It seems to be a battle of sources over a battle of science. AGW is clearly flawed, even some of the people working for government paid for organizations admit that. Honestly, do you think NASA and other organizations would give true and accurate climate reports? Obama is about to shell into NASA millions in funding to find out more about global warming and how we cause it. Do you think they would give up that money and tell the truth? It's essentially bribing science. Many times the popular belief was wrong. Forever people believed in spontaneous generation, and if you doubted you were an unscientific fool. Scientists also widely believed that protein was the molecule for genetic inheritance... We should learn from history.
If you believe ACC isn't occurring, address the science and logic presented.
Paleocarbons, in the form of CO2, have been released. This net increase in carbon in the atmosphere results in increased evaporation, which leads to a positive feedback loop.
There are many that concur with with your conspiracy theories. What blows that for me is that ALL of the world's credible scientific institutions have been in general consensus on ACC for years, with evidence growing stronger each year.
I just don't think its possible that all of these scientific organizations have been conspiring for decades.
This year the evidence grew much much weaker and fraud was exposed.
It doesn't matter what the government run organizations believe, all that matters is truth and real science which points away from AGW. AGW started as a conspiracy, and then through political interest and fear tactics it became a dogmatically propagated theory for political purposes.
I think every reasonable person would agree that there is at least some constantly occurring change in climate. As to the reasons for it, that is where the debate lies.If you will review back just a couple of pages in this thread, you will see it is not obvious to everyone.
Nature is onlyI thought everyone was aware of the purpose of the canary in the coal mine:
"The classic example of animals serving as sentinels is the canary in the coal mine. Well into the 20th century, coal miners in the United Kingdom and the United States brought canaries into coal mines as an early-warning signal for toxic gases including methane and carbon monoxide. The birds, being more sensitive, would become sick before the miners, who would then have a chance to escape or put on protective respirators."
Animal sentinels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However, it remains to be seen if we will be smart enough to heed nature's warning in addition to the warning by the scientific consensus.
Excellent.That was the second reason for posting it.
Nature is onlywarningpointing out the obvious to us, that the climate is changing. Nature did not specify as to the cause(s).
The "scientific consensus" is noting the obvious signs of climate change, and pointing out what they believe to be specific causes.
The finding is in response to the scientific consensus on AGW ~
“Birds are excellent indicators of the health of our environment, and right now they are telling us an important story about climate change,” said Kenneth Rosenberg, director of conservation ccience at Cornell University’s Lab of Ornithology. “Many species of conservation concern will face heightened threats, giving us an increased sense of urgency to protect and conserve vital bird habitat.”
As you likely are aware, I am not convinced of the AGW/ACC theory's validity as of yet.
Fortunately, a scientific consensus on AGW does not require your being convinced.
Note: My post was an attempt to point out that I did not see any info in that link supporting your position of belief in the AGW/ACC theory.
I appreciate your opinion but my post was for those that accept the scientific consensus and are interested in steps being made to address our situation.
So now its ACC and not AGW? How about instead of arguing that humanity causes this we should look at nature. the solar cycles change and this affects the temperature. We know that there was a Medieval Warm Period and we also know that an ice age happened. CO2 has been rising very mildly, but the temperature increase (or lack thereof) has not corresponded with this. We know that scientists have been lying, in fact one of the leading AGW scientists said there was no statistically important warming (Phil Jones). Corruption has been exposed within the AGW believing scientific community, and we can see how the worlds governments will benefit from this theory being true. Scientists are now predicting a 20-30 year cool period, not an increase in temperature.
This year the evidence grew much much weaker and fraud was exposed. It doesn't matter what the government run organizations believe, all that matters is truth and real science which points away from AGW. AGW started as a conspiracy, and then through political interest and fear tactics it became a dogmatically propagated theory for political purposes.
* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing :badpc:
* There has been no global warming since 1995 :wow:
* Warming periods have happened before - but not due to man-made changes :applaud
I never said Anthropogenic Global Warming. I am advocating the science, and that is all. What I have argued, and will continue to argue without fail, is that the effect of CO2 will be limited, but it will be the indirect effect caused by increased evaporation that will cause ACC. This is happening.
You're assuming that my argument is the same as that of the IPCC, and the extreme liberals. Please don't waste my time by making that mistake.
But to what degree? What is its net effect on the climate?
But to what degree? What is its net effect on the climate? At this time, that is impossible to accurately quantify because we have absolutely no idea how strong or weak other climate signals such as solar, geothermal, oceanic, magnetic, cosmic, etc. are as it concerns the overall state of the climate.
I don't see how it's any different. You're making the exact same arguments and using the exact same flawed reasoning. By the way, I'm glad you admit that the IPCC is not worth referencing.
Global warming is clearly a myth. It's been a fun ride, but the ClimateGate data is out and truth is in.
Let's look at some global warming facts.
Professor Phil Jones admitted these facts. It's hard to fathom how people can still believe in this man-made hoax called anthropogenic global warming.
We know it is happening much quicker than the models predicted and "that it has impacts on everything else that goes on in this system":
"The research project involved more than 370 scientists from 27 countries who collectively spent 15 months, starting in June 2007, aboard a research vessel above the Arctic Circle. It marked the first time a ship has stayed mobile in Canada's high Arctic for an entire winter.
"(Climate change) is happening much faster than our most pessimistic models expected," said David Barber, a professor at the University of Manitoba and the study's lead investigator, at a news conference in Winnipeg.
Models predicted only a few years ago that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by the year 2100, but the increasing pace of climate change now suggests it could happen between 2013 and 2030, Barber said."
"The Arctic is considered a type of early-warning system of climate change for the rest of the world.
"We know we're losing sea ice -- the world is all aware of that," Barber said. "What you're not aware of is that it has impacts on everything else that goes on in this system."
The loss of the sea ice is taking away areas for the region's mammals to reproduce, find food and elude predators, said Steve Ferguson, a scientist with the Canadian government who took part in the study."
Arctic climate changing faster than expected | Reuters
OOPS. I take it you didn't hear that the Greenpeace leader admitted his organization put out fake global warming data, and that the IPCC "...exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030 [...] was hundreds of years off..."
Back to the drawing board. :Oopsie
What does that have to do with the study I referenced?
"Models predicted only a few years ago that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by the year 2100, but the increasing pace of climate change now suggests it could happen between 2013 and 2030, Barber said."
It has everything to do with the study you referenced. A few years ago, the models that were predicting doom by 2030, that the Arctic glaciers would be gone by then, have recently been admitted by the "scientists" who made the claim as nothing more than exaggerated lies. They admitted that the notion that the Arctic would be ice free by 2030 was "...hundreds of years off."
What you posted is nothing more than a lie based on junk science.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?