[FrameBreaker]

Look, man made climate change is real. Anyone who thinks the human race isn't systematically destroying the planet with our greed simply isn't bright.

It's a fact we're destroying the planet and can be proven with relative ease.

BUT, that fact doesn't take away from the fact that governments are abusing the current situation to get money from the people. Which is ironic, considering it's actually the government who are to blame.

It's not something governments walk up and decided to peddle one day. They were forced to adress the problem because of pressure from the scientific community. But at the same time, the government are using this to extort the people.

So yes, climate change is historically a fact. And we're contributing to the demise of the planet, that's also a fact. But another important fact is that the government are making huge profits from the situation. They're directly profiting from us. While big business and industry are allowed to flourish and the government permits them to continue in killing the planet.

It's not the fault of the people that we're sold gas gussling cars. It's not the fault of the people that drinks and any number of food items are packaged in plastic. It's not the fault of the people that most the world is being deforested. Neither is it the fault of the people that we're about to face a water crisis.

The fault lies with big business and industry. But instead of adressing this, the government hit business and industry with petty regulations, while taxing and punishing the people of the country, who are making do with what we're given.

The governments idea of saving the planet(they have no intention of doing this, by the way) is to give us bins with stupid taxes. Nobody in the government has thought "hold on, instead of taxing the people, lets force business and industry to use something other than plastic".

The government won't do that. Because doing that wouldn't profit the government.

Seriously though, don't let your hate for the government consume you to the point where you buy into nonsense conspiracy theories and actually deny the much real destruction of the planet.

I have to laugh actually, because many of you right-wing conspiracy guys will have a huge shock in the near future. Give it 50 years and half of Africa will turn up on the doorstep of Europe because of a global water crisis. The governments of the world have already mapped out regions and nations where water will dissapear completely. They've got red zones too where 'conflict is imminent'. Won't just be an African problem either. America are anticipating it in the Southern states. South America, Asia.

It's real easy in Europe to turn a blind eye and pretend this isn't happening. I implore you to travel the world and speak to locals who've already been effected by this.

So yes it's absolutely real, but f%ck the governments of the world at the same time, for using this to extort us while doing nothing to actually better the state of the world.

[fredc]

Originally Posted by SuperTed187

Science is a very real thing, so it is hard to see that people can deny the fact that our actions are warming the Earth. However I did read somewhere that the Earth's average temperature has actually cooled down over the last 6 years. But that's anaaverage and we're still losing polar ice caps at an alarming rate.

If the government is taking money from us under a "green" façade, then that's different. This doesn't mean its a hoax, its just the government using it to get money from us.

That's about the size of it. The Global temperatures haven't really started falling, people just point at a small part of the data which seems to show what they want to believe and ignore the rest.

Yes, a team from Cambridge University went to the Arctic this year to make actual ice core tests because satellite data is not reliable or truly indicative. What they found was quite alarming, there is a distinct possibility the Arctic will be completely ice free in summer within the next 20 years.

Politicians will look at any situation and say "how do we turn this to our advantage".

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by fredc

That's about the size of it. The Global temperatures haven't really started falling, people just point at a small part of the data which seems to show what they want to believe and ignore the rest.

But that's the whole point of climate change. Depending on which cherries get picked, temperatures go either way.

Yes, a team from Cambridge University went to the Arctic this year to make actual ice core tests because satellite data is not reliable or truly indicative. What they found was quite alarming, there is a distinct possibility the Arctic will be completely ice free in summer within the next 20 years.

Not entirely true. It was a publicity stunt funded by an insurance company, a carbon trading exchange, Nokia and Panasonic.

The team was not from Cambridge University. The team was 2 explorers and a documentary maker. The team leader's bio is at the sponsors site-

http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/meettheteam

Pen (46) is increasingly featured in the media as a national spokesman on environmental and climate change issues, based on his knowledge of, and concern for, changes in the North Pole environment. He has featured in public speaking line-ups for environmental events alongside HRH The Prince of Wales, Al Gore, Lord Coe and Sir Jonathon Porritt.

For which he naturally charges.

