Czech president: Gore is insane.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ramo
Peer-review doesn't work its magic with obscure foreign publications that no one cares about...

Although, I'm pretty suspicious about the credibility of that article, I really hope that you are on to some heavy duty funny mushrooms.

[Ramo]

Note that I wasn't saying that foreign publications are necessarily obscure or that no one cares about them...

[BlackCat]

Well, that isn't exactly easy to get from what you wrote - if you had omitted the "foreign" word it wouldn't have bothered me

[Pekka]

I'd love to see how many people who believe global warming does not exists, and are vigilant about it because of supposedly science proves it doesn't exist (impossible to prove) also believes in either creationism and/or ID

[BlackCat]

Wtf Pekka

I can't recall when I last saw a tubbie claiming that GW wasn't happening.

[Pekka]

This was not directed at polytubbies necessarily. Of course there's a real debate what really is causing it, that is, that's where the REAL debate is, like ,in this thread.

But the other 'debate' is that does it exist at all.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Pekka

But the other 'debate' is that does it exist at all.

Not really that pretty much is a strawman in order to demonize the anti AGW as beyond comprehensibly stupid.

[Pekka]

No no, it's a pretty common argument I've heard, that it doesn't exist, period. These people are what I call pretty effing stupid. They go on about that science hasn't been able to prove it, since it all goes in cycles. They act as if they've read some of them studies, when in reality they've only heard few arguments, but they got it all mixed up, since the 'other side' isn't arguing it doesn't exist, just that what causes it, what's the human factor in it.

I've heard this many many times. This has nothing to do with the side that argues we don't know how much humans have their finger in it or if they have it at all, or at least it hasn't been proven yet. This of course is a very different argument, and quite sensible at this stage of the human kind, as it hasn't been proven beyond doubt yet.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Not really that pretty much is a strawman in order to demonize the anti AGW as beyond comprehensibly stupid.

anti AGW

[BlackCat]

Pekka, if you want some ammo against those that claims that it's just cycles, well, just say that for the moment the earth is in the heating part of the cycle, wich is a measured fact.

[Pekka]

I don't have to have any ammo, it's not like I'd waste time to debate these idiots.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo


It is? I don't remember you mentioning "the position of continental massifs" before...

I don't have access to this article. And I've never heard of this journal before (not a suprise that my school doesn't have access to it). Apparently it's Russian... Is this the first link that you got from google?

Peer-review doesn't work its magic with obscure foreign publications that no one cares about...

Yeah, Ramo, I did say the position of the continents probably caused the higher temperatures in the past and not higher CO2 content. This is consistent with the Earth's tilt and orbit being significant today as the relative amount of sunlight reaching the Northern Hemishpere is what is driving the ice age cycles.

[Berzerker]

This was not directed at polytubbies necessarily. Of course there's a real debate what really is causing it, that is, that's where the REAL debate is, like ,in this thread.

But the other 'debate' is that does it exist at all.

I'm not convinced it is happening, but I hope it is. Going in and out of ice ages aint the way to run a planet.

And I believe Ned is right, our pollution dims the planet more than CO2 warms it.

[Berzerker]

Yeah, Ramo, I did say the position of the continents probably caused the higher temperatures in the past and not higher CO2 content.

There is a theory the rising Himalayas (and Andes?) changed wind patterns since we can track ice ages back to about 30 mya when they were forming. Buy yes, you did mention the positioning of the continents and that is a factor, especially when you have a large swath of land at higher latitudes. Pangea was a warmer world with most of the land closer to the tropics, even Antarctica enjoyed the warmth.

This is consistent with the Earth's tilt and orbit being significant today as the relative amount of sunlight reaching the Northern Hemishpere is what is driving the ice age cycles.

Yup, the planet was warmer 9-5 Kya when the tilt was at the maximum of its range and colder 20-18 Kya when the tilt was at its minimum.

[Ned]

More sane people speak out.

Sunday Telegraph (Australia)

Keeping a cool head amid warming hysteria

By CARDINAL GEORGE PELL

Opinion / Op Ed; Pg. 81

February 18, 2007

Global-warming doomsayers were out and about in a big way recently, but the rain came in central Queensland, then here in Sydney.

January also was unusually cool.

We have been subjected to a lot of nonsense about climate disasters, as some zealots have been presenting extreme scenarios to frighten us.

They claim ocean levels are about to rise spectacularly, there could be the occasional tsunami as high as an eight-storey building, and the Amazon Basin could be destroyed as the ice cap in the Arctic and Greenland melts.

An overseas magazine called for Nuremberg-style trials for global-warming sceptics, and a US television correspondent compared sceptics to ''Holocaust deniers''.

A local newspaper editorial's complaint about the doomsayers' religious enthusiasm is unfair to mainstream Christianity.

Christians don't go against reason, although we sometimes go beyond it in faith to embrace the probabilities.

What we were seeing from the doomsayers was an induced dose of mild hysteria -- semi-religious if you like, but dangerously close to superstition.

I'm deeply sceptical about man-made catastrophic global warming, but still open to further evidence.

I would be surprised if industrial pollution and carbon emissions had no ill-effects at all.

But enough is enough.

A few fixed points may provide light on the subject.

We know that enormous climate changes have occurred in world history -- for example, the ice ages and Noah's flood, when human causation could only have been negligible.

Nor should it be too surprising to learn that during the past 100 years, the media has alternated between promoting fear of anew ice age and fear of global warming.

Terrible droughts are not infrequent in Australian history, sometimes lasting seven or eight years.

We all know that a cool January doesn't mean much in the long run.

But neither does evidence based on only a few years.

Scaremongers have used temperature fluctuations over limited periods and in a few places to misrepresent longer patterns.

Warming evidence is mixed and often exaggerated but can be reassuring.

Global warming has been increasing constantly since 1975 at the rate of less than one-fifth of a degree

Celsius per decade.

The concentration of carbon dioxide increased surface temperatures more in winter than in summer, especially in mid and high latitudes over land, while there was a global cooling of the stratosphere.

Britain's University of East Anglia climate research unit found global temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2005, and a NASA satellite recently found the southern hemisphere had not warmed in the past 25 years.

Is mild global warming a northern phenomenon?

We may have been alarmed by the sighting of an iceberg as large as an aircraft carrier off Dunedin, but we should be consoled by the news that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing there.

The science is certainly more complicated than the propaganda.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=d5d6b9e4-802a-23ad-4bba-38996d72c888