Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natu

Non-Phish General
#61

The opening article on this thread claims that “Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural” It also says: “The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.”

Here is a link to the study: http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geum91dm1HzHUBkoxLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTFiaXIwZ3MxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1VLMDI2M18yNjMEbANXUzE-/SIG=124iv1ud8/EXP=1198442485/**http%3A//icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

The study does NOT say that global warming is natural or that man has no affect therefore the article is bogus. If you disagree, let’s have something a bit more solid than insinuating that somebody is on the ‘globalists payroll’ Who you think is on the payroll exactly I don’t know because both those articles I linked to were ones that you introduced. I simply pointed out the obvious differences between them, and proved that the Watson article was full of lies.

I have proven that the Watson article contained lies.

You are right that I have not linked articles that rebut your so-called facts. However, I do not believe them to be facts. Furthermore you have not provided links that provide these facts (specifically that climate change of 0.1 degree C is within natural cycles) If you provide such a link I will do my best to find counter arguments. It is very difficult for me to provide a counter argument when you’re actual argument relies on you calling it a FACT (in caps no less) and little else.

That being said. Follow this: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jones2004/jones2004.html

I quote: Our assessment affirms the conclusion that late 20th century warmth is unprecedented at hemispheric and, likely, global scales.

and

Only anthropogenic forcing of climate, however, can explain the recent anomalous warming in the late 20th century.

This from a peer-reviewed article (in Reviews of Geophysics)

Professional scientists. we are talking science here. Any peer reviewed article would be a start. I trust peer reviewed articles relatively highly. I’m not claiming they are perfect but as a resource of scientific fact I’d like to hear of anything that is more reliable.

No. You have provided mainstream journalism. From the Daily Mail no less. And if you think that Watson’s article counts, I’ve already proven that it is lies. based on that I would have to question the content of anything I read on Prisonplanet.com

And although much mainstream journalism is reliable, I’ll still take peer-reviewed scientific papers first.

No. every article you posted was biased. They resorted to distorting the facts to present a view that appeared to be even-handed when in fact it wasn’t.

But why should articles give both sides of the story? Scientific papers that disagree with the consensus on climate change are so few compared to those that agree (see the Science link I posted earlier) that for every article to keep reiterating points that have so little merit in actual science wastes everybody’s time.

You know nothing about what I love and trust.

I assume that by these establishments you are referring to The Royal Academy of Sciences, The National Academy of Sciences and Science (the Journal). I will take a stand and say I trust these establishments.

Are you honestly telling me that they are ‘bought and paid for’

If so, by who and what shred of evidence do you have to back up such a claim (a claim I have never heard made anywhere else).

Furthermore, if they’re corrupt, to whom should I turn for an independant view?

These are tough times, to be sure. I am sorry you feel this way.

Well, I never said any of that. And what has any of this got to do with climate change. Are you trying to blame the NAS, the Royal Society and Science for all these problems? You’ll forgive me if i ask for something, anything to back up these claims.

But seriously, I think you are trying to discredit my ideas by falsely associating them with other misdeeds. My opinion on any of those issues is not for this thread and more importantly doesn’t affect the truth surrounding climate change.

My sources are shills? Again, lets see some evidence here. That well-respected scientific bodies are on the payroll is quite a serious accusation, and if it were true would really put my conclusions in doubt.

I’ll tell you who is a shill for the corporate elite; Fred Singer - he has accepted 20,000 USD from Exxon. Oh, hold on…

Many of these so-called climate change skeptics actually turn out to be funded by large oil companies. Waving the old corporate shill argument in my face actually does your side of the argument far more harm than it does mine. http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/gwdeniers.html

Apology accepted.

You ask me to look up the lies. I don’t know what this means, but I like to follow the paper trail and find out where these so called articles come from. That’s how I know that the Watson article misquotes the original study by Singer et al. That’s how I know that Singer’s SEPP is on the Exxon payroll.

