[PaperNotes]

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/5750/

Lehman Brothers, though, were amateurs in the Green Capitalism that has seen other environmentalist campaigners extort fortunes from public fears. In 2007, £17million was spent on advertisements that used the words ‘carbon’, ‘CO2’, ‘emissions’, ‘recycle’ or ‘environmental’ compared to just £448,000 in 2003 (7). It seems Lehman Brothers were just too 1980s and not Noughties enough; they were behind the curve when those more ruthless environmentalists were making a killing selling hot air.

James Heartfield’s Green Capitalism: Manufacturing Scarcity in an Age of Abundance, is published by Mute, 2008.

[PaperNotes]

Even some communists are turning against this eco-communism and calling it Green Capitalism lol

http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com...tfield%2C+2008

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by shortcuttomoncton

You really can't wrap your mind around the fact that I'm a right-wing conservative who believes what climate scientists say, huh?

Question: why should I believe what Monckton has to say? Who is he? Is he an expert on climate change? What research has he done on climate change?

greg

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

More than you, Prophet Al Gore (peace be upon him) and the unelected, unaccountable and uncorruptable gods at the UN/IPCC apparently.

Have you got a problem with his free speech and ability to study the facts that you can't debate?

Sooooo.......you just don't want to answer the question, eh. Afraid of finding out the truth? Avoid avoid avoid seems to be your M.O., unsurprisingly.

It's interesting to watch you work. In spite of the fact that probably half your "sources" have been shown to be false or wrong, time and time again in this thread, and in spite of the fact that I willingly posted a list of IPCC scientists after asked to do so, you still haven't shown that a single one of those IPCC scientists were somehow "corrupted" or "bad." Of course that won't stop you from claiming they are anyway, though.

Let's face it: you're full of paranoid, crackpot conspiracy theories, and you don't need any evidence to believe them. You're pretty much a nutter on the internet at this point.

Enjoy your Lord Monckton's amateur ramblings. Just keep in mind that, uhhhh....he doesn't really know anything about climate change.

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Even some communists are turning against this eco-communism and calling it Green Capitalism lol

http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com...tfield%2C+2008

I'm now pretty sure that all of this green guff is a lead-up to replacing dollars with carbon credits. What with the existence of the current financial system about to come to an end within the next 30 years and all that.

You heard it here first.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Interesting idea. Don't know how it would work on a day-to-day basis, but interesting nonetheless.

Wonder if it'd be "good" or "bad?"

greg

[PaperNotes]

Coldest October in Britain for over 70 years, the most widest snowfall in October for more two generations, the least amount of democratic representation and the most media censorship ever. All at the same time.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/sta...ars/article.do

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10...e_change_bill/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10...o_aristocracy/

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...15-and-us-4662

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/1...vey-found.html

http://qninewmedia.typepad.com/waow_...nd-the-ch.html

UK Climate Bill: 80% Commitment, Zero Effect on Climate
28th October 2008 will go down in history as ‘carbon fools day,’ a sad day for democracy and science, a day when opposition parties failed to challenge a dangerously unsound policy, devoid of any real scientific basis, without any hope of influencing climate change. Ironically, it was also a day when London saw the earliest October snow for 70 years.

These ‘carbon fools,’ who are allowing the unjustified demonization of CO2 to be used as a weapon against prosperity, energy security and mobility, have committed the UK to an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050, without any mapped out strategy of how it will be achieved. Advice on that task falls to yet another expensive QUANGO, loaded with ‘Green Alliance’ members, namely the ‘Committee on Climate Change.’

[PaperNotes]

The BBC of course conveniently failed to report on the record breaking cold and snow cover falling on London. They and the Met Office failed even to predict it using all their computers!

BUT the BBC has no problem publishing articles about how we should force global temperatures down to how they were during the Little Ice Age:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7698805.stm

It doesn't seem to occur to these "scientists" that cooling the planet down and reducing atmospheric CO2 would result in short harvests, long winters, frozen lakes, diminished plant life, diminished marine life, increased desertification, decreased rainfall, increased energy costs during winter, increased food costs during winter, increased clothing costs during winter, increased transport costs during winter, elderly pensioners unable to cope, a developing world returned to starvation and lack of development they suffered from during the height of European imperialism, more government control and higher taxation.

