Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

Quote: boymimbo

The scientific debate is pretty much over, and a consensus has pretty much been reached. Dicesetter may be one hellofa crap player, but his opinion on global warming is just that, an opinion. I understand his point of view that scientists are trying to keep their jobs, and that happens for a few percent in every industry out there.

Not really. The more and more we see the rise in temps has not continued the more and more the whole idea comes into question. The AGW believers keep pulling their Archie Bunker "CASE CLOSED" method so often it is silly.

Quote:

And absolutely politics is at play here, which clouds the science. Global warming plays among party lines, and you can see that in the polling numbers where 9 of 10 Dems believe in AGW while 4 in 10 GOPs believe the same.

I'd like to see the GOP simply admit that AGW is likely real and to propose different solutions than their democrat counterparts. The thing is that on both sides the solutions are the same, so the GOP just denies the science so that it doesn't have to put out a strategy. Newt did that - climate change was in his book, and he got it removed in time for the Iowa caucuses.

And I would like to see gay marriage supporters admit homosexuality is a behavioral choice and work on solutions to curing it instead of enabling it. Care to be the first on the left to reach out on the issue?

As always, liberals think they own the premise and the other side should just offer an alternative. The thing is those of us who do not believe the AGW hoax are not going to simply say, "OK, lets meet in the middle." I do not want a "solution" to a problem that does not exist.

Liberals don't own the premise. If anything, the GOP has disowned the premise. The "premise" has been there since GHWB, Clinton, GWB, and Obama. The science was developed in universities all around the world before politics grabbed it. When I studied climate in University, first in my 2nd year Environmental Sciences class, again in my Planetary Sciences class, in my third year Atmospheric Physics class, and in my 4th year Cloud Physics class (all at University of Toronto), then in my post-grad work at UBC, nobody in the Canadian Politboro told me how to think. Given that the University of Toronto is constantly ranked in the top 20 of schools in the world (and #4 in North America in my field), I think my education was pretty good.

The science is straight forward and easy to comprehend. We were told how greenhouse gases work and how it affects atmospheric absortion and the fact that it absorbs energy at one wavelength and emits it at a different one. We know the equations are correct because we can apply them to other planetary bodies in the solar system. We were told about solar variability due to sunspots. We were told about the distance changes of the earth and the effects that wobbling has. We were told about volcanic ash, clouds, the oceans, and all of the effects the atmosphere has to regulate carbon dioxide. NONE of this science has a political variable in their equations. We weren't told to think that global warming was real or caused by man. We were told to look at the data and draw our own conclusion, back in 1990, before the polarization of the issue began, before Margaret Thatcher gave her speech on climate change that made it a political issue.

We were taught how to think independently, and to question what we learn by testing theories against models like any other scientific model using as much data as possible. We weren't told to throw out tree ring data, or glacial records, or whatever that looked bad. We took all of the data, modelled it, and came up with the best fit, not looking for a foregone conclusion. MOST (not all) scientists I trust work in the same way today.

Since 1990, the data has changed (there is alot more of it), and the science has changed. Atmospheric models back then didn't realize how much the ocean would absorb. Computers were unable to take into account variables due to many factors, but the end result remains the same based on the science that is known so far: global warming caused by human activity with a great confidence of certainty.

But you don't have to believe me. You aren't me. I'm just an internet guy. I could have made all of this up. I may just be Al Gore. Maybe it isn't a problem, to you. In fact, global warming isn't a problem to anyone TODAY. It's a long term issue with long term consequences.

Quote: AZDuffman

Not really. The more and more we see the rise in temps has not continued the more and more the whole idea comes into question. The AGW believers keep pulling their Archie Bunker "CASE CLOSED" method so often it is silly.

Except that the idea hasn't come into question with anyone who shows any sign of knowing what they're talking about. When you're asked for evidence, do you have any idea what you're asked for? It's not just charts thrown out into the ether, or screams of conspiracy. Remember those 3,896 papers saying global warming is anthropogenic? What you or some other denialist must do - or show you'd be able to do - is go through them, and say why each and every one is wrong, until few enough remain that those 70 papers that reject anthropogeny can no longer be written off as likely statistical noise or human error. Then, and only then, it's time to talk turkey. (The 48 that address it inconclusively and the thousands that do not address it at all do not need to be refuted, and only the former serves as even the weakest - and it is very weak - reason for doubt.) The door's wide open, but everyone knows by now there's nothing behind it.

