10 global warming facts versus fears

They DO say the earth is warming and it is being caused by human activity - what you are not providing is any proof of what you are saying and I am not about to list thousands of research papers backing my statements until you do the basics and prove Al Gore is a bigger "scam artist/fraud/whatever" than Lord Monckton

 

Ignoring the AD hom but issuing warning - keep it up and you are back on my ignore list

I have been studying AGW for about 20 years now - I might be a nurse but I am also a science geek and have looked at BOTH sides now for years. I am probably MORE familiar with the crock of shiiiite that was in the OP than you are.

Nope! That is the only piece of evidence YOU think there is

What about http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
But I mean, if you think that NASA is not a valid site then maybe you prefer the bull, er sorry "content" on the "'institute of Creation Research" http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-global-warming/

Linky???

This one piece of eveidence is there supposed jewel in the crown and why they are asking us to pay a carbon price.

(((((((((((((((((sigh)))))))))))))))))))))

That is the problem with only reading the denialists sites - you get the wrong ideas about the real world - there is real scientific evidence that is NOT models but the denialist sites will not tell you that

http://scholar.google.com.au/schola...=zkkMUYKzIYypkgWHhIGQBw&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQgQMwAA

Just because you do not know of one does not mean it does not exist

You are talking about millions of years ago - a lot of things can change in that time frame - and are you aware that when the CO2 WAS that high there were no trees or forests in the tropics? Life existed at the poles

Global warming was touted long before the economic fixes were discussed

So, it is your contention that around 100,000 scientist are in on a "scam"?

 

Monkton isn`t going for the big bux, while Al Gore has set himself up to collect the dividends. Monkton may be a minor inconvenience, when he asks sheep questions like "do you understand the "science" of AGW, oops, ACC?", and "have you ever questioned the "science" of the scam, or is the appeal of ACC, that it suits your emotional agenda?".

- - - Updated - - -

Monkton isn`t going for the big bux, while Al Gore has set himself up to collect the dividends. Monkton may be a minor inconvenience, when he asks sheep questions like "do you understand the "science" of AGW, oops, ACC?", and "have you ever questioned the "science" of the scam, or is the appeal of ACC, that it suits your emotional agenda?".

 

Proof??? One again I am hearing lots and lots of allegations but there is zero proof

Come on now guys - here is your chance to debunk a "hero'

Surely at least ONE Denialist can google??

 

Hey bowergirl

Before we settle into playing cricket with scientific papers please answer these questions, as a layman i would like to hear your explanation.

1. The graph below shows our average mean temperature plotted with our CO2 levels in our atmosphere over time.

Now millions of years ago we has CO2 levels that where about 20 times the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere today, as you have stated the conditions where abit different back then cause the was no vegetation or it was just starting to form.

So how come 7000ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere didn't trigger major climate change and a green house effect especially when there was no vegetation to absorb the CO2.

The graph also shows that even though there was a very high amount of CO2 in our atmosphere at the time compared to today the temperature stays more or less steady, when the temperature dives the CO2 follows at lag.

The temperature doesn't rise because the CO2 levels had risen, so then from this graph would it be safe to say that CO2 doesn't control the temperature of the Earth.

Its there in black and white, you want proof well here it is in our past history.

If it didn't happen then why will it happen now?




2. The graph below shows atime period of a few hundred years, at the nedieval warm period the temperature was at about the same degree as today, yet there was no manmade CO2 going into the atmosphere the only CO2 was that from the ecosystems.

So would it be fair to say that the Earths temperature is controlled by the sun as so many scientific papers confirm and not by CO2.

Would it then be fair to say that the current rise in temperture in the last century is a natural cycle of the Earths climate change with respect to the activities of our sun.



3. The graph below shows that there has been no warming since the late 1990's would it be fair to say that the IPCC computer models have got it wrong since they predicted warming continually rising?



What are your thoughts on these subjects???????


.

 

Why is it cr@p, is it because a retired policeman and climate enthusiast on the skeptical science blog refutes them??

You really have to come up with something better than that.

Are you kidding me or what thats the best you got????

Here's a man who has spent his whole life monitoring satellites for NASA
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/10/hotspots-and-fingerprints/

49 former NASA scientists reget NASA's stance on global warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/...emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/

OHHH and this one is a beauty, how Mann got his statistics mixed up.

Can you tell me why Michael Mann omitted the medieval warm period on his shonky stick graph?

Hope this opens your mind alittle.

I have read from both sides and i have made my choice.

Are we going on opinions here or science fact.

AND?????????? you have failed to explain why we didn't have major climate change and a run away greenhouse effect back then when we had 20 times the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere as we have today????

And by pricing carbon on the market this will solve the problem before we go over the precibus like dear old get rich quick Al Gore is telling us, according to him we have 5 or 10m years left before we are all doomed.

Trading CO2 on the market will not solve our problem for another 100 years let alone that time frame, in the mean time we as a nation and as individuals will be fleeced by you guest it BANKERS.

Dont make me laugh FFS, was that in your wet dream?????

 

No they do not. That is exactly why I say you are laying claim to things the scientist do not say.

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
Nope they say contributing, hardly in agreement with you

http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
This lot say that they really have no idea, but it is easiest to explained it that way.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/there-is-no-consensus-on-global-warming/16396
And this lot are hedging their bets stating that it is likely, but not positively, as you do.

Seems you are drawing conclusions from information that does not support your claim to me.

can not produce the papers you claim proof of your statements because their is no evidence to support your claim. If there was, there is no debate. All you can show me is something you seem to draw conclusions from, because you really do not understand what the papers are saying.

http://www.cfact.org/2009/11/05/do-al-gores-investments-grow-with-the-global-warming-myth/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...vancing-global-warming-hysteria#ixzz2JkHTaIm6

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html?_r=0