Ah. I see.

And scientists can't get their facts about the economy straight either:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10...eco_economics/

We need to round up an army and storm parliament. It's time to resurrect the Roundheads. It's English Civil War II time. We need the help of our underpaid staff in the military and intelligensia to remove this elite who won't repay the debt they owe to the taxpayer.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

johnwk? Is that you?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

The BBC of course conveniently failed to report on the record breaking cold and snow cover falling on London.

I'm a little confused. Are you using record breaking cold and snow cover over London as an argument against climate change?

[Warren Pease]

Hi. It's 70 degrees here today.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

What's even better is his claim that scientists want to "cool the earth down."

What a ridiculous notion.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm a little confused. Are you using record breaking cold and snow cover over London as an argument against climate change?

Is PaperNotes arguing against climate change?!? You'd have to be a real kook to deny the climate changes.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Hi. It's 70 degrees here today.

Yeah, I like this place called "here". That's about as scientific as the rest of the AGW argument.

The BBC is now reporting that there is 100% evidence humans are causing "warming at the poles" despite the fact that nearly every news outlet reported that Arctic Ice was 10% higher this year and that the Antarctic grows when there is more oceanic precipitation that turns to snowfall and growth remains still when there is cooling.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Is PaperNotes arguing against climate change?!? You'd have to be a real kook to deny the climate changes.

You and I know that guy is trying to twist things. Climate changes all day long, every year, every decade, every century, every millennia. There is no steady state climate and if there was one then the ideal would be equal to what is known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, which was warmer than it is today.

Prepare for the coldest winter in decades. Last winter China was almost frozen over and it snowed in Baghdad. This year Europe and North America is going to be gripped with one hell of a chill.

Man isn't warming the planet. Any government that tries to force me to accept that or make me pay taxes will be taken to court or much worse.

[Warren Pease]

I hate it when the climate changes and I forgot to roll up my windows.

[Buckaroo]

Has anyone that has posted here (with an open mind) changed their mind on this issue?

I know some people just won't change their mind no matter what. The Earth could turn into an Ice cube and they would still swear that global warming is a danger, and caused by mankind.

Anyhow, who has changed their position and what caused you to change?

[PaperNotes]

Welcome to the big chill

It's here already. We've been saying it for more than 5 years.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EVID...REEDECADES.doc

And why should Americans cut their productivity at all?

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...15-and-us-4662

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Has anyone that has posted here (with an open mind) changed their mind on this issue?

I know some people just won't change their mind no matter what. The Earth could turn into an Ice cube and they would still swear that global warming is a danger, and caused by mankind.

Anyhow, who has changed their position and what caused you to change?

As evidence of cooling becomes more prevalent, more people will abandon the "warming" argument and move to "climate change". Once having called you an idiot for challenging warming, they'll call you an idiot for challenging cooling, then they'll call you an idiot climate change denier. It's Science™ stupid!

I originally thought there was an end to the thread, but I've changed my mind. It'll go on forever.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As evidence of cooling becomes more prevalent, more people will abandon the "warming" argument and move to "climate change".

No because the liberal media and the useful idiots in government and the entertainment business control the information that goes out. You could shower them in factual information and it would make no difference.

Yuri Bezmenov explained exactly how this Communist brainwashing began in the 60s and how you would need to re-educate a whole new generation or two of students to get rid of this Leftist nonsense.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rvcZiNt6ypI

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

... You could shower them in factual information and it would make no difference.

lol. qft.

[Warren Pease]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1027200309.htm

Sorry PaperNotes; no pictures, but they mention the NW Passage!

ScienceDaily (Nov. 3, 2008) — Last winter, the thickness of sea ice in large parts of the Arctic fell by nearly half a metre (19 per cent) compared with the average thickness of the previous five winters. This followed the dramatic 2007 summer low when Arctic ice extent dropped to its lowest level since records began.

Up until last winter, the thickness of Arctic sea ice showed a slow downward trend during the previous five winters, but after the summer 2007 record low extent, the thickness of the ice also nose-dived. What is concerning is that sea ice is not just receding but it is also thinning.