In 2007 scientists predicted the North Pole would be melted by now. They were a bit off as it instead biggest since then.

Yet us deniers are the ones who are called crazy. If they can't predict something so simple 7 years out, how can we take seriously their predictions for the entire planet 40-60 years out?

Actually, Arctic sea ice is up 60 percent in 2013



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/#ixzz2evqnyGXX

Quote: AZDuffman

In 2007 scientists predicted the North Pole would be melted by now.

This is why no one takes conservatives seriously. No scientist predicted that, ever. Here's what Al Gore actually said for the reality based community. (emphasis mine)

Quote: Al Gore

scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar icecap is, in their words, 'falling off a cliff.' One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week warns that it could happen in as little as seven years, seven years from now.

Quote: s2dbaker

This is why no one takes conservatives seriously. No scientist predicted that, ever. Here's what Al Gore actually said for the reality based community. (emphasis mine)

Quote: Al Gore

scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar icecap is, in their words, 'falling off a cliff.' One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week warns that it could happen in as little as seven years, seven years from now.

So the Navy report was not prepared by scientists? I am guessing it actually was! And it predicted the ice cap could be gone by now. (2014 if you want to take it to the last possible minute.) When AGW-realists told the AGW-believers it was more scare tactics we were told, "shut up and listen to the scientists." Just as we are now.

Well, "the scientists" we 100% incorrect. At best, ice cap loss is shown not to be linear. At worst, something is clearly along with the assumption about global warming. I will repeat my biggest problem is that you cannot use 150 years of measurable temperatures to predict changes in a 4.5 billion year old planet.

Quote: AZ

So the Navy report was not prepared by scientists? I am guessing it actually was! And it predicted the ice cap could be gone by now. (2014 if you want to take it to the last possible minute.) When AGW-realists told the AGW-believers it was more scare tactics we were told, "shut up and listen to the scientists." Just as we are now.

Well, "the scientists" we 100% incorrect. At best, ice cap loss is shown not to be linear. At worst, something is clearly along with the assumption about global warming. I will repeat my biggest problem is that you cannot use 150 years of measurable temperatures to predict changes in a 4.5 billion year old planet.

Navy scientists said "as little" as in the worst case scenario. Similarly, I could go to the casino with $100, place it on red, and lose my money in "as little as 10 spins".

The graph that SDBaker produced is a linear graph that shows a linear decrease over time. It probably isn't reasonable. The "scientists" predicted a rebound in ice from last year because they realized that the massive loss last year, while reported wildly in the mainstreams, was well beyond statistical expectation. This year, it appears that the ice cap coverage is following the same path as 2008, 2009, and 2010, about 1 sigma below the average recorded since satellites began coverage 34 years ago.

Note that scientists don't use the ice cap melting ALONE to demonstrate climate change. It's only one canary in the proverbial coal mine.

And absolutely, you can use measurable temperature to predict changes in a 4.5 billion year old planet. Climate has been remarkably stable. Our earth revolves around the sun in an absolutely predictable path. The sun shines with amazing consistency, varying at most in a 0.1% change over hundreds of millions of years. It's very easy to take the atmospheric makeup, the planet's albedo, the solar output, and the distance of the object from the body to come up with a temperature. Astronomers don't just do that for earth, but they do that for other planets in the solar system (and planets outside the solar system), with excellent accuracy. If the atmospheric makeup changes, the temperature changes. If the albedo changes, the temperature changes. Pretty simple really.

Quote: AZDuffman

So the Navy report was not prepared by scientists? I am guessing it actually was!

Fortunately for you, your guess is correct.

Quote: AZDuffman

And it predicted the ice cap could be gone by now.

"Could" be. Now let's look at what you said..

Quote: AZDuffman

In 2007 scientists predicted the North Pole would be melted by now.

Would be is a lot different than Could be.

