• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle': Is Climate Change A Myth?

Could the very thing which makes hacked e-mails appear so incriminating to climate skeptics be the wagon circling instinct of climate scientists in the face of the constant pressure from antagonistic climate skeptics in search of incriminating evidence, against anthropogenic climate change?

However you dress it up, it's clear from the hacked emails that some climate scientists at UEA were deliberately excluding data which cast doubt on their conclusions. As I've said I expect this is actually unexceptional in academia, but that doesn't make it acceptable and trying to blame climate sceptics for the gross unprofessionalism of the UEA scientists is ludicrous.
 
Quake42 said:
Could the very thing which makes hacked e-mails appear so incriminating to climate skeptics be the wagon circling instinct of climate scientists in the face of the constant pressure from antagonistic climate skeptics in search of incriminating evidence, against anthropogenic climate change?

However you dress it up, it's clear from the hacked emails that some climate scientists at UEA were deliberately excluding data which cast doubt on their conclusions. As I've said I expect this is actually unexceptional in academia, but that doesn't make it acceptable and trying to blame climate sceptics for the gross unprofessionalism of the UEA scientists is ludicrous.
Probably not as ludicrous as the counter-claims being made for the hacked e-mails. ;)
 
Quake42 said:
However you dress it up, it's clear from the hacked emails that some climate scientists at UEA were deliberately excluding data which cast doubt on their conclusions. As I've said I expect this is actually unexceptional in academia, but that

But it's amazing that they didn't go a lot further, given that the future of the planet is at stake and they're facing organised opposition which wants to sabotage any attempt to stop climate change.

Anyone else in that situation might be tempted to go in for all sorts of fakery. Instead, they just did some minor data shuffling which is hardly unusual and certainly doesn't throw any doubt on their conclusions.

On the positive side, people all over the world have now heard of East Anglia...
 
wembley9 said:
On the positive side, people all over the world have now heard of East Anglia...
Yes well if anyone asks, tell them it's in Germany. :)
 
Hi folks, just back from my mid-winter break to the Maldives, joking of course, however i did have to dig the car out of snow, and then dig it back in today. Gosh the weather is cold.
 
Climate change scepticism will increase hardship for world's poor: IPCC chief
Rajendra Pachauri predicts lobbying will intensify to impede progress to agreement on binding treaty in Mexico City
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 January 2010 16.42 GMT

Climate change scepticism is likely to surge in 2010 and could exacerbate "hardship" for the planet's poorest people, one of the world's leading authorities on climate change has told the Guardian.

Writing on environmentguardian.co.uk today, Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, also dismisses suggestions that he is personally profiting from policies to tackle global warming.

Climate sceptics gained media attention in the run up to the Copenhagen climate summit after alleging that hacked emails between senior climate scientists showed that an important temperature record was flawed — a charge rejected by governments and scientific bodies. In Australia, sceptics within the party led to the ousting of the leader of the opposition over new climate laws.

Pachauri predicted this year would see further scepticism. "Powerful vested interests are perhaps likely to get overactive in the coming months, and would perhaps do everything in their power to impede progress towards a binding agreement that is hoped for by the end of 2010 in Mexico City," he said. "Those opposed to action on climate change are working overtime to see that they can stall action for as long as possible."

After a weak deal in Copenhagen, Pachauri warned that allowing scepticism to delay international action on global warming would endanger the lives of the world's poorest people. "In the end, knowledge and science will undoubtedly triumph, but delay in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases would only lead to worse impacts of climate change and growing hardship for the most vulnerable regions in the world, which are also unfortunately some of the poorest communities on Earth."

Pachauri, a vegetarian, has previously described western lifestyles as unsustainable and advocated a diet including one meat-free day a week. He singled out lobbyists in the US for attempting to delay America's climate legislation, which is crucial for a global deal but is currently stalled in the Senate. Last year the Centre for Public Integrity found that 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence US policies on climate change, while America's oil, gas and coal industry increased its lobbying budget by 50%.

Pachauri said action from President Obama would be needed on top of Senate legislation. "The passage of legislation in that country [the US] will have to be supplemented with several initiatives to be put in place by the executive branch of the government," Pachauri said.