As for finding stories that don’t sit right with me? Believe me, the idea that global warming is man-made does not sit right with me at all. I’d like nothing better than to think that the world will right itself and we’ll all be fine. Unfortuantely the massive majority of evidence I have seen points to the other conclusion.

As for stories I disagree with - that’s harder to find, I went to Prison planet and found much of their environmental articles to be very disagreeable - unfortunately they didn’t stand up to too much scrutiny.

So there you have it.

Be a man, Thnkfrstpal. Can you at least admit that the Watson article contained lies - specifically “The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.”

If you can not rebut this with good reason or admit it’s right, I deny you the right to continue debating with me!

#62

This is just hyperbole.

This adds nothing to the debate.

#63

Man, this gets easier and easier.

Watson and prison planet: misrepresented the facts to support their view

Fred Singer: On Exxon’s Payroll.

Tim Ball is the writer of another of your quoted articles.

Read up on him?

Tim Ball has never actually published a peer-reviewed article discrediting anthropegenic climate change.

He also was a major player in the Friends of Science Society who had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry.

Check out this very well-cited article:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science

Scientist and highly-educated he may well be, Corporate Shill would also be a hat that fits.

#64

:-/ So this whole bit of going to Afghanistan and hunting them down is just staging? Oh I get it, so we can go to war in Iraq. So we can take over the world. Islamic terrorists actually like us, its all a big sham! Why didn’t I see this before? Going right back to 1979 when the Iranians hijacked that plane! We paid them too… and all the jobs right up to present! Its all been one big joke on us!

And, oh wait, yes we paid Osama to blow up our building b/c Osama really wanted us to invade Iraq too… b/c he only pretends to like Islam… what Al Qiada ultimately wants is democracy in the Middle East! and all that fighting over there is just for looks! No one is really being killed! Its just like in the movies! It seems real but its not!

Gee, thnkfrst, thanks for clearing all that up!

Thats it. I’m voting for Rudy.

RUDY!

RUDY!

#65

Maelzoid, I am sorry I see most of your posts in this thread as of late. Obviously you have a point to get across, but come join the rest of us in drunk/stoned thread, k?

:slight_smile:

It must be that someone contacted this website and aimed it towards us:
http://www.rentatroll.com/

;D

#66

^rent-a-troll… omg, I feel so dirty now yet somehow titty.

#67

First off Watson didn’t lie about anything. what was the exact lie of Watson?

I’m sure the following facts are just Exxon mobile payola eh man? There are good people working for alot of bad companys you know, they’re called “insiders”

how about the Boston Globe?

JEFF JACOBY
Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | January 6, 2008

THE STARK headline appeared just over a year ago. "2007 to be ‘warmest on record,’ " BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government’s Meteorological Office, the story announced that “the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007,” surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold.

In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, “a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption.” In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country’s 24 provinces. In August, Chile’s agriculture minister lamented “the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years,” which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.

Latin Americans weren’t the only ones shivering.

University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that “unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007.” Johannesburg experienced its first significant snowfall in a quarter-century. Australia had its coldest ever June. New Zealand’s vineyards lost much of their 2007 harvest when spring temperatures dropped to record lows.

Closer to home, 44.5 inches of snow fell in New Hampshire last month, breaking the previous record of 43 inches, set in 1876. And the Canadian government is forecasting the coldest winter in 15 years.

Now all of these may be short-lived weather anomalies, mere blips in the path of the global climatic warming that Al Gore and a host of alarmists proclaim the deadliest threat we face. But what if the frigid conditions that have caused so much distress in recent months signal an impending era of global cooling?

“Stock up on fur coats and felt boots!” advises Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and senior scientist at Moscow’s Shirshov Institute of Oceanography. “The latest data . . . say that earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012.”

