global warming myth or fact ? the new ice age

[uranium_death]

http://www.theage.com.au/environment...0903-f9yy.html

And this is why I don't believe everything...because there ARE people out there who want to exploit others...

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by Hardtopxb

Global pollution.
This planet has a sealed atmosphere,pollution has nowhere to go.
In the past we as humans polluted a lot less then we do now.
When natural phenomemon, Volcanoes, Fires, Solar Flares Etc caused pollution and heating/cooling effects the planet had time to recover.
Now with the CONTINUAL output of Billions of Tons of pollutants we spew into our atmosphere day in day out the planet does not have time to dissipate/absorb these pollutants.
Our planet is gradually succuming to the effects of this one sided situation.
I recon if we (in time) stop pouring huge amounts of pollution into our atmosphere it will give our planet time to breath again.
Anyone who thinks that we are not damaging this planet through pollution are deluding themselves.. IMO...

An XB is not very environmentally friendly.


Steve

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by burnz

thats the one http://www.italyheaven.co.uk/veneto/...cqua-alta.html

At the link above it talks about the flooding in Venice occuring due to particular tides and especially when timed with other certain rains and such.


At this link it talks about what I've seen in many documentaries and what I was taught in school.......Venice is sinking and has been for centuries....

http://www.lifeinitaly.com/tourism/v...ing-venice.asp


Not a thing to do with global warming.


Steve

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by uranium_death

http://www.theage.com.au/environment...0903-f9yy.html

And this is why I don't believe everything...because there ARE people out there who want to exploit others...

And that disproves that the planet is warming? And you dont think denialists are motivated by money? behind every denialist person that has made the media is big business who doesnt want to risk anything changing their share of the market. I take it you havent researched the heartland or oregon institutes.

Anything that involves money is going to have scandal, whether its the minister for energy and resources having the biggest mining company portfolio in the country(remember Warwick Parer?) or exxons deception in cleaning up from the valdez.

I have large reservations about the wisdom of some of the carbon trading schemes, especially the way the liberal and labor party want to go at the moment. Just juggling around credits and numbers so the coal powered stations can continue business as usual and make absolutely no difference to the problem.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

All it really illustrates is that denialists have not researched the topic and only take what they know from tv docos such as al's film and "the great global warming swindle" It is understandable that if they mistake Al for a climate scientist then they will accept any lame argument from any one who claims to be a "denialist" scientist.

So, what are your credentials?

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by burnz

according to universitys smoking dosent cause cancer.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/313/7051/186/a

I dont think your link explains any of that, but you do highlight the problem of companies getting involved with education

Yes, anything is corruptible and the concern of large multinationals sponsoring universities is one of them. Especially the quality of work that may come from an organisation that is sponsored by cigarette, oil or mining companies who arent interested in anything which may inconvenience their bottom line.
Sure you could argue that people that want to make a profit out of solutions to global warming could tip the research, but as yet we dont have any outfits to match the might of phillip morris, exxon or mobil etc.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by Rodp

So, what are your credentials?

Rodp, why are my credentials so important, Im not the one who is challenging the ideas of the world's best scientists and am simply pointing people to what they are saying.

If we are going to take any denialist seriously who says that gw is bunk, then it is certainly relevant to ask what credentials they have that can give any credibility to their claims, something that needs to be done when any denialist is given the stage.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by homegrown

From what I've learnt the co2 that we produce including all those nasty factories only don't even equal 1 percent of the co2 thats gets produced by mother nature.

I dont think you have your facts right there? co2 levels have risen ~40% since the start of the industrial revolution. Perhaps what you want to highlight is that CO2 only makes up a very small % of the atmosphere and that it cant possibly be responsible for the planets problems.
I suppose you think the scientists should have discarded the whole idea based on this fact? I see from your comments that you cant be bothered actually reading the earlier posts, here is something i included earlier:http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php, this should help you out.

[MO]

Torbirdie your rhetoric is becoming boring.
"properly presented evidence" How do you know it is?
"smoking...cancer" Even the medical profession say it MAY contribute to it.
"modelling" hmmm the met bureau do this too and don't always get it right.
"irrefutable evidence..proof..."
Now I do have to wonder why you ask this question,when the answer is so obvious.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

Perhaps a more interesting list for the moment would be the share holdings of most of the past and present Liberal party and donations from the mining(coal) industry and every US senator that displays signs of denial.

