update on world temperatures

do you know that climate scientists have been able to identify a number of factors that contribute to climate change, and these explain various cycles which occur naturally?

do you know why they do not identify the current warming as linked to these natural cycles?

 

Are these "climate scientists" funded by big government?

 

A) a lie - there has been some regional warming but not "during the beginning of the holocene" and it has not proven to have been a global event

b) Climate does not change by itself - just like your underpants do not change by themselves - I and probably your mother have already told you this

So the person who keeps writing that climate can change without a reason although as bugs points out there is always the possibility of the magic climate change fairies i - they are accusing everyone else of being in a religious fervour?

Yeah riiiiiiiiight!

Not foolin' no one with that one!

Especially not those who read these threads but do not participate and that is usually 3-5 times as many reading a thread as participating - these others are often not even members of the forum but people who have googled up something and have come across this thread

See, these arguments are not about you believing you have "bested" anyone or even me - it is about who can put forth the most coherent, well constructed and valid post

Let me show you an analogy - imagine you were going to paint your house and you came across an argument on the net with one person saying "If you choose this type of paint and add that type of tint you will get an effect that will last the longest and stand up to most weathering" but an opponent wrote ""NAh you don't need nothing like that because the paint will change by itself because it always does"

Who would you believe?

 

Ummm - whose government?

See the climate scientist you are talking about are from all over the world - so whose government are you implying is funding these people

Mind you they are not all from governments either - one of the more reliable websites for information on climate change is "Woods Hole Oceanographic" and they are privately funded

 

Ummm. Any government.

Any government that stands to make more revenue from the taxation increases due to AGW "remedies.

Any government that stands to increase its power over the people due to AGW "remedies.

 

Gee you must live an funny country then

Because all the other countries around the world if a government raised taxes like that for that they would be voted out of power!!

 

that is irrelevant. governments who fund scientific research have in a number of cases argued against taking action on climate change.

 

don't know much about the purpose of government fiscal policies ... or government in general ... do you?

 

I know all too well the purpose of government fiscal [policy and generally disapprove of them.

That's why I disapprove of all measures proposed to "remedy" AGW.

 

Perhaps you should read this
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/

 

Another government funded study?

 

mmm. don't think so.

you seem to have some irrational fear of government. all human societies have relied on cooperation in order to succeed. sometimes this means making group decisions to improve conditions for the whole group, or to improve the chances of the whole groups survival.

you don't seem to understand this.

attitudes such as yours would have been a liability in any human society throughout history.

 

cassandrabrandra posted:
"attitudes such as yours would have been a liability in any human society throughout history."

Taxcutter says:
Odd. I think much the same of you.

 

well you wouldn't be very well informed then.

the importance of cooperation to the survival of the group - even in other species - has been well documented.

modern democratic systems are a means of providing that cooperative structure for a much wider group, and over a more sustained period, taking into account a much larger set of variables.

 

The economic suicide demanded by the Warmers is hardly what I'd call co-operation.

Also buying junk science in the name of "co-operation" is equally dumb.

 

And we believe the findings of the Stern review

It is cheaper to do something NOW rather than later

Oh! And the term "junk science"? Coined by the fossil fuel industry to discredit climate science

 

denialists have no understanding of the concept "prevention is better than cure."

they also are probably the grown up version of the kids who wouldn't tidy up their rooms, and have no regard for consequences.

denialists are also generally anti science. a lot of them on this forum don't believe in evolution either ...

all science is "junk" to many of them.

 

lols ... this argument doesn't hold water.

necessity is the mother of invention and innovation - if things remained as you prefer them to, we would all lose out on improved efficiencies. fortunately, I don't live in the US, and the carbon tax here will contribute to research that will benefit us in the long term.

 

Necessity is the mother of invention, but government and their taxes just get in the way.

 

I see you have resorted to the child like labeling so you can dismiss anything that does not fit into your religion of AGW.

 

ok.

those who deny the scientific evidence on anthropogenically influenced global warming through increased carbon emissions do not understand that prevention is better than cure, and also have no regard for consequences. They are very much like children who don't tidy up their bedrooms.

better?

 

I thought you might like this link:
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/
This link is to climate change page. I would recommend the blogs as well Dr. Masters is excellent. The best site on web for tropical cyclone information. I work in disaster recovery I find it very useful.

 

This link is one of many on the link above it is a excerpt from a book. It explains climate change in a easy to understand manner. It is basic but useful to explain the issue.

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/RoughGuide2e.asp

 

thx texs, it provides much the same information that every other reliable source does.

my own contact with scientists in a range of disciplines (including agronomists from various countries, entymologists and marine biologists) demonstrates quite clearly that scientists are seeing the impact of change, even if they are not climate scientists.

we know what is happening. CO2 levels in 2011 were the highest they had been in 800,000 years - but these guys still think it is not an issue.

cutting emissions is one thing, but regardless of whether we succeeed or not, we will need to adapt to a world which will change quite rapidly within the next few decades (an increase in temp by 1.5C is far more significant than many people realise) - and have impacts on human populatons and other species across the planet.

 

I understand the importance of the issue for the future generations. Politicians however only worry with keeping their jobs. So I do not expect to see a lot of positives in the near future. I do not deny the science. Yet doubt people will make the sacrifices need to make a difference. The challenge you face in this debate makes my usual issue look easy.