Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Global warming as big a threat as the Nazis, says Gore

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 08 July 2009
CLIMATE change poses as great a threat to civilisation as the Nazis did during the Second World War, former US vice-president Al Gore said yesterday.
He also claimed that public awareness about the "catastrophe" of climate change is not high enough to pressure politicians into taking action

Mr Gore, who shared a Nobel Prize in 2007 for his environmental campaigning and brought mass awareness o
f climate change with his 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth, said politicians will only do more once the people who elect them force the issue.

He insisted that voters needed to tell leaders they must act on the environmental concerns if countries are to strike a new deal on global warming at UN climate talks in Denmark later this year.

In a speech at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment in Oxford, Mr Gore evoked the global threat posed by Nazi Germany in the Second World War.

He said: "Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilisation.

"The only way we can get one (a consensus] is if politicians in each country act and the only way that can happen is if awareness rises to the level to make them feel it is a necessity.

"We can berate politicians for not doing enough and for compromising too much and for not being bold in addressing this existential threat to civilisation.

"But the reason they don't is because the level of concern still has not risen to cross the threshold that makes the political leaders feel they must address it."

Countries will meet in the Copenhagen in December to try to agree a global deal to restrict man-made climate change.

It follows claims by scientists that global warming is taking place at a quicker pace than previously thought and will lead to more diseases, flooding, extreme weather and crop failures.

Preparatory talks on planned emissions cuts have stumbled on rows between rich countries and poor states, who say they did the least to contribute to global warming, but will suffer the most from the consquences.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 July 2009 11:36 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

Fifi la Bonbon,

08/07/2009 00:16:41
No it isn't, the size of the threat is six times as big as Wales. Climate change doesn't pose a threat to civilisation, it poses a challenge. We need to work with and around it.

Still, everybody go around carrying those stupid overpriced cloth shopping bags that you can't even use to clear up your dog's mess and think you're doing your bit for the environment.
2

BROONISDOOMED,

PITS OF HELL 08/07/2009 00:34:19
so global warming will attack us,Blitzkrieg us by wave after wave of attacks?,no just someone scaring us with ,the global warming bogie man cometh?
if it was as bad as nazis,how come i havent heard any sounds of jackboots marching down the street?,oh maybe it was a BNP meeting
no more ACHTUNG ACHTUNG,or SEIG HEIL SEIG HEIL,just a morning newspaper,scaring some of its readers wide awake
as #1 stated,whats the use of a cloth bag when dealing with rovers bowel movements?
when i see all these people carrying one,i wonder whats going through their minds "oh im doing MY bit" yeah looking like a hippies shoulder bag,what next vegtable rights and peace protests?
3

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 08/07/2009 00:37:59
He said: "Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilisation.

Good God, I hope he's not trying to envisage a "Winston" Brown.
4

2dogs in D.C.,

08/07/2009 00:43:37
Well,I have it on good authority that global warming is planning on rounding up suv drivers and other dissidents and placing them in "work"camps.
5

Yankee girl,

California 08/07/2009 00:51:28
#4, Thank goodness I drive a small sports car!
6

Ronald Penman,

Glasgow 08/07/2009 01:04:46
.....but not half as big a threat to civilisation as
one G Brown and NEW LABOUR !
7

Mercutio,

FALKIRK 08/07/2009 01:17:56
The climate change fascists like Gore supported by the BBC are the biggest threats.
8

Tom in DC,

08/07/2009 02:37:45
Gore is a blow-hard loser. Anytime a politician has to reach for the N-word (Nazi) to describe something with no earthly connection (pardon the pun) to German National Socialism or its tenets, it's a sign of intellectual bankruptcy.
To say it Britain, where there are still survivors of the Blitz who know what Nazism really meant, is boorish.
9

Pretzel Logic,

08/07/2009 03:25:51
Gore has lost any credibility he might have had left.
10

DunCraig,

Brisbane 08/07/2009 03:55:20
#9 He never had any to start with! Gore and his eco-nazi disciples are a bigger threat to civilsation and would happily see the rest of us living in caves, again, while they live the high life at our expense!
11

syntax,

Edinburgh 08/07/2009 03:56:38
Gore never had any credibility - he was always a pratt. Any person who can live in a mansion house the size of his, and who guzzles electricity is in no position to spout forth about global warming, or anything else for that matter !!
12

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 08/07/2009 06:10:20
Gore and his buddy Hansen were the goons who started this nonsense back in 1988.
What is clear is that he is looking after the profits of his carbon trading company.
Climate changes as it has always done - get used to it.
13

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 08/07/2009 06:46:20
'Increased precipitation intensity and variability are projected to increase the risks of flooding and drought in many areas.'

- IPCC 2008

Elsewhere on this page:

'India hit by water crisis as Monsoon rains fail to appear'

No comment.
14

eyeswider,

08/07/2009 07:01:38


http://thereisnoevidence.com

15

Euan,

Edinburgh 08/07/2009 07:05:11
Enough is enough, Al Gore needs to be forced to stop spreading his lies about so called 'climate change'.

How he can even compare his made-up fantasies about something that isn't even fact to the Nazi threat in WW2 is absolutely disgusting.

Here is a man who is largely responsible in recent years of plugging one of the biggest cons in mankind's history and as a result of his scaremongering, we are all now having to pay through the nose in increased taxes for decades to come - and for what? - simple, to satisfy politicians hunger for false 'green' votes.

Hang your head in shame Mr Gore.
16

Phil C,

08/07/2009 08:05:24
"Global warming as big a threat as the Nazis, says Gore" I didn't realize that the Nazis are a big threat.

A better headline would be "Most Scotsman posters stick heads firmly in sand"
17

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 08:16:46
This is Gore framing the whole climate change scam in terms of the Nazis. And guess what, we are the "deniers".

Well I have news for you Al. Despite all of your efforts to indoctrinate the masses, the public are being turned off by your ever-increasingly catastrophic predictions which are manifestly failing to materialise.
18

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 08/07/2009 08:22:03
"Global warming as big a threat as the Nazis, says Gore"

A big a threat to what and in what was as the Nazis?

Or is this the indoctrination that connaughtboy above is telling of?

Make it emotive (yeah, I know making science emotional and subjective - very clever):

Nazis = Halocaust
GW Deniers = Halocaust denier
Halocaust deniers = a crime
DW deniers therefore = a crime.

Please, we have more important things to think about than Gores portfolio.
19

Pocket Dictionary,

08/07/2009 08:24:35

He needs the $ from his scare mongering to pay his leckie bill.
20

Jam Tarts 1874,

On the Rebound 08/07/2009 08:53:04
The threat to the world's economy could certainly be tested almost as much as during a world war. Particularly if we continue down the current path of squandering money on hapeless attempts to reduce carbon emissions.

The estimate of the current panic measures run into trillions of dollars. All of it wasted! The ice-caps are melting and have been for thousands of years, they will continue to melt regardless of how much man-made carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere - it's a normal part of the Earth's cycle. Therefore all this money should be directed at moving vunerable communities away from low lying areas and improving sea defences.
21

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/07/2009 09:00:04
#20 Jam Tarts 1874

"it's a normal part of the Earth's cycle"

Really? Perhaps you would like to present us with any evidence for that statement? Or is it that repeating a meaningless mantra like that is your way of sticking a paper bag over your head so you can't see what is happening around you and therefore don't need to concern yourself with it.
22

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/07/2009 09:08:57
#14 eyeswider

The main thrust of the Dr David Evans article to which you link is this:

"if the radiosondes had detected the strong hotspot predicted by the IPCC climate models then that would have been strong evidence--but instead the observed lack of hotspot demonstrates that the water vapor feedback is weak or negative."

Thus, Evans's argument is that warming due to CO2 should cause a "hotspot" in the tropical troposphere. He claims the hotspot is missing.

He is wrong on two points. Firstly, the "hotspot" should be present whatever the cause of warming, therefore its presence or absence is not a measure of the efficacy of CO2. Secondly, the hotspot is not actually missing. See, for example:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopshere-ii/

That causes much of Evans article to fall flat on its face.
23

Mcsnagpile,

08/07/2009 09:09:00
Why was Hitler a threat to civilisation??
Rocketships
Jet air craft
Synthetic rubber
Coal to oil
Nuclear power etc etc etc.

I am sure he would have found a solution to so called global warming--- like stop excessive oil exports to the USA and force the USA to sign the Kyoto protocol agreement.
Bringing up old chestnuts is a cheap trick.

The two world wars were unnecessary and bankrupt the UK and Europe. Hopefully Europe has learned its lesson
24

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 08/07/2009 09:20:22
Al Bore has had his fun but it is costing the rest of us a considerable amount of heard-earned through "green" (i.e. general) taxes and "carbon offsets" (largely offset into large accounts in Gore's company).

The Nazi reference is a really cheap trick in an attempt to camp up the problem. Sorry that didn't work. All it does is to stoke Gordon Churchhill's fantasies about being a great leader and saviour.

Little wonder "poor" countries are keen on ever-bigger handouts as this perpetuates the myth and inflates despots' bank accounts endelessly. Time to get real and treat these moronic fools with the contempt they deserve.
25

sceptic,

livingston 08/07/2009 09:26:38
Here we go again into the twelfth year since global temperatures peaked. A few years back we were told by Slioch and the global warming brigade that if we just had an elementary knowledge of arithmetic and applied it to the statistics, as the Met Office do, we should see that the trend was up and not down. Then the "smoothed" Met Office graph turned decisively down.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html
And Slioch the Prnceps Mathematicorum of these threads explained? It is a statistical quirk due to the "smoothing" method. He then assured us that "it would soon be reversed". No supporting evidence produced, of course!
26

John Cameron,

St Andrews 08/07/2009 09:30:53
Why does anyone listen to this failed political git? There are amoeba on Mars with a greater knowledge of Physics than Fat Al. Global Warming is as credible as the Millenium Bug and comes from the same sort of loonies.
27

Stan Butler,

08/07/2009 09:47:35

There is no doubt that weather patterns are changing.

There is equally no doubt that weather patterns have changed throughout the time the earth has existed. It's what they do.

There is doubt that the current change in weather patterns has been caused primarily by human activity.

Perhaps we're not that powerful in the overall scheme of things.

28

,

08/07/2009 09:48:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 08/07/2009 10:03:07
The only parallels I would draw between "climate change" and the nazis is that it is the latter day nazis who are perpetrating it.
30

seanie,

08/07/2009 10:19:37
The 21st century ain't looking cooler so far;

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

Averaging the HADCRU anomolies over eight year periods results in the following;

1969-1976: - 0.057
1977-1984: + 0.046
1985-1992: + 0.123
1993-2000: + 0.269
2001-2008: + 0.428

When average temperatures go up, that's called warming.
31

seanie,

08/07/2009 10:21:50
1998 was a very hot year, probably the hottest individual year since records began, but average temperatures have risen since then.

The last five years were warmer than the five before, which in turn were warmer than the five before them.

1990-1999 is the hottest complete decade in the instrumental record, but the decade we're currently in, 2000-2009 is going to surpass it.
32

seanie,

08/07/2009 10:22:38
The smoothed HADCRU average going back to 1988.