If I said that I will walk up to a craps table and I could roll a Three within the first seven rolls, if I didn't roll a three within the first seven rolls, I wouldn't be wrong.
If I said that I will walk up to a craps table and I will roll a Three within the first seven rolls, if I didn't roll a three within the first seven rolls, I would be wrong.

Conservatives just can't be taken seriously on matters of science.

..or anything else that I can think of.

Quote: boymimbo

The graph that SDBaker produced is a linear graph that shows a linear decrease over time. It probably isn't reasonable. The "scientists" predicted a rebound in ice from last year because they realized that the massive loss last year, while reported wildly in the mainstreams, was well beyond statistical expectation. This year, it appears that the ice cap coverage is following the same path as 2008, 2009, and 2010, about 1 sigma below the average recorded since satellites began coverage 34 years ago.

Note that scientists don't use the ice cap melting ALONE to demonstrate climate change. It's only one canary in the proverbial coal mine.

We keep hearing the same stories over and over. Scientists predict this or that. Then when it doesn't happen they say what they predicted was changed by some abnormal thing. Then they make a new prediction and low information people eat the next one up.

The humina, humina's were in full form two and a half years ago:
7 April 2011 Last updated at 21:27 ET
New warning on Arctic sea ice melt
Richard Black By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News

Scientists who predicted a few years ago that Arctic summers could be ice-free by 2013 now say summer sea ice will probably be gone in this decade. The original prediction, made in 2007, gained Wieslaw Maslowski's team a deal of criticism from some of their peers.

Now they are working with a new computer model - compiled partly in response to those criticisms - that produces a "best guess" date of 2016. Their work was unveiled at the European Geosciences Union (EGU) annual meeting. The new model is designed to replicate real-world interactions, or "couplings", between the Arctic ocean, the atmosphere, the sea ice and rivers carrying freshwater into the sea.

"In the past... we were just extrapolating into the future assuming that trends might persist as we've seen in recent times," said Dr Maslowski, who works at Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. "Now we're trying to be more systematic, and we've developed a regional Arctic climate model that's very similar to the global climate models participating in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments," he told BBC News. "We can run a fully coupled model for the past and present and see what our model will predict for the future in terms of the sea ice and the Arctic climate."

And one of the projections it comes out with is that the summer melt could lead to ice-free Arctic seas by 2016 - "plus or minus three years". It does not make predictions about the Greenland ice cap.

One of the important ingredients of the new model is data on the thickness of ice floating on the sea. Satellites are increasingly able to detect this, usually by measuring how far the ice sits above the sea surface - which also indicates how far the ice extends beneath.

Quote: AZDuffman

We keep hearing the same stories over and over.

Because you keep listening to the same ill informed conservative sources.

Quote: AZDuffman

Scientists predict this or that.

Scientists don't predict anything with 100% assurance. To suggest otherwise is ill informed

Quote: AZDuffman

Then when it doesn't happen they say what they predicted was changed by some abnormal thing.

Except that they didn't actually predict anything and there's no abnormal thing.

Quote: AZDuffman

Then they make a new prediction and low information people eat the next one up.

Low information people watch Fox News.

Quote: s2dbaker

Because you keep listening to the same ill informed conservative sources.

No, I am listening to what "the scientists" are predicting.

Quote:

Scientists don't predict anything with 100% assurance.

In that case lets not destroy our economy on all of their "maybes." But every time AGW-commonsense people suggest to the AGW-religious-believers that none of this is for sure we get told to shut up and listen to the scientists.

Quote:

Except that they didn't actually predict anything and there's no abnormal thing.

Actually they did predict all of this. What is happening is the believers are trying to say it was not a prediction.

Quote:

Low information people watch Fox News.

They tune everyday. Otherwise they would never become informed people. Eventually they are among the most informed like most regular FNC viewers. The rest go back to watching MS-DNC.

I'm sorry that you're wrong Az. I will pray for you.

117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions 3 were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

Quote: Keyser

117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions 3 were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

What really happened was Obama threatened to fire a cruise missile at the sun and it stopped the warming.

But global warming actually occurred, right?

global warming and cooling actually happened, just like it
has been for millions of years.


Wow is that something, imagine the weather is different today than
it was yesterday....

