ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

How exciting! Another study.

Hmmm… This doesn’t look like a link to a bonafide study. I wonder if this article is just a regurgitation of another news source?

Now that’s encouraging. They are actually referencing Nature Climate Change, a very reputable science magazine. Here’s the abstract of the article, Orbital forcing of tree-ring data.

Unfortunately, Nature put the complete article behind a paywall. Let’s see if we can find any other articles explaining the research, in addition to the one we just looked at in the Daily Mail.

Yes indeed. Here’s one called Does New Tree Ring Study Put the Chill on Global Warming? in which one of the study’s co-authors comments.

And here’s another discussion of the Medieval Warm Period. How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

Oh dear me. The closer we get to actual scientific studies, the worse it looks for AGW-deniers. (And the worse it looks for planet Earth as well )


Those who have a memory longer than a shoestring will remember that we discussed this particular topic earlier in this thread.
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/al...global-climate-shift-36195-99.html#post569155

Finally, I keep thinking that the apparent IQ of a certain avatar could be increased 50 points simply by adjusting the eyepatch slightly.

 

Personal attacks do not make truth wrong. Nor do 'websites.'

Truth is valid only if it is valid. A minor thing modern Science tries to ignore, sorry that should have been modern thinkers try to ignore.

Science should be objective regardless of who employs it.

As for ocean conditions. 240 pages and still no consensus .... that is just like the 'Scientists.' There is no consensus. Ironically, consensus is democracy gone crazy, not Science ..... but, our poor modern Scientists much please a much greater audience than they did 200 years ago.

 

Do you understand the science on this topic El?

If so, what specifically is the scientific argument you present which disproves the AGW hypothesis?

 

Yes, lots of "its all a conspiracy" comments, but no direct questioning of the logic, the studies or the data. I don't think the naysayers even read and digest the information.

It doesn't matter. I am enjoying the university education, and having the wide range of reports spoonfed to me by Number 4 is a painless way of assimilating the vast amounts of work being done by some really intelligent people.

In the end though, I am not seeing any serious progress towards a 'cure', and based on past history, there isn't going to be any significant action until it is way too late. This wont be because of will, its just not economically and physically possible.

 

Remember Jimbo rwatson?

I read through a couple of hundred papers on AGW when we were tossing this about some years back on the old thread.
I got a good education on the subject but never appreciated the counter argument which did not address the science..

Cheers

 

""It doesn't matter. I am enjoying the university education, and having the wide range of reports spoonfed to me by Number 4 is a painless way of assimilating the vast amounts of work being done by some really intelligent people.""

Thanks for the compliment,
But it is my smarter but not so handsome brother with an Imaginary Number who is the person holding the spoon!

 

The only thing the self appointed experts have in common when dishing out pseudo science on "Global Warming" re-baptised in any way you wish, is that they get paid to do so.

At this point they are working for survival. The global warming industry has seen the writing on the wall after 15 years of no warming and 15 years of ever increasing CO2, (yea correlation my foot) yet the momentum is massive.

Politicians have mapped their constituency and can not change horse midwater, those scientist who reject the mercenary methodology have either lost their funding or can not get a paper published. Universities have muzzled any alternative views in fear of loosing their fundings. I can go on for another 5 pages. The current situation is very much like the spanish inquisition. "Deniers" are killed, witches burned, infidels converted all working for a higher cause that justifies all methods possible.

Environmentalism is a religion and its latest ******* child, Global Warming will soon be officially declared for what it is, a con, a farce, a hoax, a fraud that has cost humanity trillions of dollars for a Marx inspired redistribution of resources and power towards a dying left that is hiding behind the green ideas.

 

I have no doubt at all you could go on for another five pages, and even more, but I'm not sure what world or dimension you're living in. In the one where I hang out, it's the deniers who are in trouble. We won't run short of them though; ignorance and paranoia are always in fashion with certain crowds.

 

The problem is one of perception.

In the 1970's it was a coming ice-age. Around 1995, Gore was promising he had invented the internet.

When that did not work, he invented global warming.

OK.

Whatever dimension we live in, we were promised all of the problem was Air Conditioning and evil Fluorocarbons. We got rid of those and POOF, the evil ozone layer over the south pole was no longer the problem.

Now the problem is CO2 - 95% of which is produced by life around us. So, what will they do once they have everyone on board and not using cars?

Start killing dogs? Or killing more people?

Yes, there is warming. Yes, it has been consistent since the little ice ages of the last 1000 years.

And then they find those darned Norse settlements under the ice .... again and again .... But, they tell us, the Norse were not there. We have been cold, now we are warm ....

I just wish I could get rich off of other people as easily as government scientists do ....

 

How is it that they, and we, forget that looking for the Northern Passage is what led everyone to find and colonize America?

1984 becomes more believable day by day.

 

"The coming ice age" you refer to was only a speculative scenario back then, that was picked up and promoted mostly by the media to sell newspapers and magazines. There was never any sort of significant scientific consensus an ice age was coming. You can't even begin to to compare that with the depth and breadth of today's scientific support for global warning.

Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. That's a deliberate twisting and misinterpretation of something he said during a Wolf Blitzer interview, where he explained that he took a leading role in pressing for and supporting its creation. Which is completely true....

Claiming Al Gore went on to "invent' global warming is simply bizarre.... and shows the success of attempts to politicize the issue, by painting it as a liberal construct for nefarious purposes.

And it's been a long, long time since anyone really tried telling us the Norse 'were never there.'

 

BBC News | Massive melting of Andes glaciers

 

The Independent (UK) | Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate science

see also How the 'Kochtopus' stifled green debate

 

The Guardian | Leaders join to discuss climate change at Davos 2013

 

New York Times | Eyes Turn to Antarctica as Study Shows Greenland’s Ice Has Endured Warmer Climates