1988 - 0.122
1989 - 0.136
1990 - 0.149
1991 - 0.162
1992 - 0.177
1993 - 0.194
1994 - 0.215
1995 - 0.24
1996 - 0.267
1997 - 0.295
1998 - 0.323
1999 - 0.348
2000 - 0.37
2001 - 0.389
2002 - 0.403
2003 - 0.413
2004 - 0.419
2005 - 0.42
2006 - 0.419
2007 - 0.415
2008 - 0.411

You'll see it has dropped from the highpoint in 2005 but it's higher than the start of the century and the figures towards the end of the series are increasingly provisional. Given the temperature in 2008 was depressed by a strong La Nina, the smoothed anomaly will most likely be revised upwards over the next few years.
33

Itchy,

08/07/2009 10:23:13
"CLIMATE change poses as great a threat to civilisation as the Nazis did during the Second World War, former US vice-president Al Gore said yesterday."

Not quite. It is 'climate change' eco-communists and eco-fascists who pose the threat by recommending Communism and Fascism to fight 'climate change'.
34

english charlie,

08/07/2009 10:25:09
Only 3% of CO2s are man made. The main causes of CO2s are rotting vegetation, volcanoes erupting, cows f@rting and sheep burping.
35

seanie,

08/07/2009 10:28:03
Volcanoes?

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

"Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year – about a hundredth of human emissions."
36

Erchie Broon,

08/07/2009 10:33:49
If Al Gore's brain was made of chocolate it wouldnt blow his hat off.
37

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/07/2009 10:35:09
#25 sceptic

The smoothing method use by the MET office, to which you refer, uses the annual temperature anomaly values for ten years either side of a particular year to calculate the smoothed value for that year. Thus, the smoothed value for 2008 is calculated using the unsmoothed values of all years from 1998 to 2018. Since, obviously, the values for 2009 to 2018 do not yet exist, the unsmoothed value for 2008 is used instead. That means the smoothed value for 2008 (and other recent years) is provisional and almost certainly wrong.

You state, "[Slioch] then assured us that "it would soon be reversed". No supporting evidence produced, of course!"

I made no such assurance. Instead, I stated a simple mathematical truth: if the average global temperature for the ten years beyond 2008 is greater than that for 2008 then the smoothed value for 2008 will increase. That statement doesn't require "evidence", it is a matter of simple arithmetic. Stating that "if I have ten apples in a bucket and I add five more then I will have fifteen apples" is likewise a matter of simple arithmetic.

But "evidence" that such downturns in the final few years of a generally rising temperature series disappear in future years is available: the same series to which you link showed a similar downturn in smoothed values in the early 1990s. That downturn has now completely disappeared. Whether the present downturn similarly disappears depends on future temperature trends.

It is simply the case that, in a generally rising series (of anything), the last few smoothed values in the series will be lower than their final value. In many ways it would be better were these later smoothed values not shown at all since they cause confusion, as your post amply demonstrates.

38

Yeah1,

08/07/2009 10:37:11
#33

"It is 'climate change' eco-communists and eco-fascists who pose the threat by recommending Communism and Fascism to fight 'climate change'."

Exactly what communist and facist techniques have been recommended?

Is it 'facist' to recycle? Is using non-plastic shopping bags 'communism'?
39

Yeah1,

08/07/2009 10:41:37
There is irrefutable proof of global warming and its worldwide threat.

Thousands of scientists and research institutes have offered scientific evidence of the threat of global warming.

Climate change deniers are rapidly becoming as laughable as those who clung to the 'flat earth' theory despite irrefutable evidence that the world was round.

Let's face it, when the choice is between thousands of experts, scientists and researchers v Jeremy Clarkson, who are you going to believe?
40

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 10:42:05
21 slioch

Just have a look at the Vostok ice core records. The cycle is absolutely clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
41

seanie,

08/07/2009 10:46:15
The VOSTOK ice cores support the idea that the curtrent warming trend is due to the increased levels of atmospheric CO2 due to human activity.
42

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 10:48:35
Two questions for Slioch and Seanie.

1) If average global temperatures are kept to within 2 degrees Celcius of today's average global temperature, will we have avoided catastrophe?

2) What is the optimum average global temperature?
43

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 10:49:12
41 Naughty boy seanie. That is a statement with no supporting evidence.
44

seanie,

08/07/2009 10:49:56
1) Probably.

2)For the species currently inhabiting the earth, temperatures close to what they currently are.
45

seanie,

08/07/2009 10:50:24
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

"At least three careful ice core studies have shown CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no."
46

seanie,

08/07/2009 10:50:37
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

'Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming'

'The ice ages show that temperature can determine CO2 as well as CO2 driving temperature. Some sceptics – not scientists – have seized upon this idea and are claiming that the relation is one way, that temperature determines CO2 levels but CO2 levels do not affect temperature.

To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.'
47

seanie,

08/07/2009 10:50:46
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6231

Misleading argument 3: ’rises in CO2 occur after global warming, not before’

"It is true that the fluctuations in temperatures that caused the ice ages were initiated by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun which, in turn, drove changes in levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is backed up by data from ice cores which show that rises in temperature came first, and were then followed by rises in levels of carbon dioxide up to several hundred years later. The reasons for this, although not yet fully understood, are partly because the oceans emit carbon dioxide as they warm up and absorb it when they cool down and also because soil releases greenhouse gases as it warms up. These increased levels of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere then further enhanced warming,
creating a positive feedback'.

In contrast to this natural process, we know that the recent steep increase in the level of carbon dioxide - some 30 per cent in the last 100 years - is not the result of natural factors. This is because, by chemical analysis, we can tell that the majority of this carbon dioxide has come from the burning of fossil fuels. And, as set out in 'misleading argument 1 ', carbon dioxide from human sources is almost certainly responsible for most of the warming over the last 50 years. There is much evidence that backs up this explanation and none that conflicts with it.

Warming caused by greenhouse gases from human sources could lead to the release of more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by stimulating natural processes and creating a "positive feedback", as described above."
48

seanie,

08/07/2009 10:50:57
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/3.html

"The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming."
49

seanie,

08/07/2009 10:51:07
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/ccm/1007_co2.htm

CO2 as a Feedback and Forcing in the Climate System

"While the lag between temperature and greenhouse gas changes in the paleoclimate record is important in understanding the function of greenhouse gasses in the Earth's climate, and has helped in estimating the effects of CO2 concentrations on radiative forcing, it in no way discredits the conventional knowledge that CO2 is forcing recent changes in the Earth's climate."
50

seanie,

08/07/2009 10:51:26
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

"It seemed that rises or falls in carbon dioxide levels had not initiated the glacial cycles.In fact most scientists had long since abandoned that hypothesis. In the 1960s, painstaking studies had shown that subtle shifts in our planet's orbit around the Sun (called "Milankovitch cycles") set the timing of ice ages. The amount of sunlight that fell in a given latitude and season varied predictably over millenia, altering how long snow ands sea ice lingered in the spring, which crucially affected how much sunlight the surface absorbed. The fact that carbon dioxide levels lagged behind the orbital effect should have been no surprise, since a change in the temperature would change the gas level. For one thing, warmer oceans would evaporate out more gas. For another, as Arctic tundra warmed up it would likewise emit CO2 and methane. The ice cores now showed, as theorists had predicted since the 19th century, that a powerful feedback cycle was amplifying the effect of the cyclical changes in sunlight. Even a small change in the gas level would bring further changes in the global heat balance, which would in turn alter the gas level, which... and so forth. This suggested how tiny shifts in the Earth’s orbit had set the timing of the enormous swings of glacial cycles.

Or, more ominously, how a change in the gas level initiated by humanity might be amplified through a temperature feedback loop. The ancient ice ages were the reverse of our current situation, where humanity was initiating the change by adding greenhouse gases. As the gas level rose, temperature would rise with a time lag — although only a few decades, not centuries, for the rates of change were now enormously faster than the orbital shifts that brought ice ages"
51

seanie,

08/07/2009 10:51:39
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76

"The current understanding of those cycles is that changes in orbital parameters (the Milankovich and other cycles) caused greater amounts of summer sunlight to fall in the northern hemisphere. This is a small forcing, but it caused ice to retreat in the north, which changed the albedo. This change -- reducing the amount of white, reflective ice surface -
led to further warmth, in a feedback effect. Some number of centuries after that process started, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise, which amplified the warming trend even further as an additional feedback mechanism...

...So it is correct that CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it definitely contributed to them -- and according to climate theory and model experiments, greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the magnitude of the ultimate change."
52

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 10:54:13
On the contrary, the Vostok ice core data shows a regular pattern (very regular) of warming and cooling. An ice age comes along every 100,000 years or so followed by a rapid warming which is known as the inter-glacial. This is followed by a long and bumpy cooling as we enter the next ice age.

Notice from my link in #40 above that the CO2 (the green line) LAGS the temperature change (the blue line) by a period of 800 - 1,000 years. CO2 is merely a "spectator".
53

seanie,

08/07/2009 10:57:19
No.

The cyclical pattern is triggered by small changes in orbit. But these small changes are insuffcient in themselves to account for the changes in temperature. That change is predominantly due to feedback effects of CO2. CO2 is a major factor in the temparature pattern.

54

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 11:01:00
To all interested parties, I would like to draw your attention to seanie.

In my post #42 I posed two questions.

In seanie's post # 44 he answered them.

My second question was:

"2) What is the optimum average global temperature?"

seanie's answer was:

"2)For the species currently inhabiting the earth, temperatures close to what they currently are."

Notice two things. seanie claims the optimum temperature is "close to what they are now". How close? +1 degree C? -1 degree C? Secondly, why would anyone believe that we just so happen to be at a climate optimum right now. There is no science that backs this up. It is based upon a "belief", pure and simple.

The final thing I want to point out about the gree zealot seanie, is his propensity to post screeds and screed of "data" without ever really engaging in the discussion. Why does climate science have this effect on otherwise rational people?
55

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 11:04:17
39 Yeah

"There is irrefutable proof of global warming and its worldwide threat"

Maybe so, however there is no such "proof" that it is anthropogenic.
56

seanie,

08/07/2009 11:06:36
The optimum average global temperatur, for species currently inhabiting the earth, is close to what they are today beacuase that's what those species are adapted to.

The optimum average temperature for dinosaurs was different.

It will vary from species to species, but the the greater the change from 'current' temperature levels, particularly over such a rapid period, the greater the risk of extinction.
57

seanie,

08/07/2009 11:09:47
I posted supporting explanations why the Vostok ice cores support our understanding that the current warming trend is due to the increased levels of atmospheric CO2 due to human activity.

CO2 has played a major role in climate history in determining temperature. We are currently increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, albeit in an unprecedented manner.

Our understadning of paleo-climatology supports AGW.
58

seanie,

08/07/2009 11:11:19
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.html

“A low-range optimistic estimate of 2°C of 21st century warming will shift the Earth’s global mean surface temperature into conditions which have not existed since the middle Pliocene, 3 million years ago. More than 4°C of atmospheric heating will take the planet’s climate back, within a century, to the largely ice-free world that existed prior to about 35 million years ago. The average ‘species’ lifetime’ is only 1 to 3 million years. So it is quite possible that in the comparative geological instant of a century, planetary conditions will be transformed to a state unlike anything that most of the world’s modern species have encountered.”
59

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 11:21:01
57 seanie

"I posted supporting explanations why the Vostok ice cores support our understanding that the current warming trend is due to the increased levels of atmospheric CO2 due to human activity."

