Originally Posted by Redroach (Post 431273) Central Greenland is obviously very representative. Ask the people of Kiribati about climate change, but you should'nt wait all too long! :rolleyes:

To detail the more recent prehistoric temperature changes, scientists have drilled a number of ice cores in ancient glacial ice. Paleotemperature data from ice cores is considered to be our best continuous record of temperatures on the planet for time-spans up to about 420,000 years ago. Annual layering in undisturbed glacial ice allows us to precisely date the layers, and gives us a very accurate time and temperature sequence. The US government drilled the GISP 2 ice core in central Greenland over a five-year period, and the data is available here. This data set is useful because it reports temperatures (measured by oxygen isotopes) every 10 to 60 years — a good resolution. I sometimes see graphs of ice-core temperatures or greenhouse gasses that are based on measurements every 1,000 or 2,000 years: not nearly of close enough together for comparisons that are useful today. I downloaded and graphed these data in Excel myself. The following graphs have a time scale in years Before Present (BP).
The next graph of temperature from the ice core for the last 10,000 years (the current interglacial period) shows that Greenland is now colder than for most of that period (vertical scale in degrees C below zero). We can see the Medieval Warm Period 800 to 1,000 years ago was not particularly warm, and the Little Ice Age 150 to 650 years ago was one of the longest sustained cold periods during this interglacial. We are now recovering from this abnormal cold period, and the recovery started long before anthropogenic greenhouse gases were produced in any quantity. The curved trend line in green shows that we have been experiencing declining temperatures for the past 3,000 years, and are likely to be heading down toward the next ice age. Temperatures are only considered to be increasing if viewed for the last 150 years, from 1850 onward, which is roughly when thermometers began collecting global data, and is also the period of time the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has chosen for its review. The red portion of the curve is the recovery from the Little Ice Age. The amount of 20th century warming is unknown, since it was recently revealed that unknown portions of the international temperature databases have been tampered with, and the amount and extent of the tampering has not been publicly documented. It is likely that some warming has continued into the 20th century, but it is also likely that the amount of warming is not as great as the 0.6 degrees C that the global warming advocates would lead us to believe.
Our current warming is well within natural variation, and in view of the general decline in temperatures during the last half of this interglacial, is probably beneficial for mankind and most plants and animals. The graph clearly shows the Minoan Warming (about 3200 years ago), the Roman Warming (about 2000 years ago), and the Medieval Warm Period (about 900 years ago). Great advances in government, art, architecture, and science were made during these warmer times.

My main point is that natural variation is so large, even if we cease all emissions completely, the climate will still change (just look at the graphs). The cost of (possibly) slightly influencing this change is so great, why not spend a lot less adapting to it? Since we don’t know if the long-term climate is cooling or warming (I bet on cooling long-term), we could spend trillions to cut emissions, only to have the climate cool catastrophically on its own. What then? Pump as much CO2 into the air as possible?
Warming is not a killer, but global cooling is. It would only take a few years of global crop failures from cold weather to put populations at serious risk. Both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are thickening: Leave anything on the ice, and it gets buried pretty fast (for example: the US South Pole Base was recently reconstructed because the old base was being crushed by snow and ice, and WWII planes lost on Greenland’s southeast coast, were covered by 264 feet of ice in 50 years: see the image below). This is not rocket science. Sure, the sea-level edges are retreating (that is why we call them the ablation zones of a glacier), but they represent a minute portion of the continent-scale ice mass.

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber (Post 431223) +1 A noble cause. No like I said, the concept is great. I will explain what I ment better. I am an electrician, I look at buildings differently because I was in the construction trade (thanks bankers!) the current PV panals are do not tie in with the fabric of the building that well. In 5 -10 years they will be knackered and will deduct value from your property. You also loose some space from the house for the batteries. The "pioneers" who have them now will suffer in the future. Once they start making an actually roofing material thats also a PV panal, then we are in business! How do the current ones actual fix to the roof? Are there any holes in the roof to support them? - if there are you can bet they sealed the holes with something retarded like mastic or silicone... I wouldn't want a load of holes on my roof sealed with silicone which will degrade with UV... They pay for themselves in 5-10 years depending on who tells you, so how much longer will they last than that? Also these firms that fit the things are mostly on a quick money band wagon (government grants) so I expect the work is not being carried out by Roofers and Electricians but more an adhoc crew proberbly with one sparkie and a load of numpties...