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said Pachauri was right on the level of sceptical activity. "We are already witnessing extraordinary efforts by powerful lobbies, in the US and Australia in particular, which are opposed to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. There is a strong alliance of ideologically driven right-wingers, who reject environmental legislation on principle, and lobbyists for some hydrocarbon companies, who place the short-term commercial interests of their clients ahead of the wider public interest. Both have the common goal of delaying restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, and both use the tactics pioneered by the tobacco industry, hiding their true motivations behind inaccurate and misleading claims about uncertainties in the science."


etc...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... a-pachauri
 
Gosh the weather is cold.

According to the BBC yesterday, if the cold snap continues until March (apparently a real possibility) it will have been the coldest winter for 100 years.

Of course a freakishly cold year does not disprove that there is a general trend towards warming. What I find faintly irritating though is the way that an unusually hot summer is immediately jumped upon by the climate change doomsayers as evidence of imminent climatic oblivion, whereas a cold winter such as this will be quietly ignored.
 
Quake42 said:
Of course a freakishly cold year does not disprove that there is a general trend towards warming. What I find faintly irritating though is the way that an unusually hot summer is immediately jumped upon by the climate change doomsayers as evidence of imminent climatic oblivion, whereas a cold winter such as this will be quietly ignored.
Well there's the possibillity of a really big freeze...
http://prorev.com/2009/12/how-climate-change-could-produce.html
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Much of what Professor Costella claims to be proof of secretive and deceptive practises by a small group of climate scientists, looks a great deal more reasonable, if not entirely innocent, when put into the context of the constant pressure and harassment, they were subjected to by hostile and partisan anti-AGW parties, over more than a decade.

...

Could the very thing which makes hacked e-mails appear so incriminating to climate skeptics be the wagon circling instinct of climate scientists in the face of the constant pressure from antagonistic climate skeptics in search of incriminating evidence, against anthropogenic climate change?

Could, yes, but that's pure speculation. While I believe that human activity does affect climate, an interpretation that they intended to fake global warming is equally valid from the contents of the emails. Until we have more evidence, we don't know what they meant. Only one thing is clear : they tried to alter data. They may have done it for the 'good cause' (pure speculation again), but that's no excuse.

(and I think that Zapruder's film was indeed doctored).
 
Quake42 said:
whereas a cold winter such as this will be quietly ignored.

It's only cold locally, not globally. According to the paper today, in Canada and Alaska it's unseasonally warm - 5-10 degrees up on average. So the global average may not be as cool as you might think.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/0 ... ld-weather

Climate change means more extreme weather events of all sorts. I suspect that may mean more cold snaps as well as higher average temperatures.
 
It's only cold locally, not globally.

Well that's not entirely true, unless your "local" area is very large - pretty much all of Europe is freezing and Eastern and mid-Western parts of the US have recently experienced unusually cold and snowy weather.

Also it's fair to say that far, far more local events (flooding in small towns for example) are regularly held up as examples of global warming. You can't have it both ways (unless you're a scientist at UEA of course) :lol:

I suspect that may mean more cold snaps as well as higher average temperatures.

You may of course be right, but to the untrained ear statements such as this sound awfully like an attempt to make the facts - whatever they are - fit a pre-existing viewpoint.

Regardless, I suspect that the 2009-10 winter will increase the number of warming sceptics.

*Edited for typos (twice!)
 
It's cold in the Northern Hemisphere because it's winter. (Remember that? ;) )

It's a different story Downunder:


Labor seizes on temperature figures as evidence of global warming
Samantha Maiden, Online Political Editor
From: The Australian January 05, 2010 11:18AM

AUSTRALIA had the second warmest year on record last year, the Bureau of Meterology confirmed today in a finding the Rudd government has seized on as fresh evidence of climate change.
The BOM said 2009 “will be remembered for extreme bushfires, dust-storms, lingering rainfall deficiencies, areas of flooding and record-breaking heatwaves”.

Extreme heatwaves across southern Australia during late January/early February set a new Melbourne maximum temperature record of 46.4C, new State maximum temperature records for Victoria (48.8C at Hopetoun) and Tasmania (42.2C at Scamander), and contributing to the Black Saturday bushfires.

Victoria, South Australia and NSW also recorded their warmest July-December periods on record.

Environment Minister Peter Garrett said today the finding that Australia's annual mean temperature for 2009 was 0.9C above the 1961-90 average exposed Tony Abbott's false climate change claim that global warming has stopped.