Now there can only be two reasons for that,,,,, man or Bush

Dicesetter

It's always getting warmer or cooler, depending on the time period.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen - MIT really puts things into perspective, and does a pretty good job of explaining why the extreme warming fanatics have done such a poor job on their climate models that predict warming.

I just want to be right on this one so I can say,

"See, I told you so."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

Quote: wroberson

I just want to be right on this one so I can say,

"See, I told you so."

You've already said that nothing could convince you that global warming is anthropogenic, and your posts on science in this thread read like Time Cube; even if it happens that on this issue you're closer to reality than those guided by imperfect evidence, I wouldn't call you "right."

Yes, scientists can be wrong, and that's exactly why they're so often right. The earth has not warmed as much as expected - although not to the extent (extent in informative value, that is, not quantity) the Mail et al., who largely have no idea what an error bar is for, are claiming - but it has warmed. It's utterly irrelevant to the question of whether it's anthropogenic.

Incidentally, the Richard Lindzen you're all so fond of is on record as saying those who deny AGW are out of their minds; he only thinks the effects are exaggerated.

I'll take that as some sort of compliment. The mind can be so small sometimes that
the best thing you can do is get out once in a while.

I have no doubt man has had an effect on his environment.

Quote: wroberson

I have no doubt man has had an effect on his environment.

Yup...

According to the Bible 1/3 of the Earth will be burned during the tribulation time(last World War).

But I am sure hardly anyone believes this because we all base our opinions on facts and not superstition.

KB1

More and more people are thinking for themselves and not just believing what they are told. I am proud to say I was part of the 5% who refused to believe from the start.

Are you British too? Because this poll is British, where now, 18% of the population is in doubt that temperature has changed.

You can do better than that anyway. Around 50% of Republicans believe that global warming is a hoax. Now there's something to be proud of.

AGW is very likely quite real. But its magnitude is unknown. Whether it will be counteracted by changes in solar output or other counterbalancing factors is unknown. Whether any of the proposed limitations on carbon emissions will/can have more than a negligible effect on it is unknown. And even whether it is, on balance, harmful or not is unknown. And yet some people want to make policy that we know for certain will have massive harmful economic effects (except for the privileged few who will benefit) as if all of these things are known.

It's pretty insane.

Quote:

Four prominent climate scientists are urging environmentalists to support the development of "safer" nuclear energy systems as an alternative to fossil fuels that contribute to global warming.

The U.S. and Australia-based scientists made the appeal in a letter issued Sunday and addressed to people "influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power."

Many environmentalists believe nuclear plants are too dangerous and expensive to replace fossil fuels. They say governments instead should invest in energy sources such as solar and wind to meet the world's needs.

But the authors of the letter say solar and wind systems cannot be developed fast enough "to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires." They say there must be a "substantial role" for nuclear power in any "credible" solution to stabilizing the climate.

http://www.voanews.com/content/climate-scientists-urge-environmentalists-to-support-nuclear-energy/1782583.html

There is a reactor in Norway using thorium just getting off the ground in a 5 year test. So, that should make things more interesting.

Listen to the scientists! We may now be headed for global cooling!

Quote: AZDuffman

Listen to the scientists! We may now be headed for global cooling!

I'd rather have GW. We know for a fact we've had many
Ice Ages and they're far more devastating than GW would
ever be.

Quote: AZDuffman

Listen to the scientists! We may now be headed for global cooling!

Oh, my, a financial tabloid, citing another financial tabloid. Truly they must be on the cutting edge of science.

"One of the public-relations problems facing man-made global warming adherents is that individuals are able to look around and see the effects of increasingly cold weather that they are able to experience personally. Europe and many parts of America have experienced record snowfalls at even later periods in the year in recent years. This causes people to ask if the alarmists are warning about the planet getting warmer, then how can they explain it getting colder."

Yeah, I can see they're all over the latest data.

I like cooler colder weather. Not for the sake of being on the opposite side of the page, but for the fact cold is easier to survive. It's easier because we have clothing and we can put on layer after layer to stay warm. When the heat gets out of control or reaches uncomfortable levels, once we remove the shorts and tee-shirt, we are left bare skinned and unprotected. But, in both extremes we can burrow underground and find a safe temperature.

