Scientists predict a century of global cooling

**The Don** · 02-01-2014, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Unless you have read those reports you cannot say whether or not they support AGW which is the real term for global warming/climate change. The vast majority of scientists admit global warming exists, the debate is over whether man causes global warming or to what extent.

That's a really poor argument. That type of thinking can be applied to literally anything. Me having not read nearly 4,000 research papers doesn't make the source any less credible. If we follow that line of thinking, and you're suggesting those statistics are a lie, Why can't the same also be said for anything you provide? Have you read all the reports Mockton mentions? In fact, if we follow that line of thought, how do we know the reports themselves aren't made up? Saying "well have you read it" doesn't make it any less true, I can find many sources, there is virtually unanimous scientific agreement that human-caused climate change is real. Now, are you prepared to actually discuss the fact that most scientists agree on it? If not please stop wasting my time.

Here's a quote from the United States National Research Council...

here is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. * * * Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities

A lot of scientists who dismiss AGW are hounded out of the profession and threatened, and it's not surprising given that a lot of funding to science departments comes from global warming. Governments and companies are only going to pay for what they want to hear.

What's more likely, either majority of scientists are all part of some elaborate conspiracy to get some of that sweet tax money for funding, or a small percentage are shills paid off by big oil companies? Common sense suggests the latter.

Personally I prefer to take what the pro-AGW people say in private - such as the Climategate I incident where emails from the pro-AGW University of East Anglia were leaked where a senior department head was caught saying (in private) that there has been no warming

"A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming."

Caught out yet none of them lost their jobs and the scam continues. It did however dramatically change how the media view global warming and thankfully the entire scam is starting to fall apart.

Ergh, see above...

How have you come to the 90% figure? Have you interviewed all scientists and asked them what their opinion is? No. Nobody has.

Can you not remember that big pretty graph I posted for you earlier? Ignoring something doesn't make it go away, Dan.

But here's a huge list you probably didn't know about of scientists who disagree with AGW - http://climatescienceinternational.o...d=37&Itemid=54

What's your point? Here's a huge list of scientific ORGANISATIONS which endorse the consensus.

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK

None of which you'll ever hear on the BBC, which is one of the reasons why broadcaster David Bellamy is never seen on the BBC anymore simply because he dare disagree with the consensus on global warming.

Or because they're not credible?

Nice try Dan, but skipping essential points of an argument doesn't make yours any stronger.

Vodafone · 03-01-2014, 06:02 AM

I agree strongly with "The Don". I live in Australia, where in 2013 all records were broken, for the hottest day on record, hottest week, hottest month, and it was the hottest year since records began.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...103-308ek.html

What future does Australia have though when all three Environmental bodies were dismantled when the ignorant conservative government came into power.

David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne, said 2013 was "an unprecedented year" for Australia not least because it came in a period without an El Nino weather pattern over the Pacific. The so-called El Nino-Southern Oscillation - which typically warms up eastern Australia in particular - remained in neutral through the year, and continues to do so.
‘‘These record high temperatures for Australia in 2013 cannot be explained by natural variability alone," Professor Karoly said. "This event could not have happened without increasing greenhouse gases, without climate change."

Pollution doesn't affect the environment one bit, it's all "lies".

karter · 03-01-2014, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by Vodafone

Pollution doesn't affect the environment one bit, it's all "lies".

Uhhhhh what

I think you meant climate and not environment.......

Daltron · 03-01-2014, 08:09 AM

I've always thought people who try to dismiss climate change as happening or human induced to be a little unstable mentally..

Ardemax · 03-01-2014, 06:04 PM

Posted by Anonymous to Twitter. I think it's quite a good point.

**GommeInc** · 03-01-2014, 10:48 PM

I think scientists should make up their minds. They debunked global warming and opted for climate change, then they go back on their original report saying it is global warming after that fiasco - then you get researchers in the UK being caught falsifying reports (which was reported in The Guardian, through the BBC all the way through the political level making its way into Parliament). I find the debate tedious at best, when annual reports suggest little warming has happened, and many suggest it's down to natural occurrences and not man - because once you leave an ice age what do you get? Warmth... heat... Also isn't history littered with sudden heat spells which were completely unexplained? I can't help but follow what historians have to say - not scientists who seem to change their opinion every year.

**-:Undertaker:-** · 08-01-2014, 11:24 AM