Scientists predict a century of global cooling

[-:Undertaker:-]

Because that picture is so accurate

Uh that's because they've brought it closer to show the size difference. Either way, it's huge and we are tiny. Just remembered this anyway, some may find this a laugh. A warmist vs Monckton -

[Daltron]

Don could do with reading a few of those. Well done Andrew Neil - and interestingly enough, some of the abuse he had back in response to him JUST asking question was the same kind of abuse I had from Daltron in this thread. How strange.

Sorry. I didn't realise I was hurting you, i'll stop making comments about your view on global warming.

[Kardan]

Uh that's because they've brought it closer to show the size difference. Either way, it's huge and we are tiny. Just remembered this anyway, some may find this a laugh. A warmist vs Monckton -

Indeed, but we're not next door to it

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

That page has a lovely CO2 graph... And your response will be something like 'We had cycles of global warming before the industrial revolution' - we did, but as you can see from the CO2 levels, that was a lovely cycle, untampered with by human influence - now that humans are pumping tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, look at the levels rise.

Yes, the Earth has cycles of warming and cooling, as you say, that's naturally going to happen - but now, our influence is starting to become greater than the natural cycle - we can either try to stop that, or listen to people that have your opinions, and just carry on and ignore the evidence. What happens? Well, data suggests the Earth will heat up...

[-:Undertaker:-]

Indeed, but we're not next door to it

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

That page has a lovely CO2 graph... And your response will be something like 'We had cycles of global warming before the industrial revolution' - we did, but as you can see from the CO2 levels, that was a lovely cycle, untampered with by human influence - now that humans are pumping tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, look at the levels rise.

Yes, the Earth has cycles of warming and cooling, as you say, that's naturally going to happen - but now, our influence is starting to become greater than the natural cycle - we can either try to stop that, or listen to people that have your opinions, and just carry on and ignore the evidence. What happens? Well, data suggests the Earth will heat up...

And this is a lovely graph too.



Or this presentation where Professor Ian Clark points out that C02 doesn't *always* cause warming and that infact the temperature of the Earth is linke to solar activity instead.

All different graphs can be produced on both sides, and even using dodgy data techniques such as the IPCC uses (see the Monckton Congressional hearing). I would prefer to use common sense - like the fact that we've had past warming and cooling periods before humans were even around and certainly before we had the Industrial Revolution. I could also make the point about how strange it is that despite China and India pumping out huge increasing amounts of CO2 since 1990 onwards, the temperature over the past decade has cooled and not warmed.

As for the second part, you say we can carry on and ignore the evidence yet the only evidence your side have put forth have been computer models and predictions whereas I have facts such as the temperature in decline along with growing sea ice on my side - which the scientists have just got stuck in. So who really is ignoring the evidence? I would suggest you.

Furthermore, even if the models did turn out to be correct then a warming of global temperatures would be beneficial as would be an increase in CO2 as food productivity would increase and any disadvantages could be offset by adapting to the climate change, ie raising sea barriers. On top of that, again in the Monckton slides, halting warming (if we assume it is happening as projected) by virtually closing down our economy would make little or no difference.

So my stace is the practical one. That is, judging by history we are not having an affect. That we should look at what is actually happening as opposed to what is predicted to happen by computer models. If the models turn out to be correct and thus the UN's own figures are correct, then the only economical and sensible solution would be to adapt rather than try to fight what you cannot fight.

[The Don]

Lol that list of 'scientists' (bachelors in geology which is often required to go into the oil industry) is made up mostly of oil CEOs and executives, hardly scientists. I randomly googled 5 names off the list and 4 happened to work for big energy companies, extremely bias and definitely not academically scientists.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Lol that list of 'scientists' (bachelors in geology which is often required to go into the oil industry) is made up mostly of oil CEOs and executives, hardly scientists. I randomly googled 5 names off the list and 4 happened to work for big energy companies, extremely bias and definitely not academically scientists.

