Global Warming ?

Get with the times please

It's not "global warming" but "climate change" which means the fraudsters scientists can hedge their bets

Most real scientists recognize anthropogenic global warming as pure mythology, as do all thinking people. Problem is, there's no money in "business as usual". Clearly the climate must be changing, as it always has and always will. They had to drop the "global warming" tag when it finally got out that the Earth's been cooling for the last 15 or so years. The full, indexed "climategate emails", along with heaps of other sensible stuff, are freely available here: www.lavoisier.com.au/index.php

... hmmmm. And what next will they dream up to keep us all preoccupied?

You're right, 'Climate change' is the term, and it includes 'Global warming'...but also 'Global cooling'. Over the centuries, both have occurred many times and can last for hundreds of years. Yup, the warming & cooling have wiped out many species, and will for millions of years to come. Unfortunately, we (public) tend to only look at the average over the last year or so, scientists tend to take a broader reading, but only have the actual readings for the past 200 or so years, the rest is speculation based on models, mathematical calculations and predictions.

Btw Simondo...it's feckin cold here too, but my 4/3 wetty gets me through it!

... and you would know this how?
I must admit, there are some big words in there

Yeah just had a look at the site,, plenty of articles, submissions and conference papers. But (unlike real scientists with PhDs) a lack of peer reviewed articles in good journals.

Anthropogenic = caused by humans

Also, "Most real scientists recognize anthropogenic global warming as pure mythology" is complete crap.

I think you'll have your work cut out for you finding any published (journals, not magazines etc) climate scientists that disagree that global warming can be caused by human activity,, let alone the majority,, lol

This week has been reported as being colder than last week.

Fact.

Therefore global warming could not be taking place.

I am half convinced that this whole climate debate is a scam that hijacked the environmental movement which was spawned by the atrocious pollution we generate.

Acidification is a real risk, imo far more real than climate change. A drop in pH poses all sorts of crap scenarios. It is a pretty well known fact that cancer thrives in an acidic environment. Likewise molluscs and crushed asians cannot adapt to acid environments because acidity hinders their chemical ability to lay down calcium.

Generally people love to see a pristine environment. Their attention has been directed away very cleverly. And we are being conned into paying for it.

Well certainly they will say that it CAN be caused by human activity. Nothing is impossible.

How many of them are there prepared to stand up and declare that they have undeniable and positive proof that global warming or any other type of climate change is wholly caused by human activity?

They are only saying what they have been told to say. End of story.

Actually Global Warming seems to be more obvious in summer. Why is that?

Given the climategate emails, where the peer reviewing process was fully exposed as a racket, I'm surprised that anyone still raises that argument as a method of avoiding the issues. As far as qualifications go no-one needs to advertise the scientific eminence of Garth Paltridge (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garth_Paltridge) or Cliff Ollier (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Ollier), to quote two obvious examples. The fact that you've obviously never heard of them speaks volumes about your lack of reading/knowledge in this debate, but nothing about their high standing in scientific circles. I'm simply flabbergasted at times about the inability of people to simply copy/paste some text into Google!

The feature of the decarbonisation debate has been the huge contributions made by outsiders such as Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick and the way in which the web and emails have made possible a revolt against the great interests and powers that had been put together to impose a decarbonsation program on the Western world. This all came to nothing at Copenhagen, to be precise on the afternoon of Friday 18th December when the Chinese, Indian, Brazilian and South African leaders invited US President Obama to sign the Accord which they had drafted.

As an aside, the development of the web is akin to the invention of the printing press and the collapse of the monopoly of religious authority which the Roman Church then exercised. I suggest you brush up on the history of the Reformation. The parallels will become obvious in the Global Warming debate. "The Climategate Emails" can be read in their entirety here www.lavoisier.com.au/index.php. Remember, these were written by the world's/UN's leading pro-warmists, with letters after their names and peer reviewed.

I was going to add to the above that any ignorance wrt the substance of this matter is willful ignorance, but you beat me to it .

Ah dinsy, the old "climate gate scandal,rort, lie" thingy again. How many enquiries was it 2 ,3 . Anyway it just doesn't matter anyway. Lets say there were 28 independent inquiries into the Appalling,disgusting , corrupt, scandal, rort and NOTHING. But then it still doesn't matter because the "scientists"are all being paid by the "powers that be", so nothing they say is true, yeah!! But remember just because your paranoid doesn't mean we're not all out to get you.

That's what the debate should be about, but it doesn't seem to go there. To get that going opposing sides would have to venture into the middle ground. There's no milage going there, it's no mans land.

There was a bit on tele a few weeks back where they had an alarmist climate scientist and a skeptical climate scientist. They broke the climate issue down into components:

.Has the CO2 risen due to our emissions?
.Does CO2 constitute a positive forcing on atmospheric temperature?
.Are there things going on we don't know about?

etc.

They had them answer each question on a Top Gear style magnetic board - 100% sure at one end and no idea at the other.

Both scientist pretty well agreed on the facts; or more to the point, how well they are known.

When asked to put a figure on how much of the current "measured" warming was anthropogenic, the answers were 40% and 60%. Not much in it. Of course other scientists would make different estimates.

But for whatever reason, shifting the goal posts on energy has to be a good thing. Shake up the system, get new players into the energy game, clean out the dead wood, stimulate technology. Just as long as the global playing field is level.