6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
   
7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
   
8. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
   
9. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
   
10. <a name="ref10">This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions. 10.1126/science.1103618
    

1. 
   

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

...and the bet is still on that I will buy anyone here a 6 pack of beer if they can prove that the above is NOT factual.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[Ban Hammer 14,155]

The panel was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations.

ah yes, the un out for more power again.........

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The panel was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations.

ah yes, the un out for more power again.........

[Ban Hammer 14,155]

just keep selling your freedom to the un. they're buying!

[웃 910]

I'll keep posting this for Danno and the other deniers...

1. 
   

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

...and the bet is still on that I will buy anyone here a 6 pack of beer if they can prove that the above is NOT factual.

[slim 1,533]

When they tell us we should watch our carbon footprint I tell them we shouldn't pee in the ocean either, but people still do it.

[Dan J 277]

apples and oranges, dont forget GW is a theory, there is no solid scientific evidence to prove GW and now in light of climategate we have to seriously question the speculative scientific conclusions out there.

In a sense, they are economics is a soft science, while climatology is not. But they are both dealing with large complex systems. In both systems, there will always be examples of local or region trends, that will go against the larger trend. But a lot of it comes down to your own observer bias. You will more likely see the negative effects of a bad economy more directly, than you will see the effects of gradual climate change.