So do many of the AGW people - as well as many having jobs in 'green industries' aka recieving large paychecks from the taxpayer in subsidies for windfarms etc. As Andrew Neil made the point of.

[The Don]

But you haven't read the reports supporting it either. Neither of us are scientists, much less data analysts - that's why Monckton is so convicing even when he uses the UN's own data models to show that even if global warming was man made and even if the UN's predictions are correct, then the best course of action is to do nothing and simply adapt to any changes.

But the point is that somebody else has read those reports, unless of course you're suggesting they are lying, which brings me back to the point of that being applicable to literally anything you disagree with. Unless you have reason to believe that they are false, there's no reason to not treat them as true.

Now that to me sounds like a far more rational argument rather than embarking on taxation and regulation which, if followed through, will destroy western economies.

It's hardly destroying western economies, stop sensationalising everything.

The link I post to your paragraph below also addresses the 97pc claim you make.

Ah, skimming over the 97% part because it completely obliterates any credibility to your argument. The list you provided isn't full of scientists, in fact a lot of them don't have degrees (not sure how they are scientists then?) and a large portion of them are linked to big oil companies, like I previously mentioned. Let's take some names from the list and see what we find...

List

1. David Archibald

A Geologist for Summa Development Limited and Associated with the Lavoisier Group, which receives funding from the coal and oil industry.
Lavoisier Source (scroll down to his article) Source 2

2. Leon Ashby
A Dairy Farmer from South Australia (not exactly an academic scientist)

3. Timothy F. Ball
Scientific advisor to Exxon-Funded Friends of Science
Another Source

4. E. Calvin Beisner
Ah, an extremist christian nut who uses the concept of stewardship as a denial tactic

Many people believe that “nature knows best,” or that the earth—untouched by human hands—is the ideal. Such romanticism leads some to deify nature or oppose human dominion over creation. Our position, informed by revelation and confirmed by reason and experience, views human stewardship that unlocks the potential in creation for all the earth’s inhabitants as good.

Wow, such science.

5. William M. Briggs
Debunked here


6.Robert M. Carter
Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 "as part of a program to pay 'high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message"

7.Paul Chesser
Speaker at the think tank 'Hearland' which has received over $700,000 from Exxon Mobil between 1998 and 2006.
Page 3 has $30,000 Donation listed (at the bottom) amongst the receipts
Link to all the rest

8.Roy Cordato
Background in Music and Economics (not climate science) and has links to Heartland (previously mentioned big oil funded company)
Starting to see a pattern here....

9.Richard S. Courtney
Numerous links to Heartland

10.David Legates
Links yet again to Heartland Institute, and also CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute) which has links to Exxon, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, as well as countless others.

That's just 10 "Scientists" from that list which you provided. Now that your source has been debunked, could you please provide a more credible argument to explain why majority of scientists agree that climate change is real? I ask again once more, what's more likely, Thousands of scientists are part of some elaborate conspiracy (which one would think to have been exposed by now since so many parties would be involved) or a few are shills paid off by big oil (see my above list for just a few examples)

Actually the pro-global warming scientists and bodies recieve far more in oil funding than the climate sceptics do.

Gonna need some citations for that right there Dan.

But to answer this along with the above claim that the majority of scientists agree with global warming aka the "97% argument" James Delingpole provides rebuttals in this article to both argument, full of links - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...big-oil-shock/

James Delingpole is an idiot and has been debunked extremely well here

No, Delingpole hasn’t got the time or the expertise to actually read the science, only the time to make up stuff

Any other response to this point?

Sounds to me like a cop out.

Based on what? Your gut feeling? "sounds like a cop out" isn't a suitable response (without backing it up) in a debate, Dan.

The only reason why these claims were found out was because of the emails being hacked by Russian hackers - had they not hacked these oh so truthworthy scientists, then none of it wouldn't have got out. They got caught out telling lies and you can read everything they said online.

Going round in roundabouts, completely miss the source I provided? The one where it shows it has been dismissed countless times as it was taken grossly out of context. Or are we now not debating upon fact? Or have you got some sources which counter the ones I provided earlier?

