Is Global Warming a Myth?

[WinePusher]

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tions.html

A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. But didn’t we hear from the same Center that the North Pole was set to disappear by now? We all deserve apologies from the global warming fanatics who wanted to reshape the world in their image and called those who objected to their wild theories ignorant deniers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/wat ... p-growing/

1) Does this new information show that Anthropogenic Global Warming is false?

[LiamOS]

The facts are very clear. The ice caps have grown over the past year. This blows a huge hole in the idea that the Earth is drastically getting hotter.

Do you seriously believe that one year against a trend invalidates the trend?

Uh yes. That's how it works. It obviously isn't a trend if you have data and evidence that contradicts it.

Oh my.
Have you taken classes in statistics and data analysis of any sort?

One small sample going against a trend does not invalidate a trend... By definition. The data we show you is never going to be an exact straight line. We have weather systems, solar cycles, statistical variation, and measurement effects all coming together to give us uncertainty in our data.

... And anyway. If I rebin(probably worth reading) the data we're talking about by five years then there's a perfect correlation. How about that, eh?

[Nickman]

The facts are very clear. The ice caps have grown over the past year. This blows a huge hole in the idea that the Earth is drastically getting hotter.

Uh yes. That's how it works. It obviously isn't a trend if you have data and evidence that contradicts it.

One year means nothing in climate change. Even in economics one year does mean an end all be all. It is the accumulative spectrum of several years. Would you expect one year to be the end all be all of economics, or any other important topic? No. If so Jesus would have been place in history as a liar long ago. It is the accumulative of many years that tells us that global climate change is real. It is also the vehement opposition of this idea by the Oil Companies. Lastly, this same accumulative idea leads many to conclude Jesus will not return. Think about it!

Oh my.
Have you taken classes in statistics and data analysis of any sort?

One small sample going against a trend does not invalidate a trend... By definition. The data we show you is never going to be an exact straight line. We have weather systems, solar cycles, statistical variation, and measurement effects all coming together to give us uncertainty in our data.

... And anyway. If I rebin(probably worth reading) the data we're talking about by five years then there's a perfect correlation. How about that, eh?

There is a big difference. Not from year to year, but from a decade, we see a difference in GW.

[Nickman]

Duplicate

[Nickman]

The facts are very clear. The ice caps have grown over the past year. This blows a huge hole in the idea that the Earth is drastically getting hotter.

Uh yes. That's how it works. It obviously isn't a trend if you have data and evidence that contradicts it.

One year means nothing in climate change. Even in economics one year does mean an end all be all. It is the accumulative spectrum of several years. Would you expect one year to be the end all be all of economics, or any other important topic? No. If so Jesus would have been place in history as a liar long ago. It is the accumulative of many years that tells us that global climate change is real. It is also the vehement opposition of this idea by the Oil Companies. Lastly, this same accumulative idea leads many to conclude Jesus will not return. Think about it!

Oh my.
Have you taken classes in statistics and data analysis of any sort?

One small sample going against a trend does not invalidate a trend... By definition. The data we show you is never going to be an exact straight line. We have weather systems, solar cycles, statistical variation, and measurement effects all coming together to give us uncertainty in our data.

... And anyway. If I rebin(probably worth reading) the data we're talking about by five years then there's a perfect correlation. How about that, eh?

There is a big difference. Not from year to year, but from a decade, we see a difference in GW.

[WinePusher]

Do you seriously believe that one year against a trend invalidates the trend?

Uh yes. That's how it works. It obviously isn't a trend if you have data and evidence that contradicts it.

Oh my.
Have you taken classes in statistics and data analysis of any sort?

Does it matter? Have you taken any classes in political theory, economics or business management? Am I required to take a class in a certain subject before I can comment on it? And by the way, since you're so curious, here are the statistics related classes I've taken throughout college:

Graduate Econometrics I
Quantitative Methods of Economics
Business Cycles
Applied Business Statistics
Introduction to Econometrics
Tools of Economic Analysis

One small sample going against a trend does not invalidate a trend... By definition. The data we show you is never going to be an exact straight line. We have weather systems, solar cycles, statistical variation, and measurement effects all coming together to give us uncertainty in our data.

... And anyway. If I rebin(probably worth reading) the data we're talking about by five years then there's a perfect correlation. How about that, eh?

I like how you ignored my entire post and focused in on this little bit. The problem is that global warming advocates have not specified anything that would invalidate and falsify global warming. Decreasing temperatures and increasing polar ice caps falsifies the 'theory' in my opinion, since increasing temperatures and decreasing ice caps were used as evidence to back up global warming.

