3 of 6
3
Romney and Republicans cheer climate change
Posted: 22 November 2012 08:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  150
Joined  2012-07-25

Darrons, what about the HadCRUT data from Britain’s Met office that shows no warming for 15 years despite large increases in CO2 ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 08:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4840
Joined  2007-10-05
sine dues - 22 November 2012 08:13 AM

Darrons, what about the HadCRUT data from Britain’s Met office that shows no warming for 15 years despite large increases in CO2 ?

Please provide a link for that. According to NASA the first decade of the 21st Century was the hottest on record.

Image Attachments
hottest_decadcompressed.jpg
 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 08:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4840
Joined  2007-10-05
sine dues - 22 November 2012 07:59 AM

As far as science being settled….this reminds me of the EPA banning DDT. Little or poor evidence….scare-mongering….dont you want to save the peregrine falcons and bald eagles? ......ban the stuff then watch as the rest of the world….areas with malaria…...poor people start to die… you see the science was settled…...ya right…...

Another diversion tactic. Science is never settled.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 08:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  150
Joined  2012-07-25

Darrons, here is where I found it.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

No, not a diversion tactic….a fact. When new facts appear one cannot simply ignore it because it does not fit into your existing data….

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 10:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4350
Joined  2010-08-15
DarronS - 22 November 2012 08:21 AM
sine dues - 22 November 2012 07:59 AM

As far as science being settled….this reminds me of the EPA banning DDT. Little or poor evidence….scare-mongering….dont you want to save the peregrine falcons and bald eagles? ......ban the stuff then watch as the rest of the world….areas with malaria…...poor people start to die… you see the science was settled…...ya right…...

Another diversion tactic. Science is never settled.

Little or poor evidence?... false
There were good reasons for banning the indiscriminate use of DDT.
But as Darron points out science is never settled
Here’s some reading:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/ddt-brief-history-status.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
check out the “Environmental Impact” and “Effects on human health” sections.

And DDT is being used… http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/

Should DDT Be Used to Combat Malaria?
By Marla Cone and Environmental Health News

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ddt-use-to-combat-malaria
“The 15 environmental health experts, who reviewed almost 500 health studies, concluded that DDT “should be used with caution, only when needed, and when no other effective, safe and affordable alternatives are locally available.”

We cannot allow people to die from malaria, but we also cannot continue using DDT if we know about the health risks,” said Tiaan de Jager, a member of the panel who is a professor at the School of Health Systems & Public Health at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. “Safer alternatives should be tested first and if successful, DDT should be phased out without putting people at risk.”“

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 10:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4350
Joined  2010-08-15
sine dues - 22 November 2012 08:27 AM

Darrons, here is where I found it.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

No, not a diversion tactic….a fact. When new facts appear one cannot simply ignore it because it does not fit into your existing data….

It’s a diversion if you cherry pick your graph start and end dates
It’s a diversion if you ignore ocean warming,
It’s a diversion if you ignore our cryosphere melting,
It’s a diversion if you ignore that Earth is retaining more solar heat due to atmospheric GHGs insulating properties.

Ten Charts That Make Clear The Planet Just Keeps Warming
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/15/1014151/ten-charts-that-make-clear-the-planet-just-keeps-warming/
By Joe Romm on Oct 15, 2012 at 6:46 pm

Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
http://www.skepticalscience.com/rose-curry-double-down-denial.html
SkepticalScience
Posted on 23 October 2012 by dana1981

Cheers CC
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com    wink

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 11:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  150
Joined  2012-07-25

it is a diversion if you ignore solar output
it is a diversion if you ignore that the antarctic is accumulating ice
it is a diversion if you include urban heating effect
yup….we could do that all day couldn’t we…...

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 11:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2006-12-20

Sine,

As you know I’m one who doesn’t understand the controversy.  I mean we understand the green house effect and what increased green house gases in the atmosphere does.

Waiting for data to be as conclusive as you would like, to show that increased greenhouse gases are doing what we would expect them to do seems rather unnecessary and futile, as you wouldn’t be convinced until it was too late.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 11:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15395
Joined  2006-02-14

Not to mention that virtually all the scientists who actually study the phenomenon are in agreement that it is happening. This has been consensus science for over a decade now.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 02:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  150
Joined  2012-07-25

Hi Stephen, I am not saying wait for conclusive evidence….I do not think that there will ever be a way to stop polluting our planet…..this is what we and every creature here does…...we will not go back to a simple agrarian or hunter gatherer society .....we must do what we need to survive…...energy is survival. Since when has life been fair?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 02:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  150
Joined  2012-07-25

Dougsmith, what about the Global Warming Petition Project ?
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 03:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15395
Joined  2006-02-14
sine dues - 22 November 2012 02:50 PM

Dougsmith, what about the Global Warming Petition Project ?
http://www.petitionproject.org/

This is a copy of the earlier nonsense tactic used against evolution by creationists, to which biologists responded with “Project Steve”. You get a ragbag of people, most of whom are not trained in the relevant science, to sign a petiton. Science isn’t done that way.

What matters is the consensus of those who actually study the phenomenon. In this case, climatologists, climatological bodies, and other international science bodies.

Sorry to say but you have been thoroughly duped by wealthy oil barons and their hired propagandists. See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Arthur Robinson is also apparently an evolution denier, and Fred Seitz has a background in the tobacco denial industry. Great folks.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 04:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15395
Joined  2006-02-14

For information on the actual scientific opinion on climate change, see HERE.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 04:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3186
Joined  2011-11-04
sine dues - 22 November 2012 02:45 PM

Hi Stephen, I am not saying wait for conclusive evidence….I do not think that there will ever be a way to stop polluting our planet…..this is what we and every creature here does…...we will not go back to a simple agrarian or hunter gatherer society .....we must do what we need to survive…...energy is survival. Since when has life been fair?

Humans pollute more than all other creatures combined. I think that we can find less polluting ways to have the energy that we need to survive (and thrive).  In fact, it appears that the survival of many in future generations may depend on us doing so.

Sine, your stance is apparently evolving from “there is not enough evidence of AGW to be concerned about it”, to “maybe there is, but so what, we can’t do anything about it”.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2012 03:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4538
Joined  2007-08-31

Climate change: It’s even worse than we thought

Five years ago, the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change painted a gloomy picture of our planet’s future. As climate scientists gather evidence for the next report, due in 2014, Michael Le Page gives seven reasons why things are looking even grimmer

New Scientist.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 6
3