“This false and misleading claim is today shown to be completely at odds with the rigorous scientific findings of the independent experts at the Bureau of Meteorology,” Mr Garrett said.

“This is the latest Abbott climate-change clanger to be exposed by the independent experts and once again shows why Mr Abbott cannot be trusted when it comes to climate change.”

Mr Garrett said the weather records underlined the need for a carbon pollution reduction scheme to reduce global warming.

Australia's hottest year was 2005, where temperatures rose 1.5C avove the 1961-90 average.

etc...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/la ... 5816209762
 
That was last year and you cannot judge a planet through local warming. I seem to hear that a lot about cold but, it works both ways. :p
 
tonyblair11 said:
That was last year and you cannot judge a planet through local warming.
Not just last year: read the whole article from that link:

“2009 ends Australia's warmest decade on record, with a decadal mean temperature anomaly of +0.48C (above the 1961-90 average),” the Bureau of Meterology said.

“In Australia, each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the preceding decade. In contrast, decadal temperature variations during the first few decades of Australia's climate record do not display any specific trend. This suggests an apparent shift in Australia's climate from one characterised by natural variability to one increasingly characterised also by a trend to warmer temperatures.”


(Never mind - I expect the hackers will turn their attention to the BOM soon.. ;) )

A lot of people seem incapable of distinguishing between climate and weather. In Britain we have a temperate climate, but annually the temperature fluctuates from a few degrees below zero up to nearly 30 deg.

By contrast, the GW that's being measured is mostly in fractions of a degree, with predictions for it to rise by a few degrees. This sounds almost insignificant, but in fact it represents a huge increase in atmospheric energy, with results we have observed - melting ice-caps and glaciers, rising sea-levels, and more extreme weather events.
 
I wonder if the advance of technology had anything to do with more accurate readings. How can you dismiss cooling trends and only look at summer temps? Won't they cancel each other out due to more icepack? Will you pay double the normal methane tax because you have been releasing emissions longer than me? :twisted:
 
tonyblair11 said:
How can you dismiss cooling trends and only look at summer temps?
Who's doing this? Certainly not climatologists, who take the long-term view. And what they find is GW - an increase in the average (day/night, summer/winter) temperatures, all over the world.

It's only GW sceptics who point to short-term weather events as 'proof' that there is no global warming.
 
rynner2 said:
tonyblair11 said:
How can you dismiss cooling trends and only look at summer temps?
Who's doing this? Certainly not climatologists, who take the long-term view. And what they find is GW - an increase in the average (day/night, summer/winter) temperatures, all over the world.

It's only GW sceptics who point to short-term weather events as 'proof' that there is no global warming.


I never said there was no warming. Will you please stop labeling people? I asked if there was going to be a balance because winters are supposed to get colder in the current warming models? Politicians use info to their advantage and only relaying a one sided view adds fuel. The models and simulations are not set in stone. There is a lot of room for variables and tech innovation. I'm looking for discussion and not knee jerk put downs. I am not scientifically illiterate. So please don't call me ignorant.
 
Quake42 said:
Well that's not entirely true, unless your "local" area is very large - pretty much all of Europe is freezing and Eastern and mid-Western parts of the US have recently experienced unusually cold and snowy weather.

Apologies, that is exactly how I was using it - local as opposed to global

Quake42 said:
Regardless, I suspect that the 2009-10 winter will increase the number of warming sceptics.

Sadly, I agree. Led by the tabloid press, and at a very bad time. The next few years are likely to be crucial, and it's hard to see any kind of cohernet action coming out of the current situation.

Expect the next lot of climate change arguments to be about how pointless remidiation is, and what sort of barriers we should be putting up to stop immigrants and refugees.
 
It's only GW sceptics who point to short-term weather events as 'proof' that there is no global warming.

But that patently isn't true as extremely localised and/or short-term events (such as flooding in a single town) are regularly held up as evidence that global warming is real and is happening now. As I said above you can't have it both ways. It's either acceptable to point to local and/or short term weather events as evidence of more general climatic trends or it isn't. You can't say it's OK to draw conclusions from hot spells but not from cold snaps. That's exactly what the UEA scientists are in trouble about.