Sorokhtin dismisses the conventional global warming theory that greenhouse gases, especially human-emitted carbon dioxide, is causing the earth to grow hotter. Like a number of other scientists, he points to solar activity - sunspots and solar flares, which wax and wane over time - as having the greatest effect on climate.

“Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change,” Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. “Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind.” In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: “The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change,” they write.

Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn’t turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007’s global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it’s up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change.

Yet so relentlessly has the alarmist scenario been hyped, and so disdainfully have dissenting views been dismissed, that millions of people assume Gore must be right when he insists: “The debate in the scientific community is over.”

But it isn’t. Just last month, more than 100 scientists signed a strongly worded open letter pointing out that climate change is a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Because slashing carbon dioxide emissions means retarding economic development, they warned, “the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.”

Climate science isn’t a religion, and those who dispute its leading theory are not heretics. Much remains to be learned about how and why climate changes, and there is neither virtue nor wisdom in an emotional rush to counter global warming - especially if what’s coming is a global Big Chill.

#68

How about this CURRENT news

9-11 Cover-Up, Treason and The Bomb
by Dave Lindorff

If a new article just published Saturday in the Times of London based upon information provided by US government whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator for the FBI, we have not only solid evidence of prior knowledge of 9-11 by high up US government officials, but evidence of treasonous activity by many of those same officials involving efforts to provide US nuclear secrets to America

#69

Actually I’m going for a job there - this is all for my resume.

#70

For my big 600:

What is the lie of Watson?

For the 3rd time; The opening article on this thread claims that “Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural” It also says: “The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.”

If you actually read the report they reference you will see that it bears little resemblance to these claims.

Please pay attention. My patience is thinning here and I’m wanted in another thread (a cold one and a doobie are waiting for me).

As for ‘insiders’? Are you serious? Is this the best you can do? You wave around the ‘corporate shill’ explanation without any grounds and when I point out that people you have quoted are likely the exact same shills you defend it by saying they are ‘insiders’ What kind of insider goes out of their way to DEFEND the corporation’s interests?

As for the Boston Globe - yes another popular news article from Climate Change deniers, with quotes from scientists. That’s all well and good, I’m sure the reporting is sound, and no doubt the sources are accurate - but where’s the science? Many of the scientists who comment on these kind of papers have never actually published research to back up their claims so they end up being simply opinion. I’ll listen to that, I’ll bear it in mind, but in light of the huge overwhelming amount of science that disagrees with it - well, I’ll go with the consensus.

And it’s funny that people are using examples of extreme cold as a rebuttal of global warming. That’s why I prefer ‘climate change’ Areas and periods of unexpected cold are expected and will become more frequent but the overall trend is for warming. However, is this even relevant? Extreme cooling would be just as devastating to our environment. the point is that thanks to human intervention the climate is now far more variable than it ever was. The problem we face is that the rate of change is too fast for people and especially nature to adapt (I think Polar bears are going to be the first big one to go when the ice sheets in the arctic disappear). I doubt we can prevent some form of climate change from occurring (it really is already too late for that) but everything we can do to slow that rate of change will save human lives, save money and most importantly save ecologies.

WAKE UP, Thnkfrstpal. You complain that things are worse now? I’ll tell you one reason they are - people who don’t give a fuck about the environment and justify it by claiming that reducing carbon emissions is nothing more than a ploy by the ‘Elite’ to control them.

I’m not here to debate the nature of this elite - but if they do exist, and even if they are as organized as you think they are - they ar enot resposnible for every single piece of legislation.

You hate this elite so much it has blinded you to facts. You’ve become nothing more than a spoon-fed blind man accepting everything the anti-elite agenda want you to believe. WAKE UP

#71

This may be of interest to those who still have an open mind…

The lure of the conspiracy theory

* 11 July 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Patrick Leman

Was Princess Diana the victim of drunk driving or a plot by the British royal family? Did Neil Armstrong really walk on the moon or just across a film set in Nevada? And who killed President John F. Kennedy - the Russians, the Cubans, the CIA, the mafia… aliens? Almost every big event has a conspiracy theory attached to it. The truth, they say, is out there - but where exactly? Perhaps psychology can help us find at least some of the answers.

