It's global cooling, not warming!

Edukator, first you are saying it Milankovitch, then volcanos, then sun spots, then a potential of all combination or none.

Yup, and that'll do to answer your question, Google it even, or read the paper you linked your graphs from a few pages back and read the references quoted too.

That natural cycle will henceforth be distorted by mans's activity. The highest temperature recorded in the current cycle (climatic optimum about 8000 BP) will be exceeded and we will not plunge into a cooling period for as long as man artificially maintains atmopheric CO2 at high levels. I am confident enough of my predictions to have used words without "ould". I believe we will burn every last drop/lump of fossill fuel and we are doomed, doooommmed.

To hainey The source for the 97% figure is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
you owe me:-
one climate scientist
one geologist
and a graph that models historic ice core forward in decades not millennia and superimposes available current and past global temperatures but does not reveal a sudden inconsistent rise now.

The source for the 97% figure is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Really? Because you typed it?

THe trouble with climate science is that every **** thinks they're an expert…. There is lots of local climate change going on, but there is no trend of global warming or cooling and we're not 100% sure what's causing it. The End.

ut there is no trend of global warming or cooling and we're not 100% sure what's causing it.

Read this again carefully, think hard about it, then read it again. When you've done that try coming back and explaining what it means.

I know exactly what it says and what it means, but figured i'd add to the nonsensical claims that make up the other 600+ posts in this thread.

OK 🙄

you owe me:-
one climate scientist
one geologist
and a graph that models historic ice core forward in decades not millennia and superimposes available current and past global temperatures but does not reveal a sudden inconsistent rise now.

Crankboy – I owe you nothing, but since you asked…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter

Would you like me to go on?

William M Gray

Oh i am sure you we can round in circles all night and find biased websites in either direction which rubbish peoples work, i don't do that as i am open to their research unlike seemingly you.

Its a very religious / chuch of scientology viewpoint to go round rubbishing people. Sad.

Dupont lied about chylek's findings

Robert M Carter is funded by a mix of mining and oil industry sources and claims to be independant. Laughable.

Robert M. Carter

Broad also cited Robert M. Carter as asserting that "[n]owhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet. … Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change." Broad identified Carter simply as "a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia," but he failed to note that Carter is a global warming skeptic with ties to the oil and gas, coal, and timber industries.

Carter identifies himself as a "founding member" of conservative Australian think tank Australian Environment Foundation (AEF). A June 13, 2005, article in the Australian Canberra Times reported that, upon its launch, the "Australian Environment Foundation's registered office and principal place of business is listed as right-wing lobby group, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA)," which according to an August 9, 2003, Inter Press Service report, is funded by "mostly mining, oil, tobacco and energy companies." The IPA's funders reportedly include "Western Mining Corporation, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil), the top fifteen electricity companies – BHP, Shell, Philip Morris, British American Tobacco, Clough Engineering (and) Telstra (telecommunications company)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Sorry, didn't want to do that.

Yup, there are "scientists" doing unscientific things on both sides. So far you've cited three totally corrupt ones working for the skeptics and one foolish one worried that his science was too complex for the public to understand working for the climatic change brigade. Keep 'em coming.

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

Let me guess the response:

Ermmm well…. Richard Lindzen wets his pants and sucks his thumb.

Pathetic.

Lidzen is more interesting, he recognises that man has increased CO2 levels by 30% but then says that it hasn't produced warming – remember my post about the pan of simmering water, adding a lid and seeing no temperature change – just a lot more activity.

He also gets thousands of dollars a day for consulting fees from the oil industry if you dig a bit deeper.

LOL

Nope, I'm not a scientologist. What's pathetic?

What was it you were saying about people who laugh on forums a few pages back Hainey?

Robert M Carter is funded by a mix of mining and oil industry sources and claims to be independant. Laughable.

So you think that a scientist funded by Greenpeace is less independent?

Nope Zulu, you are right to treat Greenpeace publications with skepticism too, but stuff that get published in the likes of Nature is well enough peer reviewed for the biased stuff from the extremists on both sides to get eliminated.

Hainey well done 33%
question one! PLEASE Name one qualified scientist who currently does not think man made climate change is an issue or who believes that the current temperature rise is due to the natural cycle postulated from the ice core samples???By the way i was actually originally pointing out that the person whose graph you used does not think it shows what you claim it shows.
answered (sort of)!
question two! PLEASE name one geologist who argues that the Milankovitch cycles fit all the sedimentary data currently available.??
not answered!
and a graph that models historic ice core forward in decades not millennia and superimposes available current and past global temperatures but does not reveal a sudden inconsistent rise now.
absent!

