[BartSimpson]

No kidding.

It's on this page... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/c ... more-29077

Quote:

Some people will sign anything that includes phrases like, ”global effort,” “international community,” and “planetary.” Such was the case at COP 16, this year’s United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Cancun, Mexico.

This year, CFACT students created two mock-petitions to test U.N. Delegates. The first asked participants to help destabilize the United States economy, the second to ban water.

The first project, entitled “Petition to Set a Global Standard” sought to isolate and punish the United States of America for defying the international community, by refusing to bite, hook, line and sinker on the bait that is the Kyoto Protocol. The petition went so far as to encourage the United Nations to impose tariffs and trade restrictions on the U.S. in a scheme to destabilize the nation’s economy. Specifically, the scheme seeks to lower the U.S. GDP by 6% over a ten year period, unless the U.S. signs a U.N. treaty on global warming.

This would be an extremely radical move by the United Nations. Even so, radical left-wing environmentalists from around the world scrambled eagerly to sign.

The second project was as successful as the first. It was euphemistically entitled “Petition to Ban the Use of Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)” (translation water). It was designed to show that if official U.N. delegates could be duped by college students into banning water, that they could essentially fall for anything, including pseudo-scientific studies which claim to show that global warming is man-caused.

Despite the apparently not-so-obvious reference to H2O, almost every delegate that collegian students approached signed their petition to ban that all too dangerous substance, which contributes to the greenhouse effect, is the major substance in acid rain, and is fatal if inhaled.

Perhaps together, the footage associated with these two projects will illustrate to mainstream America the radical lengths many current U.N. delegates are willing to go to carry out an agenda no more ethical, plausible or practical than the banning water.

That's right, people. AGW is political, it is NOT science. Bear in mind these assclowns are the same idiots who made up the 'consensus' you keep hearing about.

[EyeBrock]

Remember the old days when people used to believe in this stuff? Lizzy May still does but Al Gore is pretty quiet now eh?

Now the sheep all worship wikileaks.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I think that DHMO gag is older than I am ffs

[mentalfloss]

The science in this thread is overwhelming. Phew!

[Zipperfish]

This meeting is political. But there certainly is a strong scientific component to anthropogenic climate change, and there is scientific consensus that humans are a primary factor driving it.

These guys fell for the old dihydrogen monoxide bit--man that one is getting long in the tooth. I think they should switch over to hydric acid myself.

[joeleitz]

Three days without a drink could take on a whole new meaning. I'm a little surprised that the U.N. delegates fell for the stunt but it's disturbing that they did.

[Zipperfish]

The graph the so-called skeptics don't want you to see. Incidnetally, 2010 is shaping up to be another banner year:

Quote:

The global average land surface temperature for the period January–October was the second warmest on record, behind 2007.

The global average ocean surface temperature for the period January–October tied with 2003 as the second warmest on record, behind 1998

State of the Climate, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center

[BartSimpson]

Your graph also shows the trend-defying cooling period of the 1940-1980 decades and your graph also skews reality by starting during the 'Little Ice Age'.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson wrote:

Your graph also shows the trend-defying cooling period of the 1940-1980 decades and your graph also skews reality by starting during the 'Little Ice Age'.

Periods that run in opposition to a trend do not disprove the trend, though they do perhaps warrant explanation. I have my own guess, but every time I state it here it gets ignored.

The start in 1880 is simply because that's as far back as the instrumental record goes. It's not cherry picked. Unless, of course, people back then knew about AGW, and were waiting for the little ice age to bottom out before they started keeping official records. But then, even if one was to extrapolate back using dendrochronology or other proxies, you'd attack those, too, simply moving the goalposts.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson wrote:

Your graph also shows the trend-defying cooling period of the 1940-1980 decades and your graph also skews reality by starting during the 'Little Ice Age'.

Well, it's not actually my graph, it's NOAA's. It starts with the systematic measurement of outdoor temperatures in the 1880s. Before that, we're into proxy measurements, and we know how the skeptics respond to proxy measurements--you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Oh, and the graph also shows a warming trend!

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 wrote:

Periods that run in opposition to a trend do not disprove the trend, though they do perhaps warrant explanation.

Then what's the explanation for a three decade cold snap all while CO2 was on a steady increase?

hurley_108 wrote:

I have my own guess, but every time I state it here it gets ignored.

I'm just dying of curiosity.

hurley_108 wrote:

The start in 1880 is simply because that's as far back as the instrumental record goes. It's not cherry picked.

Some could say that it is. There were no global temperature measurements estimated or even attempted until the 1957 International Geophysical Year event so how are global temperatures asserted for time periods in which there were absolutely no global monitoring processes in place? And the selection of the 1880 start date supposedly coinciding with the creation of temperature measuring is flawed as temperatures and barometric pressures were being noted in world capitals and ships logs as early as the 1760's.

hurley_108 wrote:

Unless, of course, people back then knew about AGW, and were waiting for the little ice age to bottom out before they started keeping official records. But then, even if one was to extrapolate back using dendrochronology or other proxies, you'd attack those, too, simply moving the goalposts.

No, becuase those methodologies demantrate that the world was often warmer than today and that it happened all without interference from man.

What remains to be proven is that man is doing more than perhaps contributing to a natural warming trend or, just maybe, we stopped another ice age around 1980.

[mentalfloss]

Climate change skepticism got seriously owned last month.. brought to you by C-SPAN..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... a4R1bKGsN8

[BartSimpson]

It's not that I deny the climate is changing, I simply acknowledge that the climate has been mostly warming for a very long time.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 120810.php

Quote:

Lost civilization under Persian Gulf?