Since I don't have the time to read your numerous cuttings and pastings, please explain (preferably in your own words).
60

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/07/2009 11:25:44
#40 connaughtboy

"Just have a look at the Vostok ice core records. The cycle is absolutely clear."

Indeed it is. The Vostok (and other) ice cores show a remarkable and undeniable cylcic pattern.

But that does not at all help #20 Jam Tarts assertion that the present changes are due to changes in the "Earth's cycle". Because, as I'm sure you are aware, we are currently, and have been for about 10,000 years, in a warm interglacial phase.

Thus any change due to the cycles as exhibited in the Vostok core should be towards COOLING, not warming. Indeed calculations based on those cycles indicate that, in the absence of anthropogenic impacts on the climate, "the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate."

See, for example, JD Hays, J Imbrie and NJ Shackleton, Science, v194, #4270, p1121, 1976/12/10

Thus, the challenge to Jam Tarts (or anyone) remains, and that is to provide evidence that the current warming is due to a climate cycle. No-one has been able to do that.
61

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 11:26:12
seanie

Having looked at some of your posts above, I notice that there is no mention of the role of water vapour and clouds. There is still uncertainty on whether they provide positive or negative feedback, but they cannot be ignored.

Vostok shows that the climate is self correcting and has never been subject to these fictional "tipping points".
62

seanie,

08/07/2009 11:26:37
I already have.

The cyclical temperature pattern is triggered by small changes in orbit, which themselves have a small forcing effect. But those small effects have positive/negative feedbacks which amplify the temperature swings. One of the most significant being CO2.

The size of the change in temperatures cannot be explained by the change in forcing due to the orbital eccentricites. It's explained by the feedback of increasing or decreasing CO2.
63

El Franko,

08/07/2009 11:30:50
Mr Gore is unwise to draw attention to the nazis. When lefties go fanatical, we get the nazis. The lefties see AGW as politically correct and convenient. There are signs of fanaticism in the alarmist camp, not least the severe demonising of their critics, and calls to destroy civil liberties, attack power plants, and so on.

How did this start? Well, a rather unpleasant person called Maurice Strong was wise in the ways of the UN, and spotted AGW as a potential lever to achieve his evil goals of destroying industrial civilisation. Hansen appeared like a godsend, with his CO2-driven modelling claiming to have predictive skill for the real atmosphere (so far, of course, contradicted in every prediction/projection the model and other cloned to it, has made). Now enter a thwarted politician, Mr Gore. Poorly educated, poorly motivated, not as wealthy as he would like to be, but enough brains to see the opportunity and think that he understands the greenhouse effect. No matter that greenhouses do not work in that way. No matter that climate is hugely complicated and poorly understood, too poorly to permit good modelling even if we had, which we don't, big enough computers. A propaganda video that an English judge ruled as so errored that it was not fit to be shown to children without a list of corrections and warnings. Would that the same protection had been afforded to adults! And of course the leftie-greenie bandwagon got rolling. Politically impressive (because of weak politicians) but intellectually and morally a blot on the human record.
64

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 11:32:21
60 slioch writes:

"Thus, the challenge to Jam Tarts (or anyone) remains, and that is to provide evidence that the current warming is due to a climate cycle. No-one has been able to do that."

Now, as I have said on numerous occasions, you have this exactly back-to-front. The onus to provide evidence lies with the proponent of the hypothesis, not with those challenging it. The argument from the pro-AGW hypothesis side argue that, having buily the computer models we can only account for a certain amount of naturally caused warming so the rest must be down to man-made CO2.

The models do not model clouds or water vapour and therefore they cannot possibly allow one to arrive at the above conclusions.

So until this proof is forthcoming from your side I will continue to believe that the recent global warming was likely to be naturally occurring.
65

seanie,

08/07/2009 11:33:57
Water vapour is the single largest contributor to the overall Greenhouse effect, but it's a feedback not a forcing.

And any 'self-correcting' pattern in paleo-climatology tells us nothing about whether our current warming trend will be self-correcting, or what temperaturs might be reached in the meantime.

The past temperature changes were driven by Milankovitch cycles, the current change isn't. Look again at the graph you posted. CO2 barely goes above 280ppm. We've increased in over the last couple of centuries to over 380ppm. There hasn't been that level of CO2 for at least 2 million years and it's increasing.
66

seanie,

08/07/2009 11:39:07
The models DO include water vapour.

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/WaterVapor.htm

"The climate models assume a significant positive feedback of increased water vapor in order to amplify the CO2 effect and achieve the future warming reported by the IPCC."

And that's from a denialist website.

Stop lying.
67

seanie,

08/07/2009 11:40:13
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

"Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth's surface temperature."

"Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor's impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth's leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century."
68

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/07/2009 11:40:34
#61 connaughtboy

"Vostok shows that the climate is self correcting and has never been subject to these fictional "tipping points"

On the contrary, the ice core evidence shows that the earth's climate during the last ice age was "tipped" by the relatively SMALL influence of orbital changes into one of two metastable states - either glacial or interglacial.

One concern is that the climatic forcing due to anthropogenic GHG emissions may propel the Earth's climate into another such state - this time of a much higher temperature.

One cannot gain comfort from a perusal of the huge climatic convulsions that accompanied the glacial/interglacial transitions. Indeed, veteran oceanographer in reference to these transitions famously quipped, "Climate is a wild beast and we are poking it with sticks".

The "wild beast" was a reference to those convulsions, and the stick with which we are poking the climate is, of course, carbon dioxide.
69

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 11:40:41
"And any 'self-correcting' pattern in paleo-climatology tells us nothing about whether our current warming trend will be self-correcting"

On the contrary, the observed self-correcting behaviour of the climate tells us far more than the 23 climate models that have proven themselves to be incapable of modelling climate in any meaningful way.
70

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/07/2009 11:41:58
Woops.

"veteran oceanographer" is Wally Broecker
71

Joburg Pete,

08/07/2009 11:43:06
I would have preferred he modernised his analogy and said that Climate Change was a bigger threat to the world than Israel.
Climate change, global warming or whatever you wish to call it is little more than Natural Atmospheric Adjustment. In my opinion human beings are insignificant, the planet is more powerful than we are and the universe is more powerful again. I believe that Al Gore is campaigning for financial gain, the more he spreads his word the more money governments are obliged to give. All that money is in a kitty that people like him live on.
I would say the people like Al Gore are a little more dangerous than some of the unsavoury characters of the past.
72

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 11:48:31
68 slioch

I can only assume that you don't understand the term "tipping point". We are led to believe that if a tipping point is crossed, the earth will experience run away temperature rise which will continue indefinitely. That is an "unstable" system.

What you have described is a "stable" system ie one which limits this runaway behaviour. It has nothing at all to do with a small forcing having a large effect.
73

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 11:51:18
"There are dynamically stable and unstable systems, sometimes called robust and fragile systems.

Dynamically stable systems have internal dampening mechanisms that return the system to equilibrium. Unstable systems lack a controlling force and cannot restore themselves to equilibrium."

So, if a tipping point is reached, the system can never be restored to equilibrium. That is the argument we hear from the AGW believers.

A pendulum is a stable system. If disturbed, it will swing left and right until gravity returns it to its original position. Gravity dampens the force that caused the pendulum to move.

Dynamically Stable Systems are self-correcting even if there are imperfections or disruptions. There are forces that counteract independent forces.

74

seanie,

08/07/2009 11:53:25
A runaway temperature rise is not required for the current warming trend to be catastrophic.

A 6C temperature rise over a century or two, even if then stabalised or reversed over time, would still be devastating.
75

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 08/07/2009 11:58:28
Oh My God! He's back again!

HELP!! A SEENY-QUAKE!!!!
76

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 11:59:55
74 Yes, but there is no indication that anything like a 6C temperature rise will occur.
77

seanie,

08/07/2009 12:00:32
Continental Drift.

heh, heh, heh....
78

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/07/2009 12:03:52
#64 Connaughtboy

"The onus to provide evidence lies with the proponent of the hypothesis, not with those challenging it."

Quite. And the hypothesis Jam Tarts proposed, and you defend, is that "Earth cycles" are responsible for the present warming. Neither of you have provided ANY evidence in support of that hypothesis, whereas I have provided evidence of the opposite.

Likewise, if someone proposes that mega-rays from the planet Zog are causing the warming, the onus is upon them to provide some evidence. The "Earth cycles" hypothesis has as little evidential support as the 2Planet Zog" hypothesis.
79

seanie,

08/07/2009 12:07:06
The Business As Usual emissions scenarios estimate a likely range of 2.4°C to 6.4°C, and that's leaving out a number of known possible feedbacks.

Some of those feedbacks might be negative, all well and good, but others are likely to be positive. We're conducting a massive experiment with the climate and there are huge potential risks.
80

Andrah,

Embrugh 08/07/2009 12:08:52
#63 Nicely summarised.

The whole issue of MMGW hits a powerful G spot, and provided a brilliant new bandwagon for those who were distraught at the failure of socialism/communism. It also affords politicians a new platform to further control and tax us.

Why can't politicians be honest and say there is an urgent need to replace carbon energy sources in the short to medium term, and limit/cut the growth of global population without insulting our intelligence with an ongoing barrage of this cringing nonsense? Expect it to reach a frenzy as we approach the upcoming conference in November.

The excellent novel, State of Fear by the late Michael Crighton summarises frauds the likes of Gore in a nutshell.

see also

http://sciencespeak.com/NoEvidence.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tOFoFx7S6M&feature=fvst
this is an excellent short video of a scientist debunking the MMGW myth.
81

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/07/2009 12:14:56
#72 connaughtboy

"We are led to believe that if a tipping point is crossed, the earth will experience run away temperature rise which will continue indefinitely."

I know of no such suggestion [indeed the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship, in which outgoing IR radiation increases proportional to the FOURTH power of the surface temperature would (I think) preclude such a possibility]. If you think you do then identify it.

On the contrary, projections show an upper limit to temperatures. In other words, they suggest the climate will shift (or maybe "tip") to a warmer metastable state.

The term "tipping point" refers to the situation in which, once a certain level of change has been reached, then further change is inevitable and unavoidable because of positive feedback effects. The term provides NO information about the eventual destination of that change.
82

drew 33,

duddingston 08/07/2009 12:17:31
#30 Seanie
"The 21st century ain't looking cooler so far;"
Must you persist with your cut and paste nonsense.
For the first 8.5 years of this century a Linear regression gives a cooling trend by a hefty -1.45 °C per century.
Needless to say you want proof of the above, go to the link below and do the maths for yourself, if you are struggling, you can always ask Slioch for a little help. Yes, the link gives temperatures measured in the lower troposphere, just the zone most likely to be affected by global warming according to your beloved IPCC.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
83

seanie,

08/07/2009 12:21:43
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

The HADCRU anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.296
1999-2003: + 0.382
2004-2008: + 0.416

So the most recent five year period is warmer than the previous five years, which itself is warmer than the period before that.
84

seanie,

08/07/2009 12:21:58
The GISS anomalies;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.38
1999-2003: + 0.45
2004-2008: + 0.53

Again the most recent five year period is warmer than the previous five years, which itself is warmer than the period before that.
85

seanie,

08/07/2009 12:24:08
The scope for natural variability, year to year, is far greater than the underlying warming trend. Variability day to day and month to month is even greater than annual variability, making short term predictions HARDER than longer term ones. So deriving trends across short periods is essentially meaningless; even five year averages aren't necessarily going to show consistent warming. Natural events such as a La Nina or a major volcanic eruption could result in a significant temporary cooling that drives the average down. But even that would not be inconsistent with an underlying warming trend, because such effects are temporary.

