Is Man Made Global Warming A Hoax Now?

Climate is just an average of weather patterns over a time period. They are both chaotic systems,it's just the difference between micro and macro. The average weather that a part of the world experiences determined ultimately what it's climate is. They are both inextricably linked to one another.

The implication of what the guy on TV was saying that they could not predict what sorts of climatic trends the UK would have over a ten year period, so by no great leap of the imagination it is quite a no-brainer to wonder why then are they so certain about predicting the whole global climate over a hundred years???

I really hate the "you are confusing weather with climate" argument it always just seems to come from people who have chosen to support the AGHW because they want to believe in it, it's like a slogan that they have latched onto but don't really understand.

 

It's quite simple to me. Long term trends are easier to predict than short term.

Look at it this way:
If we roll a dice 600 times we can say that -
1 will come up around 100 times
2 will come up around 100 times
3 will come up around 100 times
.... and so on...

That doesn't mean that on one roll of the dice we can say whether it will be a 1,2,3,4,5 or 6.

 

THat was not what I was suggesting the meteorologist was saying.

Not it isn't.

What do we base our global temperature average upon? Various measurements taken from around the world.

There is no question that the climate is changing, that is what is does!

So as the climates around the earth change,some places get hotter and some get colder, how likely is it that same static measurements that we take are going to remain the same,and how can we then take taht data and say for sure that because the overall readings are higher that the average temperature of the earth is rising?

Maybe if we took these measurements in different locations around the world they would show a slight decrease in average temperature?

 

We know how the long term trends of the dice will turn out because we know precisely what the statistical outcome of each roll will be. The same cannot be said of the climate, it is a far more complex and less well understood dynamic system.

Also we are talking about climate CHANGE here,which is comparably analogously to the statistical likelihood of each number coming up on the dice changing in an unmeasurable way so that the overall outcome changesover long periods.

 

The planet has gone through warm and cold phases. Carbon is an element of life.

In short: The only way to cure "global warming" is to starve out the third world and increase the divide between rich and poor.

 

What the hell does this even mean?

Here's a test for you: go into a room filled with carbon dioxide, no oxygen. Within seconds the blood rushing to your lungs filled with carbonic acid will be screaming out to exchange it with oxygen in order that the nice, nutritious carbon which is a harmless, shiny and happy element of life can be removed from your body. That's how much an element of life it is.

It's a doubly good test in your case because it will rid us of someone who doesn't think we need to stop polluting the world. I highly recommend it for you to try! :2thumbsup:

 

Carbon dioxide makes up just 0,038% of the atmosphere, the whole man made global warming thing is a big hoax.

 

Just like all those CCFs before the Montreal treaty, we're talking about something is .001% of the atmosphere, I mean how much damage could they possible due to the ozone hole.

*gets skin cancer*

 

Bad comparison, CO2 is needed by the plants for example

 

increase in fossil fuel usage=increased Co2
increase in domestication of livestock, namely cattle=methane (methane is a worse greenhouse gas than Co2)
overall increase in carbon emissions with industrial increases=Co2 + other gases and particulate matter
multiple millions of square miles of forest/grassland destroyed annually=lack of Co2 utilization by plants=increase in Co2 levels
human trash and waste=methane
multiple millions of square miles of grassland converted into cement and ashphalt surfaces=increase in heat retention and conversely decrease in cooling effect of plants

Those are a few that I could come up with off the top of my head, and all are very recent, less than 150 years, developements by mankind, with the exception of cattle farming.
They all contribute in some degree or another and the effects are cumulative.

As Tom pointed out earlier, Earth is a closed eco-system and any person who doesn't think or see the direct connection between recent human activity and climate change is really naive.

 

normal changes of global temp

 

What are?

 

Ok here another one

 

Warmists in trouble
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...e-cant-win-the-game-so-lets-change-the-rules/

 

Yes, let's trust an editorial written by a guy who writes articles titled "365 ways to drive a liberal crazy" and whose only reference is an article written by an amateur 'scientist' who was caught falsifying temperature trends: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php

 

Dems panicked over climategate probe
http://nation.foxnews.com/climate-change/2011/01/19/dems-panicked-over-climategate-probe

 

You're confusing Fox News with a news organization.

 

2010 tied 2005 as the warmest year on record wolrdwide
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110112/ap_on_sc/us_sci_warmest_year

 

no more $ for the ipcc
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/02/19/house-votes-244-179-to-kill-u-s-funding-of-ipcc/

 

As if they need the money anyway. The IPCC doesn't do any research, just puts together what scientists have found. Well, it's a shame the dominant party in Congress is motivated only by politics and not science, but life goes on. The U.S. is looking increasingly provincial and silly from abroad, especially when Australia has just announced a carbon tax to lower emissions.