Some scientists blamed the record summer 2007 ice extent low on unusually warm weather conditions over the Arctic, but this summer, sea ice extent reached the second lowest level since records began, even though the Arctic had a relatively cool summer. Dr Katharine Giles, who led the study and is based at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at University College London – part of the National Centre for Earth Observation, says: “This summer’s low ice extent doesn’t seem to have been driven by warm weather, so the question is, was last winter’s thinning behind it?”

The team of researchers, including Dr Seymour Laxon and Andy Ridout, used satellites to measure sea ice thickness over the Arctic from 2002 to 2008. Winter sea ice in the Arctic is around two and half metres thick on average. Ice thickness can be calculated from the time it takes a radar pulse to travel from a satellite to the surface of the ice and back again.

The research - reported in Geophysical Research Letters - showed that last winter the average thickness of sea ice over the whole Arctic fell by 26cm (10 per cent) compared with the average thickness of the previous five winters, but sea ice in the western Arctic lost around 49cm of thickness. This region of the Arctic saw the North-West passage become ice free and open to shipping for the first time in 30 years during the summer of 2007.

The team is the first to measure ice thickness throughout the Arctic winter, from October to March, over more than half of the Arctic, using the European Space Agency’s Envisat satellite. Before this, Christian Haas of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany, had discovered thinner ice in a small region around the North Pole. Whilst the overall loss of older, thicker ice led researchers to speculate that Arctic sea ice had probably thinned, this is the first time scientists have been able to say for definite that the ice thinning was widespread and occurred in areas of both young and old ice.

“The extent of sea ice in the Arctic is down to a number of factors, including warm weather melting it as well as currents and the wind blowing it around, so it’s important to know how ice thickness is changing as well as the extent of the ice,” added Giles.

The team will continue to monitor the thickness of the ice over this coming winter. Laxon says: “We’ll be keeping our eyes on the ice thickness this winter as it’ll be interesting to see what happens after a second summer of low ice extent.”

The Envisat satellite that provided the UCL scientists with their data doesn’t cover the whole of the North Pole. Because of the satellite’s orbit, there’s a hole north of 81.5 degrees, which is about 600 miles shy of the North Pole. But a team, including Laxon, at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling has designed a satellite – CryoSat-2 – to plug this hole.

CryoSat-2 is the first radar satellite specifically designed to measure ice thickness. It will do this with greater resolution than is possible with Envisat and so will give scientists a much more detailed picture of what is happening to ice in the Arctic. CryoSat-2 is being prepared for launch at the end of 2009

[Warren Pease]

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1003-arctic.html

The volume of sea ice in the Arctic has likely hit its lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979, report researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center, who confirmed that Arctic sea ice extent was the second-lowest on record this year.

"Preliminary data indicate that 2008 probably represents the lowest volume of Arctic sea ice on record, partly because less multiyear ice is surviving now and the remaining ice is so thin," said CU-Boulder Research Associate Walt Meier, a research scientist at NSIDC/

Average sea ice extent during September was 1.8 million square miles, just 9 percent above last year's record low of 1.65 million square miles and 34 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000.

The researchers say the 2008 low "strongly reinforces the 30-year downward trend in Arctic sea ice extent".

"The trend of decline in the Arctic continues, despite this year's slightly greater extent of sea ice," added CU-Boulder Senior Research Associate Ted Scambos, NSIDC lead scientist. "The Arctic is more vulnerable than ever."

The researchers say cool spring conditions, cloudier skies, and wind patterns help avoid a new record low this year.

"I find it incredible that we came so close to beating the 2007 record, without the especially warm and clear conditions we saw last summer," said CU-Boulder Research Associate Julienne Stroeve, an NSIDC research scientist. "I hate to think what 2008 might have looked like if the weather patterns had set up in a more extreme way."

[PaperNotes]

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monc...as_stopped.pdf

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monc...as_stopped.pdf

Wow, six whole years of data.

I guess it makes sense if you believe that climate can change over the course of a day

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

I guess it makes sense if you believe that climate can change over the course of a day

You're saying climate doesn't change every moment of the day????? ****ing useful idiot indeed. Oh but of course, climate is always constant, it is only capitalist industry that can possibly change it, comrade! We must bring down this capitalism otherwise we face certain Climate Catastrophe!