And as tonyblair says I don't think it's fair to label people. As far as I'm aware (without trawling through all 20-odd pages on this thread) the only outright sceptic is Scunnerlugzzz.
 
There's an interesting graphic at the bottom of this page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8442739.stm

Scroll down to the Why the cold weather? panel, and click forward to the fourth section. The graphic shows that many places in the northern hemisphere were actually warmer in the last week of December '09 than they were for that period averaged from 1961 - 1990.

(But UK and northern Europe, China, and much of the USA were colder than average, as we know! 8) )
 
To reinforce my previous post:

UK snow: It's the weather, sceptics
Now that we are having a record-breaking cold snap, sceptics gleefully suggest that it shows global warming is not happening, says Geoffrey Lean.
By Geoffrey Lean
Published: 6:47PM GMT 08 Jan 2010

If environmentalists ever ascribe an unusually hot spell to global warming, sceptics rightly come down on them like a ton of bricks. As they point out, weather is different from climate: it will always vary, but it is the trend that counts.

But now that we are having a record-breaking cold snap, sceptics gleefully suggest that it shows global warming is not happening. It's even said that the Met Office's bodging – again – of the seasonal weather forecast invalidates all climate science.

Surely they don't need to resort to such inconsistency to make their case? They were right first time. Nothing can be inferred either way from one, or even a few, episodes of blazing heat or freezing cold; it takes a trend stretching over many years. And while harsh winters can be predicted to get commoner if the world cools down, this big freeze does not show that this is happening.

While we are at it, it's not true either, as some sceptics say, that the whole of the northern hemisphere is now gripped by unusual cold. Alaska, Canada, Greenland, northern Africa, East Asia and most of Europe are warmer than usual, while northern Europe, Siberia, China and most of the United States are cooler.

We are being chilled by two anti-cyclones. One over Greenland is sweeping Arctic air south; the other, over Russia, is spreading Siberian cold east. Mild warmer air from the Atlantic, which we normally enjoy, has been diverted southwards. It's the weather, sceptics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthc ... ptics.html
 
Even that amiable chap Giles Coren is getting his knickers in a twist about the 'sceptics':

If I hear another global warming joke, I’ll . . .
. . . go completely insane. Climate change doesn’t mean we’ll have lots of lovely weather all the time, you numbskulls
Giles Coren

Right, there is something that is going to have to stop right this second, and that is people making jokes about “If the globe is warming up then where did all this snow come from, eh? Eh? Tell me that?” Because it is driving me crazy.

And when I say “people”, I mean mostly columnists, cartoonists and comedians. I know there is nothing else to write about at the moment (God help me, I’m writing about people writing about the snow) and I grant that it was a nice little coincidence that the Copenhagen summit happened just as it started snowing, but please, people, stop making jokes about the weather in relation to climate change. Stop pretending to be surprised that you had to put a scarf and hat on this morning when the world is supposed to be warming up. The two things are not related. Nobody who understands the science is claiming that global warming (if it happens) is going to make Britain hotter in the long run.

You hear me? Nobody is saying that, not the bleeding-heartedest, most climate-credulous ladyboy Yakult-drinker in Islington. It will do the opposite. Global warming will in the end interfere with the ocean currents, knock out the Gulf Stream, and remove the protection we have from the icy Nordic weather that is our due, as sharers of the same latitude as Siberia. Britain will get colder. So this joke about the weather just isn’t there.

Do you understand? It’s called “global warming”, but that doesn’t mean “nice warm weather”. So please stop making these stupid, stupid jokes in my newspapers and on my television.

Every bloody spring it’s the same. As soon as there is a nice sunny day the climate-sceptic jokemeisters say: “If this is global warming, then bring it on!” Ha ha ha.

Idiots! Don’t you get it? Those sunny days are because Great Britain is protected by the Gulf Stream, thanks to a finely balanced climatic status quo that will change if, as some people believe will happen, world temperatures rise by a couple of degrees over the next few years.

Can you get it into your thick skulls? If global warming turns out to be true, Britain weather will go bonkers. It will snow all the time. Weather might be like this more often, not less. Those unseasonably sunny early springs are exactly what there will be fewer of, not more. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

etc... :D

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 981487.ece
 
Good finds Rynner - I've seen the "oh it's cold so climate change must be rubbish" angle touted on the BBC news, of all places, several times this week. I was beginning to wonder if there were any news stories countering this fallacy.
 
