global warming myth?

Message

#1 Post by **eric** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:03 pm

just heard a report on the news that NASA got their calculations wrong and have admitted there has not been any temperature increase in the last ten years, they've also discovered the polar ice caps haven't decreased in size in the last ten either. in fact according to there revised report, weather is the way it should be according to scientists without our input into climate change taken into account. global warming is becoming an inconvenient lie to most scientists I've talked to. whats your opinion? youtube has some pretty interesting vids disproving mans involvement into climate change.

#2 Post by **stevecrow74** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:15 pm

the Y2K bug is back with a vengeance so it seems..

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383

#3 Post by **corbyeire** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:26 pm

like i was going to let this one down...

there are billions being spent by the major players in the oil industry to down play global warming currently and over the last 20 years

scientists have theorised, then calculated empiracly and now modelled the past present and future - from arrhenius in 1896 to callender in 1938 to 2500 scientists that work and publish the 5 yearly IPCC reports

global warming is very real, it always has been, and we, humans are the cause - this is unequivacol in the world of science and its media induced hype that leads people the public to think there is a question about the whole thing

there is not

rant over

#4 Post by **fishinmidget** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:57 pm

not the clouds in galway..grey all the way :lol:

#5 Post by **corbyeire** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:46 pm

yea i could go into details - but basically murphys law will apply - the west and north is going to get a lot wetter - and the south and east a lot drier!

#6 Post by **daithi** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:36 pm

the planet has had hot spells and ice ages in the past, long before pollution, c.f.c.'s whatever. there are fairly decent arguements on both sides of the coin. recently though the empasis of these arguements seems to have shifted, how much of this is down to spin, media hype or a better understanding of the sciences involved is, i suppose, open for discussion. its one of those topics people are alway going to argue over. make your own mind up. wear a hat. go fishing.

dave

#7 Post by **eric** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:34 am

thats pretty much where i stand, both side are relatively unclear in their statements.

Mr_Green · #8 Post by **Mr_Green** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:47 am

As long as my kids have food on their plate and clothes on their back , im happy enough :D

#9 Post by **corbyeire** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:31 am

daithi wrote:the planet has had hot spells and ice ages in the past, long before pollution, c.f.c.'s whatever. there are fairly decent arguements on both sides of the coin. recently though the empasis of these arguements seems to have shifted, how much of this is down to spin, media hype or a better understanding of the sciences involved is, i suppose, open for discussion. its one of those topics people are alway going to argue over. make your own mind up. wear a hat. go fishing.

dave

daithi - what we are currently seeing does not follow any of the measured patterns over the last 300,000 years - this is measured, fact - and extrapolated models reinforce this

its the intensification now which is different - of course there are natural oscillations - thats obvious and has been accounted for in all calculations - of course the sun gets warmer itself etc.

all these outs and pseudo arguments have been acccounted for - its ridiculous that each time some hack from the university of nowhere dept of doesnt exists - states these things - the real world of science has to waste valuble time and resources re -explaining this to the public and politicians - INSTEAD OF - working on practical solutions and technological advancements required to deal with the problem

what im trying to tell you is one simple thing - there is no doubt in the world of science

the only doubt is that generated in the media - where generally it is measurements painstakedly calculated versus - opinion - which is a belief system - not like versus like

#10 Post by **corbyeire** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:49 am

gazo wrote:thats pretty much where i stand, both side are relatively unclear in their statements.

rubbish!!!!!

the science side is very clear - but not unfortunately if your relying on the major media sources

they are not reliable, when you read an article in a newspaper it has to try and look impartial and show both sides of the view

for instance 99.99% of scientists believe global warming is real and on top of that have evidence for global warming - 00.01% paid by the major oil corporations say differently

yet they both get 50% of the article in the paper for instance - yet who owns most the papers - media outlets

if you could be bothered to look - there is plenty of clear evidence for global warming

http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.nature.com/reports
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.ucsusa.org/ the fact they exist says it all really

im sure there are better links but that should get you on your way if you wanted

the artic sea ice never disappeared in such volume in the 20 years just gone - but wait i think we should stop and consider the options and way up the argument etc. etc. - delaying tactics