Cambridge University got involved to turn 39 data points into a meaningless press release and more publicity. How can the results from this trip be meaningful when they're not being compared to any historic data? Repeat the survey and compare the results, then it may be more conclusive, remembering of course that Arctic ice moves.

Politicians will look at any situation and say "how do we turn this to our advantage".

And businesses.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by paulschapman

The temperature of the planet has not changed for a decade.

Wow, you really don't understand what's going on at all, do you?

1998 was an unusually hot year, in amongst hot years for the time.

Just because one individual year hasn't been exceeded yet, doesn't mean that the planet isn't getting slowly warmer.

It's about decadal trends, not monotonic year on year rises.

Every year this century has been hotter than every year last century except 1998:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...ure_Record.png

And that's despite solar activity being low.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by ziparmux

In a nutshell then, yes anthropogenic 'global warming' is a fairy story, propagated by those who wish to extract money from us (carbon tax), and to try and limit the growth of some of the poorer countries economies.

Also check the text of the Copenhagen agreement Crash Gordon wants us to sign up to-

(b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund
including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to
address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance,
rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation
window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest
incentives relating to REDD actions.

from s.38. A large part of the UN deal is to transfer wealth and technology from developed countries to 'compensate' those that think they may have been harmed. Usual place to do that would be in a court where you'd have to prove loss or harm.

[jmclaugh]

Climate change is conjecture yet it has become a kind of new religion everyone is being forced to abide by and submit to as if it was gospel.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by troynx

Is man made climate change a hoax?
Here is what tips the scales for me, these days anyone who dare question man made climate change are now labelled 'deniers' just like holocaust deniers.
To me this is just an attack by implication on anyone who has the nouse to actually think for themselves and wonder how taking money out of ordinary peoples pockets will reverse this apolcalyptic end for mankind.
Notice how it was first called global warming and when it became obvious the planet was cooling and the long heatwaves we were to endure as a result of our foremothers using aerosol hairspray were not going to show their sweaty faces the name was changed to climate change... How convenient.
It's time we took our world back from the liars who try to cream every last cent from us by trying to make us feel guilty.

There's your hoax.

Ever heard of the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming? Didn't think so.

You shouldn't be so easily fooled and then publicise the fact.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

Climate change is conjecture yet it has become a kind of new religion everyone is being forced to abide by and submit to as if it was gospel.

By that logic, gravity is only conjecture, but abide by being forced not to jump off tall buildings, if i were you.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by andykn

Just because one individual year hasn't been exceeded yet, doesn't mean that the planet isn't getting slowly warmer.

It's about decadal trends, not monotonic year on year rises.

Or even multi-decadal trends. After all, climate is supposed to be a 30-year chunk of weather trends. Trouble is, the closer scientists look, the less likely it seems to be that CO2 is the culprit, unless you can explain the impact of CO2 on ocean currents.

Every year this century has been hotter than every year last century except 1998:

Got a peer reviewed source? This-

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...e_fig6_uah.png

shows something rather different.

[alanwarwic]

Originally Posted by troynx

Is man made climate change a hoax?
To me this is just an attack by implication on anyone who has the nouse to actually think for themselves and wonder how taking money out of ordinary peoples pockets will reverse this apolcalyptic end for mankind.

Now I wonder why 'taking money out of people pockets' is used here.

It gives it the feel of 'Is Elvis really dead?',
'Did man really land on the moon?' and all of the other conspiracy theories.

The question I ask is 'is this really thinking'?
In that the perpetual lazy thought that is common to mankind is 'If I ignore something I don't fully understand it might go away'.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Or even multi-decadal trends. After all, climate is supposed to be a 30-year chunk of weather trends. Trouble is, the closer scientists look, the less likely it seems to be that CO2 is the culprit, unless you can explain the impact of CO2 on ocean currents.

Trouble is, the closer scientists look, the less likely anything else is responsible for the increasing temps.

Got a peer reviewed source? This-

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...e_fig6_uah.png

shows something rather different.

It does show something different, it certainly doesn't show annual temps.

If you look at the data carefully, you can see that the downward trend line could just as easily have been drawn before the latest upward curve, it would have been just as wrong then.