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber (Post 431223) I am an electrician, I look at buildings differently because I was in the construction trade (thanks bankers!) the current PV panals are do not tie in with the fabric of the building that well. In 5 -10 years they will be knackered and will deduct value from your property. You also loose some space from the house for the batteries. The "pioneers" who have them now will suffer in the future. Once they start making an actually roofing material thats also a PV panal, then we are in business! How do the current ones actual fix to the roof? Are there any holes in the roof to support them? - if there are you can bet they sealed the holes with something retarded like mastic or silicone... I wouldn't want a load of holes on my roof sealed with silicone which will degrade with UV... They pay for themselves in 5-10 years depending on who tells you, so how much longer will they last than that? Also these firms that fit the things are mostly on a quick money band wagon (government grants) so I expect the work is not being carried out by Roofers and Electricians but more an adhoc crew proberbly with one sparkie and a load of numpties...

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber (Post 431223) +1 A noble cause. No like I said, the concept is great. I will explain what I ment better. I am an electrician, I look at buildings differently because I was in the construction trade (thanks bankers!) the current PV panals are do not tie in with the fabric of the building that well. In 5 -10 years they will be knackered and will deduct value from your property. You also loose some space from the house for the batteries. The "pioneers" who have them now will suffer in the future. Once they start making an actually roofing material thats also a PV panal, then we are in business! How do the current ones actual fix to the roof? Are there any holes in the roof to support them? - if there are you can bet they sealed the holes with something retarded like mastic or silicone... I wouldn't want a load of holes on my roof sealed with silicone which will degrade with UV... They pay for themselves in 5-10 years depending on who tells you, so how much longer will they last than that? Also these firms that fit the things are mostly on a quick money band wagon (government grants) so I expect the work is not being carried out by Roofers and Electricians but more an adhoc crew proberbly with one sparkie and a load of numpties...

Originally Posted by SlipBall (Post 431269) Not sure how you could claim that:confused:...only a very few simple minds believe in man made climate change, put forth for an easy monetary gain from the foolish people, to the pockets of slicker people...do you understand that the earth has been warmer in the past? Do you not understand that it is the Sun? Do you understand cycle's :grin: http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3...l20warming.jpg

Originally Posted by MD_Titus (Post 431278) fair enough, but early adopters drive development of better and more efficient pv panels (or anything else for that matter, ala how the market works, supply and demand etc. etc.). if they started making roofing tiles that were also pv panels, rather than the crude bolt-on things we have now, then that solves the "devaluing of property" problem. having said that - low lying property will eventually have it's value eroded, much like it's foundations, should the more downbeat forecasts turn out to be accurate. :confused: i believe the prevalent notion is more that it is human accelerated climate change. that there are cycles in global temperature and sea level is not in doubt nor contested, it is the rate of these changes that causes alarm.