Anyway, still getting colder not warmer and no evidence of any catastrophes in the future.

http://www.investors.com:80/editoria...10695037962525

Elsewhere, the Swiss lowlands last month received the most snow for any October since records began. Zurich got 20 centimeters, breaking the record of 14 centimeters set in 1939. Ocala, Fla., experienced its second-lowest October temperature since 1850.

At the top of the world, the International Arctic Research Center reported last month, there was 29% more Arctic sea ice this year than last.
None of this matters, of course, to the warming zealots. It doesn't matter if it's too dry or too wet, too hot or too cold. All of it, they say, is caused by global warming.
We believe, however, as do many reputable scientists, that the warming and cooling of the Earth is a natural phenomenon dictated by forces beyond our control, from ocean currents to solar activity.
The latest warming trend, which appears to have ended in 1998, is the result of the end of the Little Ice Age, which extended from roughly the 16th century to the 19th.

[Warren Pease]

You say it's getting colder, but it's 72 today here in NTX.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

You're saying climate doesn't change every moment of the day????? ****ing useful idiot indeed. Oh but of course, climate is always constant, it is only capitalist industry that can possibly change it, comrade! We must bring down this capitalism otherwise we face certain Climate Catastrophe!
http://www.investors.com:80/editoria...10695037962525

I'd be interested in knowing how (if at all) you differentiate weather from climate. Nice article -

"Due to a decline in solar activity and other factors, the Earth is cooling and has been since 1998"

- awesome!

Solar activity is declining ...

... but it's not cooling.

2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

And where did they pull that 29% stat from? Just, you know, really good journalism?

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Solar activity is declining ...

If you had paid attention then you would realise that the very critics of "man-made global warming" say that the warming and cooling is consistent with solar activity and Pacific Decadal Oscillation, not carbon emissions. You clearly paid no attention at all and keep showing me old articles that I read as soon as they are published.

Here. Learn some science that Al Gore and the UN are scared to debate about:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Wash...ersaddress.pdf

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hUKLOvtAUDk

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

... warming and cooling is consistent with solar activity ...

Sure. Temperature goes up as solar activity increases. It goes down when it decreases. Makes perfect sense. 'Cept when the solar activity decreases and the temperature goes up. Then our simple one-to-one relationship falls apart. As has been happening since 2000.

Wasn't there a picture posted here recently that showed this perfect one-to-one relationship and the data ended in 1985? lol

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Wasn't there a picture posted here recently that showed this perfect one-to-one relationship and the data ended in 1985? lol

But the relationship didn't end. As with all relationships in a chaotic system such as the climate, there are times when there is divergence. All data sets show shaky lines, not straight ones, that sometimes converge and sometimes don't. That's what happens in a chaotic climate system that scientists still haven't been able to model or understand accurately. The data set you saw wasn't even a complete one, it is one of many which vary.

And notice you contradict yourself. The relationship between solar activity and the Earth's climate is back on course, this you admit yourself two hours ago.

One thing we know for certain is that the Ice Core record shows that carbon has never driven the Earth's temperature. Instead we see that solar activity drove temperature up, this heated the oceans and then the oceans released carbon that had been captured for millennia.

And right now you are ignoring Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). This too plays a much bigger factor in climate change than greenhouse gases.

You go study them, and remember that in the last 120 years the temperature has only gone up 0.8 degrees celsius. The majority if not all of that was because we came out of the Little Ice Age. We still aren't up the temperatures that we saw before the Little Ice Age. Clearly man's effect on the climate is negligible. The only people who over-exaggerate mankind's effect are in it for money and power. If you want to keep letting them get away with that then you are a foolish person, a sheep, a tool, a useful idiot.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

One thing we know for certain is that the Ice Core record shows that carbon has never driven the Earth's temperature. Instead we see that solar activity drove temperature up, this heated the oceans and then the oceans released carbon that had been captured for millennia.

...and then that carbon, that had been captured for millennia, combined with oxygen in the atmosphere to create carbon dioxide, and contributed to that warming effect. It's true that solar activity caused the original release, but would you say that is how it works?

We still aren't up the temperatures that we saw before the Little Ice Age.

Still won't let this go, will you. Even when it's been rebutted several times in this thread, by posted peer-reviewed scientific study. Never a valid link of proof, huh.

greg

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

And notice you contradict yourself. The relationship between solar activity and the Earth's climate is back on course, this you admit yourself two hours ago.

How did i contradict myself?