My data, as shown on the graph earlier, is the instrumental record of global average temperatures as compiled by the NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The data set used follows the methodology outlined by Hansen, J., et al. (2006) "Global temperature change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103: 14288-14293.

Yours is less clear and doesn't seem to go back very far.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

The question I ask is 'is this really thinking'?
In that the perpetual lazy thought that is common to mankind is 'If I ignore something I don't fully understand it might go away'.

Good question. Climate change is anti-science because we have people like Crash Gordon telling us we only have 50 days to save the planet, or that the science is all settled and it's time to move on.

Don't think. Don't ask awkward questions, like whether a few trees in Siberia can really gauge the temperature for the whole world. Or, more recently, scientists looking for signs in Canadian lake sediment samples and using insects to measure climate changes. Find a reduction in bug levels from the '50s and assume it must be proof of global warming. Publish, and someone pipes up 'what about DDT?'

Damn those scientists for thinking!

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by andykn

Trouble is, the closer scientists look, the less likely anything else is responsible for the increasing temps.

What increasing temps? There's a record number of record low temperatures being set at the moment, only a few weeks after our 'warm' August. But that's weather, not climate change.

It does show something different, it certainly doesn't show annual temps.

Neither does yours. Both show anomalies. Of course understanding what the graphs used is part of the fun. First accept that a global average temperature is meaningful in any way, then accept the deviations various teams try to find for it.

If you look at the data carefully, you can see that the downward trend line could just as easily have been drawn before the latest upward curve, it would have been just as wrong then.

Read the paper, that's explained. It's also why it's nice to publish detail so the stats gurus can validate it. Another nice example of lines on graphs here though-

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7374

discussing the different outcomes depending on which siberian trees are used-

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-images/brif2035.gif

Figure 2. Impact on Briffa 2000 Reconstruction of using Polar Urals (red) rather than Yamal (black)

That one cannot be correct though, because then the MWP would be warmer than today, and they didn't have SUV's. They did have and leave historical records showing us that the MWP probably was warmer than today though.

My data, as shown on the graph earlier, is the instrumental record of global average temperatures as compiled by the NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The data set used follows the methodology outlined by Hansen, J., et al. (2006) "Global temperature change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103: 14288-14293.

It's a piece of 'warming art' from a user editable website. Similar to the 'Hanno 2009' graph the UN used it's UNEP 2009 compendium. The science is so well verified the UN uses Wiki contributor's work without checking.

[alanwarwic]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Good question. Climate change is anti-science because we have people like Crash Gordon telling us we only have 50 days to save the planet, or that the science is all settled and it's time to move on.

Don't think. Don't ask awkward questions, like whether a few trees in Siberia can really gauge the temperature for the whole world. Or, more recently, scientists looking for signs in Canadian lake sediment samples and using insects to measure climate changes. Find a reduction in bug levels from the '50s and assume it must be proof of global warming. Publish, and someone pipes up 'what about DDT?'

Damn those scientists for thinking!

Always incredible that things like 'carbon dating', 'tree ring sizes', 'sediment anaysis' etc etc get proved to be extremely accurate.

Weprefer the simple stuff such as a minimum 8" increase in sea temperature in the 20th century, the Carteret Islands among the first to be totally abandoned.

No timetable for abandonment of the Maldives yet but my guess is 'deserted within 20 years'.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Weprefer the simple stuff such as a minimum 8" increase in sea temperature in the 20th century, the Carteret Islands among the first to be totally abandoned.

What 8" rise? Also the Carteret islands, along with other low laying islands are volcanic and coral. Again history shows those islands aren't always long lived. But seeing as it looks like the oceans are giving up heat at the moment, sea levels should continue to fall.

[CRTHD]

The trouble with this whole debate is it is "loaded".

The Scientific community have to keep banging on about the supposed negative benefits in order to attract funding for their pet projects.

If they said the effects of climate change were positive, the flow of taxpayers cash would dry up and these scientists would have to find another problem to justify their existence!

The planet has been evolving for billions of years and will continue to do so despite the futile tinkering of man.