Originally Posted by SlipBall (Post 431274) You really need to do your own research, and stop blaming yourself and man kind. The last 10 millenia To detail the more recent prehistoric temperature changes, scientists have drilled a number of ice cores in ancient glacial ice. Paleotemperature data from ice cores is considered to be our best continuous record of temperatures on the planet for time-spans up to about 420,000 years ago. Annual layering in undisturbed glacial ice allows us to precisely date the layers, and gives us a very accurate time and temperature sequence. The US government drilled the GISP 2 ice core in central Greenland over a five-year period, and the data is available here. This data set is useful because it reports temperatures (measured by oxygen isotopes) every 10 to 60 years — a good resolution. I sometimes see graphs of ice-core temperatures or greenhouse gasses that are based on measurements every 1,000 or 2,000 years: not nearly of close enough together for comparisons that are useful today. I downloaded and graphed these data in Excel myself. The following graphs have a time scale in years Before Present (BP). The next graph of temperature from the ice core for the last 10,000 years (the current interglacial period) shows that Greenland is now colder than for most of that period (vertical scale in degrees C below zero). We can see the Medieval Warm Period 800 to 1,000 years ago was not particularly warm, and the Little Ice Age 150 to 650 years ago was one of the longest sustained cold periods during this interglacial. We are now recovering from this abnormal cold period, and the recovery started long before anthropogenic greenhouse gases were produced in any quantity. The curved trend line in green shows that we have been experiencing declining temperatures for the past 3,000 years, and are likely to be heading down toward the next ice age. Temperatures are only considered to be increasing if viewed for the last 150 years, from 1850 onward, which is roughly when thermometers began collecting global data, and is also the period of time the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has chosen for its review. The red portion of the curve is the recovery from the Little Ice Age. The amount of 20th century warming is unknown, since it was recently revealed that unknown portions of the international temperature databases have been tampered with, and the amount and extent of the tampering has not been publicly documented. It is likely that some warming has continued into the 20th century, but it is also likely that the amount of warming is not as great as the 0.6 degrees C that the global warming advocates would lead us to believe. Our current warming is well within natural variation, and in view of the general decline in temperatures during the last half of this interglacial, is probably beneficial for mankind and most plants and animals. The graph clearly shows the Minoan Warming (about 3200 years ago), the Roman Warming (about 2000 years ago), and the Medieval Warm Period (about 900 years ago). Great advances in government, art, architecture, and science were made during these warmer times. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph...-10000-new.pngGreenland Temperatures - last 10,000 years Long-term, temperatures are now declining (for the last 3,000 years), and we appear to be headed for the next 90,000 year ice age, right on schedule at the end of our current 10,000 year warm period. We have repeated this cycle 46 times in succession over the last 2.6 million years. And in case you are wondering, the previous Antarctic ice cores tell a broadly similar story. The following graph of ice core data from Vostok (vertical scale in degrees C variation from present) shows that Antarctica is also experiencing a long-term (4,000 year) cooling trend mirroring the Greenland GISP2 cooling trend. Though the individual temperature spikes and dips are different than in Greenland, the long-term temperature trend on the planet appears to be down, not up. And since it is so late in our current interglacial period, we could be concerned about global cooling. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph...-years-web.gifVostok Antarctica, last 12,000 years The US is currently drilling a new ice core (see here), already at 1,512 meters where it is 7,700 years old, that is dated absolutely by counting annual ice layers, and each layer will be analyzed for temperature, greenhouse gases, and other constituents. This will give us the best Antarctic record yet. I believe the results will confirm the above. We geologists owe it to policy-makers to give them the benefit of our longer-term perspective. I believe we will regret regulating CO2, since doing so will not produce any measurable climate control, and may actually cause great harm to world economies. If we want to promote renewable energy sources (and I do), let us not penalize fossil fuel production and use. We may soon need all the energy we can produce, if the long-term cooling continues. My main point is that natural variation is so large, even if we cease all emissions completely, the climate will still change (just look at the graphs). The cost of (possibly) slightly influencing this change is so great, why not spend a lot less adapting to it? Since we don’t know if the long-term climate is cooling or warming (I bet on cooling long-term), we could spend trillions to cut emissions, only to have the climate cool catastrophically on its own. What then? Pump as much CO2 into the air as possible? Warming is not a killer, but global cooling is. It would only take a few years of global crop failures from cold weather to put populations at serious risk. Both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are thickening: Leave anything on the ice, and it gets buried pretty fast (for example: the US South Pole Base was recently reconstructed because the old base was being crushed by snow and ice, and WWII planes lost on Greenland’s southeast coast, were covered by 264 feet of ice in 50 years: see the image below). This is not rocket science. Sure, the sea-level edges are retreating (that is why we call them the ablation zones of a glacier), but they represent a minute portion of the continent-scale ice mass.