I assume everyone here is familiar with the notion that global warming is due to the sun generating more heat, and that every other planet in the solar system is also becoming warmer. The global warming debate has been dominated by the man-made CO2 emission faction, to the exclusion of this argument.
Likewise the sceptics cite the current weather as disproof of this rather than concede the possibility that it's due to the sun-spot cycle somehow failing to renew after reaching it's lowest point 2 years ago.
There's a lot more to global warming than just carbon dioxide.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
I assume everyone here is familiar with the notion that global warming is due to the sun generating more heat, and that every other planet in the solar system is also becoming warmer. The global warming debate has been dominated by the man-made CO2 emission faction, to the exclusion of this argument.

That's because a huge amount of research has shown that the solar variability component can only account for a fraction of the observed warming at most -

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on ... -warm.html

the sun-spot cycle somehow failing to renew after reaching it's lowest point 2 years ago

?? Everyone else thinks the 11-year cycle reached its low in 2009 on schedule.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009 ... iction.htm
 
Bigfoot73 said:
I assume everyone here is familiar with the notion that global warming is due to the sun generating more heat, and that every other planet in the solar system is also becoming warmer. The global warming debate has been dominated by the man-made CO2 emission faction, to the exclusion of this argument.
Likewise the sceptics cite the current weather as disproof of this rather than concede the possibility that it's due to the sun-spot cycle somehow failing to renew after reaching it's lowest point 2 years ago.
There's a lot more to global warming than just carbon dioxide.

I had heard that Mars had shown signs of warming (although it wasn't the most reliable of sources) but I hadn't heard anything about all the other planets warming. Are there any sources for this? I'd be interested to see them.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
I assume everyone here is familiar with the notion that global warming is due to the sun generating more heat, and that every other planet in the solar system is also becoming warmer. The global warming debate has been dominated by the man-made CO2 emission faction, to the exclusion of this argument.
Likewise the sceptics cite the current weather as disproof of this rather than concede the possibility that it's due to the sun-spot cycle somehow failing to renew after reaching it's lowest point 2 years ago.
There's a lot more to global warming than just carbon dioxide.
Indeed, the sun is apparently in a cooling phase.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/apr/23/sun-cooling-down-space-climate

The sun's cooling down - so what does that mean for us?

The Guardian Online. Laura Spinney. 23 April 2009

The sun's activity is winding down, triggering fevered debate among scientists about how low it will go, and what it means for Earth's climate. Nasa recorded no sunspots on 266 days in 2008 - a level of inactivity not seen since 1913 - and 2009 looks set to be even quieter. Solar wind pressure is at a 50-year low and our local star is ever so slightly dimmer than it was 10 years ago.

Sunspots are the most visible sign of an active sun - islands of magnetism on the sun's surface where convection is inhibited, making the gas cooler and darker when seen from Earth - and the fact that they're vanishing means we're heading into a period of solar lethargy.

Where will it all end? Solar activity varies over an 11-year cycle, but it experiences longer-term variations, highs and lows that can last around a century.

"A new 11-year cycle started a year or two ago, and so far it's been extremely feeble," says Nigel Weiss of the University of Cambridge. With Jose Abreu of the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology in Dübendorf and others, Weiss recently predicted that the long-term solar high we've been enjoying since before the second world war is over, and the decline now under way will reach its lowest point around 2020. Their prediction is based on levels of rare isotopes that accumulate in the Earth's crust when weak solar winds allow cosmic rays to penetrate the Earth's atmosphere.

There's even a chance, says Weiss, that we might be heading for a low as deep as the Maunder minimum of the 17th century. Either side of that trough, Europe shivered through the Little Ice Age, when frost fairs were held on the Thames and whole Swiss villages disappeared under glaciers. So should we expect another freeze?

