Global Warming

[Damocles]

It isn't man made, climate change has happened naturally throughout time. We had an ice age not too long back 20,000 years ago, the earth is still recovering from that.

So the warming trends in the past 50 years don't count because it sort of mirrors something that occurred over the course of 20,000 years?

Well shit.

My point here is yes, the climate does change over the course of thousands and thousands of years but the current consensus indicates that this warming has occurred over a vastly shorter timeframe. We're worried about the next hundred years rather than 20,000 years.

So short term is good when it supports your argument but not when it doesn't?

The temperature has been falling over the last 10,000 years. We've survived and prospered. The rate of temperature change recorded is in the last 1000 years mild compared to previous events. The medieval warm period and little ice age was faster temperature change than the actual recorded current change.

Now if we were in Younger Dryas territory, then I would be concerned.

This is bollocks. You are talking about local and not global temperature. Show me the data. Here's mine:

 

[hilts]

Well i'm sorry Damocles but there's not enough evidence to suggest it's man made and a lot of people haven't got time for it when it means taxes going up. It's just another theory and in 10 years it won't be talked about. A fashion 'trend' if you will.

bizarre, taxes going up planet being fucked which is more important, i presume you are an expert and not only an expert but cleverer than all those scientists that say this is a problem

this attitude is the reason why nothing will change and its a shame that the ones who will suffer arent the ones with your attitude

Why do taxes have to go up ?

why you asking me it was the guy i was replying to who said that

 

[Skashion]

The data simply isn't credible yet. The only answer is balanced scientific study.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

So the warming trends in the past 50 years don't count because it sort of mirrors something that occurred over the course of 20,000 years?

Well shit.

My point here is yes, the climate does change over the course of thousands and thousands of years but the current consensus indicates that this warming has occurred over a vastly shorter timeframe. We're worried about the next hundred years rather than 20,000 years.

So short term is good when it supports your argument but not when it doesn't?

The temperature has been falling over the last 10,000 years. We've survived and prospered. The rate of temperature change recorded is in the last 1000 years mild compared to previous events. The medieval warm period and little ice age was faster temperature change than the actual recorded current change.

Now if we were in Younger Dryas territory, then I would be concerned.

This is bollocks. You are talking about local and not global temperature. Show me the data. Here's mine:

I see climate gate passed you by. Your use of the discredited Briffa graphic does you no justice.

[bigimg]http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/muller_1.png?w=300&h=252[/bigimg]

this is what they wanted us to worry about.

[bigimg]http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/muller_21.png?w=300&h=246[/bigimg]

Here's one where the decline wasn't hidden.

 

[Damocles]

The data simply isn't credible yet. The only answer is balanced scientific study.

How can decades of data independently collated in multiple disciplines, that all point to the same conclusions not be credible?

 

[Gelsons Dad]

The data simply isn't credible yet. The only answer is balanced scientific study.

How can decades of data independently collated in multiple disciplines, that all point to the same conclusions not be credible?

Because of the dishonesty of those tasked with collating the data.

 

[Damocles]

So short term is good when it supports your argument but not when it doesn't?

The temperature has been falling over the last 10,000 years. We've survived and prospered. The rate of temperature change recorded is in the last 1000 years mild compared to previous events. The medieval warm period and little ice age was faster temperature change than the actual recorded current change.

Now if we were in Younger Dryas territory, then I would be concerned.

This is bollocks. You are talking about local and not global temperature. Show me the data. Here's mine:

I see climate gate passed you by. Your use of the discredited Briffa graphic does you no justice.

[bigimg]http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/muller_1.png?w=300&h=252[/bigimg]

this is what they wanted us to worry about.

[bigimg]http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/muller_21.png?w=300&h=246[/bigimg]

Here's one where the decline wasn't hidden.

I see the results of a bunch of independent enquiries that didn't take random sentences out of context in an email conversation from several years passed you by. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf</a>

Oh, and that they went back to the original data and found the exact same trends as quoted.

 

[Davs 19]

So the warming trends in the past 50 years don't count because it sort of mirrors something that occurred over the course of 20,000 years?

Well shit.

My point here is yes, the climate does change over the course of thousands and thousands of years but the current consensus indicates that this warming has occurred over a vastly shorter timeframe. We're worried about the next hundred years rather than 20,000 years.

So short term is good when it supports your argument but not when it doesn't?

The temperature has been falling over the last 10,000 years. We've survived and prospered. The rate of temperature change recorded is in the last 1000 years mild compared to previous events. The medieval warm period and little ice age was faster temperature change than the actual recorded current change.

Now if we were in Younger Dryas territory, then I would be concerned.

This is bollocks. You are talking about local and not global temperature. Show me the data. Here's mine:

These things are easily fakeable. Never trust anything of wicky or skeptical science :)

 

[Damocles]

The data simply isn't credible yet. The only answer is balanced scientific study.

How can decades of data independently collated in multiple disciplines, that all point to the same conclusions not be credible?

Because of the dishonesty of those tasked with collating the data.

Oh, it's a conspiracy between hundreds of thousands of people?

Well, now I'm convinced.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

How can decades of data independently collated in multiple disciplines, that all point to the same conclusions not be credible?

Because of the dishonesty of those tasked with collating the data.

Oh, it's a conspiracy between hundreds of thousands of people?

Well, now I'm convinced.

It's about time.