Human actions have been ravaging the environment for all of the planet's life for 1000's of years. Only now, when we think it might make life a little uncomfortable for us, do we feel it is time to do something about it.

The main thing man can do to help this overcrowded planet is strategically reduce the human population. Unfortunately all Governments constantly pursue economic growth as the only measurement of success, so it aint gonna happen!

CLIMATE CHANGE - DONT BELIEVE THE HYPE!

Baah, Baah, etc.

[fredc]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Not entirely true. It was a publicity stunt funded by an insurance company, a carbon trading exchange, Nokia and Panasonic.

The team was not from Cambridge University. The team was 2 explorers and a documentary maker. The team leader's bio is at the sponsors site-

http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/meettheteam

Pen (46) is increasingly featured in the media as a national spokesman on environmental and climate change issues, based on his knowledge of, and concern for, changes in the North Pole environment. He has featured in public speaking line-ups for environmental events alongside HRH The Prince of Wales, Al Gore, Lord Coe and Sir Jonathon Porritt.

For which he naturally charges.

Cambridge University got involved to turn 39 data points into a meaningless press release and more publicity. How can the results from this trip be meaningful when they're not being compared to any historic data? Repeat the survey and compare the results, then it may be more conclusive, remembering of course that Arctic ice moves.

Are you saying that the ice extent in the Arctic Circle hasn't really decreased drastically during the last 35 years?

Of course it's a hoax!

Hundreds of years of exponentially increasing population, urbanisation, pollution, deforestation, overfishing, all have no effect on the climate at all. And ignore all the scientific evidence proving the human effect on the environment - it's all part of a secret plot which you will read about later...

We could - and probably will - chop down and tarmac over every square inch of Earth, and use the oceans as our personal effluence dumping ground, pump billions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere for the rest of time and there will never be any effect at all. Humans can do what they like, consequence-free!

It's all an evil plot...to charge 2p for shopping bags

[SuperTed187]

^Brilliant post

[darkjedimaster]

Even if it is man made, why should I switch my equipment off or stop taking my yearly long haul flights, or stop having my weekly steak when the government haven't done f**k all to change their ways.

The government have probably let off more emmisions than the average man.

They leave lights on in empty buildings.

The usage of transport & making / using weapons in the illegal war, probably didn't do the planet any favours.

Government members also probably go through more beef in a month than I do in a year.

The day I change any of my ways to help save some rare species of fish that will never be battered & put on my plate or reduce my yearly flights out of bubblewrap britain, is the day that hell freezes over.

[crazychris12]

I read that in recent polls people weren't concerned much about climate change at all. They're interested in fear of redundancy, rising fuel prices etc etc and rightly so.

[blue85]

Originally Posted by darkjedimaster

The day I change any of my ways to help save some rare species of fish that will never be battered & put on my plate or reduce my yearly flights out of bubblewrap britain, is the day that hell freezes over.

But hell or anywhere else isn't going to freeze over, quite the opposite - that's the problem............

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Neither does yours. Both show anomalies. Of course understanding what the graphs used is part of the fun. First accept that a global average temperature is meaningful in any way, then accept the deviations various teams try to find for it.

Mine does. it shows annual global temps as anomalies over more than a century.

Your is not annual temps, only covers 20 odd years and has no source for it's figures.

Read the paper, that's explained. It's also why it's nice to publish detail so the stats gurus can validate it

What paper?

[andykn]

Originally Posted by crazychris12

I read that in recent polls people weren't concerned much about climate change at all. They're interested in fear of redundancy, rising fuel prices etc etc and rightly so.

Two and a half years ago they weren't concerned about fear of redundancy.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by fredc

Are you saying that the ice extent in the Arctic Circle hasn't really decreased drastically during the last 35 years?

I'm saying that drilling a few holes doesn't really prove anything. Repeating the experiment annually for a few years might.

As for ice extent, nope, because that can be measured. What I'm not convinced about is the AGW blame, and significance. After all, if you believe Viking sagas and archaeologists, the ice extent has been lower during the MWP.

For a fun read, check this ongoing thread-

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7358