Originally Posted by arthursmedley (Post 431252) This is what interests me. Why has denial of climate change been turned into this symbol of rightwing virility? I'm puzzled by this phenomena.

Originally Posted by MadBlaster (Post 431299) Of course, Al Gore and Michael Moore don't have a profit motive. All those phds don't have a profit motive. Hollywood has no motive. The Weather Channel doesn't have a profit motive. GE and $50 lightbulbs, no profit motive there. Carbon tax credit, no wealth re-distribution motives there...how long do I go on. Please pull your head out and take a look around. This has been going on for decades because phds couldn't find anything else to do to be productive in society. They see climate change as a money maker. Really, it has evolved into institutional welfare. But that would be degrading to call it what it really is. So they mask it as a noble cause. "I can't figure out anything to do with my life and my degree, so I go work on climate change!". A peddler of deceit, lies, half truths, manipulation...etc. Something to be real proud of when you wake up in the morning and look at yourself in the mirror. "I'm a good guy"!

Originally Posted by MadBlaster (Post 431299) Of course, Al Gore and Michael Moore don't have a profit motive. All those phds don't have a profit motive. Hollywood has no motive. The Weather Channel doesn't have a profit motive. GE and $50 lightbulbs, no profit motive there. Carbon tax credit, no wealth re-distribution motives there...how long do I go on. Please pull your head out and take a look around. This has been going on for decades because phds couldn't find anything else to do to be productive in society. They see climate change as a money maker. Really, it has evolved into institutional welfare. But that would be degrading to call it what it really is. So they mask it as a noble cause. "I can't figure out anything to do with my life and my degree, so I go work on climate change!". A peddler of deceit, lies, half truths, manipulation...etc. Something to be real proud of when you wake up in the morning and look at yourself in the mirror. "I'm a good guy"!

Originally Posted by SlipBall (Post 431319) Here is Al Gore house, where much of his work to reduce mans carbon footprint is done...fox or nitwit http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/bs2.jpg

Originally Posted by pencon (Post 431322) Remember scientists are always right so I'll stick with the cooling theory of the 70's and not worry about it .If it gets too cold I'll just change my Diesel programmer to extreme setting to warm it up to the right temp.It's amazing to me that even some of you are among the marxist warming brainwashed .It's plain to see what it's really all about . You folks are blind and are unknowingly assisting the one world govt movement .Can you say "new world order " ?

Originally Posted by pencon (Post 431323) I hear david hayward hangs around at al's every other weekend ..;) That pool had 14 feet of ice on it 10 years ago , look at it now ! Run ! Run for your life !

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 431325) How many right-wing conspiracy-theory-pushing lunatics does it take to change a lightbulb? ;)

Originally Posted by SlipBall (Post 431319) Here is Al Gore house, where much of his work to reduce mans carbon footprint is done...fox or nitwit http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/bs2.jpg

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 431316) Thank you for demonstrating WTG's point so well. Your monumental display of the consequences of a lack of education, combined with crass anti-intellectualism, and a willingness to believe any old crap that Fox and the like spew out is a perfect example of why the political and economic system in the USA is dragging it backwards at the rapidly-accelerating rate it now displays...

Originally Posted by pencon (Post 431322) Remember scientists are always right so I'll stick with the cooling theory of the 70's and not worry about it .If it gets too cold I'll just change my Diesel programmer to extreme setting to warm the climate up to the right temp.It's amazing to me that even some of you are among the marxist warming brainwashed .It's plain to see what it's really all about . You folks are blind and are unknowingly assisting the one world govt movement .Can you say "new world order " ?

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 431325) How many right-wing conspiracy-theory-pushing lunatics does it take to change a lightbulb? ;)

When did this descend into a political thread

mr. dsausa.org

Originally Posted by MadBlaster (Post 431366) ROFLMAO!:grin::grin::grin::grin::grin::grin::grin: :grin: It's all about YOU AJW!!!! :grin::grin::grin::grin: What would RAAAID say? HMMMMM. ANOTHER FISH IN THE BUCKET!!!!!!!!!!!!:grin::grin::grin::grin:

Originally Posted by pencon (Post 431382) The Uk ? Isn't that where a lot of the climate "evidence" was doctored up?