The simplest way to filter out the 'noise' of natural variation and identify any trend is to average out temperatures in some way. There are various ways to do it, with varying degrees of complexity, but it's a perfectly straightforward and entirely valid way of interpreting the data that itself doesn't 'promote' any particular result. It just filters out the noise.

So, knowing that, look at the HADCRU graph showing the 'smoothed' temperature.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.pdf

Is the average temperature (as represented by the smoothed average) higher now than at the start of the century?

Yes it is.
86

seanie,

08/07/2009 12:27:11
The GISS anomalies;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The anomalies averaged over decades.

1930-1939: - 0.28
1940-1949: + 0.44
1950-1959: - 0.20
1960-1969: - 0.12
1970-1979: + 0.01
1980-1989: + 0.18
1990-1999: + 0.32

And so far this decade?

2000-2008: + 0.46

When average temperatures go up, that's called warming.
87

drew 33,

duddingston 08/07/2009 12:32:04
Seanie
Was the arithmetic beyond you? Why quote selective cut and paste statistics from your files? Much easier just to look at the actual recorded temperatures for the period in question.
88

drew 33,

duddingston 08/07/2009 12:34:57
Since you like these short period selective numbers the trend in the last 4 years is around -6 °C per century.
89

,

08/07/2009 12:36:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
90

drew 33,

duddingston 08/07/2009 12:38:43
Seanie
Go to P675 of the IPCC report and you can read for yourself. The lower troposphere is the most likely to show the increasing temperatures due to global warming.
91

seanie,

08/07/2009 12:43:13
Taking five year averages is a bit rough and ready but it's a reasonable and perfectly neutral way of smoothing out the noise of antural interannual variability.

Linear trends over short periods on the other hand is statisticvally invalid. That vey noise, far from being filtered out, can totally skew any resulting trend. Any slight change in start and end points can radically alter the result, which itself demonstrates why it's not valid as a method.
92

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/07/2009 12:43:15
#88 drew 33

You are confusing five year global average temperatures with five (or indeed four in the case you give) global trends. The two are completely different.

The former (the one Seanie uses) helps to smooth out annual variability. It is a simple, but still statistically valid, technique to identify long term trends.

The latter (the one you use) is statistical nonsense. It is used by the statistically illiterate and by charlatans who with to mislead the ignorant.
93

seanie,

08/07/2009 12:44:01
And remember...

The last five years have been warmer than the five before, which in turn were warmer than the five before that.

That's a funny sort of cooling.
94

seanie,

08/07/2009 12:44:50
If you want to educate yourself a bit about the dangers of calculating trends over short periods try the following;

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2008/01/common-climate-misconceptions-has-global-warming-stopped/
95

seanie,

08/07/2009 12:45:02
Or try this;

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/stupid-is-as-stupid-does/
96

Unimpressed one,

08/07/2009 12:45:36
If anyone was in doubt that the idiots who proclaim that humans are responsible for changing the climate are menally ill, this it.

The REAL facts are that since 2000/2001 the average global temperature has stabilised and begun to decline despite linear increases in CO2 emissions. So the whole hypothesis is deeply flawed or probably just pain wrong, but in the interim the myth that the planet is doomed has been hijacked by the usual suspects - crackpots, slimy politicians and junk scientists. In another 50 years the whole sorry episode will be looked back on as one of the biggest delusions of modern times, aided and abetted by 'scientists' who have forgotten, or never actually knew, what the scientific method was all about. But the damage to scientific credibility will probably never recover, at least during this generation's time.
97

seanie,

08/07/2009 12:49:15
The GISS record;

Global Land+Ocean Surface Temperature Anomaly (C)

(Base: 1951-1980)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean

2001 .48 .45
2002 .56 .48
2003 .55 .54
2004 .48 .55
2005 .62 .55
2006 .55 .53
2007 .57 *
2008 .44 *

2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007 were all warmer than 2001.

That's a funny sort of cooling trend.
98

drew 33,

duddingston 08/07/2009 12:50:24
Seanie
"For the first 8.5 years of this century a Linear regression gives a cooling trend by a hefty -1.45 °C per century."
"the trend in the last 4 years is around -6 °C per century"
That is what is known as accelerated global cooling. Just as is shown also by the Met Office see below.
(acceleration the rate of change or differential of dT/dt)
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html
99

Unimpressed one,

08/07/2009 12:50:39
Sloich, you continue you show your gullibility by putting all your faith in statistics and following the doomsters. But for the rest of us with common sense, having seen all this scare rubbish before, know that the world will still be the same place 50 years from now.
100

Yeah1,

08/07/2009 12:58:12
#99

"Sloich, you continue you show your gullibility by putting all your faith in statistics and following the doomsters."

I would much rather put my faith in statistics and scientific evidence than Jeremy Clarkson, wouldn't you?

"for the rest of us with common sense, having seen all this scare rubbish before"

Yes no doubt the flat earth supporters said exactly the same thing when presented with proof that the world was infact round.
101

drew 33,

duddingston 08/07/2009 12:59:18
You may not like it but global temperatures peaked in April 1998. Current(june) temperature is 1.7 K down from there. Atmospheric CO2 has increased by 5% in the same interval. The temperature as measured by our largely dis-credited Met Office is an accelerating downward trend
102

Yeah1,

08/07/2009 12:59:45
#99

"you continue you show your gullibility by putting all your faith in statistics and following the doomsters."

You continue to show your gullibility by ignoring scientists and proven statisics and by following Jeremy Clarkson.
103

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 08/07/2009 13:00:20
Al gore's home uses 400,000 units of electricity a year compared to the 5000 that you and I do.
He claims this is ok because he purchases carbon credits - "From the carbon trading company he just happens to own"
Seanie must be getting tired of doing the same cut and paste job every time. What do you see in the numbers?
"Smoothing" "Anomalies""Averages" What he really means is cooking the books so that the trend that the models have been predetermined to produce fit.
A bit like the "IPCC summary for policy makers" which was prepared before the real report, the real report was then "Adjusted to suit the policy makers summary.
The chief honcho of GISS - Hansen was guilty a couple of years ago of using the same temperature data two months running in order to keep his warming claims going.
The more you look at NASA,GISS and Hadley the more you realise just how political they are.
"Science & Politics" - an unholy alliance if ever there was one !!!
104

seanie,

08/07/2009 13:00:49
Linear trends over short periods is statistically invalid. Noise, far from being filtered out, can totally skew any resulting trend. Any slight change in start and end points can radically alter the result, which itself demonstrates why it's not valid as a method

For example;

What's the trend for 2001 to 2008 based on HadCRUT3 unadjusted global mean?

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2008/trend

It's going down.

But what's the trend for the decade 1999 to 2008 based on HadCRUT3 unadjusted global mean?

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1999/to:2008/trend

Oh look. It's going up.

As pointed out, the underlying warming trend is smaller than the scope of natural variability. Fitting trend lines to such short periods is not statistically useful, as demonstrated by the links above. Simply changing the start period from 2001 to 1999 produces a very different result.
105

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/07/2009 13:02:57
#92 Slioch

Claiming significance for short term temperature trends is "used by the statistically illiterate and by charlatans who with to mislead the ignorant."

Like, for example arch-charlatan Bob Carter, as shown in the Youtube video linked to by #80 Andrah.
106

Geomac 1,

Scotland 08/07/2009 13:03:38
Little wonder this guy gets called Gore the Bore.
It is well known that he has a financial interest in perpetuating this grossly distorted fear of GW/CC. He is a partner in a carbon trading company (in London) making a fortune out of smoke and mirrors sales of carbon credits, which does not reduce emissions by one jot!!
Of course, as ever he's supported by that oick McLaren of FoE who's job is also dependent on perpetuating this garbage.
Seanie - you're doing a stalwart job as ever but surely even you must acknowledge that the game is up and that your oft repeated "alleged" stats are well past their sell by date. You are simply not going to be able to convert educated people that the use of theoretical models which all assume that earth temperature increases with atmospheric CO2 levels is a hypothesis which stands up to scrutiny - it clearly doesn't.
Having said that no doubt those GW fanatics will resort to name calling - as is their wont!
107

seanie,

08/07/2009 13:05:03
Temperature accelerating downward?

Hardly the smoothed average is higher now thanin 1998. It's dropped slightly since 2005 but is likely to be revised upwards.

The smoothed HADCRU average going back to 1998.

1998 - 0.323
1999 - 0.348
2000 - 0.37
2001 - 0.389
2002 - 0.403
2003 - 0.413
2004 - 0.419
2005 - 0.42
2006 - 0.419
2007 - 0.415
2008 - 0.411
108

seanie,

08/07/2009 13:07:33
There's a big problem looming for you denialists.

1998 was exceptionally warm in comparison to the preceeding years due to an exceptionally strong El Nino. However the temperature of 1998 isn't so exceptional in comparison to the last few years. The continuing upwards trend in average temperature means that some years have been close to (and possibly hotter than) 1998 in the absence of a strong El Nino.

A strong La Nina developed in 2007 into 2008, resulting in 2008 being relatively cold in comparison to recent years, although still one of the warmest years on record.

The thing is, at some point within the next few years an El Nino event is pretty likely. And given that we're starting from a higher average even a moderate El Nino could decisively surpass the 1998 temperature.

At which point you'll have to abandon your 'global warming stopped in 1998' mantra and pick this new year as the point global warming stopped.

Up until the next peak.

And so on and so forth.

It'll take an increasingly bizarre denial of reality for you to ignore the ongoing upwards trend in average temperature.
109

drew 33,

duddingston 08/07/2009 13:08:21
92 Slioch
"The latter (the one you use) is statistical nonsense. It is used by the statistically illiterate and by charlatans who with to mislead the ignorant"
You are beyond belief you set store by temperature smoothing using 21 point Binomial Filter. When it delivers an accelerating cooling trend you then say it is not valid.
Your strategy seems to be use a method that delivers statistically rising temperatures and abandon anything that indicates otherwise.
When all else fails resort to insult the last refuge of the lost argument
110

drew 33,

duddingston 08/07/2009 13:10:13
The present and looming problem for the global warmers is that the temperature is not rising.
111

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 08/07/2009 13:10:14
Seeny,

Why is it that despite the phrase "global warming" being ditched in favour of "climate change" some time ago, you still continue to bang on about "global warming" and continue to copy/paste reams of rubbish in defence of it?

My theory about continental drift seems positively plausible alongside your continual bile.
112

drew 33,

duddingston 08/07/2009 13:12:22
"1998 was exceptionally warm in comparison to the preceeding years"
The 8.5 years quoted for the 21st century notably excludes the exceptional year of 1998.
113

seanie,

08/07/2009 13:12:43
Smoothing is an entirely valid, even essential method of filtering out noise in the data. If it eventually shows an accelerating cooling trend all well and good. But it doesn't so far.