The relationship is "on track" because in 2007, at the low point in the 11 year solar cycle (where we should have cooler temps), we have the warmest year on record???

Even if we look at solar irradiance, there is no strong correlation with global temperatures. Solar irradiance has been plateaued since 1950 and during that time we saw cooler temperatures in the 70's and then our current, continuing warming trend.



It's almost like there is something else in the air that is augmenting that solar input...

Interesting to see that in the third warmest year on record, 1998, solar irradiance was at the cycle low point.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

oops, so much for consensus
Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.

The retraction:

Our editorial comments in the July 2008 issue include the following statement: "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." In fact, we have not polled any scientific community (e.g., the climate research community, the physics community, or the general science community) as to the extent of its consensus regarding human-activity-caused global warming, and we apologize for making such a remark for which we do not have supporting data. We now do know that, in addition to the American Physical Society, the following scientific organizations have issued statements and/or reports in support of the IPCC's main conclusion concerning the role of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in global warming: The National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

My source: Deltoid: Department of not making corrections

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

You and I know that guy is trying to twist things.

I didn't twist anything, nor have I. My views remained consistent throughout this ridiculous thread and I've always supported anything I stated with related scientific material. You and eBuddy seem to be under the delusion that general mean warming of temperature does not mean it will always be hot. What it means is higher extremities on both ends. Longer durations of colder climates in some regional areas, with longer, dry and hot climates in other regional areas. It also may little to no affect on various microclimates.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As evidence of cooling becomes more prevalent, more people will abandon the "warming" argument and move to "climate change". Once having called you an idiot for challenging warming, they'll call you an idiot for challenging cooling, then they'll call you an idiot climate change denier. It's Science™ stupid!

It has been said for the past 30 years that "global warming" is a misnomer because of how different regions react (some get colder, some get hotter.) I've stated at least 10 times in this thread alone explaining how climate change has different effects on microclimates.

If either of you took a moment to understand even the most basic dynamics involved in climatology, you'd appreciate how complicated it is; you'd also understand how the conclusions that many scientists come to are not come by lightly. If either of you even understood the basics of the scientific method, you wouldn't be so quick to look like complete fools. It's science, stupid.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

No because the liberal media and the useful idiots in government and the entertainment business control the information that goes out.

Maybe you should be getting your information from science journals instead of the "liberal media." You seem to have no problem getting your information from conservative blogs and related, biased news sources. The Bush Administration's "liberal media" did a great job at preventing scientific studies from surfacing when the results contradicted his religious and economic agendas.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

You could shower them in factual information and it would make no difference.

I see we agree on something. Now you just need to come up with facts. Why don't you come up with some peer reviewed journals that present evidence to the contrary instead of quoting the "liberal media." Or is it conservative?

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

The BBC is now reporting that there is 100% evidence humans are causing "warming at the poles" despite the fact that nearly every news outlet reported that Arctic Ice was 10% higher this year and that the Antarctic grows when there is more oceanic precipitation that turns to snowfall and growth remains still when there is cooling.

Again, you're showing your absolute complete lack of understanding and woeful ignorance of the situation. The Antarctic ice has grown 10% in the past 40 years, a trend that has been recognized for a long time by climate models. As Arctic ice melts, more water is evaporated and carried below the equator by the Southern Annular Mode. This means increased winds, lower temperatures, and increased precipitation in the Antarctic region. That also means an increased size. It is interesting to note that while the Antarctic ice as grown 10%, Arctic ice has decreased by about the same amount.

Even though the Antarctic is cooler and growing in size, it is still warmer on average. I can't emphasize enough that regional change is not the same as mean global change. Give by what you keep repeating, I have little hopes of you understanding that.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

The relationship is "on track" because in 2007, at the low point in the 11 year solar cycle (where we should have cooler temps), we have the warmest year on record???

LOL

There isn't a sane person in the universe who would state that. 2007 saw an lower than average summer and an incredibly cold winter that froze China to a hault and saw snow fall in Baghdad.

But you're not interesting in the science. I've read your posts on other topics and you're just a closet communist who thinks he is clever enough to use Green language to cloak an anti-industrial agenda. You're boring. If communism ever returned back in force you would be the first person they'd put up against the wall and shoot.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Even though the Antarctic is cooler and growing in size, it is still warmer on average.

