Global Cooling

[MrMark]

Freak weather? It was all done to Al Niño, and some Yank sorted it out by killing the culprit. Fact!

[EternalOptimist]

The way I see it

I am not convinced about man made global warming but I'm open minded
I do believe in cause and effect.
According to the OP 100 years of GW was cancelled in one year.
Even if the man made GW theory is correct SOMETHING out there had 100 times the impact.
If man made GW theory is only a little bit correct, SOMETHING out there has 1,000's of time the impact.
If we can't control carbon emissions how the heck are we supposed to control the SOMETHING.
Therefore, we cant control it. We have to adapt or die.

[TimberWolf]

According to the OP 100 years of GW was cancelled in one year.

According to the graph I saw todays lower temperature is about the same as a low point 10 years ago. Or something like that, can't be arsed to look at it again.

Anyway global warming is a symptom of disease not a disease IMO. The disease needing treatment is overpopulation, not the symptom. Environmentalism as a cure is a bit like using a hammer to knock out a low oil warning light instead of looking at what's causing the oil to disappear.

[VectraMan]

The way I see it:

What the evidence does show is that the climate changes, and always has and always will regardless of whether we're here or not. I don't claim to know whether it's true or not, but I am reasonably sure that the certainty with which the case is presented is overstated. The truth is that the climatologists understanding of the way the world works is scratching the surface, and it's an almost unbelievable level of arrogance for them to draw these conclusions.

And that makes me annoyed, and makes me take the "it's all nonsense" side, if only to try and restore some balance.

I was a teenager in the 80s when nuclear war still seemed a very real threat. Then one in three of us was going to be dying of AIDS, followed by most of our brains turning to mush because of the infected beef we'd been eating for years. We were all going to be dying of skin cancer because of the hole in the ozone layer, then SARS, and Bird Flu, and I'm sure I've missed out a few. It's hard not to see global warming as just another scare story that won't happen in reality.

[The Lone Gunman]

The way I see it:

What the evidence does show is that the climate changes, and always has and always will regardless of whether we're here or not. I don't claim to know whether it's true or not, but I am reasonably sure that the certainty with which the case is presented is overstated. The truth is that the climatologists understanding of the way the world works is scratching the surface, and it's an almost unbelievable level of arrogance for them to draw these conclusions.

And that makes me annoyed, and makes me take the "it's all nonsense" side, if only to try and restore some balance.

I was a teenager in the 80s when nuclear war still seemed a very real threat. Then one in three of us was going to be dying of AIDS, followed by most of our brains turning to mush because of the infected beef we'd been eating for years. We were all going to be dying of skin cancer because of the hole in the ozone layer, then SARS, and Bird Flu, and I'm sure I've missed out a few. It's hard not to see global warming as just another scare story that won't happen in reality.

Science has cried Wolf so many times. I know it doesnt mean they are wrong this time mind.
I think either the chair or a senior member of the IPCC was on TV in the 70's claiming there would be another ice age by 2020.

The major problem I have with the IPCC report is how it gathered evidence. Which studies it chose to include. It appears that they only looked at reports examining man made contributions to climate change.
I can understand what was said above about the oil industry funded studies being biased, but the same could be said of some of these other studies. A lot of "green" science is being done by those with an agenda. Whether that be rampant tree huggers or researchers needing to fund a cushy lifestyle they want to find cause that will vindicate them or bring extra funding.
The next problem I have is that the IPCC is incapable of explaining previous global temperature changes even though they have so much evidence. Enough evidence to say that we are causing it this time.

The climate is changing. While we sit around arguing about what the cause is we are doing nothing to cope with the consequences.

Using climate issues as an excuse to tax is doing nothing to move us forward, particularly when that tax is not used for climate issues.

[ace00]

Taxed

This is quite an interesting scientific rebuttal of IPCC method, conclusion:

http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf

In 10 years, global warming will have gone the way of impending bird flu doom and ice age calamity. Only the taxes will remain.

[TimberWolf]

Owlhoot might be interested to see that Lubos Motl was one of the reports contributors.

[EternalOptimist]

This is quite an interesting scientific rebuttal of IPCC method, conclusion:

http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf

In 10 years, global warming will have gone the way of impending bird flu doom and ice age calamity. Only the taxes will remain.

good find ace00. jolly hockeysticks

[sasguru]

good find ace00. jolly hockeysticks

Look up the background to the Heartland Institute.

[EternalOptimist]

Look up the background to the Heartland Institute.

and your point is ?

Please point to the scientific evidence which would make the IPCC any more credible than the NIPCC and do try to keep an open mind