To explain let's look again at the unsmoothed HADCRU data;

Year, Anomaly

1998, 0.546
1999, 0.296
2000, 0.270
2001, 0.409
2002, 0.464
2003, 0.473
2004, 0.447
2005, 0.482
2006, 0.422
2007, 0.405
2008, 0.325

So now let's look at the inter-annual change...
114

seanie,

08/07/2009 13:13:02
1998-99, -0.250
1999-00, -0.026
2000-01, +0.139
2001-02, +0.055
2002-03, +0.009
2003-04, -0.026
2004-05, +0.035
2005-06, -0.060
2006-07, -0.017
2007-08, -0.081
115

woodchopper,

Leeper, USA 08/07/2009 13:13:27
Hogwash
116

seanie,

08/07/2009 13:13:27
And remember the complaint is that the "IPCC predicted trend was 1.4-5.8C/century."

Which is 0.014-0.058 per year.

Compare that to the above figures for inter-annual variability.

It's clear that the scope for natural year-on-year variabiltiy far exceeds the predicted warming trend. So, over short periods, that warming trend can be expected to be masked by that 'noise' in the temperature record.

None of the data suggests any let up in the anticipated long term warming trend.
117

drew 33,

duddingston 08/07/2009 13:15:24
Seanie
"The continuing upwards trend in average temperature means that some years have been close to (and possibly hotter than) 1998 in the absence of a strong El Nino."
Where did you dredge that nonsense from. Since 2000 the temperature has been trending down and no year has come close to 1998.
118

seanie,

08/07/2009 13:16:33
And let's look again at the 21st century in comparison to earlier periods.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

Averaging the HADCRU anomolies over eight year periods results in the following;

1969-1976: - 0.057
1977-1984: + 0.046
1985-1992: + 0.123
1993-2000: + 0.269
2001-2008: + 0.428

When average temperatures go up, that's called warming.
119

drew 33,

duddingston 08/07/2009 13:17:51
113 seanie
"Smoothing is an entirely valid, even essential method of filtering out noise"
And the smoothed Met Office graph is showing(not projecting) accelerating global cooling
120

seanie,

08/07/2009 13:19:25
"Since 2000 the temperature has been trending down"

Really?

The GISS record;

Global Land+Ocean Surface Temperature Anomaly (C)

(Base: 1951-1980)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Annual_Mean

2000 .33
2001 .48
2002 .56
2003 .55
2004 .48
2005 .62
2006 .55
2007 .57
2008 .44

2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 were all warmer than 2000.

That's a funny sort of cooling trend you've identified.
121

seanie,

08/07/2009 13:22:09
The HADCRU record;

Global Temperature (Climatic Research Unit)

Year, Anomaly

2000, 0.270
2001, 0.409
2002, 0.464
2003, 0.473
2004, 0.447
2005, 0.482
2006, 0.422
2007, 0.405
2008, 0.325

2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 were all warmer than 2000.

That's a funny sort of cooling trend you've identified.
122

seanie,

08/07/2009 13:25:40
And of course, whilst the HADCRU data has 1998 as the hottest year on record the GISS dataset has 2005 as hotter than, and 2007 on a par with, 1998.

Which particular dataset is correct in that regard doessn't matter. The important thing is they correlate well, with each other and the satellelite records, and that all show similar warming trends.
123

Embra Don,

08/07/2009 13:26:07
# 59 connaughtboy

Connaughtboy, your post seems to say "don't confuse me with facts, I've already made my mind up"
124

Itchy,

08/07/2009 13:26:28
#39 "Climate change deniers are rapidly becoming as laughable as those who clung to the 'flat earth' theory despite irrefutable evidence that the world was round. "

There is no such thing as a climate change denier. The earth's climate is not static.

The real deniers are those who recommend state omnipotence as the cure for 'climate change' and you are one of them.

125

seanie,

08/07/2009 13:29:26
"And the smoothed Met Office graph is showing(not projecting) accelerating global cooling"

No. It's showing a slight dip from a peak on 2005. If that persists then, after a period of time it may become significant, but that dip is provisional and is exaggerated by the La Nina that depressed temperatures in 2008.
126

Jay Kay,

08/07/2009 13:34:40
This is great news I can now proove to the Mrs Kay that my intended swap from my big Turbo golf to my tiny turbo Lotus is a good thing for the environment.

Cracking news
127

Itchy,

08/07/2009 13:38:49
#100 translation: you put your faith in state power as the new God.

128

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/07/2009 14:04:17
#109 drew 33

"You are beyond belief you set store by temperature smoothing using 21 point Binomial Filter. When it delivers an accelerating cooling trend you then say it is not valid."

Can you really not understand that when the data required for a smoothing operation has not yet been gathered, then the smoothing operation is provisional?

Thus, when the smoothing operation for the year 2008 requires data from 2009 to 2018, the present value for 2008 is provisional. In a generally rising series, the provisional values for the last few smoothed points will inevitably be lower than their final final value - that is just simple arithmetic.

Thus, the present dip in smoothed values in the HADCRU data for the last few years is provisional. If average global temperatures continue to rise the dip will disappear. If they don't then it won't.

I've just explained this to my pet hamster and I'm sure he understands it.

No, actually, I made that last sentence up. I don't have a pet hamster.

But if you can't understand or accept the results of simple arithmetic it is perhaps not surprising that you get confused over the status of global warming theory.
129

El Franko,

08/07/2009 14:05:12
Here's another good read. 'The Skeptics Handbook'. Well worth printing out and sharing: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/
130

Nellie,

Liverpool 08/07/2009 14:06:45
Well, if Professor Lovelock is proven right, global "warming" (more "meltdown"?) will prove a lot more catastrophic than World domination by Nazis.
131

Geomac 1,

Scotland 08/07/2009 14:49:21
#130 - wow Nellie - that's a sound and logical argument if ever I heard one! If Lovelock's wrong, then what? We'll have ruined our economy for zilch - not a bte I'm prepared to make of the paucity of data available in support of the AGW theory.
132

Unimpressed one,

08/07/2009 14:53:44
#129, El Franko, another excellent link. As has been amply proved down the centuries, the more educated a person claims to be, the more easily fooled they are. In 1973 I well remember a professor of King's College being totally bamboozled by Uri Geller's metal bending trick and even saying that the whole of physics would have to be rewritten. Meanwhile the lesser educated, but street-wise knew that Geller was a fake, but still cart-loads of scientists were saying he must be genuine because they couldn't see how he was doing it. Indeed, professional magicians know that some of the easiest people to fool are those who think they are infallible.
And so it is with 'climate change'.
133

seanie,

08/07/2009 14:55:36
Argumentum ad Uri Geller?

That's at least original.
134

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 08/07/2009 15:08:48
"Global warming as big a threat as the Nazis, says Gore"

Really? How come my Stevenson screen of 25 years has not indicated any rise in temperature above what can laughingly be described as "normal"?
135

seanie,

08/07/2009 15:17:44
Because the temperature record, at one location over 25 years, is a spectacularly poor guide to any trend in average global temperature.

136

Taz,

The Land of the Free 08/07/2009 15:20:28
You would think that global climate change was something new. It’s been going on since day one of Earth's existence. Are we having a negative effect on our own planet? Probably, but there is only so much we can do. The quicker we come to terms with the fact change is coming, the better off we will be. Lets do what we can to slow it up, AND get ready for major changes. There will be no Kyoto agreement with India and China getting a free ride.
137

Nellie,

Liverpool 08/07/2009 15:38:54
#131 - wow Geomac 1! That's great logic, too! The fact that Lovelock's rarely been wrong before ( Gaia Theory is now regarded as fact, not a theory) and that 99% of scientists think global "warming" is real, regardless of whether or not it's man-made or natural ... let's just dismiss them all as tw#ts and carry on with our amazing economy, as normal, i.e. destroying the environment by using up all the natural resources and making more animals extinct in over the last 100 years than during the previous 1000 ...

Wow! That's logical!
138

Nellie,

Liverpool 08/07/2009 15:42:23
#134 Your thermometer - any static thermometer - is not a good guide to global warming The only good guides are:
1 reduction in size of the ice caps and
2 rise in sea levels.

Since ice cap shrinkage is largely uncontested, and since sea levels have been measured to be rising (because of the ice caps melting) I don't think we need to be concerned what your thermometer measures.
139

Nellie,

Liverpool 08/07/2009 15:44:14
#135 Exactly!
#136 Dead right.
140

mike - across the pond,

seanie 08/07/2009 15:47:06
funny thing statistics....

you take the COOLEST year in the last ten

then start running around waving your hands in the air screaming "GLOBAL WARMING... GLOBAL WARMING"

shall we call you "chicken little"?

I did find it rather interesting that you cited CYCLES as to why your data was FLAWED... but are apparently completely unwilling to accept that the entire "global warming" argument is flawed BECAUSE OF CYCLES... ROFLMAO...

hope you have fun with the "'necessary' skyrocketing electric bills"... oh and you wont be able to sell your house to get from under those bills... because Barrack Osama's energy bill makes that VERBOTEN...

all fueled by the 'smartest man in the world'... you know the guy who FLUNKED OUT OF DIVINITY SCHOOL... DIVINITY SCHOOL.... ROFLMAO... ALBORE....
141

seanie,

08/07/2009 15:52:27
The coolest year in the last ten, according to HADCRU, was 2000 followed by 1999.

The coolest year in the last ten, according to GISS, was 1999 followed by 2000.

What are you dribbling on about?
142

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 08/07/2009 16:04:24
The" skeptics" really do not understand the way that research takes place and the motivation of people undertaking it .
Anyone producing a credible explanation for the present trend in rising global temperatures which did not involve the rise in greenhouse gases would be in line for a huge amount of cash to continue the research from the fossil fuel producers and if their ideas were shown to be true and we did not have to curb the rate at which fossil fuels are to be used in the future would be treated like another Einstein.
143

sceptic,

livingston 08/07/2009 16:04:42
So here we have it 11 years 3 months since global temperatures peaked. Forgetting the 1998 peak, the global temperature in the 21st century has been regressing at a rate of 0.015°C/Annum. Even on the suspect Met Office figures the smoothed global temperature graph is showing an accelerating decline.
Slioch says in response to the decline (verbatim and unabridged):-
"The "downward trend" in the MET office graph of smoothed annual global temperatures to which you link is an artifact of the smoothing process. The smoothed value for (for example) 2008 requires data from 1998 to 2118. Obviously data from 2009 to 2118 does not yet exist and therefore the (unsmoothed) value for 2008 is substituted for all of those years. It is that which causes the downturn. A similar downturn existed in the smoothed values in the early 1990s - that has now vanished because later year proved warmer than the early 1990s. The same will happen with the present apparent downturn if temperature continue to rise."
I repeat the last Slioch's last sentence
"The same will happen with the present apparent downturn if temperature continue to rise"
The whole point of this saga is that there is a downturn and temperatures are not "continuing to rise", temperatures are falling and there is no indication whatsoever that this will not continue and certainly no indication that the trend should suddenly reverse.
144

mike - across the pond,

ah nellie 08/07/2009 16:06:16
nellie nellie nellie...

you say stupid things like "the ice caps are melting"... well DUH!!!! its called a CYCLE...

you are getting ready to breathlessly scream "the northwest passage in canada may be ice free".... again WELL DUH!!!!

let me turn that gun around before you put a hole in your little head....

deary... the northwest passage has been ice free from time to time in history...

it was most assuredly ice free when Lief Erickson the vikings populated Greenland, Iceland, and even made it to the North American continent....