No, it's not. And the average temperature is -60C. Even if we tried to warm the planet up, if it was remotely possible for humans to do so, we could never get temperatures in the Arctic Circle, Siberia, the Himalayas or the Antarctic to stay high enough for any significant amount of time for ice to melt because it is sooooo damn cold in those regions that even the IPCC's worst case projections wouldn't change a thing.

And the IPCC's worst case projections of a 6C rise over the next century isn't possible anyway because their not so perfect models are based on energy consumption habits of the 20th century and energy efficiency of 20th century technology. It is ridiculous to assume for a millisecond that either of those two factors remain the same. They don't, not even for a year. We improve every year regardless of Green movements.

Modern environmentalist activism began in the early 70s. If we take a look at technology and society from 1900-1970 we see that we never needed Greens around to develop cleaner and more efficient society or cleaner air and streets.

I'll say it again, we have a pitiful 0.8C rise globally from the 1870s to 1998-2001 (it has gotten colder since, even though China and India are growing aggressively), yet we see that temperature increase only as a result of coming out of the Little Ice Age. We still aren't up to the global temperatures that the majority of human history experienced since the end of the last major Ice Age. Carbon has never driven temps in the past and it isn't today either, otherwise the growth of the Asian economy with its 2.5 billion people would have created a proportionate rise in global temperatures.

There's no evidence for manmade global warming. If there was, the elite would be up for an open debate. They aren't, because their banker and carbon trader friends wouldn't be able to make money out of thin air and the Green-Marxist movement would feel shut out of the political process and launch more of their Direct Action terror attacks against industry.

[PaperNotes]

David Bellamy, a hero to many of us who grew up watching his TV shows. He taught us about nature and wildlife when we were young. Now he is being suppressed by Big Brother Corporation.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623

For more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.

His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming.

When I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn’t believe what we were being told about global warming I had no idea what the consequences would be.

I am a scientist and I have to follow the directions of science but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my opinions.

According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder

I’ve seen evidence, which I believe, that says there has not been a rise in global temperature since 1998, despite the increase in carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere.

To date, the way the so-called Greens and the BBC, the Royal Society and even our political parties have handled this smacks of McCarthyism at its worst.

Global warming is part of a natural cycle and there’s nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. The world is now facing spending a vast amount of money in tax to try to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist.

he thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I’m still an environmentalist, I’m still a Green and I’m still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming “problem” that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

LOL

There isn't a sane person in the universe who would state that. 2007 saw an lower than average summer and an incredibly cold winter that froze China to a hault and saw snow fall in Baghdad.

And yup, despite snowing in Baghdad, China and even here(omg!), 2007 is the warmest year on record. Think you should brush up your understanding of climate and weather (again). olePigeon says it well:

Originally Posted by olePigeon

It has been said for the past 30 years that "global warming" is a misnomer because of how different regions react (some get colder, some get hotter.) I've stated at least 10 times in this thread alone explaining how climate change has different effects on microclimates.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

But you're not interesting in the science. I've read your posts on other topics...

lol, This is like the only thread I post in.

[Warren Pease]

Arctic Report Card 2008 Found this site through your link to INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY, but suprisingly, what they are saying is completely different from how it's represented in the article.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

No, it's not. And the average temperature is -60C. Even if we tried to warm the planet up, if it was remotely possible for humans to do so, we could never get temperatures in the Arctic Circle, Siberia, the Himalayas or the Antarctic to stay high enough for any significant amount of time for ice to melt because it is sooooo damn cold in those regions that even the IPCC's worst case projections wouldn't change a thing.

Are you attempting to equate the climates of Antarctica, the Arctic Ocean, Siberia and the Himalayas? Seriously?

Arctic temperatures are rising (both sea and air). Sea ice extent has been decreasing consistenly over the past 40 years. Thin first-year sea ice now constitutes 50% of the area of the current ice-pack, which doesn't bode well for it's future. In 2007, first year ice constituted only 10% of the total ice. It's happening. It's melting.

There is no data that supports your position. (10%! 10%!)

Also, it's happening in Alaska and Siberia
Interior Alaska and Siberia Permafrost Thawing Together

(Oh that can't be! It's sooooo damn cold in those regions!)

