CAUTION: Heavy on requiring evidence to be presented to demonstrate that you actually have a clue.
Originally Posted by lodown
Never mind that on further evaluation, the input into the alarmist’s models is found to be incomplete, missing, kept behind locked doors or otherwise unavailable so that their experiments cannot be replicated.
Please specify precisely which information is missing, kept behind locked doors, or otherwise unavailable so the experiments cannot be replicated.
Never mind that the growing evidence appears to indicate the light is not evident because of natural reasons; perhaps the tunnel curves and is extremely long or there might be other possible reasons.
Please clarify what on earth this entire paragraph is supposed to mean.
Never mind that email leaks indicate the fear promoters have modified some data deliberately to create additional panic and have taken advantage of (manipulated?) the peer review process and actively silenced dissenters.
Please demonstrate that you actually understand what data was specifically being referred to in the emails, and understand the reasons why about half a dozen separate and independent inquiries into those emails have cleared the scientists on any alleged manipulation of that data.
The alarmists stated very publicly that increasing CO2 concentrations would cause runaway increases in temperature.
No, they stated that if it were ever to reach a certain point it
could cause that. There is a precedent for just such an event within our own solar system, you know, and if you had even the faintest education on solar system science you'd be aware what it is (being one of our closest planetary neighbours). However scientists have been very careful to state that there's an
awful long way to go before you'll get a runaway greenhouse effect, and a "runaway greenhouse effect" is
not the same thing as what is currently happening on earth.
They were emphatic in stating that temperatures were linked to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Well, yes, the temperature of the Earth
is directly linked to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if you change that you'll change the temperature of the Earth, if all other variables remain the same. So is the temperature of any planet. The concentration of greenhouse gases is one of the main variables. It's what keeps planets much warmer than they otherwise would be. The other main variable is the distance of the planet from its nearest star. So...... you're complaining that they're absolutely correct? I don't get it.......
What started as fears of “global warming”, evolved into “climate change” because some areas weren’t showing any warming
Nonsense, and a popular myth. The link below will take you directly to a PDF of the
actual journal publication, the highly respected peer-reviewed journal "Science".
Journal: Science, Vol 189, Pages 460-463, Aug 8
1975
Author: Wallace S Broker, Department of Geological Sciences, Columbia University
Title:
Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming
As you can see, the two terms are synonymous.
Now we have observations that the world temperatures haven’t changed much in 13 or so years, and look like they are about to start dropping.
They have still risen at a slower rate, which is not unusual on a decadal time scale. And no, there is no evidence that they are about to start dropping. Though there is some degree of speculation about whether reduced solar activity might occur, the National Solar Observatory makes it abundantly clear that the exact relationship, ie the finer details like sunspot activity and so-forth, between Earth's climate and solar activity is not yet fully understood (except to sceptics of course, who apparently understand it much better than solar physicists do) and so drawing any conclusions about future temperature trends from this must be done very carefully.
Solar physicists and oceanographers seem to have a better idea of global weather than so-called climatologists
You
cannot be serious. Many scientists studying climate (ie, "climate scientists") actually
have solar physics and oceanography training or work for solar physics/oceanography organisations! The world's foremost Oceanography institution is the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego. Have a look at what they say about the earth's climate. Here, I'll start you off:
Scripps Institute - Research into ocean acidification due to CO2 increases and anthropogenic climate change
Scripps Institute - Scripps researchers tackle one of climate change modelling's toughest challenges
A quote from the above article:
"We are trying to understand the major sources of aerosols in our atmosphere and how they affect the overall temperature of our planet; as opposed to greenhouse gases which we know are warming....."
Ocean levels are decreasing.
Yes indeed they are undergoing a pronounced and precipitous fall, as you can see in this graph using Sea Level data from the University of Colorado (the drop at the end, if you actually read the scientific narratives, is due to the El Nino/La Nina changeover):
.....and the Arctic ice cap, while down, is showing signs of recovery
yeah you can clearly see the Arctic ice recovery in the latest Polar Science Centre data:
I was going to respond to much more, and a couple of other posts, but I can only digest a certain maximum amount of garbage in a single day before I get a tummy upset.