[WinePusher]

One year means nothing in climate change. Even in economics one year does mean an end all be all. It is the accumulative spectrum of several years. Would you expect one year to be the end all be all of economics, or any other important topic? No. If so Jesus would have been place in history as a liar long ago. It is the accumulative of many years that tells us that global climate change is real. It is also the vehement opposition of this idea by the Oil Companies. Lastly, this same accumulative idea leads many to conclude Jesus will not return. Think about it!

I have thought about it pretty thoroughly, and the fact is that a drastic reversal in the trend is good evidence against it. If economists are predicting catastrophic high inflation and in one of the years inflation drops dramatically then yes, this would be good evidence against their claim. The same is true for global warming. If 'scientists' are predicting a catastrophic rise in temperatures and in one of the years the temperatures drop dramatically then yes, this would be good evidence against their claim.

And oil companies, and global warming skeptics in general, do not oppose the idea of global warming. At least I don't. What I oppose are the draconian governmental regulations that the left seeks to implement. Even if global warming was real this would be the worst policy to pursue. Liberals and progressives have created a fake problem and offered a horrible solution, and THAT is what I oppose.

[Nickman]

One year means nothing in climate change. Even in economics one year does mean an end all be all. It is the accumulative spectrum of several years. Would you expect one year to be the end all be all of economics, or any other important topic? No. If so Jesus would have been place in history as a liar long ago. It is the accumulative of many years that tells us that global climate change is real. It is also the vehement opposition of this idea by the Oil Companies. Lastly, this same accumulative idea leads many to conclude Jesus will not return. Think about it!

I have thought about it pretty thoroughly, and the fact is that a drastic reversal in the trend is good evidence against it. If economists are predicting catastrophic high inflation and in one of the years inflation drops dramatically then yes, this would be good evidence against their claim. The same is true for global warming. If 'scientists' are predicting a catastrophic rise in temperatures and in one of the years the temperatures drop dramatically then yes, this would be good evidence against their claim.

And oil companies, and global warming skeptics in general, do not oppose the idea of global warming. At least I don't. What I oppose are the draconian governmental regulations that the left seeks to implement. Even if global warming was real this would be the worst policy to pursue. Liberals and progressives have created a fake problem and offered a horrible solution, and THAT is what I oppose.

Peak Oil companies pay politicians to tell the public that GW is false. It is in their best interests.

Peak Oil is a fact. Its only hope is a constant demand u til it runs out. In the aftermath, climate suffers severly.

Progressives and Liberals do not have an agenda here. They see the facts and warn people of them. Fact: Carbon Dioxide is a green house gas. Fact: every car gives off Carbon. Fact: Powerplants give off the most Carbon. Fact: there are hundreds of thousands of powerplants worldwide. Carbon acts as a piece of glass. You have a place of residence, yes! You know that glass windows which are made of carbon from burnt sand create a greenhouse effect. Heat goes in and doesn't go out very easily. Since the Industrial Revolution we have been pumping huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

[bluethread]

Peak Oil companies pay politicians to tell the public that GW is false. It is in their best interests.

Peak Oil is a fact. Its only hope is a constant demand u til it runs out. In the aftermath, climate suffers severly.

Progressives and Liberals do not have an agenda here. They see the facts and warn people of them. Fact: Carbon Dioxide is a green house gas. Fact: every car gives off Carbon. Fact: Powerplants give off the most Carbon. Fact: there are hundreds of thousands of powerplants worldwide. Carbon acts as a piece of glass. You have a place of residence, yes! You know that glass windows which are made of carbon from burnt sand create a greenhouse effect. Heat goes in and doesn't go out very easily. Since the Industrial Revolution we have been pumping huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

Are you willing to go to war over this? China ain't stopping any time too soon and they are burning the "dirty" stuff.

[Nilloc James]

General question:

What do scientists have to gain from conluding human-caused GW is true?

What do major producers of fossil fuels and their political allies have to lose if man-made GW is gound to be true?

Who has the biggest interest in lying to the public?

[Aetixintro]

Don't repeat the lorry driver from Great Britain! Don't repeat the lorry driver from Great Britain!

And by that, when we have grown to 7,1 Bn people and they write Carbon-Footprint, don't you think they imply to say that as you die at 100 years old, your life has been breathing of CO2-emissions like a sulphuric-Fire Dragon right from the volcanos! Dante's doomsday scenario?



----
(Edit:) The 2013 Report from IPCC cited by both CNN and BBC WN: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UnM5l_mjSyA.
Technical summary, the same: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images ... ummary.pdf.
More:
2012 : Level of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 394 ppm. - From http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm.
Other: h[url]ttp://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#L_M021[/url].
"The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901–2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m." - From http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs ... dlines.pdf
.
Else:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Global_warming
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/2
http://www.climate.gov/#understandingClimate
http://www.tableausoftware.com/public/g ... -emissions
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/03 ... 2012-decc/
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... sional.pdf
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explor ... l=en&dl=en
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explor ... l=en&dl=en.