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

And yup, despite snowing in Baghdad, China and even here(omg!), 2007 is the warmest year on record.

This is nonsense.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

This is nonsense.

Prove it.

[PaperNotes]

Are you attempting to equate the climates of Antarctica, the Arctic Ocean, Siberia and the Himalayas??

I said they are so cold, so far below zero degrees celsius, that the amount of global warming you need to cause any significantly dangerous melting is impossible.

Arctic temperatures are rising (both sea and air). Sea ice extent has been decreasing consistenly over the past 40 years.

The Arctic grew 10% this year over the last. The Northwest Passage is currently closed, it was open a century ago when it was first navigated by sea. In other words, the Arctic is always expanding and contracting and the 0.8C global temperature rise over 120 years is still too far low to cause any significant melt.

Again, I reiterate, we have seen an increase in 0.8 degrees celsius in 120 years when our technology wasn't as efficient as it is getting. Much of that miniscule temperature rise was due to coming out of the Little Ice Age, much of it is also from the Urban Heat Island effect because ground based thermometers were placed in growing urban areas. Much of that temperature increase was also due to increased solar activity and is also controlled by PDO.

How much does that leave for human activity, such as carbon dioxide emissions?

Well, MIT and NASA meteorologists, who were also lead scientists at the IPCC, decided to see if greenhouse gases were to blame by looking at the temperature record in the troposphere because if carbon is to blame then they would see temperatures increase in the troposphere proportionate to industrial emissions. There they saw virtually no temperature increase throughout the whole record.

Carbon isn't driving any temperature increases. The tropospheric temperature data and Ice Core data prove it conclusively.

And now we're in for a big chill despite record industrial output.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

No, it's not. And the average temperature is -60C. Even if we tried to warm the planet up, if it was remotely possible for humans to do so, we could never get temperatures in the Arctic Circle, Siberia, the Himalayas or the Antarctic to stay high enough for any significant amount of time for ice to melt because it is sooooo damn cold in those regions that even the IPCC's worst case projections wouldn't change a thing.

You're as bad as stupendousman. Did you not read what I said about microclimates? Yes, the Antarctic continent is, on average, getting warmer by about .045C year over. What you're claiming as evidence for debunking the warming trend is the center region of Antarctica where it is getting colder. However, the cooler region is most likely from atmospheric displacement, cooler air is being moved from the warmer peninsula and arctic shores towards the center of the continent. Antarctica is a decent example of how microclimates react differently to a mean temperature increase.

Again, you're showing your ignorance and misunderstanding of fact misrepresented in blogs and news outlets.

I think one of the first things I proposed in this thread was for opponents to provide a peer reviewed study that concluded to the contrary. This thread is nearly 40 pages long and almost a year old, and not a single one of you has accomplished the afore mentioned proposal.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

And yup, despite snowing in Baghdad, China and even here(omg!), 2007 is the warmest year on record. Think you should brush up your understanding of climate and weather (again).

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

This is nonsense.

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Prove it.

It's not quite right, but it's not far off. As I noted earlier, 2005 is actually the warmest year on instrumental record. 2007 is tied for second-warmest, with 2008. Here is a link to a summation page from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Most of the articles PaperNotes has supplied keep repeating the claim that "the earth is cooling," but that's simply just false. Unfortunately, despite the repeated evidence I've supplied, he keeps repeating this claim like a broken record.

greg

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Well, MIT and NASA meteorologists, who were also lead scientists at the IPCC, decided to see if greenhouse gases were to blame by looking at the temperature record in the troposphere because if carbon is to blame then they would see temperatures increase in the troposphere proportionate to industrial emissions. There they saw virtually no temperature increase throughout the whole record.

Carbon isn't driving any temperature increases. The tropospheric temperature data and Ice Core data prove it conclusively.

Do you have a link to the story? You have the habit of taking only the information you want to see from a study to support your opinion, but then ignore the conclusion of the study that is completely contrary to your claim.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I think one of the first things I proposed in this thread was for opponents to provide a peer reviewed study that concluded to the contrary. This thread is nearly 40 pages long and almost a year old, and not a single one of you has accomplished the afore mentioned proposal.

eBuddy did provide some peer-reviewed studies in the middle somewhere. Good luck finding them now, though.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Well, MIT and NASA meteorologists, who were also lead scientists at the IPCC, decided to see if greenhouse gases were to blame by looking at the temperature record in the troposphere because if carbon is to blame then they would see temperatures increase in the troposphere proportionate to industrial emissions. There they saw virtually no temperature increase throughout the whole record.