Roald Amundsen navigated the northwest passage from 1903-1906...

there were various claims throughout the 16th thru 19th centuries of explorers sailing these waters IN WOODEN SHIPS!!!!

BREATHE deary... or you are going to pass out, fall down and put a nasty bump on your head!!!

if you want to discuss the Antarctic ice shelfs we can do that too... but you know, I'm going to bring that nasty HISTORY thing to bear... so you better figure out which way to point that thing before you put a hole somewhere you dont mean to... lol
145

Geomac 1,

Scotland 08/07/2009 16:08:14
#137 Nellie
Talk about exaggeration!! You claim that 99% of scientists think global warming is real. Hmmmm, two points. Firstly, you may not have noticed but the believers have moved on and now rant about climate change since the temperature has not obliged and increased as their theories suggested they would. Secondly 99% scientist believers - garbage! The only remaining scientists believers are those whose livlihood (grants etc) are dependent on anthropogenic climate change. Ever more scientists are distancing themselves from the IPCC position.
31,000 US scientists alone have signed an anti Kyoto petition - see http://www.oism.org/pproject/
As for your nonsense re animals becoming extinct - how can that be blamed on so called AGW?? Animals have become extinct long before this nonsense was dreamed up - dinosaurs for example.
Finally you morph into a rant about destroying the environment!! What has that got to do with the theory of AGW? All of us want to enhance our environment. Of course, fossil fuels are finite and alternatives must be found. Of course, cars, lorries and buses spew out too much nasties. But to associate this with an unproven AGW theory os totally wrong - this fear nonsense alienates more people than it encourages.
Let's address real issues and stop the wild scaremongering technique to address environmental issues - CO2 is a necessity of life and people know that and react negatively to alarmist pronouncements which are blatantly rubbish and not at all helpful.
146

seanie,

08/07/2009 16:09:23
The smoothed global temperaturte has risen since 1998 and indeed is higher than in 1998.

It has fallen slightly since 2005, but the later figures are increasingly provisional. As such the dip since 2005 is on no statisitcal significance whatsoever. It does not, and cannot, be used to identify any trend.

If there was a sustained dip over a significant period then such a trend would become apparent. But the data so far doesn't suggest any change in the long term warming trend.
147

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 08/07/2009 16:15:19
'Human activities have pumped excessive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Natural processes that absorb CO2 cannot keep up. As the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide, it becomes more acidic. This combined with increasing ocean temperatures, diminishes its ability to continue absorbing CO2. As a result, more CO2 stays in the atmosphere. In 1960, a metric ton of CO2 emissions resulted in around 400 kilograms of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere. In 2006, a metric ton of CO2 emissions results in around 450 kilograms remaining in the atmosphere. Hence a ton of CO2 emissions today results in more heat-trapping capacity in the atmosphere than the same ton emitted decades ago.'

- The Union of Concerned Scientists
148

Euan,

Edinburgh 08/07/2009 16:25:13
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/12/global-temperature-chart-not-gore-s-movie
149

seanie,

08/07/2009 16:27:26
The Royal Society;

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

"Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable."
150

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 08/07/2009 16:27:35
'Increased contributions from melting mountain glaciers and ice sheets on land, as well as thermal expansion due to continued ocean warming, are resulting in higher sea level rise. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) noted that sea level has risen 50 percent faster than projected by models for the 1963–2001 period. Recent observations confirm that sea level rise is in the upper range projected by models used by the IPCC.'

Union of Concerned Scientists.
151

seanie,

08/07/2009 16:27:45
A Joint Science Academies’ statement;

http://www.icsu-africa.org/Resource_centre/Globalresponseclimatechange.pdf

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."
152

seanie,

08/07/2009 16:28:00
The American Association for the Advancement of Science;

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
153

seanie,

08/07/2009 16:28:13
A statement from The Royal Meteorological Society;

http://www.rmets.org/news/detail.php?ID=332

"The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is unequivocal in its conclusion that climate change is happening and that humans are contributing significantly to these changes. The evidence, from not just one source but a number of different measurements, is now far greater and the tools we have to model climate change contain much more of our scientific knowledge within them. The world’s best climate scientists are telling us its time to do something about it."
154

seanie,

08/07/2009 16:28:29
The Geological Society;

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/null/lang/en/page1022.html

"We therefore add our voices to those urging more serious attention, and action, from national and international bodies. The central problem is one of the massive transfer of carbon from beneath the ground into the atmosphere, caused by humanity’s enormous demands for energy, and current dependence on fossil fuels to supply by far the greatest part of this energy."

and...

"We urge serious, and immediate, consideration of these issues. The dangers posed by climate change are no longer merely possible and long-term. They are probable, imminent, and global in scope."
155

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 08/07/2009 16:30:17
'Studies indicate that even after excess human-caused CO2 emissions stop, the planet will experience the resulting warming for at least a thousand years. The higher the peak of atmospheric concentrations of CO2, the greater is the level of irreversible consequences, such as species loss and sea level rise.'

Union of Concerned Scientists.
156

mike - across the pond,

fredblogs.... 08/07/2009 16:31:59
well not quite...

see some of us DO understand very well the fallacies and foibles man is prone to when they set out on scientific endeavors with a specific goal in mind... you know, ignoring little things like FACTS...

KNOW your history... READ some books about the evolution of science... Assimov on Science... Physics, etc.... Clarke's "a view from Serendip"...

then go ahead and give us all a shot at explaining the same warming and cooling trends on earth shown on other planets.... and how we should be all breathless about EARTH... and that the SAME data on Mars, and Venus are completely unrelated... PSSST you know that I'm going to ask WHY we can just ignore other unrelated patterns.... right??? lol
157

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 08/07/2009 16:33:18
'Arctic sea ice area models used by the IPCC are in general agreement with the observed area decrease over the last 50 years and indicate that heat-trapping gases are a major factor in the decline. Current observations show a much steeper drop in ice area than expected.'

Union of Concerned Scientists.
158

seanie,

08/07/2009 16:33:27
But why pay attention to the most repected scientific institiutions on the planet when you can get your information from a weatherman on a local paper and someone who uses clues from the bible to predict the weather.

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-hell-is-long-range-weather.html
159

mike - across the pond,

seanie.... 08/07/2009 16:37:31
you like links

hows about THIS one

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

did I just sense a homer simpson-esque DOH moment?

lol
160

seanie,

08/07/2009 16:40:54
The loopy Lord?

The serial fantasist and liar?

That's supposed to bolster your case.

ROFLMAO!
161

mike - across the pond,

oh and another 08/07/2009 16:41:27
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

just for your amusement
162

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 08/07/2009 16:42:06
156. Mike the yank is worried about Mars and Venus. I don't know why. They and Earth all have CO2 in their atmospheres so they all experience the natural greenhouse effect.

However if we go there and start driving around in SUVs they will also get hotter due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
163

El Franko,

More CO2 please for Dagenham 08/07/2009 16:48:19
Glimmers of light appear sometimes in the mainstream media. Here's one from today: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1198188/Hysteria-real-threat-global-warming.html

164

mike - across the pond,

seanie 08/07/2009 16:52:11
its funny...

you claim "credibility" by citing "the most respected scientists in the world"...

problem is... they aint... and like I pointed out... "the most respected scientists in the world" HISTORICALLY have been DEAD WRONG FAR MORE often than they have stumbled upon the crumbs of being RIGHT...

and their "scientific proof" doesnt pass the sniff test... doesnt pass critical thinking...

and the breathless supporters are the SAME kind of guys that had folks like Galeleo spending the last years of his life recanting REAL discovery to because these "most respected scientists in the world" were FLAT OUT LOONS.... but they had the powerful peoples ears... so Galeleo was the guy who was wrong...

you go ahead though... keep flagulating...
165

El Franko,

08/07/2009 16:54:40
Here's a modest dream. The editor of The Scotsman stops, thinks, reads some science, and decides that the alarmists are the pits. Next he decides that one day The Scotsman will recover enough integrity to be Scotland's best newspaper once again. Next again, he notes that a campaint to expose the alarmists would be both popular, and of high integrity in the face of BBC/New Labour/IPCC/Brussels/UN propaganda and manipulation. He could begin by inviting Monckton to kick things off with a series of major articles.
166

El Franko,

08/07/2009 16:57:21
And then he could fix the comments checker to do spell checks instead of refusing to publish naughty words.
167

mike - across the pond,

ah fredblogs 08/07/2009 16:59:21
so mars warming is due to the 2 "SUV's" NASA has been pounding around the sand dunes of mars for the last 5 years? lol really??? gee buddy those are SOLAR POWERED...

what about venus?

its been flucutating at the same times... care to take a tongue in cheek shot at that one?

hmmm wheres your vaunted global warming "science" on THAT...
168

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 17:08:30
78 slioch

I think the Vostok ice core record is ample evidence that the current warming is natural. So far you have presented no evidence.
169

drew 33,

duddingston 08/07/2009 17:09:47
#143 Sceptic
Wow! You can't beat Slioch's logic.
The Hadcru temperature graph is only showing a downward trend because the temperature has been lower (Quelle surprise). Soon the temperature graph will be rising because the temperature is rising. Well, he at least refrained from "Because I say so" as a reason.
170

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 08/07/2009 17:13:58
167. mike the denier:

Clearly you have not the slightest idea what the natural and enhanced greenhouse effects are and the fact that the former are present on Earth, Mars and Venus and the latter only on Earth due to the activities of man.
171

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 17:15:49
123 Strange interpretation of my post.
172

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 17:18:42
134 Andrew

Notice how the warmists don't try to address your point.
173

Unimpressed one,

08/07/2009 17:25:12
#149, Seanie

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible"

"Radio has no future"

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

-- Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society
174

,

08/07/2009 17:36:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
175

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 08/07/2009 17:36:26
173. unimpressed:

So the theory of AGW will be proved correct?
176

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 08/07/2009 17:50:39
164. Shouty mike:

'the breathless supporters are the SAME kind of guys that had folks like Galeleo spending the last years of his life recanting REAL discovery to because these "most respected scientists in the world" were FLAT OUT LOONS.... but they had the powerful peoples ears... so Galeleo was the guy who was wrong...'


Actually Galileo was banged up for sticking by the experimental evidence even though it threatened the power of those in charge.

Claiming him as a hero for those who oppose science is......well......bizarre.
177

mike - across the pond,

ah fredblogs 08/07/2009 18:17:24
ah freddy my boy, you sir ARE a git... a marginally educated one at that.... lol

as MANY great thinkers of his era, Galeleo spent the last years of his life under house arrest... the ONLY thing that saved his life was privately recanting to the inquisition his earlier claim backed by REAL observation that the earth was not the center of the solar system... LOOK IT UP BEFORE YOU EMBARRASS YOURSELF FURTHER...

Galeleo opposed the "accepted science" of his day.. so yes... he did oppose science... the "accepted science" of his day... which by todays standards was absurdly flawed....

just like today's "science" will be viewed in a few short years as absurdly flawed...

follow the bouncing ball yet?
178

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 18:23:39
146 seanie

"It has fallen slightly since 2005, but the later figures are increasingly provisional. As such the dip since 2005 is on no statisitcal significance whatsoever."

So the later figures are about to be "fixed"? Why not just accept the data without making "convenient" adjustments?
179

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 08/07/2009 18:33:24
177. mike the name caller:

Galileo was opposed by people with an agenda who didn't understand or want to believe his science - much like Mann under the Bush Administration.

