IGX

Herv100 wrote:

The scientist at the center of the climategate scandal made a rather important admission during an interview with the BBC.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now - suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming.

Herv100 wrote:One of the worlds top climate change scientists said there has been no significant warming in 15 years

Fat Cat wrote:The possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now in NO WAY WHATSOEVER suggests global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. Sorry but you can't get there from here.

milosz wrote:I'm not sure how much of a retard one needs to be to claim that global temps have been cooling for a decade, but:

Fat Cat wrote:

Herv100 wrote:One of the worlds top climate change scientists said there has been no significant warming in 15 years

You will have a hard time seizing the scientific high ground arguing that line.

Thud wrote:Does it really matter what the science says? I have a feeling even if there was certainty we were redlining toward the precipice people woulds still refuse to give up their SUVs, air-conditioners, McMansions, etc.

We're a spineless generation. We deserve an ignominious fate.

Pity for the kids though.

Gene wrote:

milosz wrote:I'm not sure how much of a retard one needs to be to claim that global temps have been cooling for a decade, but:

The trend line looks like a Sine wave, one that has a local Maxima a few years back.

Is that analysis retarded enough for you?

The Crawdaddy wrote:

Gene wrote:

milosz wrote:I'm not sure how much of a retard one needs to be to claim that global temps have been cooling for a decade, but:

The trend line looks like a Sine wave, one that has a local Maxima a few years back.

Is that analysis retarded enough for you?

Perspective is everything. It would be interesting to see this on a multiple century timeline to gain a better long-term perspective.

Of course, the planet's climate has always been in flux thanks to "natural" factors such as changes in solar or volcanic activity, or cycles relating the Earth's orbit around the sun. According to the scientific literature, however, the warming recorded to date matches the pattern of warming we would expect from a build up of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere – not the warming we would expect from other possible causes.

Even if scientists did discover another plausible explanation for the warming observed to date, that would beg a difficult question. As Robert Henson puts it in The Rough Guide to Climate Change:

"If some newly discovered factor can account for the climate change then why aren't carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases producing the warming that basic physics tells us they should be?"

The only way to prove with 100% certainty that humans are responsible for global warming would be to run an experiment with two identical Earths – one with human influence and one without. That obviously isn't possible, and so most scientists are careful not to state human influence as an absolute certainty. Nonetheless, the evidence is now extremely strong.

The Crawdaddy wrote:

Turdacious wrote:Re human caused climate change-- one study says there's a 66% chance it happened; and another says there's no correlation. Which one is right?

Statistical analysis is like that: You get a different answer from the data when you ask different questions or different data sets. Guaranteed that both were different, so they probably both were in some way.

Turdacious wrote:

The Crawdaddy wrote:

Turdacious wrote:Re human caused climate change-- one study says there's a 66% chance it happened; and another says there's no correlation. Which one is right?

Statistical analysis is like that: You get a different answer from the data when you ask different questions or different data sets. Guaranteed that both were different, so they probably both were in some way.

Of course. Which is why you, as an applied scientist type, would use such pseudo scientific analytical nonsense for designing a tin can for squids-- unless you really didn't care whether they lived or died.

Thud wrote:

Of course, the planet's climate has always been in flux thanks to "natural" factors such as changes in solar or volcanic activity, or cycles relating the Earth's orbit around the sun. According to the scientific literature, however, the warming recorded to date matches the pattern of warming we would expect from a build up of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere – not the warming we would expect from other possible causes.

Even if scientists did discover another plausible explanation for the warming observed to date, that would beg a difficult question. As Robert Henson puts it in The Rough Guide to Climate Change:

"If some newly discovered factor can account for the climate change then why aren't carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases producing the warming that basic physics tells us they should be?"

The only way to prove with 100% certainty that humans are responsible for global warming would be to run an experiment with two identical Earths – one with human influence and one without. That obviously isn't possible, and so most scientists are careful not to state human influence as an absolute certainty. Nonetheless, the evidence is now extremely strong.

And such is the conundrum of prudence. There are those who'll sacrifice nothing until something is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, and such proof will never be possible, however dire the outcome.

It's like coming upon a football coach ass pounding a child in the locker room and declaring one needs more data before they can decide if they should stop it or not. After all, what if it's not as detrimental as some might suggest?

The Crawdaddy wrote:Not convinced EVs are the best route. That energy still comes from somewhere, and depending on where you are pulling the juice to power the battery, it may actually be worse than a car since major portions of the grid are still coal-powered. I won't attempt to reproduce all of the data here, but this link has some good info about sources etc.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =110997398

PC Polar Circle Person wrote:I buy only certified renewable energy (wind and water) and would like to run my car on that too. The taxation is totally fucked up for that here in Finland, but my next car will still be E. I'm just waiting for a good enough E-car to become available. I realize there isn't enough renewable E for everything, but where there is a will there is a way. Currently that will is lacking and we continue on a dead end road bickering and arguing about irrelevant shit, like global warming.

Gene wrote:

PC Polar Circle Person wrote:I buy only certified renewable energy (wind and water) and would like to run my car on that too. The taxation is totally fucked up for that here in Finland, but my next car will still be E. I'm just waiting for a good enough E-car to become available. I realize there isn't enough renewable E for everything, but where there is a will there is a way. Currently that will is lacking and we continue on a dead end road bickering and arguing about irrelevant shit, like global warming.

Electric cars were around in the early 1900s. I don't know what exactly pushed them to the side. Probably the amount of energy that you can get out of a gallon of gasoline versus the amount of energy you can store in a battery. A battery which weighs roughly the same charged or empty. A battery which ages and has to be replaced every so often.

Wonder how much "Certified Renewable Energy" is in fossil fuel inputs? Even a wind mill requires preventative maintenance and someone has to burn fossil fuels to get there.

PC Polar Circle Person wrote:Besides, my iggloo is about to fuckin' melt.

Gene wrote:

Thud wrote:

Of course, the planet's climate has always been in flux thanks to "natural" factors such as changes in solar or volcanic activity, or cycles relating the Earth's orbit around the sun. According to the scientific literature, however, the warming recorded to date matches the pattern of warming we would expect from a build up of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere – not the warming we would expect from other possible causes.

Even if scientists did discover another plausible explanation for the warming observed to date, that would beg a difficult question. As Robert Henson puts it in The Rough Guide to Climate Change:

"If some newly discovered factor can account for the climate change then why aren't carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases producing the warming that basic physics tells us they should be?"

The only way to prove with 100% certainty that humans are responsible for global warming would be to run an experiment with two identical Earths – one with human influence and one without. That obviously isn't possible, and so most scientists are careful not to state human influence as an absolute certainty. Nonetheless, the evidence is now extremely strong.

And such is the conundrum of prudence. There are those who'll sacrifice nothing until something is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, and such proof will never be possible, however dire the outcome.

It's like coming upon a football coach ass pounding a child in the locker room and declaring one needs more data before they can decide if they should stop it or not. After all, what if it's not as detrimental as some might suggest?

So if it turns out that there is no Human Caused Global Warming but we get "Global Governance" that degenerates into a tyranny which one of you dumbass Progressives is gonna put a stop to that?