You have a very short memory indeed. Do you remember the last government, the Liberals? the did everything in their existence to deny that global warming was real etc, little Johnny with his head in the sand.....and to use a Kev expression.....guess what, the public wanted action and voted him out.

Were the australian scientists(mostly CSIRO) telling the liberal government of the time what they wanted to hear? no, they were telling them the probability of global warming caused by man's acceleration of the CO2 problem was a great concern. Did they fear that the government would sack them all and stop researching the climate, thankfully no, there is at least some integrity with our government systems.
The same parallel existed in the US too, their scientists telling President Bush what he didnt want to hear.

Dogwatch, couldnt you have just posted a link to read all that about poor Al's film. Perhaps you could have gone to just a little trouble and found the other side to how all that ended up in court and the relevance of the judge's findings, who by the way isnt a scientist of any standing. I only mention it because it seems to be a typical trait amongst those in denial, just look for anything to fuel your own deceptions.
Perhaps look at:http://www.celsias.com/article/the-d...nient-truth-r/ or http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=959

Really, what Al Gore says or didnt say can not be considered as evidence for denialists that global warming is bunk. All it really illustrates is that denialists have not researched the topic and only take what they know from tv docos such as al's film and "the great global warming swindle" It is understandable that if they mistake Al for a climate scientist then they will accept any lame argument from any one who claims to be a "denialist" scientist.

Those that want a real laugh on this topic should look up the latest claims of Steve Fielding, after his visit to the Heartland institute(look them up) in the US. Steve says he has an open mind.....to anyone that wants to tell him that global warming is caused by solar flares!

Mate, you're doing exactly what you did on the last post and hijacking it with your prejudice. Furthermore you're not only smearing a political party but individuals; all in breach of this sites terms and conditions. Of course, this is being done anonymously behind your computer, so that way no one can discredit you. :

Whatsmore, this thread will probably be closed thanks to your hysterical screeching and preaching of your myopic views; simultaneously telling everyone to look at the other side whilst castigating those that disagree. Hypocrite much?

Torbirdie, instead of hijacking and ultimately closing threads with your messages of Gaia perhaps you should actually stop trying to argue through private messages, and talk about cars. I'm assuming you don't have a car though as that would be hypocritical to believers like yourself.

[burnz]

the points to my posts are simple, every professor has a price..
as with all research be that for or against check whose paying the bill's..

their will most allways be a hidden agenda.

[Hardtopxb]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

An XB is not very environmentally friendly.


Steve

It is when I drive it twice a month for a total of 60klms max..

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

Rodp, why are my credentials so important, Im not the one who is challenging the ideas of the world's best scientists and am simply pointing people to what they are saying.

If we are going to take any denialist seriously who says that gw is bunk, then it is certainly relevant to ask what credentials they have that can give any credibility to their claims, something that needs to be done when any denialist is given the stage.

Seems like both camps can point to the findings of the world's best scientists to substantiate their beliefs - so your belief that GW is valid is also challenging the ideas of the world's best scientists.

You're claiming that the 'denalists' are required to provide their credentials in order for them to be listened to, so.. what are yours?

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Seems like both camps can point to the findings of the world's best scientists to substantiate their beliefs - so your belief that GW is valid is also challenging the ideas of the world's best scientists.

You're claiming that the 'denalists' are required to provide their credentials in order for them to be listened to, so.. what are yours?

Nice twist, but no.

The scientists presenting the case for GW do have great credentials and do provide them, that is what is relevant, not my qualifications.


The denialists are not using the world's best scientists, they typically use retired ones(for sale) that have never worked in the field nor have relevant qualifications .

Perhaps you can name an emminent denialist scientist that has done some of their own research and had this research checked by peer review. If you find someone suitable, do be careful to check their past to see that when we push their names into a search engine that we dont find links with cigarette, mining, oil companies or institutes such as the oregon and heartland institutes.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by ltd

Mate, you're doing exactly what you did on the last post and hijacking it with your prejudice. Furthermore you're not only smearing a political party but individuals; all in breach of this sites terms and conditions. Of course, this is being done anonymously behind your computer, so that way no one can discredit you. :

Whatsmore, this thread will probably be closed thanks to your hysterical screeching and preaching of your myopic views; simultaneously telling everyone to look at the other side whilst castigating those that disagree. Hypocrite much?