Galileo, in the eyes of history, WON. The science emerged and became consensus and there was nothing the priesthood could do to stop it.
180

seanie,

08/07/2009 18:47:29
It already been explained to you several times why the latter figures are increasingly provisional.

It's really quite simple to grasp.

The smoothing process, used to filter out the noise, doesn't promote any particular trend in the long run. But the way it's calculated, using figures either side of the year in question with diminishing weighting, makes the latter figures increasingly provisional since those later years affectng the calculation HAVEN'T HAPPENED YET.

Following so far?

So what they do is repeat the final year's figure for the years yet to be recorded.

So the current smoothed anomaly for 2008 is based on the following 10 years all being the same temperature as 2008 individually.

That's not going to happen. But as those subsequent years are recorded that provisional figure will continue to be revised under the complete individual record used to calculate the smoothed anomaly is obtained; 2018 in the case of 2008.

That's why the dip from 2005 to now is statisitcally irrelevant. It's too provisional to discern any trend.

Got it yet?



181

mike - across the pond,

ah freddy.... 08/07/2009 19:00:48
yes, from the casual observer 4 centuries later galeleo won

however he spent the last 8 years of his life under house arrest.... hardly consider that much of a "victory"...

interestingly you twist the argument that somehow BUSH is responsible for global warmiing... PSSST CLINTON DIDNT RATIFY KYOTO... oops... brought a knife to a gun fight AGAIN????

contrary to yours and the AlBorons claims, the "science" behind global warming is FAR from settled....

and as a matter of fact the ONLY people backing it with your fervor are a vocal minority composed primarily of POLITICIANS whose SOLE interest in this is how they can line their pockets... and they cross refreence each other more than a kentucky family tree!!!

hmmm lining their pockets, sure sounds to me like these guys bear more in common with the clergy of Galeleo's time than those who arent drinking the kool-aid today...

oh and because you brought W to the AlBoron table
care to guess whose house is more "eco-friendly"

yep you guessed it George W Bush
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
182

seanie,

08/07/2009 19:11:01
Don't forget...

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

Averaging the HADCRU anomolies over eight year periods results in the following;

1969-1976: - 0.057
1977-1984: + 0.046
1985-1992: + 0.123
1993-2000: + 0.269
2001-2008: + 0.428

When average temperatures go up, that's called warming
183

mike - across the pond,

seanie 08/07/2009 19:11:41
so what you are telling me is that your global warming numbers are based on incomplete data...

um.... incomplete data...

really???

you admit that the science that is "done, sealed, agreed to, complete, only a fool would object to".... is based on incomplete data...

that very well might be WRONG????

really???

I think there just MAY be something wrong here... if I could just see around the rhino head in the middle of the table, we might be able to make eye contact...
184

seanie,

08/07/2009 19:14:04
Oh no. You can calculate averages in different ways using only the complete data sets.

And what do you get?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The GISS anomalies averaged over decades.

1930-1939: - 0.28
1940-1949: + 0.44
1950-1959: - 0.20
1960-1969: - 0.12
1970-1979: + 0.01
1980-1989: + 0.18
1990-1999: + 0.32

And so far this decade?

2000-2008: + 0.46

When average temperatures go up, that's called warming.
185

seanie,

08/07/2009 19:25:55
And while we're at it...

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/222712/69

'Mars and Pluto are warming too'

"The only relevant factor the earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related, that would be the logical place to look. As it happens, the sun is being watched and measured carefully back here on earth, and it is not the primary cause of current climate change."

186

seanie,

08/07/2009 19:26:14
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/222712/69

'Mars and Pluto are warming too'

"The only relevant factor the earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related, that would be the logical place to look. As it happens, the sun is being watched and measured carefully back here on earth, and it is not the primary cause of current climate change."
187

seanie,

08/07/2009 19:26:28
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Global warming on Mars?

"Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth…"
188

seanie,

08/07/2009 19:26:44
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6233

Misleading argument 6: ’Global warming is all to do with the sun’

"While there is evidence of a link between solar activity and some of the warming in the early 20th Century, measurements from satellites show that there has been very little change in underlying solar activity in the last 30 years there is even evidence of a detectable decline and so this cannot account for the recent rises we have seen in global temperatures."
189

seanie,

08/07/2009 19:27:25
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11642

Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too

"There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouses gases. But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity."
190

Kenny A,

08/07/2009 19:33:54
Mr Gore is a well meaning idiot. The Nazis had some seriously sad issues. Global warming is an issue of nature. He should look at the states before shouting of.

The other difference is the Nazis were pure evil, global warming, global chilling is a fact that rehappens regugarly without an agenda. Humans are polluters with no doubt but we are not Nazis.

Mr Gore got this one wrong as he does so often with many things.
191

seanie,

08/07/2009 19:34:43
Typo;

1940-1949 is actually + 0.044
192

mike - across the pond,

seanie 08/07/2009 19:38:27
can you force yourself to admit that 70 years of data is FAR from a complete data set???? come ON, this rock has been here 4 BILLION years and you are telling me that you can draw conclusive evidence from 70 years of data.... thats LAUGHABLE...

but lets just LOOK at the data...
the 30's .3 cooler
the 40's .5 warmer
the 50's .2 cooler
the 60.s .1 cooler
the 70's no change
the 80's .2 warmer
the 90's .3 warmer
the 00's .5 warmer
(psst its looking COOLER THIS YEAR... so... I guess we are back to some norming of your graph numbers eh?)

wow... looks like a cycle to me... in 50 years you might be able to make your argument more convincing... but WE ARENT THERE YET... so it is JUST as likely that we'll have a run of "coolers" (like the 50's -70's) and then its all back in the scrap heap...

your cycles dont even attempt to address the longer term cycles of the 900 pound gorilla in the room (aka the Sun) at this point they are "interesting observations".... nothing more... certainly not a "finished scientific model"
193

Nellie,

Liverpool 08/07/2009 19:40:12
Seanie
fred bloggs

Thanks for voices of sanity. Unfortunately, some of our correspondents are just as the Paul Simon song says: They see what they want to see and disregard the rest.

Me, I don't want to see sea levels rising because I live @ c.3' but I grudgingly accept the science that measures it is above sea level and I fully intend to move before the first flood occurs and property prices consequently slump. It's already become hard to get house contents insurance at a reasonable price in this area because insurance companies regard the flood plain to have gotten larger even though the area's not been flooded in 100s of years.
194

seanie,

08/07/2009 19:53:50
Well Mike, it may look cyclical to you, but then you're not bright enough to work out that the figures given are anomolies against a baseline, rendering your "the 70's no change" comment laughably inept.
195

mike - across the pond,

seanie 08/07/2009 19:57:26
seanie, you are drinking your own urine!!!!

while it gives you whiter teeth... it doesnt prove ANYTHING...

"pay no attention to the cycles on mars" they mean nothing... um.. well maybe... but maybe the arguments about global warming mean nothing either.... while you are throwing out the baby, dont forget the bathwater!!!!

your gristmill link is a JOKE... it doesnt articulate ANY comparison just dismisses the link on the grounds that "we are watching he sun".... yeah and 3 years ago there was NOTHING to indicate the impending "calm" spell we are experiencing now... and any solar scientist worth their weight in your urine is saying that they dont know why, what or how long this "calm" is going to last... we could be in for another maunder minimum... (in which case we should start burning crude oil in open pits to help stave off a coming ice age)... or we could have a rash of super solar flares starting tomorrow... THEY DONT KNOW....

pluto... wow where did you get THAT... the FACT is pluto is cooling... but it has ZERO to do with any solar or other cycle.... its its own orbit... its racing AWAY from the sun at the moment... and within the next decade or so, its "atmosphere" will precipitate out and it will be a frozen rock for the next 100 years or so...
196

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 08/07/2009 20:02:51
The Deniers, like the creationists, think they are Galileo. They look more like Canute.
197

mike - across the pond,

hey seanie.... 08/07/2009 20:06:49
I was rounding... lol

I notice you didnt object when I rounded .44 to .5...

but howl like a chimpanzee when I round .01 to zero...

if they were wrong they were YOUR numbers....

I have, and always will claim that we simply dont have a broad enough sample to draw ANY conclusions...

we dont even know that we are aware of all the cycles that may be affecting us, much less the factors involved with the cycles we know of...

lol and its ME being closed minded... lol
198

mike - across the pond,

lol freddie my boy... 08/07/2009 20:16:57
deniers look like Canute Lavard...

ok, I'll take that...

and when you look at the facts, the breathless GW panickers look more like Homer Simpson... lol
199

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 20:19:48
From seanie:

"So the current smoothed anomaly for 2008 is based on the following 10 years all being the same temperature as 2008 individually."

Oh, seanie, what a load of bunkum me old son.

The problem with trending over a short period and dealing with pesky end points.
200

El Franko,

08/07/2009 20:19:52
Latest chart of global averaged satellite temps for lower atmosphere is here, covering the past 30 years:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Of course, nothing there to get alarmed about. The atmosphere, like the Mississippe, just keeps rollin' along.
201

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/07/2009 20:44:56
#169 drew 33

"Wow! You can't beat Slioch's logic"

Yep! That's it! Well done! You've got it in a one-er.

202

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/07/2009 20:49:03
#168 connaughtboy

"I think the Vostok ice core record is ample evidence that the current warming is natural."

Really? I'm sure we would love to know the reasons (for want of a better word) behind such a thought.
203

seanie,

08/07/2009 20:51:57
What do you mean bunkum?

The HADCRU smoothed average is calcualted using a 21-point binomial filter. It requires 10 data points either side of the value calculated, given dimiishing weigtings. Since those later data points haven't happened yet the final figure is repeated. The actual figure for 2008 won't be confirmed till 2018, although the diminsihing weighting means the figure will firm up before then.

What part of that don't you understand?
204

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 20:53:35
#202 Slioch

Well it's really quite simple Slioch.

The Vostok ice core record show that what is happening now has many precedents over the last half million years.

I know that scientific evidence is not nearly as compelling as (ahem) computer models, but I tend to give them more weight.
205

Alexander the Scot,

Michigan, U.S.A. 08/07/2009 20:54:17

WOW! So Scotland's getting Sunnier and warmer?! Put away your heavy woolies, rain coats, umbrellas, and get out the old Sun tan lotion. Dunoon and Rothsay will soon replace Honolulu and Lahaina.
If anyone is gullible enough to believe that, and has a little bit of money saved, never go to Brooklyn; you'll end up buying a bridge.
206

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 20:56:47
#203 seanie

Calm down. Forget the data manipulation and look at the absolute temperatures over the last decade. Forget trying to deal with end points and making up future temperatures. Look at the real world data and watch those temperatures fall.

Question for you. How many years of falling temperatures would it take for you to concede that AGW is wrong. 20? 30? 40? 50? Or, would you never concede?
207

seanie,

08/07/2009 21:00:40
The real world data is that the last five years were warmer than the five before, which themsleves were warmer than the five before that, which themselves were warmer than the five before.

When average temperatures go up, that's called warming.

If average temperatures fell over a similar period, a couple of decades at least, then that would be signiifcant.

A drop since 2005 ain't.
208

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/07/2009 21:25:13
#204 connaughtboy

"The Vostok ice core record show that what is happening now has many precedents over the last half million years."

