Re: Copenhagen - PLEASE sign!!
[QUOTE=DIDI;816809]Glad you read the important parts of my post. By the way have you checked his sources??
For everyone of these deniers there are hundreds, if not thousands of reputable scientists who passionately believe that climate change is very real. I have to ask why do you choose not to believe what you can see all around you if you will only look. It is not about who can use words better it's about things that are happening in the world now.
Here we have just had the hottest and wettest November in recorded history . Pacific islands are already severely affected by rising ocean levels. I heard this from actual habitant of one at the walk against warming march last week. [URL]http://www.tuvaluislands.com/warming.htm[/URL]
This probably Autralia's peak scientific body .
[URL="http://www.csiro.au/resources/pfbg.html"]http://www.csiro.au/science/Changing-Climate.html[/URL]
[URL]http://www.csiro.au/resources/pfbg.html[/URL]
Another question . Is there anything I could say that would make you change your mind??[/QUOTE]
The Tuvalu Islands are more probably losing height because of the extraction of drinking water from their bottoms, not a rising sea-level. [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html"]Article[/URL]
Other than that I'm simply not buying this whole catastrophic man-made warming scheme, it reeks too much of much of money, politics and religious dogmatic thinking. Economically and ideologically driven tunnelvision to the max IMO.
-
the climate changes, has always changed and always will be changing. There have been spikes and dips in the earth's temperature much worse which have occurred on much more radical speeds. Just because we can consciously monitor such a change doesn't mean anything, and aren't we suffing from some god-complex by deciding that we will not let the earth's atmosphere warm up by more than 2 degrees celcius? What if mother nature decides it's time for a tropical intermezzo or a new little Ice Age. Hm? Watcha gonna do, human? [URL="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/"]Temperature charts past 4000 years[/URL]
-
Data shows that the earth's temperature charts have much more correlation with the activity of our sun instead of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. In fact, data shows that the CO2 levels follow temperature changes with a delay of approx. 800 years. Changing levels are the [B]result[/B] of temp changes, not the other way around. [URL="http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html"]Ice core data showing CO2 values lag[/URL]
-
the pack of emails from CRU that was hacked and published uncovers a high degree of manipulation from 'climatologists' (which isn't even a real science). No matter how your look at the contents of the mails, people have been lying to keep control over the information flow to the public. And that is unforgiveable. Data has been used extremely selectively or has been left out of the equation where it did not support the story unprecedented global warming. Climate skeptical scientists have been kept out of the official publication bodies so as to create an image of consensus among their readers. [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=3"]NY Times[/URL], [URL="http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails?cid=exrss-Climate-Change-Examiner"]Examiner[/URL], [URL="http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html"]Bishop Hill[/URL]. [URL="http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%E2%80%99s-nature-trick/"]Mike's nature trick[/URL] > creating a hockey stick graph by selectively using data and showing an incomplete graph [URL="http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#more-9483"]Another article on the Trick[/URL]
-
Above has also shows to me that these so-called scientists have been very unscientific in their apprach by not following the real scientific modus operandi which is, when a theory is formulated, proving its value by trying to falsify (unprove) it. As long as that doesn't happen, the theory stands. Not by excluding dissenting views and data from co-scientists. Ergo: by not working according to scientific standards, the involved scientists and institutions have disqualified themselves as a reliable source.
-
money money money, just follow the smell. It's not only the people that work in the field of climatology that have an interest in keeping the flow going, but also corporations and politicians. The market for CO2 ER was already $126Bln in 2008 and is only expected to grow exponentially once a new ER quotum has been established. Because any 'good' which can be measured in units and scarcity can be labelled with a price tag, and therefore it can be traded. 90% of of last years ER transactions has been labelled fraudulous, and it's not the common guy on the street who has profit here. There is a whole new industry developing here which is based on the trade in non-physical units, the right to emit certain quantities of CO2. Here's one of the beneficiaries of this system: Rajenda Pachauri [URL="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=118659"]1[/URL] [URL="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=119061"]2[/URL] A
[URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8395514.stm"]BBC broadcast[/URL] on the programmes used to create CRU's temperature models.
[URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/07/taking_liberties/entry5925940.shtml"]CBS article[/URL]
[URL="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-450-skeptical-peer-reviewed-papers/"]450 skeptical peer reviewed papers[/URL]
I could go on for another while because there is so much to read and say about this but I think you should just read up on this thing. There's a lot of spin from both sides but to me the weight of lying scientists displaying almost religiously dogmatic behaviour in combination with extremely large economic interests is enough to make me doubt the motives of all involved in the alarmist campaign.
We've been actively studying weather patterns for maybe the last 150 years on a planet that has been around for a 6 billion years or so and suddenly, for the sheer fact that we are consciously able to detect structural change in our environment, we decide that this perceived change is wrong? Not only that, we think that it is our behaviour that is decisive in wether the change is natural or unnatural...and then on the Copenhagen summit we decide that we will not let the global temperature rise more than 2 critical degrees celcius. Talk about a 'god-complex'...deciding how the planet's climate should behave and resolving to actually 'manage' its temperature as if it were a pan with water on an electric cooking plate. Things may be changing, but who are we to decide what change is acceptable and what change is not?
Oh, and when, ever, is anyone going to give me numbers on those 'majorities of scientists' every alarmist is talking about all the time? And knowing that skeptical people have been bullied out of the literature on climate, or into silenty going with the alarmist flow out of fear of losing their job and livelyhood, and knowing that even the IPCC put names of skeptics on the list of contributors to their reports, how can I even trust these numbers? Hm?