Whether you are a dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorist, a confirmed anti-theorist, or somewhere in between, one thing’s for sure: conspiracy theories pervade modern culture. Thousands of films, talk shows and radio phone-ins are built around them. US lecture tours from prominent theorists such as radio host Alex Jones can draw audiences of tens of thousands, while books raking over the evidence sell millions of copies worldwide. The internet documentary Loose Change, which claims that a CIA plot lay behind the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, is approaching its 10-millionth download.

Belief in conspiracy theories certainly seems to be on the rise, and what little research has been done investigating this question confirms this is so for perhaps the most famous example of all - the claim that a conspiracy lay behind the assassination of JFK in 1963. A survey in 1968 found that about two-thirds of Americans believed the conspiracy theory, while by 1990 that proportion had risen to nine-tenths.

One factor fuelling the general growth of conspiracy beliefs is likely to be that the internet allows new theories to be quickly created, and endlessly debated by a wider audience than ever. A conspiracy-based website built around the death of Princess Diana, for example, sprang up within hours of the car crash that killed her in 1997.

So what has been the impact of the growing conspiracy culture? Conspiracy theories can have a valuable role in society. We need people to think “outside the box”, even if there is usually more sense to be found inside the box. The close scrutiny of evidence and the dogged pursuit of alternative explanations are key features of investigative journalism and critical scientific thinking. Conspiracy theorists can sometimes be the little guys who bring the big guys to account - including multinational companies and governments. After all, some conspiracy theories turn out to be true. Take the Iran-Contra affair, a massive political scandal of the late 1980s. When claims first surfaced that the US government had sold arms to its enemy Iran to raise funds for pro-American rebel forces in Nicaragua and to help secure the release of US hostages taken by pro-Iranian groups, it certainly sounded like yet another convoluted conspiracy theory. Several question marks remain over the affair, but President Ronald Reagan admitted that his administration had indeed sold arms to Iran.
Exploiting fears

On the other hand, there is a dangerous side to conspiracy theories. During the cold war, they arguably played a part in sowing mistrust between east and west. For canny politicians or campaigners, conspiracy theories can be a good way of exploiting people’s fears by promulgating rumours that are difficult, if not impossible, to disprove.

Such beliefs can have a far-reaching impact on people’s lives. For example, over 20 per cent of African Americans believe that HIV was created in a laboratory and disseminated by the US government in order to restrict the growth of the black population, according to a series of studies by Sheryl Bird at Oregon State University and Laura Bogart at Kent State University in Ohio. The people who believe this theory also tend to be more sceptical of government health messages that condoms can stop HIV transmission. These are chilling findings, especially considering that although African Americans constitute only 12 per cent of the US population, they account for nearly half of the nation’s AIDS cases.

#72

[quote]
Yet in view of Edmonds

#73

Man, what a dumb issue. There are millions and millions of people debating about what is actually causing it because they no one wants to actually change their ways or their lifestyle to do anything about it. Laziness at its worst.

And don’t even get me started on Al Gore. What a frickin joke. I dislike him even more now that’s he’s on his environment trip. Where was all this when you were VP and could have done something about it, Al? Oh yeah…that’s right…you were busy taking private jets that spew fossil fuels into the air so corporate CEOs can kiss your ass so you don’t fine them when they break environmental rules.

Stevo

#74

[quote]

[quote]
Yet in view of Edmonds

#75

I’m pretty sure that’s an ad hominem attack there.

