It's global cooling, not warming!

If you want to cite a reference from that magazine as a refutation of the IPCC report then I wish you all the best convincing anyone of its validity. Very poor source indeed – that was only 10 mins googling to get that.
magazine here
contents heremagazine here
british quote here from bonkers magazine

I know we're veering off-topic here, but this article from this "Executive Intelligence Review" magazine-for-nutters is superb stuff:

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2010/3701brit_follow_edward7.html

Jan. 2—As the New Year begins, there is an unmistakable pattern of British-provoked asymmetric warfare around the globe, particularly in the aftermath of the Monarchy's failure at the December 2009 Copenhagen conference on global warming. At the Commonwealth meeting in Trinidad & Tobago in November, Queen Elizabeth II stepped directly onto the world stage, to declare, on behalf of the British Monarchy, "We are in charge." But just weeks later, the British failed miserably in their attempt to use Copenhagen to strike a death blow against the Westphalian system of sovereign nation-states, and to depopulate the planet.

Since Copenhagen, the British have launched a new global "strategy of tensions," beginning with the physical assault against Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and then, against Pope Benedict XVI. A senior U.S. intelligence source warned that the targeting of Berlusconi and the Pope signaled a new round of British destabilizations against all of continental Europe. When London goes to war against continental Europe, it always starts with Italy, a U.S. intelligence source elaborated. Since the end of World War II, Italy has been the weak link on the continent. "Love him or hate him," the source explained, "Prime Minister Berlusconi has brought a degree of stability to Italian politics, that is unprecedented in the last half-century. The targeting of Berlusconi, followed by the assault upon the Pope, delivers an unmistakable message: Italy is in London's crosshairs."
I think I've found a new website to keep me amused on dreary days, it's simply inspired nonsense, hugely entertaining. 😉

Hainey,
I'm with Adam (ahwiles) here, as usual, we're living within a system and are actively changing the balance of that system through our actions. You seem to have a handle on the situation, so generally, what are you arguing? That the feedback systems within the environment are sufficient to compensate for us screwing about? Because as you state, we're changing it, no other way to look at it. (Changing the system, not climate, as the past 3 million posts show, there's plenty of ways to argue about that!)

:Do you think that the evidence from the ozone hole suggests that we can tinker with the atmosphere bot in apositive and a negative way.That is CFC created it and by stopping there use the damage was reversed? Man can tinker surely that is a given?

That is a different topic from what we are talking about. We are talking climate due to CO2, not CFCs.

You seem to have a handle on the situation, so generally, what are you arguing? That the feedback systems within the environment are sufficient to compensate for us screwing about?

To a certain extent yes, but as discussed there are a lot more factors than that.

Junkyard – regards Morner – I see that nobody has actually confronted his claims?

Easy enough to play the man, not the ball – if his claims are accurate then its pretty damning – perhaps he was unable to get a paper published, maybe his claims don't stand up under scrutiny, or maybe they do and none of the journals were interested in publishing – after all, why would they publish, the science is already settled isn't it?

What I do know, is that given his background, his claims certainly deserve investigation!

I've reisisted for so long but cannot anymore.
Hainey, can you explain why you believe the minority view, when you clearly do not understand much about the science, or how science works and have seemingly not read any of the direct evidence to support your view (ingnoring that you seem to lack the skills to appraise it).
Now, I have lots of scientific training and have tinkered around the edges of some of the evidence but understand that I dont understand enough to decide for myself. So I do the cautious thing and go with the majority view. What evidence do you base your seemingly strong views on, why do yo think you understand or see more or know more than those who do the research. I just dont get it.

I think we all agree that natural things have affected climate in the past and will continue to do so in the future. I am not denying we have had climate change in the past
What we are actually discussing here is whether man is having an effect at the moment – ie non natural change- due to our use of fossil fuels and the effect of C02.

You accept that C02 is a greenhouse gas and therefore it affects temperature. You accept it is increasing due to human activity. Yet so say this is not having an effect.

but as discussed there are a lot more factors than that.

