Al Gore the BORE and his climate lies NOT shown on CNN

[nuf]

I, on the other hand, find it a constant source of amusement how some people like to attribute so deperately to human intervention a set of natural phenomena perfectly consistent with the past - sans humans.

So where can we see this perfect consistency?

Of course most deniers don´t get the irony of the saying "we can´t predict what will be in the future but i know 100% for a fact that everything is going to be totally like it would be without humans."

So what may be the main sources for this behaviour?

- ignorance
- sheer stupidity (that one is a fact when you have a look at the internet)
- laziness and fear to have to think about cutting back on wasting stuff all the time
- fear to think
- a general "fuck you i got mine" attitude
- a political agenda (to polute less costs money, empowers wetbacks ans brown people and to care about something else besides your own self and greed is comunist)

When people say they´re totally sure that humans have no or close to no influence on the changing of the climate they imediately take themselves out of the discussion and rightly become the target of ridicule.

But i don´t think you´re one of these guys so i´d be interested in what you have to offer. So far i´ve only gotten really embarrassing stuff from really extreme to the right guys (30000 "scientists" say global warming is a hoax, some guy who himself said he is biased against global warming and makes money this way and some graphs from a right wing blog).

Maybe you´ve got something with a bit more of substance.

[Morbid Jester]

Have you taken a look at some of the datasets that were thrown around? Those that enable us to derive temperatures and trends before humans started measuring?
Extrapolating from that data, the changes we see now are within the noise. That's the first thing that makes me wary of the statement: "Man made global warming is a fact."
Number two: It has been proven (I know McIntyre may be a nutcase but still) that the data the original "Hockey Stick" has been based on, has been doctored with to fit the theory. Poor scientifc handywork.
Number three: There have been higher temps on earth without humans around. How did that happen then? Some mideval technology now lost? We do not know, yet what we do know is that CO2 concentrations then were about as high as today or higher.
Number four is the yet unresolved role of CO2. Contrary to what is rehashed over and over the jury is still out on the verdict if CO2 really is the culprit. There are good reasons CO2 concentration might not be the cause of warming, but the effect. Also: CO2 makes up about 0.04% of the Volume and 0,058% of the mass of our athmosphere. I know that the man made CO" production has risen steadily, yet I fail to see the problem in the long term. Only if I see the system as a static thing - which it is not, its an adapting ecosystem, which brings me to the next problem: modeling the climate. Or in short: modeling a system we haven't begun to understand, let alone describe and we don't know the capabilities of. So the biggest blow to the predictions and the whole theory is that it is entirey based on models. So far, none of the models has passed the test that would make it a valid predictive tool: Recreate a known phenomenon in climate that has already occured, like an ice age or the mideval warming period. Plus, feeding the same data to the model multiple times yields inconsistent results lest data has been "prepared".

I know this is only a superficial rundown, but I hope you don't expect me to solve the riddle in one post on an IMB. If I could, I'd be making a fortune selling that knowledge.

What I would like to see is the removal of all ballast (left/right, eco and industy) from the climate bandwagon the reduction of the hot air production by these people and some serious science going. We could begin with herding together the 15.000 delegates in Copenhagen and drown them in the baltic sea. Less carbon dioxide AND one big source of hot air removed....

[nuf]

I think some of the points you make have to be raised especially about the role of CO2 but some things i don´t get.

Noone denies that climate is changing anyway and that there were warmer periods in the past as well but what has changed is the speed of those changes. I haven´t so far seen a fancy graph which documents such a raise of temperature in such a short time.

And models are a normal instrument of science, on what shall they base their evaluations on? Models are used in every scientific field and just because climate change is hard to evaluate doesn´t make models obsolete.
What i think many people (often with a non scientific-background?) in these discussions don´t get is that science is not all about proving something 100% and only than it´s valuable.

It´s about estimating with certain instruments and methods a plausible and (by using the same methodes) reproducable Result to explain certain circumstances and the perceived reality. If there is a strong clue of humans having a negative effect on climate change in the majority of scientists (which at leat in europe seems to be) then this has certain implications (or not as we see ) on politocs and society. Who says we have to wait until it´s a 100% proven that humans are causing global warming (not saying you do) doesn´t understand science at all.

I won´t mention that these very same people very often react angry when someone wants them to prove the existance of good... There is no schience to support that but they are quickly to deneunce the science that´s actualle there in a very important field.

If this Email-thing leads to a more honest and deep scientific discussion than that´s good. How it shall prove that it is all made up is propably only understandable if if get my news from Glenn Beck (if i were i´d be too ashamed to mention it even here)

[Reservoir_Dog]

but, as a card carrying member of the climate hysteria clan...

You couldn't be more wrong about that.

[callmeslick]

What I would like to see is the removal of all ballast (left/right, eco and industy) from the climate bandwagon the reduction of the hot air production by these people and some serious science going.

this part of your statement, I am in complete agreement with.

[HappyHappy]

The current warming trend or "interglacial" event began about 35,000 years ago.
That's long before there were enough humans for a stable population let slone
enough to cause global warming.
I think you would have to be a complete idiot to believe we are having no effect at this time.
But those who think we are the only cause of the warming trend are also devoid of common sense.
I am of the opinion that the current warming trend caused more humans.....
Not a joke. Human populations started to rize as the ice began to retreat at the end of the last ice age.
We are a product of our enviorment more than our enviorment is a product of us.

HH

[callmeslick]

The current warming trend or "interglacial" event began about 35,000 years ago.

scientific proof, please? And, while presenting that data, please show the cycle intervals involved, as there are probably several making up the overall pattern. By the way, should you succeed, you will have done a better job than anyone, on either side of the scientific debate, in any of the literature I've seen to date.

I am of the opinion that the current warming trend caused more humans.....
Not a joke. Human populations started to rize as the ice began to retreat at the end of the last ice age.
We are a product of our enviorment more than our enviorment is a product of us.

actually, that is probably correct. We are probably within the ideal human range for temperature. Still, with most biological populations, breeding and expansion of numbers have to do with more than temperature, there is the matter of food supply, other life needs to consider. And, that is the risk with a warming globe, as well as massive overpopulation of humans: we should expect a major die-off of our species, just as one would expect of any species facing those conditions(less ideal temps, dwindling food supply). Where man does many species a disservice is our disproportionate effect upon our environment through pollution and waste of resources.

One of my constant annoyances is hearing environmental activists state that 'man is killing the planet'. I would bet a fair amount that no matter what we do, man is not going to do in the Earth. We might lead to a major change in species of animals and plants. Hell, we might do in a huge chunk of all life, but the Earth will still be revolving around the Sun, when all is said and done.....

[ginger_cat]

One of my constant annoyances is hearing environmental activists state that 'man is killing the planet'. I would bet a fair amount that no matter what we do, man is not going to do in the Earth. We might lead to a major change in species of animals and plants. Hell, we might do in a huge chunk of all life, but the Earth will still be revolving around the Sun, when all is said and done.....

That narks me too - if anything, the strapline should be 'Save the People' not 'Save the Planet'. The real issue isn't global warming but sustenance of the human race as we know it. Global warming is just the salient factor.

[Pudfark]

Climate Control = Population Control

The immediate solution is in India and China......deal with that...or go "Soylent Green".....

As I have alluded to before....theories are bullshit and Math is exact.....do the math and the solution becomes obvious....a little subtraction is the answer....

Old Pudfark sez: "add that to yer bag of tricks...do the subtraction...an quit draggin the bag".......

[fatman]

Wait for an airborne version of the ebola virus in feb up in canada