Yawn.

Crankboy you are becoming extremely boring in fanatically asking a multitude of questions without really putting forward any evidence as to why you think we will suddenly break away from the natural cycles we are in? Are you able to do this? PLEASE!!!! Have you read any of the links i have posted or just dismissed them because you are so resolute in your view?

a graph that models historic ice core forward in decades not millennia and superimposes available current and past global temperatures but does not reveal a sudden inconsistent rise now.

No, i can't provide a graph which i doubt actually exists. Your constant requests to confront data over decades is puzzling? Do you think that climate change shift can be reviewed over such a short time period? Really?

crankboy – i'll give you that qualified scientist – me.

crikey – we don't know what's not causing a climate trend. personally i can think of loads.

hainey.

for the third time (and I'm not even asking a question that calls for research or facts) how about having a break from stonewalling crankboy and answer my question:

You said

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

I said

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?

Carter identifies himself as a "founding member" of conservative Australian think tank Australian Environment Foundation (AEF). A June 13, 2005, article in the Australian Canberra Times reported that, upon its launch, the "Australian Environment Foundation's registered office and principal place of business is listed as right-wing lobby group, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA),

What, a right-winger being a climate skeptic? Who'd have thunk it.

Is there a limit to how many people this planet can actually sustain whilst maintaining it's ecosystems?

I expect there is and we breached it long ago, all this talk of saving the planet seems ridiculous to me, the planet will be fine it's us and all the other creatures that will be buggered.

Based on historical precedent we wont be missed – sad but true. The earth seems to do OK without dinosaurs it'll get buy with less people I'm sure. I think climate change is only an issue because it may have an effect on the West, the developing world has been up the shitter for years and we barely care. I understand our government has already pledged a whole 5 mil to the victims of the earthquake. Seems like a drop the ocean compared to the disaster fund for the banks.

I have a horrible feeling we are being frightened so we are more pliant and keep shopping, that "green" dollar is a hot market right now but then I am probably just paranoid after all what would be the motive to have us live in fear. I mean it's not as if the entire consumer society works by making you fearful of being left behind by the joneses or anything is it?

Rambling now but these issues are complicated and interlinked I'm sure.

Is there a limit to how many people this planet can actually sustain whilst maintaining it's ecosystems?

Richard Heinberg, who's a well known peak-oil theorist reckons that we should look at a point in time before massive industrialisation took place to find the natural carrying capacity of the planet. He suggests pre-WWII – when the population was around 2 billion (V 6.7 billion now).

who is this guy a corporate shill or a left wing nutter or is he just a very well educated proper scientist, it's all so confusing..

http://www.mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/the-five-lessons-of-climate-change.pdf

WRT your economic questions:

One reason (IMHO) why governments are not acting more on climate change is that the global economy relies on growth to function. Because of the way that banks can create money and then lend it out with the expectation of repayment + interest, the only way to service the interest payments is for the economy to grow.

Tackling climate change may well mean moving to a low-growth or no-growth economy, which will basically make the recent credit crunch look like a blip.

So,contrary to what many climate skeptics say (that talk of climate change is all part of some money making scheme), tackling climate change is in fact a massive threat to the economy, not some marvelous opportunity. That's why politicians find it hard to act.

But in the final analysis we might have to choose between economic upheaval now or extinction later 😐

One reason (IMHO) why governments are not acting more on climate change is that the global economy relies on growth to function

maybe it shouldn't then.

Hainey, I havent the time to look into all the people you have posted up (and you said wikkipedia was rubbish) I looked at a few though and most of them are scientists who gained great emminance in other areas and then decided to stick their nose into climate change and have not published any peer reviewed work on the subject. Examples such as Stott from a few pages ago and Grey here. Other examples hold more weight Linzden for example, although he does come accross as a bit of a crank with his view that smoking is only weakly linked with lung cancer.

A 10ft Cock And A Few Hundred Virgins – Premier Member

crankboy – i'll give you that qualified scientist – me.

What are your qualifications in?

must be top secret again then, like hainey's

joolsburger, Mike Hulme was a professor at the University of East Anglia when I was there. As far as am aware he's still there and he has a very good reputation in climatology.

midgebait, when were yout there? I did ecology left in 1995.

Did we get to the bottom of what is considered suitable 'proof' that GHG emissions will have an impact on climate or should we still wait and see what happens?

I'd like to know what happens when we get to 1000ppb CO2e but I don't trust these models!

I'd like to know what happens when we get to 1000ppb CO2e but I don't trust these models!

Don't worry, we run out of easily exploitable hydrocarbons before we hit 500.