A once fertile landmass now submerged beneath the Persian Gulf may have been home to some of the earliest human populations outside Africa, according to an article published today in Current Anthropology.

Jeffrey Rose, an archaeologist and researcher with the University of Birmingham in the U.K., says that the area in and around this "Persian Gulf Oasis" may have been host to humans for over 100,000 years before it was swallowed up by the Indian Ocean around 8,000 years ago. Rose's hypothesis introduces a "new and substantial cast of characters" to the human history of the Near East, and suggests that humans may have established permanent settlements in the region thousands of years before current migration models suppose.

Gee, were humans running about in SUV's when the Persian Gulf was flooded as a direct result of climate change?

No.

Did the climate change dramatically all on its own?

Yes.

Where it is a FACT that the climate changed on its own the burden of proof is on the AGW cultists to prove that this round of climate change is miraculously different from what is, demonstrably, the current round of climate change that started naturally over 20,000 years ago.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson wrote:

hurley_108 wrote:

Periods that run in opposition to a trend do not disprove the trend, though they do perhaps warrant explanation.

Then what's the explanation for a three decade cold snap all while CO2 was on a steady increase?

hurley_108 wrote:

I have my own guess, but every time I state it here it gets ignored.

I'm just dying of curiosity.

My guess (though I probably shouldn't call it mine as I see I'm not alone) is it's from the SO2. In the post-war boom, they burned anything and everything. Then they noticed that hey, this sulfur shit is BAD! In the 70s they started to clean up the sulfur emissions. But, see, sulfur emissions create particulate matter, and particulate matter blocks the incident solar radiation, causing cooling. The warming effects of the CO2 were masked by the coincident emissions of SO2, but when the SO2 was removed, so was the mask and the warming took off again.

Quote:

hurley_108 wrote:

The start in 1880 is simply because that's as far back as the instrumental record goes. It's not cherry picked.

Some could say that it is. There were no global temperature measurements estimated or even attempted until the 1957 International Geophysical Year event so how are global temperatures asserted for time periods in which there were absolutely no global monitoring processes in place? And the selection of the 1880 start date supposedly coinciding with the creation of temperature measuring is flawed as temperatures and barometric pressures were being noted in world capitals and ships logs as early as the 1760's.

Well if you know where these longer records can be found, I'd love to see them. But from the looks of the proxies, 1760 wasn't that much warmer than 1800. Extending the record back that far would reduce the overall warming trend just by virtue of the longer run, but it still wouldn't negate it. And if teh more recent years are better, they paint an even gloomier picture. But wait, Hansens' fudging those numbers. I forgot about that...

BartSimpson wrote:

hurley_108 wrote:

Unless, of course, people back then knew about AGW, and were waiting for the little ice age to bottom out before they started keeping official records. But then, even if one was to extrapolate back using dendrochronology or other proxies, you'd attack those, too, simply moving the goalposts.

No, becuase those methodologies demantrate that the world was often warmer than today and that it happened all without interference from man.

What remains to be proven is that man is doing more than perhaps contributing to a natural warming trend or, just maybe, we stopped another ice age around 1980.

Well now you get to the real realm of cherry picking. How far back do you want to look? One thousand years? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand? One million? One billion? From the looks of it, you go back far enough and the Earth was fully eight degrees warmer than it is today, somewhere between 542 and 500 million years ago. So I guess we don't have to worry about AGW until it drive the temperature gets as high as it was some quarter billion years before Dimetrodon roamed the earth.

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 wrote:

My guess (though I probably shouldn't call it mine as I see I'm not alone) is it's from the SO2. In the post-war boom, they burned anything and everything. Then they noticed that hey, this sulfur shit is BAD! In the 70s they started to clean up the sulfur emissions. But, see, sulfur emissions create particulate matter, and particulate matter blocks the incident solar radiation, causing cooling. The warming effects of the CO2 were masked by the coincident emissions of SO2, but when the SO2 was removed, so was the mask and the warming took off again.

Pretty sound reasoning.

hurley_108 wrote:

Well if you know where these longer records can be found, I'd love to see them. But from the looks of the proxies, 1760 wasn't that much warmer than 1800. Extending the record back that far would reduce the overall warming trend just by virtue of the longer run, but it still wouldn't negate it. And if teh more recent years are better, they paint an even gloomier picture. But wait, Hansens' fudging those numbers. I forgot about that...

Some of the best records of the period are those made by the Royal Navy. In particular, the records made by Capt. Van Couver (which I first saw at the Royal BC Museum) demonstrate cooler temps in and about what's now BC and Alaska. Of note are his observations on glaciation. Glacier Bay was not a bay at all, yet when John Muir visited 80 years later the bay extended 40 miles from where Van Couver had charted the face of the glacier. 80 years after Muir the ice is 40 miles back yet again. That shows a glacial retreat in the modern era starting prior to industrialisation.

hurley_108 wrote:

Well now you get to the real realm of cherry picking. How far back do you want to look? One thousand years? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand? One million? One billion? From the looks of it, you go back far enough and the Earth was fully eight degrees warmer than it is today, somewhere between 542 and 500 million years ago. So I guess we don't have to worry about AGW until it drive the temperature gets as high as it was some quarter billion years before Dimetrodon roamed the earth.

On the upside of higher temps of the past the earth was also estimated to be home to much more biomass.