Errr, not really, you're either arguing that our actions have zero effect on the system (clearly a preposterous standpoint). Or that the system is able to cope with the changes we orchestrate. This isn't even accounting for how these differences manifest themselves. Ok, the climate stays the same but Oxygen dissapears from the atmosphere, the seas turn to vinegar and huge reptiles wander the earth scorching everything with their fiery breath (perhaps a little exaggerated but I like overblown analogies).

So forget the bloody graphs, the minutae and the piffling pedantic arguments. What EXACTLY are you arguing?

P.S. See Ahwiles for disclaimers regarding patronisation 🙂

Now, I have lots of scientific training …. So I do the cautious thing and go with the majority view.

😯

So I do the cautious thing and go with the majority view

So your a lemming essentially?

Why do you get so upset that i don't go with the majority?

I think we all agree that natural things have affected climate in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Agreed.

What we are actually discussing here is whether man is having an effect at the moment – ie non natural change- due to our use of fossil fuels and the effect of C02.

Yes, so at the moment how do you know that this isn't part of a natural cycle?

hindsight is a wonderful thing zulu but without it what do we do? What evidence do you have and why do you think its stronger?

Junkyard – regards Morner – I see that nobody has actually confronted his claims?

Did you miss this bit in my original post?

In 2004 the president of INQUA wrote that INQUA did not subscribe to Mörner's views on climate change

They have but given where it was published, it was not peer reviewed and the quality of the other articles in there it is clearly at the fringes of thinking – oh **** it, it is at the fringes of sanity given the sh1t they publish – see porterclough quote for example

Why do you get so upset that i don't go with the majority?

I'm not upset just frustrated by your lack of logical reason and a complete lack of evidence.

Mock all you like but you always avoid the point

how do you know that this isn't part of a natural cycle?

Burning fossil fuels whilst deforesting the planet has never been part of previous natural cyles has it?

AA, what you want to do is to try and force your opinion on everyone else which is completly illogical seeing as you have stated that your opinion has defaulted to that of others.

Are you so arrogant to say that you are 100% right?

And if you are not 100% right then there is a chance you are wrong?

Burning fossil fuels whilst deforesting the planet has nver been part of previous natural ycles has it?

No

So

Where is your evidence that this is going to stop the cycle we know? Where is the evidence that over the next 50,000 years the CO2 and temperature won't return to their levels 50,000 years ago?

Z11,

You're becoming more prone to moving away from reasoned argument. What's with the flat earth cartoon? Do you think it helps explain something?

Hainey,

As you seem to be online maybe you could respond to one of my earlier posts that you missed out on first time round:

———————————————————————————-

Smoking and Lung Cancer – yes
Moon made of cheese – no

Right, me too. But what made you accept that one of these things is true and the other not, when we can't PROVE (in your terms) either of them?

AA, what you want to do is to try and force your opinion on everyone else which is completly illogical seeing as you have stated that your opinion has defaulted to that of others.

No I dont I just want to know if you can justify your position.

Are you so arrogant to say that you are 100% right?

Of course not, could be wrong thats science.

And if you are not 100% right then there is a chance you are wrong?

Of course there is, but what are the chances? do you have any idea of the science? Can you provide any evidence that backs your claims.

Where is your evidence that this is going to stop the cycle we know? Where is the evidence that over the next 50,000 years the CO2 and temperature won't return to their levels 50,000 years ago?

Fair enough hainey, feel free to ignore my well written poignant and strikingly devastating last post. But you're descending into fallacy. This latest quote confuses me even more. What on earth are you trying to say!?!?

I'm sure most people here are arguing from a standpoint of generations rather than aeons!

Chuff me

Can you provide any evidence that backs yours?

If you think that climate change can be accurately determined over a generation then you are sadly deluded.

theres a lot of evidence that shows that CO2 levels are at an unprecedented high, its in that paper you provided for us with the graph, there's also lots of basic science that shows that CO2 causes heat to be trapped. I cannot provide pdf's of any papers anymore as I dont have an ejournals password or SCI search password. But I have read the stuff before and know its out there.

If you think that climate change can be accurately determined over a generation then you are sadly deluded.

