What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by apex1

Terry and Jimbo,

Do´nt pay too much attention on Georg Beck´s elaborations, there is mainly some rant against a handful of authors and scientists to be found. His scientifical background is vague, and he does´nt provide better proof of his statements than his opponents. In fact he provides nothing, he just argues about the unprecise methods of them.
Richard

Beck's insights into the history of the CO2 measurements, and his historical account of how we came to believe that atmospheric CO2 was at a level of 280ppm for eons until we came along are entirely accurate and verifiable through other accounts of the same events. His assertions about the Callendar data are not even controversial, and were freely admitted by Callendar at one time. Callendar omitted the >400ppm for ~30 years spike in mid 19th century CO2 concentration to suit the agenda of the group (IPCC) to which he was was re-presenting the data. Chemical analysis done contemporaneously also reflects this spike which was recorded in Callendar's ice cores. Beck contends that this episode proves the chemical analysis data deserves more stature, and could/should be used to calibrate other proxies, like ice cores. In any normal scientific debate without the strong political implications as the AGW debates has, this would be a 'no brainer'; OF COURSE the chemical analysis data set would be so employed. But not so with the pro AGW people; they want no part of it.

This is the gist of Beck's presentation on the subject.

Jimbo

[Marco1]

Don't you love it when you are mothered! Oh such fond memories

Originally Posted by Marco1

Don't you love it when you are mothered! Oh such fond memories

Hogwash

was a term you like to use. Lets use it again...

And keep on going, the dogs still are barking................

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

His assertions about the Callendar data are not even controversial, and were freely admitted by Callendar at one time.

I've too done strange things when I've been drunk.....

Now, do we believe in Beck, I mean; "believe" ?

[Guillermo]

Deconstructing Global Warming, by Richard S. Lindzen:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...n-talk-pdf.pdf

From there:
“THE ARCTIC OCEAN IS WARMING UP, ICEBERGS ARE GROWING SCARCER AND IN SOME PLACES THE SEALS ARE FINDING THE WATER TOO HOT. REPORTS ALL POINT TO A RADICAL CHANGE IN CLIMATE CONDITIONS AND HITHERTO UNHEARD-OF TEMPERATURES IN THE ARCTIC ZONE. EXPEDITIONS REPORT THAT SCARCELY ANY ICE HAS BEEN MET WITH AS FAR NORTH AS 81 DEGREES 29 MINUTES. GREAT MASSES OF ICE HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY MORAINES OF EARTH AND STONES, WHILE AT MANY POINTS WELL KNOWN GLACIERS HAVE ENTIRELY DISAPPEARED.”
-US WEATHER BUREAU, 1922

[Guillermo]

Our old friend Habibullo Abdussamatov, Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory and Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria, keeps on insisting:

"Experts of the United Nations in regular reports publish data said to show that the Earth is approaching a catastrophic global warming, caused by increasing emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is "not guilty" and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop."
.....................
"Analyzing data on solar activity, the American astrophysicist John Eddy in 1976 noted a correlation between periods of significant change in the number of spots in the past millennium and large changes in the climate of the Earth, changes that have profoundly influenced the life of peoples and states, initiating economic and demographic crises. Later, St. Petersburg geophysicist Eugene Borisenkov showed (1988) that in each of 18 deep minima of solar activity of the Maunder Minimum type, minima which have occurred about every 200 years for the last 7500 years, there have been periods of deep temperature decline, while in the periods of high sunspot maxima, there have been periods of global warming. Such changes in the climate of the Earth could be caused only by lasting and significant changes in the Sun, because there was absolutely no industrial effect on nature in those times. This supports the idea that in the bicentennial periods of maximum levels of solar activity, the TSI has always substantially increased, and it has noticeably decreased in periods of minima."

http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrom...s_nkj_2009.pdf

Cheers.

Note: dotted line in graph represents the present evolution within the 200 years cicle

[Raggi_Thor]

From http://www.tu.no/natur/article226175.ece

[Jimbo1490]

So here we go!



And there will be no kissing!

