BF2S Forums Global Warming Critics

Global Dimming Documentary
[google]http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=1027879546389218797[/google]

Bertster7 wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I assume you're talking about October. Which was one of the most erratic months ever. Both the hottest and coldest October on record.

This image (from the NOAA) shows the trend in global temperature. Unless there is something very wrong with you, you will see the temperature is going up. A fast rate of change, historicly, is about 5C in around a million years - the current rate is much, much higher than that - about 0.5C in less than 100 years.

This incredible rate of change is likely to have devastating consequences as life cannot evolve at a rate to keep pace with such drastic changes.

Huh hottest AND coldest month EVER?  Wow.  How far back does your records go?  What make you think that human are responsible?  Did you ever think the Earth could be going through a cycle?  How about Solar Flares?

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/conte … ?aid=12594

Solar flares have been discounted as a possible explanation for global warming due to overwhelming evidence. It's a very old discredited theory that doesn't account for more recent changes.

I should clarify. In the UK October had the hottest day ever in October and the coldest day ever in October. I never said EVER, I said on record, there is a big difference.

*edit*
Sorry - just read your link. Thanks, I enjoy a good laugh.
There is nothing of any scientific merit in that entire article. At least solar flares were at one point (before it was investigated and disproven) a credible cause. Volcanoes? Volcanoes contribute to global cooling. Try posting links to excerpts from books written by people with a vaguely credible scientific background. Sorry, I forgot, all the scientists are in on the conspiracy.

You could at least have posted some arguments by Lindzen or tried to cling on to the completely discredited OISM report.

Your post FAILS.

On the Contrary,

Here's a scientist
http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/Archive/ … 0714c.html

and another
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp? … 0106a.html

yet another
http://www.americanexperiment.org/publi … gpart1.php

SO...

thanks_champ wrote:

Global Dimming Documentary
[google]http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=1027879546389218797[/google]

Very interesting programme indeed, been watching it off and on all afternoon +1

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-11-09 08:12:38)

Stingray24 wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:

. . . still on the Mustang thing, eh? i like the look of the car. take the fucking engine out then! put a hybrid one in. I DONT CARE> I AM NOT GLORIFYING THE GAS_GUZZLING CAPABILITIES OF IT, JUST THE LOOK! ffs!

Might as well take the engine out since the Vette will smoke it even with it's pathetic Ford V-8.

now you have crossed the line stingray, i no longer heart you


http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=48306
(second page, post 40, i don't know how to do that cute direct to post thing)

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-11-09 08:32:31)

kr@cker wrote:

oh shit, you're that kind of stingray, you bastard, at least we can still laugh at dodge together

hehehe  I'll agree to that.  Couldn't resist a jab at Ford from a Chevy fanboy.  I have to admit the 60s Mustangs and the new ones designed after them are beautiful.  And you have to admit the 60s Stingrays were a work of art, too.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-11-09 09:02:30)

DBBrinson1 wrote:

On the Contrary,

Here's a scientist
http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/Archive/ … 0714c.html

and another
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp? … 0106a.html

yet another
http://www.americanexperiment.org/publi … gpart1.php

OK.

Lets start with the first link. Prof. Patrick J. Michaels is a climatologist. His view on global warming is that it is real and is caused by humans but occurs at a linear rate so it isn't really a problem.
Michaels' opinions are based on very old theories, dating back to the 1870s. His observations to support his claims are based on satellite temperature records, which until recently were a point of contention. This is because observations from satellites showed some disparity between observed surface temperatures and atmospheric temperatures. This is again an old argument, now discredited. It has been shown that the calculations based on this satellite data is wrong and corrections to the way data from satellites is interpreted has brought this data into line with all other observations.
Prof. Michaels is a traditional environmental detractor. He also denied there would be any hole in the ozone layer when it was predicted and denied it existed after it had been observed. Here is an article he wrote in which he claims that  the hole in the ozone layer isn't really there.
I don't think much of Prof. Michaels crazy suggestions which he seems to have no evidence for.

Your second link is also from Prof. Michaels and is about the links of global warming to tsunamis, which is something I am sceptical of. In that article Michaels claims that sea levels are declining and he cites some deceptive examples (both of which are from highly reputable sources), unfortunately the article in Science magazine actually states that sea levels have risen (based on the satellite data he is so fond of).

Science wrote:

3.2 ± 0.2 millimeter per year global mean sea level rise observed by the Topex/Poseidon satellite over 1993-98

The IPCC data on sea levels he quotes is from the first IPCC report (1995). The most recent report, showing more recent and more accurate observations undermines Michaels' claims. More recent observations and updated estimates by Meier and Dyurgerov show sea levels rising far higher than the IPCC estimates. Representatives of the BAS have sided with this report over the IPCC estimates.

Your third link is the closest to being a proper scientific paper, but even it has serious problems. The very fact that his claims based on actual data are based on flawed information. Water vapour does not account for more than 90% of greenhouse gases, as has been shown by NASA more recently, flawed computer modelling (something sceptics of global warming are always keen to shout about) was what gave the 90% figure in the first place. The more recent findings had been published by the time this report was written, which leads me to question the authors motives.

David W. Riggs wrote:

The actual global temperature change data are mostly from land-based temperature measurements and satellites. The land-based temperature measurements show about a 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in average global temperature over the last 100 years. Most of the temperature increase occurred prior to 1940, while most of the increases in greenhouse gas emissions occurred after 1940.

No so. According to the National Climate Data Center the temperature difference from the mean in 1940 was 0.1F, today it is above 1F.

The author quotes the outdated IPCC report (from 1995, rather than the 2001 publication, or more recent ammendments), he also quotes Lindzen quite a lot.

None of your articles are proper scientific papers, but there are all claims based on either outdated, or simply inaccurate data. Which is why they are of little merit and in the face of such overwhelming opposing evidence make little sense.

IG-Calibre wrote:

thanks_champ wrote:

Global Dimming Documentary
[google]http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=1027879546389218797[/google]

Very interesting programme indeed, been watching it off and on all afternoon +1

rofl, why are democrats and liberals so fascinated with global devastation and chaos?

GeneralDodo wrote:

rofl, why are democrats and liberals so fascinated with global devastation and chaos?

Are there any admins on this forum at all? This post is the definition of trolling, and I hope nobody dignifies it with further response.

Last edited by thanks_champ (2006-11-09 11:34:04)

well it's pretty obvious

i mean our own sun is only a little over its halfway life, and they think it's getting hotter anyway. this happens when a sun is half way through its cycle

and yet we still pollute daily, im all for energy reform and clean rides.

im buying a prius next year, because i know not only is gas going to skyrocket with the dems in the house and senate, but also just to be envriomentally friendly..seriously

<lights up propane flare and puts a hot dog on a stick>

thanks to the rest of the world for expecting us to finance your cleanup through the kyoto protocol

STOP INTERFERING WITH OTHER COUNTRIES USA!!!
GIVE US MONEY TO PAY FOR OUR POLLUTION USA!!!
STOP INTERFERING WITH OTHER COUNTRIES USA!!!
COME CLEAN UP OUR POLLUTION USA!!!

duhr.......playze do try to uxplain to me, use them drawin's and pikchers if yoo kan, werds make my brains feel full

GeneralDodo wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

thanks_champ wrote:

Global Dimming Documentary
[google]http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=1027879546389218797[/google]

Very interesting programme indeed, been watching it off and on all afternoon +1

rofl, why are democrats and liberals so fascinated with global devastation and chaos?

its better to be safe then sorry

but i guess ignorance is bliss right?

cliche away!!!