Been debunked, see -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...lunder-on.html

ok, so the only mention of the 97% argument in this article is

The air is already thick with familiar claims and counterclaims, President Obama quotes yet another laughably silly paper trying to make out that “97 per cent of scientists” support the IPCC “consensus”

Other than calling it 'silly' I see no other mention of it in the article, so please tell me how simply calling something you disagree with as silly is equal to debunking it...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...big-oil-shock/

Same article as before, Debunked up above....

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...nge-read-this/

Same guy, exact same premise and requires the exact same response which i've already provided, since the guy who is slandering the 97% argument admits in the source i've provided that he didn't actually read any of the papers. Try harder Dan.

My point is that there are many scientific organisations and scientists who disagree with the so-called climate consensus

Nope, the list you provided isn't full of scientists, many are mathematicians, lawyers and there's even a farmer on there. Again, the overwhelming majority of scientists all agree, providing lists full of big oil shills doesn't somehow counter this.

I could post lists of these types of organisations, indeed I did with the Manhattan Delcaration list.

Debunked above.

Who says so? In other words, a whole bunch of scientific organisations, environmentalists and scientists disagree with AGW... yet they aren't credible just because they don't fit into your belief system or that of the BBC. Right, okay.

*yawn* see above, there's not a 'whole bunch' of academic scientific organisations, and the few that are, are also the underwhelming majority, and more often than not have ties to energy companies that bribe them.

All you've done is post graphs and links from debunked arguments. Next you'll be posting the (debunked) hockey stick graph and shouting "LOOK LOOK I TOLD YA SO"

I've been providing actual sources for my arguments which is a whole lot better than relying on my gut feeling and downright refusing to believe the evidence i'm provided (without reason).

[FlyingJesus]

You can still grow grapes in Scotland

[Kardan]

And this is a lovely graph too.



Or this presentation where Professor Ian Clark points out that C02 doesn't *always* cause warming and that infact the temperature of the Earth is linke to solar activity instead.

All different graphs can be produced on both sides, and even using dodgy data techniques such as the IPCC uses (see the Monckton Congressional hearing). I would prefer to use common sense - like the fact that we've had past warming and cooling periods before humans were even around and certainly before we had the Industrial Revolution. I could also make the point about how strange it is that despite China and India pumping out huge increasing amounts of CO2 since 1990 onwards, the temperature over the past decade has cooled and not warmed.

As for the second part, you say we can carry on and ignore the evidence yet the only evidence your side have put forth have been computer models and predictions whereas I have facts such as the temperature in decline along with growing sea ice on my side - which the scientists have just got stuck in. So who really is ignoring the evidence? I would suggest you.

Furthermore, even if the models did turn out to be correct then a warming of global temperatures would be beneficial as would be an increase in CO2 as food productivity would increase and any disadvantages could be offset by adapting to the climate change, ie raising sea barriers. On top of that, again in the Monckton slides, halting warming (if we assume it is happening as projected) by virtually closing down our economy would make little or no difference.

So my stace is the practical one. That is, judging by history we are not having an affect. That we should look at what is actually happening as opposed to what is predicted to happen by computer models. If the models turn out to be correct and thus the UN's own figures are correct, then the only economical and sensible solution would be to adapt rather than try to fight what you cannot fight.

That graph shows nothing. We're talking about GLOBAL warming, not central England warming.

Heck, that graph compares temperatures in central England to global levels of CO2 - that graph is absolutely ****! You might as well show me a graph linking CO2 levels of Japan and the number of Dogs living in Iceland - would probably mean the same thing as that graph does.

And would you like to provide a source for your statement that 'The global temperature over the last decade has decreased' - because all the sources and data I'm looking at show an increase of global temperature in the 2000s.

And judging by history, humans are having an impact. Look at the data for CO2 levels, they've just shot up since 1950 and haven't done anything like that for the rest of recorded history - so I'm not sure where you're getting this 'Judging by history' stuff from, since we can only look at the last 200 years or so of data.