What is happening now is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased 38% from 280ppmv to 387ppmv in 250 years. The current rate of increase in CO2 levels is over sixty times faster than at any time during the natural changes during the ice age and at no time during the Vostok core did CO2 levels exceed 300ppmv. Further, the increase in CO2 is now preceding the increase in temperature. As you folk are so fond of reminding us, during the Vostok core temperatures rose first due to orbital changes.

So, at present we have much faster and much greater increase in CO2 that is preceding the temperature increase.

There is indeed much that we can learn from the Vostok cores, but to suggest that they provide a precedent to present changes is nonsense.
209

mike - across the pond,

seanie 08/07/2009 21:29:39
so... what is it...

a couple years ago you AGW panickers were citing year by year results...

now that that model went to rest with the black boxes of a french airliner you go with "10 year data smoothing"...

it sure sounds to me like you pulling a "so aside from that, Mrs Lincoln, how WAS the play?"

and "The real world data is that the last five years were warmer than the five before"... ah no... thats why you are trying to fly this "10 year data smoothing" to trivialize the FACT that over the last 5 its been pretty flat....

another Homer Simpson moment for the AGW crowd!!!!

now Seanie... scream like the chimpanzee...
210

seanie,

08/07/2009 21:33:37
The last five years were warmer than the five before.

That's just a fact;

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

The HADCRU anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.296
1999-2003: + 0.382
2004-2008: + 0.416

So the most recent five year period is warmer than the previous five years, which itself is warmer than the period before that.
211

seanie,

08/07/2009 21:36:06
And again;

The GISS anomalies;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.38
1999-2003: + 0.45
2004-2008: + 0.53

Again the most recent five year period is warmer than the previous five years, which itself is warmer than the period before that.

This may be beyond you but all you need is a calculator and an ability to folow the links. Try averaging out the last few five year averages.
212

mike - across the pond,

slioch 08/07/2009 21:37:38
your problem is this...

you desciples of the AGW crowd has claimed for YEARS that CO2 preceded GW... we are releasing CO2, therefore GW is caused by man....

now....
the Vostok ice cores (and LOTS of other examples) show that the CO2 in this relationship is TRAILING... so now those Vostok ice cores are "unrelated".... um well... gee THATS convenient

homer, one of your stalwart foundation blocks just turned into an interesting coincidence... this beutiful cathedral you built to your messiah (albore) appears to have a faulty foundation...
213

seanie,

08/07/2009 21:38:49
And as has been explained ad nauseam, trends across short periods, such as five years, are meaningless. They're too susceptible to noise.

Taking five year averages and comparing them is different. It's a bit rough and ready but it filters out that noise.

214

seanie,

08/07/2009 21:44:23
The Vostok ice cores demonstrate the importance of CO2 in the the temperature of the planet. The temperature swings are triggered by orbital anomalies but are far greater than can be explained by those change sin solar forcing. The large temperature changes are primarily due to greenhouse gases, such as CO2, acting as a amplifying feedback.

The current changes ARE NOT due to any orbital changes. These things can be measured and calculated.

Instead it's down to our increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and, just as it did during past cyclical warmings, this will increase average temperatures albiet on a scale and rapidity greatly exceeding those previous cycles recorded in the ice cores.
215

seanie,

08/07/2009 21:45:58
As previously pointed out

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

'Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming'

'The ice ages show that temperature can determine CO2 as well as CO2 driving temperature. Some sceptics – not scientists – have seized upon this idea and are claiming that the relation is one way, that temperature determines CO2 levels but CO2 levels do not affect temperature.

To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.'
216

mike - across the pond,

seanie.... 08/07/2009 21:47:41
there are lies, damned lies, and statistics... lol

your numbers dont add up....

FIRST you claim
1990-1999: + 0.32
2000-2008: + 0.46
this would be a TOTAL of +.78

THEN you claim
1994-1998: + 0.38
1999-2003: + 0.45
2004-2008: + 0.53

THIS would be a TOTAL of 1.36

see somethings wrong here???

unless of course you are claiming that 90-93 had a -0.58.... in which case your entire argument is GONE

or am I supposed to just ignore your FIRST claim?

yet ANOTHER homer simpson moment....

commence your chimpanzee act...
217

seanie,

08/07/2009 21:54:23
They're averaged anomolies relative to a baseline.

You can't just add 1990-99 to 2000-08 to get the change across the period.

Since simple arithmetic is beyond you, you'd best ask an adult for help with that calculator.
218

Mallard,

Borders 08/07/2009 22:19:02
The prat Gore is going more gaga with every pronouncement he makes. The only fascism I detect emanates from the likes of him. I see his great supporter, the arch pseudo scientist, Seanie is at it again today.
219

mike - across the pond,

ahh seanie 08/07/2009 22:21:18
hold on a sec... even better...
are you claiming those are YEARLY averages...

which would be completely LUDICROUS but ok

1990-1999: + 0.32 * 10 = +3.2
2000-2008: + 0.46 * 10 = +4.6

THEN you claim
1994-1998: + 0.38 * 5 = 1.9
1999-2003: + 0.45 * 5 = 2.25
2004-2008: + 0.53 * 5 = 2.65

aside from the fact that THESE numbers would be absolutely ludicrous +6.8 or +7.34

this gyration leaves a +.54 for 90-93... or +.13 per year which is half your 80's rate

yet another homer mont....
220

seanie,

08/07/2009 22:21:20
The figure for 1989-1993 is + 0.24.

Add that to your 1.36 THEN divide by four, to get the average over the four periods covering 1989-2008.

You get an average anomaly of +0.40, although it's an odd way of going about it.

Now take your +0.78 THEN divide by two, to get the average over the two periods combined.

Got it now?

221

seanie,

08/07/2009 22:24:51
There the average yearly anomaly over the periods concerned.

222

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/07/2009 22:28:09
seanie

Constantly re-posting the same thing is not going to strengthen your case.

Also, the personal attacks are most unbecoming and suggests an air of desperation in your argument.

Also, to argue that the science is certain, flies in the face of the IPCC themselves who only claim to be 90% certain of their position. You need to open your mind to the possibility that the AGW position is merely a hypothesis and the real world evidence will eventually be the arbiter.
223

mike - across the pond,

oh... seanie 08/07/2009 22:35:38
actually Im pretty good with numbers...

your original claim IS pretty alarming...

HOWEVER you explation leads to yet ANOTHER AGW Homer Simpson moment....

so... your numbers are not cumulative...

the absolute WORST year was +.48 this is at WORST 1%... you AGW junkies hav NEVER trivialized your case to THAT extent...
224

Fletty73,

Stirling 08/07/2009 22:44:09
Climate change is natural and not man made.
I have never seen a single proven fact to the contrary.
225

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

08/07/2009 22:55:29
Tell you what, boys . . .

Whether it be natural or man-made . . . . What we gonna do about it?

Cos sure as sheeit, ain't no government gonna lean on the major polluters of this world - money talks!!
226

langtonian,

uphall 08/07/2009 22:59:52
9BILLION!world!population forecast by 2050.

Root cause of "greenhouse" gas.

1 piece of ground the size of a football pitch is destroyed every 4-FOUR!! seconds

Eco system,s are gravely threatened.

From Prince Charles Richard Dimbleby Lecture2009

And there's more- much much more.



227

seanie,

08/07/2009 23:54:09
You're demonstrably not pretty good with numbers.

All the figures are anomolies relative to a baseline, either for individual years or averaged over periods.

That you then try to translate an (incorrect) temperature anomaly into a percentage only confirms you're shortcomings in this regard.
228

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 09/07/2009 08:40:20
Much confusion above about smoothing and trends. However the facts are quite clear as shown by this nice plot from the Met Office:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/fact2.html

the red bars show annual values which fluctuate considerably with some clear downturns much bigger than the current slowdown. The smoothed values given by the blue line show clearly the longterm uptrend that really got underway around 1950.
229

El Franko,

09/07/2009 14:18:06
Here's someone with the effrontery to expose errors in the Mystic-Met Off/Hadley data for Africa:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=248

Would that someone had the time to review all their data!
230

El Franko,

09/07/2009 14:22:57
Here's someone who is trying:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ThereWasNoGlobalWarmingBefore1997%28February15th2009%29.pdf

231

El Franko,

09/07/2009 14:34:38
Here's even more temperature histories:

http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Proxies.html

These will help the objective observer admire the sheer legerdemain of the hockey team who brought us their infamous stick graph.
232

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 09/07/2009 17:39:25
El Franko posting more propaganda from Denierworld...you're wasting your time.

233

,

10/07/2009 06:38:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
234

El Franko,

10/07/2009 13:38:18
Here a good site for squeezing a little amusement from the dismal tale of the alarmists' antics: http://dailybayonet.com/

The thing not to miss is the 'Global Warming Hoax Weekly Roundoup'.
235

Chris W,

10/07/2009 19:03:56
Gore is a fanatic, he should be condemned for such stupid statements just as Bernie Ecclestone was. The public are not as stupid as politicians think - they can see this climate change propaganda for the social engineering control freakery that it really is.
236

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 12/07/2009 08:39:49
Gore is right.
237

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 14/07/2009 01:58:56
Gore is wrong and has been proven to be wrong on many counts.
His buddy James Hansen from the Goddard Institute of Space Studies is the chap who started this nonsense and made a career out of it.
Unfortunately he has crossed the line between science and politics. His climate model was designed to produce a given result and no matter what the input is the result is the same.
238

Em,

14/07/2009 15:39:55
Now I've heard everything. It's the likes of Gore who are pushing this Nazi style climate fearmongering in order to control every facet of our lives. And if I have to listen to one more person being suckered in and spouting this false notion of overpopulation while the real environmental crimes go unchalenged, crimes such as the contamination of our water supply with endocrine disrupting chemicals designed to cause fertility problems. Global sp£rm counts have dropped by a third since 1989 and by half in the past 50 years. The rate of decline is only accelerating as more and more couples find it harder to have children. In studies of white European men, the rate of decline is as much as 50 per cent in the last 30 years.
Everything from cellphone signals, to eating soy products, to female hormones entering the water supply from HRT products has been blamed. There’s no doubt that environmental pollution from industry and pharmaceutical products has contributed, but new research has uncovered that additional chemicals known as Antiandrogens are now finding their way into the water supply.
Antiandrogens are capable of preventing or inhibiting the biologic effects of androgens, male sex hormones, on normally responsive tissues in the body. Antiandrogens are given to transsexual men who want to become women and they are also given to sex offenders released from prison to reduce their sexual libido. These substances have the effect of counteracting masculinisation and effectively diminishing normal male biological characteristics associated with the release of testosterone.
It is therefore tragically ironic that the filters needed to combat this very real and very dangerous threat to our environment and to both animals and humans are being prevented from being installed at sewage treatment facilities because of the “carbon footprint” they would create and fears that they would add to global warming. This is another example of how the manufactured farce that is man-made c
239

Em,

14/07/2009 15:41:14
.....This is another example of how the manufactured farce that is man-made climate change is actually harming the environment by blocking real environmental solutions.
The population of the world is under sustained biological assault and the vast majority of people have no idea that it is happening. This goes above and beyond any debate about whether there are too many people on the planet. This shatters any acceptable notion of human rights as outlined in the Nuremberg code, which clearly states that, “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential,” in any form of human experimentation, and yet the population is being mass medicated and mass sterilized not only against its will but completely in the dark.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.