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 431425) Pencon, you are a conformist. You conform perfectly to what Fox and co tell you to. Now tell me why a 'conformist left winger' would be quoting what Margaret Thatcher said regarding climate change? Oh, hang on, you can't reply to that because it doesn't conform to your ridiculous conspiracy theories. I think I'll go and read one of Raaaid's threads, for a bit of rationality and common sense...

Originally Posted by pencon (Post 431430) The only reason your quoting thatcher and being "open minded " is because she too has drank the koolaid .$money$ talks , and she has obviously been bought off .If she didn't agree with your theory you would accuse her of watching fox , glenn beck yada yada yada . It's always the same so called insults with you govt conformist liberal extremists .At least I can say all politicians on both sides are full of crap . You on the other hand wouldn't DREAM of saying that about any lefty politician , so YOU are the conformist - you go along with EVERYTHING they say .If obama killed your child , you would still think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread .

Originally Posted by pencon (Post 431437) obama isn't left wing . Wrong! THATS the stupidist thing I've seen online anywhere . You win the prize .You must be on his payroll.

Originally Posted by MadBlaster (Post 431464) Does anyone have a good recipe for fish? I'm getting hungry.

Originally Posted by Warhound (Post 431467) In an attempt to add something constructive before this thread is locked. Have a look at this video explaining how both written, audio and visual media can manipulate news and how incredibly easy it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07NMglQX6gE Regardless if you agree with the guy on climate change (check his other uploads)... the manipulation techinques he describes are used daily and I find it very useful to know how some of it is actually done.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 431463) Unless Pencon is someone else, I don't know him from Adam. Sadly though, this thread was doomed from the start to deteriorate into a slanging match - when people can seriously argue that Margaret Thatcher was bribed into participating in a Marxist plot, there is little chance of a rational debate. Not that they seem to want one anyway, since the entire denialist position is based on a rejection of rationality. They know the 'truth' and aren't interested in actually learning anything. You find idiots like this the world over of course - it's just a pity that they have such a dominant voice in US politics, which takes 'dumbing down' to a whole new level. Anyway, the science is clear, and the loons are wrong. But don't take my word for it, investigate for yourself - you'll soon find how little credibility anyone but the American right wing has for the denialist position. They told a big lie, but nobody believed it but themselves...

Originally Posted by pencon (Post 431485) Yeah the science is clear and if anyone has different opinion , even other scientists , they're automatically an idiot . Typical leftist tactics , if someone doesn't agree insult the crap out of them .Andy , if you scroll back you'll notice it was you that hurled the first insults and condescending comments. Mine were merely reactionary .Your attitude is typical of the whole warming cult agenda right from the word go .

Originally Posted by scotchegg (Post 431502) Disappointing to see it's even a debate. A quick google of "global warming proof" brings up reputable sources such as Nasa, Nature Journal, Scientific American etc. There really is no debate in the scientific community about the reality of global warming, and that humans are at least 2/3 to blame. It's frustrating to see internet pillocks loudly disagreeing with established scientific fact.

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway (Post 431510) Climate Change is a POLITICAL topic these days and the climate science has little or nothing to do with it. That much should be obvious from the way people get so narky and personal about the issue. Climate change stopped being about the real science and became a political football way back around 1990.

Originally Posted by RedToo (Post 431541) I can't understand for the life of me why anyone would think that the earth warming up a little bit would be a bad thing. Climatic Optimum anyone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum RedToo.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 431553) You are in favour of "desert-like conditions in the Midwestern United States"? Why?