Few points, I didn't claim anything of the sort, generations has an s on the end. You still refuse to tell [edit] me what point you're trying to make? Please address my previous post just so I can unclench my fists, it's making it really difficult to type.

🙂

hainey – Member
Burning fossil fuels whilst deforesting the planet has nver been part of previous natural ycles has it?
No

Any cycle which does not include this variable is invalid ergo natural cycles as an explantion is invalid.

Can you provide any evidence that backs yours?

How about answering easily understood questions rather than post another so vague it is unanswerable Hainey – rather like the questions asked by the sceptics you quote. Ask a daft enough question and you can be sure not to get an answer. On the other hand there are lots of very precise and complete question that require simple yes or no answers that are addressed to you by name but you keep ignoring Hainey. Yes you Hainey.

There are plenty of questions left unanswered, including:

What caused the cyclic temperature rise over the last 450,000 years?
Why did the temperature preceed a CO2 rise?
What cause the cycle temperature decrease over the last 450,000 years?
Why, although CO2 is higher than has been seen in the last 450,000 years is the global temperature not lots higher than has been seen before?
Why wouldn't we follow the same cycle now over the next 50,000 years?
Why is any contribution due to man going to alter this cycle?

You're not going to respond to me are you?

Pointing out on STW that man's current activities will lead to climatic change that is undesirable as it will lead to much suffering for many is perhaps a waste of my time. My time might more usefully be spent on a US forum or trying to reach the billions of Chinese and Indians that want nothing more than to increase their carbon footprint and will soon threaten to nuke anyone that gets in the way of their aspirations. Laters.

so you are not going to answer any question then or provide any evidence?

If you simply dont "believe" thats fine

Wiredchop

What do you want from me. Yes, i think that the planet has and can still cope with the cyclic nature of the CO2 and temp rises. I think it is a little more hardy than a glass ball. Humans impact, well its obviously not zero, we have already had a good go at screwing up the planet, but its not the actual impact is hard to determine, and will be within our generation(s). If the planet is capable of taking care of itself is it ok for us to continue on the way we are – NO, but i have said this all along.

Yes, i think that the planet has and can still cope with the cyclic nature of the CO2 and temp rises

Why do you think this?

Thanks Hainey,
I hope that didn't hurt too much, ok completely agreed, the planet can shrug us off like an itch and we won't make a scratch. How do you think humans will fare if the Earth decides to correct our tinkering?

What with say an ice age or something equivalent to a medieval warm period? Like we have seen before?

Why do I think this, because there is no evidence to suggest not. Of course, i can not prove either way! Can you? 😉

and around we go,

Do you have any evidence to support your view?

FFS not proof again Hainey you were doing well then you had learnt and were answering questions and being sensible for a bit ah well off to do something more productive like teach my dog chess

Not necessarily, I suppose we differ in the 'natural cycle' business. The crux of it is how we're threatening to tip the balance of the relatively stable 'natural cycle' which you refer to frequently. Not only in our CO2 emissions but in many many ways. If I can be more succinct, it would be to ask whether you think our actions are at risk of pushing us off of this natural cycle and that the resulting 'balance' might be very unfavourable to our way of living. And finally, whether you think we're anywhere near approaching a tipping point?

(Failing in the succinctness stakes) Was trying to get to the philosophical core of the question, beyond the graphs and committees and all that bullpoop. Whether you're someone who sees our presence on earth in our current capacity as part of the natural order. Whether you think there are any consequences of our way of life and whether these might manifest themselves sooner or later. Really global warming is just one argument in this debate. Was trying to look a little wider that's all.

Yes, the ice core sample data, showing historical cycles. Do you have any evidence to show that this won't happen again?

Hainey, during the last ice age I believe humans lived in relatively mobile small groups of hunter gatherers. Given how badly our current set up copes with extremes of weather it seems reasonable to avoid risking a major climate shift. It's not as easy to move a city, or redesign it to cope with a changed climate.

Again I'll ask the question of what you would consider 'proof' that our emissions are changing the climate and will lead to more significant changes in the future as the inertia in the system catches up?

Junkyard, you are quite craftly deflecting away from answering any of my questions. Have fun with the dog. Mine has learnt how to play twister.