For immediate consideration, there's a cold arctic blast about to engulf North America as temps are to plunge to -35 to the north and extend far south. Some areas will see a change of 40 degrees over the next 48 hours. In Chicago we nearly hit 50 today and by Friday morning they are calling for a low of 4. Next week is being told to be even colder with highs in the teens.

I have never bought into the global warming craze and my position hasn't changed.

nearly a 1000 record lows set in US last week....more to come this week.

Quote: wroberson

I like cooler colder weather. Not for the sake of being on the opposite side of the page, but for the fact cold is easier to survive.

I think every single person on the planet disagrees.

It'll never get too hot to survive. 110* might be miserable, but a healthy person ain't dying. But take all the clothes you want and spend a week outside anywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line in winter. There's still a chance you might not die. You'll only wish you would.

Quote: 24Bingo

Oh, my, a financial tabloid, citing another financial tabloid. Truly they must be on the cutting edge of science.

Ye of little faith! In a blog post, a guy says without attribution that more and more scientists recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year
533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month

By David Rose

PUBLISHED: 18:37 EST, 7 September 2013 | UPDATED: 13:45 EST, 28 September 2013

A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 29 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, citing a scientist in the US who claimed this was a ‘conservative’ forecast. Perhaps it was their confidence that led more than 20 yachts to try to sail the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific this summer. As of last week, all these vessels were stuck in the ice, some at the eastern end of the passage in Prince Regent Inlet, others further west at Cape Bathurst.


Shipping experts said the only way these vessels were likely to be freed was by the icebreakers of the Canadian coastguard. According to the official Canadian government website, the Northwest Passage has remained ice-bound and impassable all summer.


The BBC’s 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice’.


He was confident his results were ‘much more realistic’ than other projections, which ‘underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice’. Also quoted was Cambridge University expert

Professor Peter Wadhams. He backed Professor Maslowski, saying his model was ‘more efficient’ than others because it ‘takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice’.


He added: ‘This is not a cycle; not just a fluctuation. In the end, it will all just melt away quite suddenly.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html#ixzz2mZFws5Ln
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

.

Quote: Keyser

Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, citing a scientist in the US who claimed this was a ‘conservative’ forecast. Perhaps it was their confidence that led more than 20 yachts to try to sail the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific this summer. As of last week, all these vessels were stuck in the ice, some at the eastern end of the passage in Prince Regent Inlet, others further west at Cape Bathurst.
.

lol. That's the funniest thing I read today. Don't believe
your eyes, trust the whacko scientists high on grant money.

Quote: Face

I think every single person on the planet disagrees.

It'll never get too hot to survive. 110* might be miserable, but a healthy person ain't dying. But take all the clothes you want and spend a week outside anywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line in winter. There's still a chance you might not die. You'll only wish you would.

We had a heat wave in Chicago that killed nearly 600 back in the 90's. I was in Colorado that week, but that's where I get my opinion and feeling on the survivability of hot.

I'm guessing warmer is better than colder. Bums tend to migrate to warmer locations which may be a tip off.

Longer growing seasons sound more comforting.

More record lows this week. Maybe the icebergs should move to North Dakota with the polar bears in tow.

To refer to one year's change as evidence for global warming or global cooling is misleading. You need to look at least a 20 or 30 year trend to make any claims of evidence or meaningful predictions one way or the other. For example, here is a graph showing the trend of the number of natural disasters occurring over the last 20+ years (Emmanuelle Bournay, UNEP/GRID-Arendal):



Heat waves are the #1 killer of all natural disasters (Prothero, 2011). So warmer might not be better than colder for some.

Regardless, the real impact would be the effect on agriculture. Here is an estimate of how this change will effect regions globally (Hugo Ahlenius, UNEP/GRID-Arendal):



Even if the net change were somehow still able to feed the world's population, the impact on geopolitics would be enormous with developing countries unable to feed themselves. In particular India and Pakistan, two nuclear armed countries, could hold the world hostage in demand for food and water.

Quote: cmc0605

Have any of you ever went to a climate science meeting? Have you ever read a report on detection & attribution of climate change? Why should anyone listen to your wisdom?