Originally Posted by SlipBall (Post 431560) I find it very ironic that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC lost all credibility. Largely due to Al Gore's self proclaimed, his invention of the internet...Take for example the nation state of India, choosing to do their own research.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 431552) This is not a forum for scientific debate. It cannot be while it is hijacked by lunatics who argue that Margaret Thatcher is part of a Marxist conspiracy, and while people can write nonsense like "not one single number or graph offered for review", while rejecting the very possibility that any evidence offered by the scientific community might be real. As for Burt Rutan, I wouldn't want to fly in an aeroplane designed by someone who's expertise was in climatology, so why should I take his opinion on the subject as of any significance? Every so often the denialists dig up a list of 'scientists' or 'famous people' supposedly supporting their position but few or none these people have any expertise in the subject being discussed. If there is to be a debate on the issue, it needs to be conducted within the relevant scientific community, as science, rather than used as a political football by the wilfully ignorant, the pushers of deranged conspiracy theories, and clueless anti-intellectuals incapable of rational debate. I see also that MadBlaster has openly declared that he is trolling - I look forward to seeing him permanently blocked from the forum.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 431565) Al Gore never claimed to have 'invented the internet'. Not that it would matter the slightest if he did. This isn't about Al Gore, any more than it is about Burt Rutan. Still, anything to divert us from the facts - which are that the overwhelming consensus amongst the relevant scientific community (the only people qualified to make meaningful statements on the subject) is than anthropogenic climate change is real, and is likely to have significant negative consequences. This is the only fact that matters.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 431571) Since nobody has offered the slightest evidence of any 'scam' beyond tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories, I see no reason to believe one exists. And the 'leaked' (actually stolen) e-mails have conclusively been proven to reveal no 'scam', fabrication of data, or any other misbehaviour beyond a bad choice of words in a private conversation. Still, you can't let the facts get in the way of your opinions, can you. Your mind is made up. Carry on repeating the same old lies...

Originally Posted by SlipBall (Post 431576) You seem fairly intelligent, maybe you will change your mind someday.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 431577) @ MadBlaster: Trolling - it's what trolls do Bullshitting - it's what bullshitters do Go away

Originally Posted by SlipBall (Post 431529) A casual reader of this thread would notice a complete absence of any scientific evidence in support of the Man Made theory.

Stop trying to Europeanize America.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 431590) This isn't an American issue - it is a global one. This isn't a 'leftist' issue, it is a scientific one. You're probably right about the link between terrorism and 'gas' though - the West (and the US in particular) has done much to create the sort of conditions where terrorism thrives through repeated military interventions, support for autocratic regimes, and other acts designed to ensure future oil supplies - not that it has actually succeeded.

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway (Post 431585) The whole "Man Made" issue is irrelevant and just a distraction. The argument seems to be "its all a communist plot and doesn't exist, but even if it did exist its not Man Made (translated as capitalist/American made) its actually natural resulting from sun-spots/volcanoes/Justin-Bieber/ice-ages/fluffy-kittens and therefore we can ignore it. If you said to someone "do not worry about that cancer which is killing you its not man made so ignore it" they would look at you like you are mad.

Originally Posted by jimson8 (Post 431592) Whatever, if you want America to lead then you need to change your approach because what you are doing now isn't working.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 431565) ~ Still, anything to divert us from the facts - which are that the overwhelming consensus amongst the relevant scientific community (the only people qualified to make meaningful statements on the subject) is than anthropogenic climate change is real, and is likely to have significant negative consequences. This is the only fact that matters.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 431603) Its all poppycock

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 431609) ...And still not an iota of evidence that the scientific community is right. Beyond stupid...

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 431609) ...And still not an iota of evidence that the scientific community are wrong. Beyond stupid...

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 431619) ACE-OF-ACES. People are claiming that the scientific community is wrong. It is for those making such claims to provide the evidence. Or are you as stupid as the rest of this mob, and think that endless repetition of the same old nonsense makes it true anyway? Just out of curiosity, which other branches of science do you think are being manipulated by dark forces? Is gravity a myth? Are photons a Marxist plot? Is the Moon merely projected onto the skydome? Should we nominate Raaid for a Nobel prize for physics? Please tell us more...

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 431619) Or are you as stupid as the rest of this mob, and think that endless repetition of the same old nonsense makes it true anyway

PS I didn't get that worried about GLOBAL WARMING during the 80s and 90s because ALL the scientists said back than that we would all be DEAD due to AIDS by now