I’ll call you a ‘shitty debater’ too. I’ve entered into this debate in good faith because climate denial is one of the things that grinds my gears. I never thought I could get you to change your mind - you’re final dissolution into apoplectic rage and profanity illustrates that when reason becomes too much for you, your reasoning centres shut down and you result to blind aggression - it reminds of one of those computers in Star Trek that blow up after Kirk asks them to ‘define love’

Your method of debating me seems to start with insults, distract with irrelevant stuff about 9/11, ignore me to have a crack at other posters and finally boil over into a twelve-year-old’s fantasy of bad language.

I entered into the debate because I thought my side of the argument needed to be presented well - it’s for all the other OKPers, some of whom may be won over by the likes of Watson, Singer, Ball et al. I wanted to provide balance to this debate so that other OKPers would make up their own minds.

#76

Welcome to why I try to ignore these threads.

I say bring on the global warming. It is 60 degrees here in Ohio in January.

I look out for #1. ;D

#77

^ Got to see the wisdom in that - the thread ignoring bit.

I rarely allow myself to get involved but occasionally I like to have my own beliefs challenged - so this is as much for me as anyone else. If I can rebut climate change skepticism cogently and calmly, and carry out a bit more research, I can be surer that I have come to the right conclusion.

The thought of getting into such a debate over stuff that doesn’t matter (music, films etc) is really time-wasting though.

#78

all i can honestly say at this point is “i have no fucking idea”.

#79

This is really bad buddy. Not only did you lose the debate but you debased yourself in the process.

When you cool down I suggest you read up on the link I provided about the fallacies and becoming a better debater.

And maelzoid is right, that was an ad hominem attack…

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.

#80

Look it you guys. I have provided sooooooo many different articles, The latest one from the Boston Globe. The 9/11 article from a former CIA officer. I could show you article after article and you would care less man. You are the minority that don’t want to see beyond what’s fed to you. That’s fine. My above profanity laced post was pertinent considering the Iraqi people and countless of slodiers are dying why you geeks talk about “true” debating tactics. There are no such thing as “tactics” of debating when we’re talking about the motivations behind “The War On Terror” or “One Child Policies” and “Carbon Taxes” when we’re talking about Global Warming fear mongering.

Malezoid said himself earlier in the thread that this was a debatable issue then calls me a “Climate Denier”, again I do not deny the earth is getting warmer, I just think it’s part of a cycle and that a COOLING period is coming. I then askes Malezoid to specifcally point out where WATSON LIED? there was no lie, that’s why he didn’t point out the lie specifically. The two SELF ABSORBED NO EMPATHY PRO WAR MONGERING AND FEAR MONGERING DUMBPHISH AND MALEZOID ARE UP TO THERE EYEBALLS IN FACTS AND WITNESSES I HAVE POSTED AND GIVEN links to. MALEZOID DOESN"T DARE TOUCH THE BOSTON GLOBE ARTICLE BASED ON 2007’S WEATHER PATTERNS AND DUMBPHISH DOESN’T EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT " CHARLIE WILSONS WAR" IS ABOUT THE US FUNDING THE MUJADDEN OF WHICH BIN LADEN WAS A MEMBER IN AFGHANISTAN AGAINST THE SOVIETS.

You just love the global warming thing because you think it’s going to make people conserve and change their ways, your not really interested in the truth of the doomsday scenario the FEARMONGERING Global Warming spooks put out.

You just love the lie that the terrorists “hate our freedom” because it wraps things up nice and neatly for you and you delusions. The terrorists are created from the financial help from the USA to the middle eastern countries dictators which in turn make the common muslim very angry that a dictator is in charge of their country because the USA props them up with money and weapons (see president Musharaff.) Terrorists are also created because of bombs dropping on their friends and family members in Afghanistan, Palistine, Iraq.

It’s NOT BECUASE THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM JACKASS. GOSH YOU GUYS REALLY ARE FUCKIN GEEKS. Now go jump off a bridge and make the world a better place.

Holier than though Malezoid things that don’t matter are music and movies, your a fuckin tool. Go get laid or married or something. You’ll be out of a job soon as the dollar and stock market continue to decline in value.