It always makes me laugh how the fossil fuel lobby is always pushing the line that “those damn paleoclimatologists are just trying to keep themselves in a job’

Oath. It’s an astoundingly paranoid worldview. There is a conspiracy of tens and hundreds of thousands, lasting decades. The conspiracy consists of scientists who set out to learn about the world, but are deliberately lying about what they have discovered in order to hold on their enormous government pay checks. Even though there are many private sector companies that would actually pay them more money to tell the truth, these scientists continue to lie because, ummm, they want gov’t grants to continue studying things they know are false. Or something.

Retards.

Damn paleoclimatologists. Always looking out for number one they are. Unlike the fossil fuel industry, which is famously altruistic and is just after what’s best for humanity as a whole…

G is fully right for realz on teh cooling trend.

I just checked, and according to SCIENCE the average temperature of the universe 300,000 years after its formation was 3000 degrees kelvin. It is WAY colder than that on earth now! Look out! Spread the truth!

Gotta go, I haven’t twittered on myspace for like 8minutes and my livejournal is way out of date plzkthanks.

G you’re the biggest fool I’ve ever seen on this blog, and that is against some very stern competition. Congratulations.

You cling to these charts to claim that the climate is cooling when all other sources cited above say it is warming. You believe these charts compared to all other sources because you think they tell you what you want to believe. Well, you have a problem. The charts are based on data from the Hadley Center – the UK Met Office (see the bottom right of graph 1). So what do the Hadley Center have to say? Let’s start with an introduction on a climate science blog:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/hadley-center-to-deniers-we-are-still-warming/

The top climate scientists at the UK’s Hadley Center for Climate Prediction get no respect. No matter how many times they try to explain that their data clearly shows the world is warming (see “Hadley Center to delayers: We’re warming, not cooling”), people, including those commenting on this very blog, keep insisting their data shows otherwise (see here).

http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/hadley-center-to-delayers-deniers-pielke-global-warming-not-cooling/

The deniers/delayer-1000s cite recent UK Hadley Center data to promote their “climate is cooling’ disinformation. … It is only fair to ask what the Hadley Center thinks its data shows (much as we’ve heard NASA explain that its data shows unequivocal warming). Answer: they believe it unequivocally shows we are in a warming trend, including this decade.

Let’s check out the Hadley Center themselves – they put together some resources just for people like you G:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

Fact 1: Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it
Fact 2: Temperatures are continuing to rise
Fact 3: The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle
Fact 4: Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone
Fact 5: If we continue emitting greenhouse gases this warming will continue and delaying action will make the problem more difficult to fix
Fact 6: Climate models predict the main features of future climate

Check out some of the underlying data:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/

So there you go G, you say the Hadley Center data shows cooling, the Hadley Center (you know – professional meteorologists, the people who publish the data) say it shows warming.

Who should we believe G – you or the Hadley Center?

Hey everybody, look! It’s a climate change denier with a black and white view of an issue! Come quick, bring your camera!

“Ahhh, Iprent (or is it Lynn?), but unlike climate modeling, Quantum mechanics are reliable, otherwise they’d be entirely useless “

Look, they don’t understand quantum mechanics either!! They’re only reliable on AVERAGE G, much like most… oh, what were we talking about a moment ago? Oh yeah, models.

“and there it is: faith and AGW; the new religion for which skeptics are brandished as heretics.” said the annoying Troll, deliberately misinterpreting what had just been suggested.

“You should care, T, because as soon as you get your head around the idea that it was warmer in the past – thousands of years before industrialisation – it’ll dawn on you that this is simply part of Earth’s natural cycle. Take another look at those charts. The long term trend is indicating a gradual cooling. If anything we should be pumping more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.”

…Actually I think I’ll just leave that. Your reasoning is GOD. AWFUL. However it might interest you to know that one of the possible results of significant GHG emissions is another ice age. Though not in the “Day after tomorrow” sense. Not that that is remotely pointed to by any of your data.

Meteor strikes and supervolcanos are part of the earths natural cycle you gumby, it doesn’t mean we should aim to artifically recreate them.

Thing is, Matthew, if the models are inaccurate, they’re inaccurate. Why give them any credence? Pascal’s wager is no reason to introduce yet another tax.

“Quantum theory is just a THEORY.”

Ahhh, Iprent (or is it Lynn?), but unlike climate modeling, Quantum mechanics are reliable, otherwise they’d be entirely useless…

“Everything is a theory – NOTHING can be ‘proved’ unless you want to rely on faith.”

… and there it is: faith and AGW; the new religion for which skeptics are brandished as heretics.

“Who the f*ck cares that it’s been warmer in the past?”

You should care, T, because as soon as you get your head around the idea that it was warmer in the past – thousands of years before industrialisation – it’ll dawn on you that this is simply part of Earth’s natural cycle. Take another look at those charts. The long term trend is indicating a gradual cooling. If anything we should be pumping more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

Sleep tight.