Torbirdie, instead of hijacking and ultimately closing threads with your messages of Gaia perhaps you should actually stop trying to argue through private messages, and talk about cars. I'm assuming you don't have a car though as that would be hypocritical to believers like yourself.

So have you anything to add to the denialist point of view or the topic at hand or are you just here to personally attack anyone who doesnt support your cause and/or create rumblings to close the thread if someone is "hijacking" it with what you dont want to know.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by MO

Torbirdie your rhetoric is becoming boring.
.

Probably just as "boring" as having to dig up the reasons for people here to refute the same recycled denialist arguments again and again.

Originally Posted by MO

Torbirdie your rhetoric is becoming boring.
"properly presented evidence" How do you know it is?
"smoking...cancer" Even the medical profession say it MAY contribute to it.
"modelling" hmmm the met bureau do this too and don't always get it right.
"irrefutable evidence..proof..."
.

My rhetoric? and where did I use the phrase "modelling" or did I introduce "irrefutable evidence",wasnt that you?
Please dont be fanciful.

I dont really think there is any point me contributing more to this thread, its all yours.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

So have you anything to add to the denialist point of view or the topic at hand or are you just here to personally attack anyone who doesnt support your cause and/or create rumblings to close the thread if someone is "hijacking" it with what you dont want to know.

Wow, I have been rebutted. :

Torbirdie, you seem to be a troll with this and as many a wise person have said; "Don't feed the troll"
Enjoy your utopian nirvana and just remember, if ignorance was bliss then you my friend would be orgasmic.

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

And that disproves that the planet is warming?

I am not debating whether the planet is warming or not.
I think that there is a lot of money in the guilty-game of global warming, and I refuse to simply swallow it all because somebody tells me I should.

I have no doubt that the planet is warming up. It's been happening for tens of thousands of years.
There is a human mindset that everything has to be freezeframed and the way things are now is how it MUST be forever.

We'll simply adapt. Yes, people may die or be displaced, but we cannot control nature forever, which seems to be a major factor in the entire global warming issue.

I simply refuse to swallow the hysteria.

[MO]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

Zealot, that's a bit strong for someone who is merely supporting properly presented scientific evidence, and is highlighting the folly of those that oppose the idea based on greed, ignorance and some idea that a lack of any research or education in the field qualifies them to reject the science as nonsense.

Basically the evidence is about as good as its going to get

Its a little bit like, will these ciggies give me cancer? you are already displaying symptoms coughing and out of breath?, but you arent convinced? the only way we will no for sure is keeping you on them and seeing how long you live.
The only way I feel that would satisfy someone that doesnt want to know is to have two spare planets to play with, exact replicas of earth, and increase the co2 on one and not the other, so we are never going to satisfy you are we? But guess what the effects of increasing CO2(yes even those pathetically small amounts we have in our atmosphere) have been modelled in real greenhouses, and it does raise the temperature.

Perhaps you might tell us what you think would be irrefutable evidence so we dont waste our time?

Torbirdie,re you using modelling,this is where the penultimate sentence.
You really should reread before or develop your memory.
Anyway I must go Chicken Little is in need of comforting and reassurance that the sky is not falling.
sniff,sniff,yep time to go,I think thats lpg I can smell.

[ltd]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ha ha ha.
I wonder if he is really Tim Flannery at times MO, but he is passionate.

[GasoLane]

Um...It's not called 'Global Warming' anymore. Governments now refer to it as 'Climate Change'

Which, if I remember my history lessons correctly, has been going on for...ooh... a long time!

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by uranium_death

I am not debating whether the planet is warming or not.
I think that there is a lot of money in the guilty-game of global warming, and I refuse to simply swallow it all because somebody tells me I should.

I have no doubt that the planet is warming up. It's been happening for tens of thousands of years.
There is a human mindset that everything has to be freezeframed and the way things are now is how it MUST be forever.

We'll simply adapt. Yes, people may die or be displaced, but we cannot control nature forever, which seems to be a major factor in the entire global warming issue.

I simply refuse to swallow the hysteria.

