« EU Newspeak | Main | Dead Man Running »

In a word, the problem is propaganda.

Actually I have done some research and it seems that >Dr Bob Carter is the one who is the propagandist. Also Skeptipundit also pulls apart Bob Carter's piece scientifically

sorry about my html. trying again..

In a word, the problem is propaganda.

Actually I have done some research and it seems that >Dr Bob Carter is the one who is the propagandist. Also Skeptipundit also pulls apart Bob Carter's piece scientifically

Classic ad-hom. He's a geologist, and geologists work for oil companies, therefore... HE'S A WITCH! Way to go!

Hey WAD,

In a word everything you believe:

BULLSHIT

That's about as valid as your assertions.

Interesting take on some research from UEA in Norwich. I don't think they would agree with this take. 1998 was indeed a freakishly hot year - which is why you don't see a great upward change when you take these 7 years on their own. Suggest you have a look at the last 150 years which will show you the trend which is definitely rising. The hottest years in history have all happened in the last 15 years.

So you alarmists think that looking at the time period from 1998 through today is too short...but the "last 15 years" is ample time? Got it...thanks for playing!

Hawks, that's rubbish. The last 150 years show an upward trend because we were coming out of a historically cold period known as the Little Ice Age. There were warmer years than the last 15 in the mid 1300s. These are historical facts. Not only that, but ice-core and other proxy data corroborates these facts quite nicely, hockeysticks notwithstanding.

Yes, 98 was freakishly hot. It was a huge el niño year. Massive. Yet this was conveniently ignored by the global warming alarmists who claimed it was entirely our fault.

The fact that temperatures have gone up doesn't imply anything other than the fact that temperatures have gone up. The link between temperature and CO2 is only remotely tenable if, as I've pointed out several times on various comment threads on this site, you remove the sun from the equation, and ignore the contribhution of water vapour as both a warming gas and a moderator of the other gases. The sun, being the single largest input of energy in to the climate, will have by far and away the single largest effect on that climate. Everything else is just so much decoration at that point.

The afforementioned Little Ice Age coincided with a period known as the maunder minimum, when sunspot activity was reduced to practically nothing. Astronomical observations from the time were accurate enough to assess this. Circumstantial evidence, to be sure, but it fits a lot better than the idea that one gas, which makes up a tiny relative percentage of the atmosphere, and our contribution to that fraction, which makes up a tiny fractional percentage of that one gas, really has the huge effect on the climate that it's claimed to have.

The idiot geologist is from a third rate university in a second rate country, what the f**k would he know about anything?

Damn sight more than you apparently know.

The last 15 years in the Northern Hemishpere have been shown to be warmer than periods prior the the 'Little Ice Age'. The latest research studies taken from ice cores have shown the last 15 years to be the warmest in in over 1200 years, which includes the last significantly warm period from 890-1170.

I won't debate that the last 15 years have been very warm, on average... as long as you realise that the average is a mean, and heavilly skewed by the record temperatures in 1998. No year since then has approached those highs, and none were as spectacular beforehand. The media is probably comparable to the MWP. Having said that, the fact that the temperatures might be higher than the MWP are meaningless. All that proves is that the temperatures are higher. There's no causal relationship with CO2, merely a circumstantial relationship, and evidence from ice-cores has shown that CO2 levels tend to follow temperature trends rather than leading them, which makes sense; a warming ocean and biosphere will tend to outgas CO2 and methane - which also quickly oxidises to CO2 in the atmosphere.

Recent evidence shows that Mars is undergoing a similar apparent warming phase; its polar caps have shrunk by a sizable percentage and its atmosphere has, for want. Similar stories for Uranus and Pluto, though that one's tenuous at best - we don't know enough about Pluto to really say what's happening. The other planets can't be measured with any accuracy yet; Neptune, Jupiter and Saturn are net producers of heat due to their size (This creates a gravitational collapse, which isn't as scary as it sounds, but creates a lot of pressure); Mercury is too hot and its orbit too erratic to get a viable measurement, and Venus hasn't been checked yet, but is also likely to give difficulty due to its high temperatures and proximity to the sun.

One planet getting a warming phase might be linked to something on that planet, but three - potentially four? - planets all warming at the same time? You can draw your own conclusions.

I'm not suggesting to look at an average - look at the trend. Yes 1998 skews the data, but even then if you plot the trend on a graph there is no missing an upward curve.

The planet is always going to go through warm & cold phases regulated by the the natural occurence of all these componments. When you then unnaturally add more then you have potential for trouble. There is a clear link between global temperature and CO2 - the timing is stil argued... Enough of a good arguement to dfo something about though, especially for those who can.

And once again, you make much of the link between CO2 and temperature wihtout actually addressing the fact that CO2 tends to follow temperature rather than lead it. There isn't a causal link here, merely a coincidental one.

And yet its not been proven that CO2 follows temperature - its a theory that not all scientists believe as its been suggested that the data is not accurate enough to prove this either way...

The idiot geologist is from a third rate university in a second rate country, what the f**k would he know about anything?

Posted by: Statikk at April 15, 2006 06:25 AM

Mate - you've come from mars, or more likely venus, if you think there is a better country than Australia for all it's faults.

There's no causal relationship with CO2, merely a circumstantial relationship,

======

No there is a causal relationship - CO2 traps heat

There's no causal relationship with CO2, merely a circumstantial relationship

there is - c02 captures reflected light and retains heat