I think this may have been a record-setting attempt to provide said studies...unfortunately no link or citation is given though. PaperNotes, care to show us this study?

greg

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Do you have a link to the story? You wouldn't be the first person here to nit pick data out of a report to support your opinion, but then ignore the conclusion of the study that was completely contrary to your claim.

For one, it's right there in The Global Warming Swindle documentary, Brotherly Comrade. They devote a whole section of the documentary to tropospheric measurements. The scientists who speak and did the measurements are from MIT and another is a lead author of the 2001 IPCC report (though he had his words changed by non-scientists and the data on the troposphere has been removed).

Of course, since the tropospheric data has come out the response from Global Warming Alarmists is "a warming planet and a cooling troposphere can co-exist!"

Yeah yeah. But the planet is cooling right now and none of the models predicted it.

Another one tried to say the data from the weather balloons is wrong. Good try.

Now back to our 0.8 degree celsius rise in the last 120 years - how much was due to carbon dioxide when the planet was coming out of the Little Ice Age and when this temperature measurement was taken from ground based thermometers influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect?

Almost none.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

It's not quite right, but it's not far off. As I noted earlier, 2005 is actually the warmest year on instrumental record. 2007 is tied for second-warmest, with 2008.
greg

And I'll just say that's bullshit because the vast majority of scientists are not agreeing with it. They say 1998-2001. They also don't agree with the IPCC, Al Gore or the Global Warming Alarmist scenario.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

For one, it's right there in The Global Warming Swindle documentary

See, the whole point of this little exercise is that you provide the proof for your claims.

Now back to our 0.8 degree celsius rise in the last 120 years - how much was due to carbon dioxide when the planet was coming out of the Little Ice Age and when this temperature measurement was taken from ground based thermometers influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect?

Almost none.

More proof required. But I'll note that the Urban Heat effect has been extensively examined and compensation for it has already been attempted.

greg

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I said they are so cold, so far below zero degrees celsius, that the amount of global warming you need to cause any significantly dangerous melting is impossible.

What is the average temperature of Alaska? -60C?

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

The Arctic grew 10% this year over the last.

I knew it

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

The Northwest Passage is currently closed, it was open a century ago when it was first navigated by sea.

A century? Try 30 years.

See, even if this anecdotal evidence were worth anything, you clearly cannot retain any new information, even when it should, in your eyes, bolster your case.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

In other words, the Arctic is always expanding and contracting

First you say, contraction/melting of the Arctic Sea Ice (actually you just said Arctic) was 'impossible', now it does it all the time?

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

and the 0.8C global temperature rise over 120 years is still too far low to cause any significant melt.

The average Arctic temperature has increased 6C in 30 years.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Again, I reiterate, we have seen an increase in 0.8 degrees celsius in 120 years

The average Arctic temperature has increased 6C in 30 years.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

when our technology wasn't as efficient as it is getting.

Inversely proportional to population and demand? Link?

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Much of that miniscule temperature rise was due to coming out of the Little Ice Age, much of it is also from the Urban Heat Island effect because ground based thermometers were placed in growing urban areas. Much of that temperature increase was also due to increased solar activity and is also controlled by PDO.

The "increased" solar activity that was at a minumum during the hottest years on record?

What part of Urban Heat Effect is not anthropogenic?

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

How much does that leave for human activity, such as carbon dioxide emissions?

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Well, MIT and NASA meteorologists, who were also lead scientists at the IPCC, decided to see if greenhouse gases were to blame by looking at the temperature record in the troposphere because if carbon is to blame then they would see temperatures increase in the troposphere proportionate to industrial emissions. There they saw virtually no temperature increase throughout the whole record.

Link please?

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Carbon isn't driving any temperature increases. The tropospheric temperature data and Ice Core data prove it conclusively.

Some day, you'll find somebody who wants to argue this point. Someday. Then, you will have found your useless idiot.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

And now we're in for a big chill despite record industrial output.

Would love to see evidence for this. If you have it. Or is this just your gut feeling?