Good summary, and agree.
Only thing is that humans can't control nature.

[anto]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

Nice twist, but no.
If you find someone suitable, do be careful to check their past to see that when we push their names into a search engine that we dont find links with cigarette, mining, oil companies or institutes such as the oregon and heartland institutes.

yeah be careful of their background, but left wing blogs sites are fine arent they...just like the ones you like to link to...lol

what difference does it make what they are associated with if in fact the facts are correct? it is be about FACTS isnt it ? Its a radical left wing calling card, discredit the person not the facts.

look at the backgrounds of most of the propagators of man made climate change and carbon trading schemes, you will find most of them to be far left nut jobs who would have us all live like the Taliban in mud huts with no technology, no cars no nothing.... because if its as dire as people like you say it is, thats what its gonna take....right ?
you really are a laughing stock !!!

a link to some scientists who recently converted to skeptics..

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c..._id=&Issue_id=

you will note that it is not a left wing blog, but a U.S government senate committee site.

and then there is this..

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

So said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...1-5c755457a8af

You sure youre not Al Gore ?

..the we have this

Scientist Implicates Worms in Global Warming


Jim Frederickson, the research director at the Composting Association has called for data on worms and composting to be re-examined after a German study found that worms produce greenhouse gases 290 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Worms are being used commercially to compost organic material and is in preference to putting it into the landfill. The German government wants 45% of all waste to be composted by 2015.

"Everybody... thinks they can do no harm but they contribute to global warming. People are looking into alternative waste treatments but we have to make sure that we are not jumping from the frying pan into the fire," said Frederickson.

...and this

Norway's Moose Population in Trouble for Belching

The poor old Scandinavian moose is now being blamed for climate change, with researchers in Norway claiming that a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year -- equivalent to the CO2 output resulting from a 13,000 kilometer car journey.

then there is this....

Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels. A PDF of the original is available here. A fine short history of warming and cooling scares has recently been produced. It is available here.

LMAO....and more !! take note a left wing Democrat

in an interview with the Detroit News Monday, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) "Climate change is very real," she confessed as she embraced cap and trade's massive tax increase on Michigan industry - at the same time claiming, against all the evidence, that it would not lead to an increase in manufacturing costs or energy prices. "Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I'm flying.

...wow with that kind of proof, the debate really is over.

German climatologists are pushing for the creation of a "world climate bank" which would allow industrialized countries to purchase emission rights from less-developed nations. The revenues would enable poor countries to finance environmentally friendly economic development.

I know I posted this last time but LMAO this kind of sums it up really...this is from the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon no less.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/...asp?statID=557

If we fail to act, climate change will intensify droughts, floods and other natural disasters.

Water shortages will affect hundreds of millions of people. Malnutrition will engulf large parts of the developing world. Tensions will worsen. Social unrest – even violence – could follow.

The damage to national economies will be enormous. The human suffering will be incalculable.

We have the power to change course. But we must do it now.

As we move toward Copenhagen in December, we must “Seal a Deal” on climate change that secures our common future. I'm glad that the Chairman of the forum and many other speakers have used my campaign slogan “Seal the Deal” in Copenhagen. I won't charge them loyalty. Please use this “Seal the Deal” as widely as possible, as much as you can. We must seal the deal in Copenhagen for the future of humanity.

We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.

my point here is, that the whole debate is out of control,its turned into a propaganda paradise.....moose, worms...I feel it when Im flying....? Four months !!! LMAO..for real....these are the people making policy that affect us all, there is no rational thinking when it comes to this subject matter any more.

Torbirdie let me ask you this, do you drive a car everyday or do you use public transport? do you exclusively use solar energy ? if not you my friend are a hypocrite .

At least all those smelly greeny types that dont shower for weeks with their putrid dreadlocked hair actually live the dream...they are full comitted, are you ? or are you just a mouthpiece to make yourself feel good, or are you doing your bit...

if total devestation is so imminent, why not go cold turkey ...stop everything ..ban oil, coal everything...after all we only have four months to save the planet...right ?

[Franco Cozzo]

Well, global warming, we've got scientists on both sides, trying to prove we're helping its process, and we've got scientists trying to prove we're not.

Once smoking used to be good for you and once the earth was flat.