Seeing these forum debates is like watching a 1st grader learning addition telling a mathematician that he doesn't believe calculus works...You're out of touch with scientific reality and haven't the first clue what you don't know.

I wonder what ever happened to the arrogant science student? You remember, the global warming guy (i.e., a "Warmer") who compared anyone who disagrees with him to "1st graders". He probably got stuck in the snow somewhere. lol...

I'm still here.

It's winter. It's supposed to be cold. So we had some record cold weather. It doesn't mean that the earth is cooling. Sacremento and parts of California had record highs last week. Much of the eastern Seaboard had record highs around Christmastime hitting 86 degrees on the 22nd of December in Orlando and 73 degrees in New York City. And this thread was quiet.

Australia is experiencing quite the heat wave now too (Summary here).

You gotta look at the whole globe, just not what's happening in your back yard. If this site was wizardofvegas.au, I would bet that this thread would be silent right now.

This season doesn't also mean that the earth is warming either. You gotta look long term.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Quote: cmc0605

Have any of you ever went to a climate science meeting? Have you ever read a report on detection & attribution of climate change? Why should anyone listen to your wisdom?

Seeing these forum debates is like watching a 1st grader learning addition telling a mathematician that he doesn't believe calculus works...You're out of touch with scientific reality and haven't the first clue what you don't know.

I wonder what ever happened to the arrogant science student? You remember, the global warming guy (i.e., a "Warmer") who compared anyone who disagrees with him to "1st graders". He probably got stuck in the snow somewhere. lol...

Sorry, beethoven, but you get a (facepalm) for the 'stuck in snow' comment.

Quote: thecesspit

Sorry, beethoven, but you get a (facepalm) for the 'stuck in snow' comment.

Stuck in the chilly wind just doesn't sound as good...

Quote: boymimbo

Australia is experiencing quite the heat wave now too (Summary here).

In that case, there must be one steep temperature gradient:
" A group of climate change scientists were rescued by helicopter Jan. 2, after being stranded in the ice since Christmas morning. But the majority of the broadcast networks’ reports about the ice-locked climate researchers never mentioned climate change. The Russian ship, Akademic Shokalskiy, was stranded in the ice while on a climate change research expedition, yet nearly 98 percent of network news reports about the stranded researchers failed to mention their mission at all. Forty out of 41 stories (97.5 percent) on the network morning and evening news shows since Dec. 25 failed to mention climate change had anything to do with the expedition.

In fact, rather than point out the mission was to find evidence of climate change, the networks often referred to the stranded people as “passengers,” “trackers” and even “tourists,” without a word about climate change or global warming. Chris Turney, the expedition’s leader, is a professor of climate change at the University of New South Wales. According to Turney’s personal website, the purpose of the expedition is to “discover and communicate the environmental changes taking place in the south. . . .”

On Jan. 2, all 52 passengers were airlifted to a nearby Australian icebreaker ship which had tried, and failed, to plow through the ice and free the Akademic Shokalskiy, on Dec. 30. “Good Morning America” said on Dec. 30, that “the ice could be as thick as 13 feet.” According to Fox News, Turney admitted “we’re stuck in our own experiment.” They reported on Dec. 30, that a statement from the Australasian Antarctic Expedition said, “Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up.” newsbusters

This just in: Australia and Antarctica have different climates. Details at 11.

It's an amusing bit of irony, but can't you see that one side brings up global trends, whereas the other is shamelessly cherrypicking in both time and space? Which do you think is the better approach?

Simply put......as the number of Pirates decrease global temps rise. A simple correlation that has been missed
by the scientific community.

Oh no, looks like the E.D. argument has returned.

Quote: paisiello

Even if the net change were somehow still able to feed the world's population, the impact on geopolitics would be enormous with developing countries unable to feed themselves. In particular India and Pakistan, two nuclear armed countries, could hold the world hostage in demand for food and water.

They already can do this for food, water, and anything else they want. We have had similar temperature change over the past 500 years more than once and the world has survived. Even 500 years is nothing in the lifetime of a planet. Measuring temps over 50 years like we have and predicting "global warming" is same as predicting black will come up because red has the last 3 times.