No, it doesn’t. Give me a single example of a field of scientific endeavour where the answer was perfect first time round? Quantum physics is a great example Lynn.

Who the f*ck cares that it’s been warmer in the past? Like Matt says, there have been mass extinction events in the past. By your reasoning, if a giant asteroid was going to hit the earth we should worry, because asteroids have hit the earth in the past. If you accept that there is likely to be a global temperature rise of a couple of degrees then you have to accept ALLLL the drama that comes with it, no matter how many such rises there have been previously.

Global warming would not cause the “end of the world”. It just might make things pretty freaking difficult for those who have adapted to the status quo.

For now, G, I’m concluding that you’re actually some 16yo web-warrior who reads too many Michael Crichton books, so I can’t be bothered arguing the point – given most of your arguments are irrelevant. But whatever, you stick at it, I guess at least you’re doing SOME quasi-research, it’s probably better for you than playing grand theft auto all day.

Adios.

Scientific theory

etc… Everything is a theory – NOTHING can be ‘proved’ unless you want to rely on faith.

Since that is where you seem to want to be, then we’ll just have to file you under “Idiot with faith and no real knowledge” along with many others.

It will be a bit too late by then, I’m afraid, given that the same models generally say that if we act now, we’re only fairly screwed, not goneburger.

You see, this one piece of genuine junk science says it all. Everyone was sucked in back then, all the way up to the heads of state, and now all those state-sponsored scientists are desperately holding on to their jobs by perpetuating the myth.

AGW is a T.H.E.O.R.Y… it hasn’t been proven ~ not here, not anywhere ~ and there’s a huge number of genuine scientists who are now rejecting it outright. If it was fact why don’t the IPCC just accept the call for an independent debate and get on with it? Answer: because denying is heresy, they have a vested interest in the warm-mongering, there’s a stack of contrary evidence that would throw doubt into the minds of too many people, and they need to have a consensus for the gravy train to keep on rolling.

I note that none of you has refuted Prof. Clarks charts that prove we’re in actually in cooling trend since way back.

The day climate models start hitting their marks, let me know. In the meantime relax… it’s all gonna be okay.

It was actually the 12th for us NZ-based fellas.

We’re looking at a doubling, or more, in the volume of airborne CO2.

Interesting that you commented (relating to volcanic events) that earth is very resilient. That, G, is spot-on. The last time something like this happened, the dinosaurs were thoroughly wiped out, yet the earth was fine; it recovered no worries.

Now how is it you find that of comfort? I bet a T-rex (picking a dinosaur at random…or am I?) is more resilient than us wimpy homo sapiens.

T-rex: “And I’ve still got a grudge against 9-11 conspiracy theorists.”

You sure do! heh. I studied holocaust denial at one stage, and have noted that the style used is oft repeated (disclaimer: please note all, that this has nothing to do with the holocaust specifically. I’m simply talking about the methods used to discredit any idea; using said method does NOT equate one with being a holocaust denier in terms of how evil you are).

It is very simple – you discount one part of an idea you don’t like, and suddenly the whole concept must be wrong. A fascinating example was the “there were no Nazi gas chambers” concept. Someone studied old gas chambers and found two points – there weren’t the correct type of rubber seals on the doors, and the walls did not contain a remnant of the zyklon-b gas used.

Therefore, the Nazis were misunderstood, and the Evil Jews are taking us all for a ride with Holocaust(TM).

Such methodology is used to a remarkable degree – it’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which those two issues identified could be explained away – one must ask where the weight of evidence lies, even if specifics aren’t as expected.

Something to consider. I found that with 9-11 stuff. One or two facts don’t fit right, so it was a Vast Conspiracy. I just can’t see it. Same with climate change. Sure – the models aren’t perfect, but where’s the real eight of evidence?

That’s a much better example in terms of the industry mentality, although I think the poor science and selective use of evidence employed by the amateur deniers almost exactly parallels that of other conspiracy theorists. And I’ve still got a grudge against 9-11 conspiracy theorists.

There are levels of denial too. It IS hard to tell exactly what the degree of impact will be – I don’t mind people who say “we don’t know for sure”. The people who piss me off are the ones who go “Man is not, can not, and will never have an impact on the global climate”. Those are the same people who say “There are too many trees in the amazon basin for the lumber/farmin industry to have an impact (in fact I believe the same argument was applied to Kauri’s in NZ), too many fish in the sea for fisheries to have an impact, too much water in the world for DDT to have an impact” etc etc. They have been almost universally wrong so far, and they are almost universally pushing some alternate agenda.

Watch what you argue and how you argue it G, it’s the difference between being an intelligent skeptic displaying caution in the face of public sentiment and being a corporate tool.