Who cares, we're going to die one day.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Um...It's not called 'Global Warming' anymore. Governments now refer to it as 'Climate Change'

And the reason? Because no one can decide whether things are cooling down or heating up. Bit like the Hindu who practiced Catholicism .... a toe in each just in case!

Originally Posted by XCPWSF

Who cares, we're going to die one day.

Not fair ... spoiling the end of the story!



| [/url] |

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by Hardtopxb

It is when I drive it twice a month for a total of 60klms max..

That is our exact same reasoning here in the US for those that are into the classic car hobby, but the environmentalists here still want our cars crushed. I am glad you also see that these cars are not contributing to any pollution problem in any significant way. They are driven way too little.



Steve

[greenfoam]

Any of you guys that don't think humans can impact the enviroment ever been to a city ?. You don't have to look far to see that the entire place is in bad health all the way from the weeds to most of the people. Humans did that, if they can do it to an entire city 100km wide then can easily do the same to the planet. Most Cities even small ones like Melbourne have a heat island effect and are on average about 3c warmer than the natural temp 24/7, that's a fact even the most simple person can see on bom.gov.au any second of the day. Dublin is in a very cold area but it hasn't been cold inside the city in years. This effect isn't a major reason for climate change but it's just an example of how much humans are able to change the enviroment

[ltd]

Originally Posted by greenfoam

Any of you guys that don't think humans can impact the enviroment ever been to a city ?. You don't have to look far to see that the entire place is in bad health all the way from the weeds to most of the people. Humans did that, if they can do it to an entire city 100km wide then can easily do the same to the planet. Most Cities even small ones like Melbourne have a heat island effect and are on average about 3c warmer than the natural temp 24/7, that's a fact even the most simple person can see on bom.gov.au any second of the day. Dublin is in a very cold area but it hasn't been cold inside the city in years. This effect isn't a major reason for climate change but it's just an example of how much humans are able to change the enviroment

Not relative at all.

Your assertion of it being 3 degrees higher in a city is the same as saying "it's 10 degrees higher next to this heater. The heat island effect has increased due to population growth and the humble backyard being sacrificed for the block of units, but the overall temps in the upper stratosphere above these areas have not increased at all. In fact, they have gotten a little colder over the last 70 odd years.

[XRQTR]

Global warming my butt, we're diluting the worlds oceans with storm water run off that is pumped straight into the bays.

There was a time, before the urban sprawl, when rain water sank back into the ground and bolstered the ground water reserves, ask a borer how much deeper he's now digging before he hits water, alot more, up to 3 times deeper. Since the population explosion in this country as well as others more and more storm water is being captured and then diverted out to the ocean.

If you think that won't make a lick of difference, the septic tank at work went for 6 months before I emptied it the first time, at which point I noticed a small leak in the bathroom tap starting up, I didn't think it was much of a problem until 3 weeks later when the same tank was full. This is a 3000 litre tank and a small, tiny, miniscule leak filled it in 3 weeks, and no it wasn't all the late night kebabs, when the guy emptied it he commented on the fact that it had to be a leak somewhere because it was almost all just water with very little effluent. So if a little leak can fill a tank in 3 weeks, what have we been doing to the oceans for the last how many decades.

As for the ice caps melting, well duhhhh, what happens when you dilute salt water?? Salt water that helps keep ice in it's frozen state, care to guess?? No need it melts, it was an old curiousity show experiment FFS, "How can you pick up a piece of ice with a piece of string without tieing it around??" try this at home, put a cube of ice in a glass of water and lay the string over the top, then sprinkle a pinch of salt over it and carefully lift the string..... ok kiddies that's your homework, hand in your reports tomorrow

The same experiment has actually been repeated many times on other kids science shows since then, and still they don't get it, well I guess it is just a show for kids and has no real relevance in the real world.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by ltd

Not relative at all.

Your assertion of it being 3 degrees higher in a city is the same as saying "it's 10 degrees higher next to this heater. The heat island effect has increased due to population growth and the humble backyard being sacrificed for the block of units, but the overall temps in the upper stratosphere above these areas have not increased at all. In fact, they have gotten a little colder over the last 70 odd years.

I assume you mean relevant? I think all you are doing is confirming what Greenfoam has said, that man can influence the environment in a relatively large area, such as the city of Melbourne and its sprawl.