[Pericles]

Let's all sing along.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM

[Marco1]

And just in case someone forgot that environmentalist are all in for the love of the planet. try the link below.


http://www.saiglobal.com/assurance/e...FYctpAodxFpdLA

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Marco1

And just in case someone forgot that environmentalist are all in for the love of the planet. try the link below.


http://www.saiglobal.com/assurance/e...FYctpAodxFpdLA

Yeah, they love it so much they want to run it(into the ground) and the rest of us are for walking on.

[Marco1]

The more I think about this the more I find real similarities between "global warming" fanatics and Nazis.
Nazism came from a small group of fanatics who dominated a largely apathetic majority.
It spread around the world and took hold onto many other countries officially and unofficially with the promise of unity and a brighter future based on fallacy lies and deception. The main thinking was "we know what's best for you".
It had some good things and many bad ones.
It had to be obeyed at all costs and disobedience was unthinkable and unheard off.
It was indoctrinated in children at school who were thought how to save the world and how to do it all united.
It's main objective was to concentrate power in one group irrespective of nations and cultures.
Once power was centralised it stole and plundered at will.

I am convinced that the environmentalism religion is the Nazism of the 21 century

[Marco1]

The more I think about this the more I find real similarities between "global warming" fanatics and Nazis.
Nazism came from a small group of fanatics who dominated a largely apathetic majority.
It spread around the world and took hold onto many other countries officially and unofficially with the promise of unity and a brighter future based on fallacy lies and deception. The main thinking was "we know what's best for you".
It had some good things and many bad ones.
It had to be obeyed at all costs and disobedience was unthinkable and unheard off.
It was indoctrinated in children at school who were thought how to save the world and how to do it all united.
It's main objective was to concentrate power in one group irrespective of nations and cultures.
Once power was centralised it stole and plundered at will.

I am convinced that the environmentalism religion is the Nazism of the 21 century
George Reisman does not think there was much difference between Nazi and Comunism though.

http://mises.org/story/661

The only difference I can see between the green movement of the environmentalists and the old red movement of the Communists and socialists is the superficial one of the specific reasons for which they want to violate individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Reds claimed that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as "exploitation," "monopoly," and depressions. The Greens claim that the individual cannot be left free because the result will be such things as destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain, and global warming. Both claim that centralized government control over economic activity is essential. The Reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity. The Greens want it for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental damage . . . [And in the end,] [b]oth the Reds and the Greens want someone to suffer and die; the one, the capitalists and the rich, for the alleged sake of the wage earners and the poor; the other, a major portion of all mankind, for the alleged sake of the lower animals and inanimate nature (Ibid., p. 102).
George Reisman

DIGG THIS

Here's the essential common core of hatred and destruction in the doctrines of Communism, Nazism, and Environmentalism. Only the concretes differ, not the fundamental principle of hatred for human life and happiness.

Communism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes monopolies, depressions, and exploitation of workers by capitalists. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the benefit of the working class and the Socialist State. Capitalists and landowners must be exterminated for the benefit of the proletariat.

Nazism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes racial impurity, national decline, and exploitation of German workers by Jewish capitalists. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the good of the Aryan master race and the National Socialist State. Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs must be exterminated for the benefit of the German Nation.

Environmentalism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes global warming, acid rain, and ozone depletion. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the good of other species – our "fellow biota" – and for the good of the planet, under the auspices of international treaties and a nascent Global Socialist State: the UN. Most of the human race must be exterminated for the benefit of exploited species and the planet. (This is what the environmentalist “extremists” already openly say. The “moderates” merely want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent and thereby reduce the American standard of living to that of a third world country, with a third world country’s infant mortality and life expectancy.)

[Guillermo]

Hey everybody! Look! CO2 sensible enviromentalists!

http://aefweb.info/

[masalai]

Hi Guillermo, Just popped by to wish you all well and not to worry too much about the climate change lobby, hopefully, nothing will be done, as there will be no money or incentive, as other matters will keep the alarmists distracted and the climate will continue to do its thing unhindered by idiots, but a bit less pollution would be nice as the smell of sulphurous burnt fuel (rotten egg gas) is not pleasant... I like this presentation "Professor Bob Carter on YouTube: Science & social context of climate change" at your link... Thanks

Pop by here http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/ope...tml#post311863 to get a take on really rabid views - well those posting seem to be aligned in the same direction... When will western economic systems collapse???