Those who claim the rise in temperatures we've seen over the last century are predominantly the result of intense solar activity might argue that we should, but they're in the minority. Most scientists believe humans are the main culprit when it comes to global warming, and Weiss is no exception. He points out that the ice remained in Europe long after solar activity picked up from the Maunder minimum. Even if we had another, similar low, he says, it would probably only cause temperatures on Earth to drop by the order of a tenth of a degree Celsius - peanuts compared to recent hikes. So don't pack your suncream away just yet.
I'm pretty sure Rynner has already Posted links to articles about the fact that scientists haven't been able to find any links between the present warming and solar cycles. However, here's an article from 2007 on the subject.
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...y-not-the-cause-of-global-warming-456785.html

Solar activity 'not the cause of global warming'

Independent Online. Steve Connor, Science Editor. 11 July 2007

Claims that increased solar activity is the cause of global warming - rather than man-made greenhouse gases - have been comprehensively disproved by a detailed study of the Sun.

Scientists have delivered the final blow to the theory that recent global warming can be explained by variations in the natural cycles of the Sun - a favourite refuge for climate sceptics who dismiss the influence of greenhouse-gas emissions.

An analysis of the records of all of the Sun's activities over the past few decades - such as sunspot cycles and magnetic fields - shows that since 1985 solar activity has decreased significantly, while global warming has continued to increase.

Mike Lockwood, of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Chilton, Oxfordshire, said: "In 1985, the Sun did a U-turn in every respect. It no longer went in the right direction to contribute to global warming. We think it's almost completely conclusive proof that the Sun does not account for the recent increases in global warming."

The study, published today in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A, shows there is no doubt that solar activity over the past 20 years has run in the opposite direction to global warming, and therefore cannot explain rises in average global temperatures.

Dr Lockwood and his colleague Claus Fröhlich, of the World Radiation Centre in Davos Dorf, Switzerland, have produced the most powerful counter argument to suggestions that current warming is part of the natural cycle of solar activities. "There is considerable evidence for solar influence on Earth's pre-industrial climate, and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial change in the first half of the last century," they write.

However, since about 1940 there has been no evidence to suggest that increases in global average temperatures were caused by solar activity. "Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified," the two scientists said.

The theory that past changes in solar activity may have explained some changes in the climate before the industrial revolution is not in dispute. In previous centuries, for instance, notably between about 1420 and 1570, when the Vikings had to abandon their Greenland settlements, solar minima corresponded with unusually cool weather, such as the "little ice age" of the 17th century.

But climate sceptics have exploited this to dispute the idea that man-made emissions are responsible for global warming. In the recent Channel 4 programme The Great Global Warming Swindle, the rise in solar activity over the latter half of the 20th century was erroneously presented as perfectly matching the rise in global average temperatures.

Dr Lockwood said he was outraged when he saw the documentary, because of the way the programme-makers used graphs of temperature rises and sunspot cycles that were cut off in the 1980s, when the two trends went in the opposite direction.

"The trouble is that the theory of solar activity and climate was being misappropriated to apply to modern-day warming. The sceptics were taking perfectly good science and bringing it into disrespect," Dr Lockwood said.

The Royal Society said yesterday: "There is a small minority which is seeking to confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day."
All emphasis mine

See also:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/PETERLAUT-ANALYSIS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-CPN1.pdf

The problem is, no matter how many times some theories get disproved, they pop up somewhere else along the line all fresh and ready to be trotted out, again. It's a bit like that game, 'Whac-A-Mole'.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
The problem is, no matter how many times some theories get disproved, they pop up somewhere else along the line all fresh and ready to be trotted out, again. It's a bit like that game, 'Whac-A-Mole'.
Yep, the Zombie theories, discussed earlier in this thread. The sceptics have a set of arguments - as soon as one is knocked down, they move on to the next. When they've been through their entire repertoire, they go back to the start... :roll:
 
Hi Ted.
Mars warming:-
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Mars#Historical_climate_observations
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/resu ... eport.html
http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/globa ... d-jupiter/
http://library.thinkquest.org/19455/temperature.htm
http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Global ... o_999.html[/url]This last one has a comparison between Viking and Pathfinder data from which warming is arguable though not conclusive, and it's highly contentious wherever you look.
[url=http://spectator.org/blog/20...ectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/cl ... ment-cei-f
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... mate-data/[/url]Doubts are being cast on NASA's integrity regarding this issue.

The real solution may lie elsewhere:-
http://www.earthfiles.com/ [url=ht...w.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 080631.htm
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/i ... ICS176.pdf[/url]
Cosmic rays may be partly responsible. Check out the "cosmic fluff" item on earthfiles ( about4/10ths down the page)
 
Back
Top