Global warming trap.

[AzDesertRat]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem here is not climate change, but rather that of sophisticated scientific brainwashing. The global warming alarmist and goverments alike generally choose not to receive advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucacies and advisers.

[/ QUOTE ]

citations please--everyone can come up with their own conclusions, but some of us would like to see where you are coming from.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem here is not climate change, but rather that of sophisticated scientific brainwashing. The global warming alarmist and goverments alike generally choose not to receive advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucacies and advisers.

[/ QUOTE ]

citations please--everyone can come up with their own conclusions, but some of us would like to see where you are coming from.

[/ QUOTE ]
old dogg doesn't have time for your silly "citations." That's not his style!

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
The process for taking temperture in 1880 is vastly different from taking temperture in 2000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please elaborate here? If scientists in the field think its credible data, why don't you? We certainly trust data from experiments in the 1880s all the time. In fact, we have confidence in astronomical observations made in the late 1600s witgh the crudest of telescopes -- this data (such as sunspot activity, etc.) has proven very accurate to data collected today using multi-million dollar state-of-the-art instruments.

So again, if you categorically throw out data that those in the field consider reliable, you should provide your rationale and qualifications. Not too much to ask.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this a troll post or are you truly misinformed?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
The earth is warming, and in fact the warming has accelerated between 1998 and 2006. This is unequivocal. The "debate" is about the nature of the cause, although it's not really a debate any more, just a few loud shills and documentary makers.


[/ QUOTE ]
All the data you show is meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]
The data I show is purely to refute OP's false assertion that that global temperature has declined since 1995. There's really no debate here.

[ QUOTE ]
Variable energy output from the sun is thought to be a possible cause

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's actually not. We can measure how much energy comes from the sun very accurately. Why are you posting about something you have no clue about?

(wikipedia)


[ QUOTE ]
Oh...I'm sorry. The sun ALWAYS emits the same amount of energy ALL-THE-TIME. Yes? Just like some digital oven you can buy at a department store...

[/ QUOTE ]
Building up a false position and then debunking it isn't the work of geniuses.

[ QUOTE ]
If one were to compare Greenland in 1500 to Greenland in 2007, they could claim we are experiencing global cooling..... After all Greenland is MUCH-MUCH colder than it was in 1500. Yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Then we can go back 20,000 years ago to the ice age where there was a MILE high layer of ice over parts of the USA and Europe. Did man cause the ice age to end as well?......

[/ QUOTE ]
Ice ages are very very likely to be caused by natural long term cycles relating to the Earth's orbit, such as the Milankovitch Cycles.

[ QUOTE ]
The OP is on the right track... He just made th same mistake that MCGW cultists make about allegedly accurate temperture data....

[/ QUOTE ]
The OP's first comments was flat out false. The rest of what he said is a waste of time, since he doesn't even know the very basic facts.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Variable energy output from the sun is thought to be a possible cause... Oh...I'm sorry. The sun ALWAYS emits the same amount of energy ALL-THE-TIME. Yes? Just like some digital oven you can buy at a department store...

[/ QUOTE ]

To piggy back off Phil (I didn't read past FN's first completely unsupported assertion the first time)...


<font color="blue">
The total output of the sun (= "solar irradiance") is so constant, it was not possible to measure variations until recently (notice how expanded the scale is to the left -- the total change in the average shown by the black line is only about 0.1%). The largest changes are associated with the solar cycle, with abrupt (still very small) changes due to sunspots. The steadiness of the sun contrasts with the long-term trends we see in climate change. link </font>

Felix, again I ask, what are your qualifications to be dismissing experts in the field? You throw out a lot of "well it could be..." arguments and present no data or rationale (besides claiming conspiracy), while experts present years worth of observations and thousands of research papers and studies.

Please enlighten us to how you feel qualified to throw all their research out as b.s. without showing us your supporting data.

[old dogg]

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFo...ouse_data.html

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Just a few hundred years ago, Vikings could grow crops on Greenland. Historians said at that time Greenland was really GREEN. Then without any help from cement factories or belching bovines, Greenland grew cold and killed off the Viking colonies. If one were to compare Greenland in 1500 to Greenland in 2007, they could claim we are experiencing global cooling..... After all Greenland is MUCH-MUCH colder than it was in 1500. Yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a flawed argument. As the average global temperature rises, the local temperature at some locations decreases and at other locations increases.

[qwnu]

[ QUOTE ]
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFo...ouse_data.html

[/ QUOTE ]
I can confirm that the info on this page is authoritative for several reasons:

1. Trustworthy domain name
2. Last revised: January 10, 2003
3. Kick-ass spiral binding image at left side of page

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a flawed argument. As the average global temperature rises, the local temperature at some locations decreases and at other locations increases.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would say this is more of a counter argument mocking the arguments that MCGW cultists use to justify their position.... Interesting you chose not to address the ice age which was a world wide phenom. Will you concede man did not cause the ending of the Ice Age? If so then will you concede that mother nature weilds a BIG CLUB with regard to climate? And if you concede this, will you concede that MCGW cultists have not been able to exclude NATURAL factors for perceived global warming?

Sorry to burst your bubble but with regard to affecting the world climate, man is just a cork floating in the ocean....

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Your data is silly. So where is the solar output data when the little ice age occurred. Where is the solar output data when the big Ice Age occurred? Answer: you don't have it. To measure solar output you need to have a satellite in orbit measuring the sun's output. And we have MAYBE 30 years of this data?

You are trying to prove the sun's output is constant without having a meaningful amount of data. Your claim is like a man whose stock rises $1 in a day and claims at this pace he will be a millionaire in 12 months. The variable output of the sun is just one hypothisis of many used to explain climate change. But unlike MCGW cultists, honest scientists concede their hypothises are hypotheses...not fact. MCGW cultists would do well to follow the scientific process and not make such outlandish claims without having proof.... There of course MCGW cult 'scientist' like Michael Mann who actually forged data to support his MCGW claims.... Total fraud...