the truth is we are running out of time - and did so 20 years ago - action action action is required

and yet they have us thinking about the argument, ridiculous

#11 Post by **eric** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:51 am

disagree completely, why cant it be the reverse of what your saying, perhaps global warming itself is generated by media to strike fear into your mind, some of the worlds most respected environmental scientists disagree with the notion that global warming is man made also, the world does not run like a clock work, its pointless to look back and make pattern of natural climate change because climate change is completely random, our natural climate change is governed by the sun's nuclear activity and tilting of the earth's axis. i think its a bit soon to say this is how it is and don't question it. its becoming a bit of religious matter and no longer scientific, were told to believe so we must, well i don't think so. i feel its a bit strange that green activists are making so much money off this false economy, al gore is pocketing millions in book sales, his privately own carbon off setting companies, movie sales and his 7 point plan or should i say 10 commandments, hes the new jesus, messiah to the green movement! i agree that the wants of today should not jeopardies the needs of tomorrow but i quite happy here on the fence until someone comes up with any real evidence.

#12 Post by **corbyeire** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:01 pm

"some of the worlds most respected environmental scientists" please name these scientists and their institutions - thanks

#13 Post by **corbyeire** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:20 pm

gazo wrote: real evidence.

again see the links above in particular the ipcc calculations

im not a green religious devotee

i do not follow al gore - its not evidence its his opinions
if you want the evidence look at the figures

gazo you are still weighing up one set of opinoins versus another with the points you made above

i am a scientist working on global warming in the irish context

i reckon your well respected scientists - are involved in these groups or the like

global climate coalition
information council on the environment
the marshall institute
american petroleum institute
competitive enterprise institute
richard lindzen
patrick michaels
the leipzig petitionn

#14 Post by **eric** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:27 pm

sure,
Timothy F ball-university of Winnipeg
Roger A pielke-CIRES
antonono zichichi-university of bologna former president of WFS
Sollie Bolinos-HS
Fred singer-university of virginia
To name but a few, there are many more.
infact over 30% of of the UN set up CIRES disagree with man made global warming.

#15 Post by **daithi** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 1:39 pm

like i said

daithi wrote:. its one of those topics people are alway going to argue over. make your own mind up. wear a hat. go fishing.

dave

now get your rod

#16 Post by **corbyeire** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 1:59 pm

Ball and the oil industry
Ball is listed as a "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the FOS admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August, '06 Globe and Mail feature, the FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding the fact that they were. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity, to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS.

Ball inflates credentials
Ball and organizations he is affiliated with have repeatedly made the claim that he is the "first Canadian PhD in climatology." Even further, Ball once claimed he was "one of the first climatology PhD's in the world." As many people have pointed out, there have been many PhD's in the field prior to Ball.

Ball and the NRSP
Ball is listed as an "Executive" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it's funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An Oct. 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group."

Ball's research history
Ball retired from the University of Winnipeg in 1996 and a search of 22,000 academic journals shows that, over the course of his career, Ball has published 4 pieces of original research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change Ball has not published any new research in the last 11 years.

#17 Post by **corbyeire** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:04 pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/si ... ek/page/0/

right ill go fishing daithi

#18 Post by **daithi** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:17 pm

hey im not denying it, its a fact that the planet is getting warmer. just pointing out that people will argue over cause etc.
dont forget your hat.

dave

Rockhopper · #19 Post by **Rockhopper** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:48 pm

You dont need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Davey Green summed it up nicely.....spot on Davey boy!!!

Tom.

#20 Post by **fenitbob** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:32 pm

Can I just say something about media reporting.

Any time there is an article in the news paper that I know any thing about (and that is not much) it is always wrong.
we are in the middle of august its a slow news month and large media outlets will just throw things in like that. If I see something like NASA got it wrong there have been no rise in temperatures I usually click on the link and see where this story came from.

put up the link and lets have a look

took a look at link sorry didn't see it :oops:

The story says a blogger found it

must be true so. :lol: