Will London become the North Pole?

[Thanato]

There is actually just a small handful running that show. And yes they are wrong, intentionally. This is about having more power over people, an very little to do with weather.

So the many thousands of people who work to prove or disprove global warming and climate change (and have indiapudely proved t and that we are a route cause to it) are wrong? And the tiny handful of scientists(usually employed by the oil industry ect) are the correct ones that say global warming is fake?

[seeder]

Can melting ice make the earth move?

Is melting ice changing how our globe spins? Shifts in the spin axis of our planet have been happening for decades but now scientists at Nasa think they know what's causing it. Surendra Adhikari is one of the researchers and spoke to Newsday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03qp7gy

[EllJay]

Can melting ice make the earth move?

Is melting ice changing how our globe spins? Shifts in the spin axis of our planet have been happening for decades

The globe spins like those kid toys; Spinning Tops.

So if the mass moves out of the axis I guess it will adjust accordingly.

[docyabut2]

Ok guys what happen to the earth at the end of the last ice age to cause the atmosphere to warm, and the sea levels to rise. Man was hardly around with his pollutions and please don`nt give me a asteroid, never happened.

[seeder]

Ok guys what happen to the earth at the end of the last ice age to cause the atmosphere to warm, and the sea levels to rise. Man was hardly around with his pollutions and please don`nt give me a asteroid, never happened.

have a read...

What Thawed the Last Ice Age?

The relatively pleasant global climate of the past 10,000 years is largely thanks to higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/

[docyabut2]

have a read...

What Thawed the Last Ice Age?

The relatively pleasant global climate of the past 10,000 years is largely thanks to higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide

http://www.scientifi...e-last-ice-age/

Ok so why blame man for global warming and the higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, if this is just a natural climate change cycle

[switchopens]

"Thousands" of scientists? You have no idea how many scientists believe in Global Warming. There probably isn't as much of a "consensus" on this issue as you Warmists think - and those scientists who do tell us that there is Global Warming are liars using flawed and fiddled data. They were found out by the University of East Anmglia leaks.

You're mistaken. There is approximately 97% consensus of all peer reviewed studies that agree that current warming trends are indeed man-made. If you are going to site the 3% of rouge and flawed studies, then you probably shouldn't be making scientific opinions.

[seeder]

Ok so why blame man for global warming and the higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, if this is just a natural climate change cycle

Today we burn fossil fuels. An old way of suicide was to put a tube from the exhaust pipe of car....into the cabin of the car..... seal the window, start the engine....make yourself comfy....and breathe the stuff....which kills you...fancy that!

Plus we created industry....

Edited April 12, 2016 by seeder

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Ok so why blame man for global warming and the higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, if this is just a natural climate change cycle

Because a) the basic physics says that CO2 must cause warming and man is the net cause of increasing CO2

the planet was on a long term cooling trend before the industrial revolution caused by orbital shifts and sequestering of carbon in deep sea sediments

The industrial revolution saw a significant shift in the trajecxtory of atmospheric CO2 levels and consequently temperatures.

You see no one disputes that natural changes in CO2 levels causes climate change - and it is the basis in why we understand that unnatural shifts (man made) also cause shifts in the climate.

Br Cornelius

[Thanato]

We are still in an ice age, in a period known as an interglacial period.

[Aftermath]

Personally, I just don't know. There are these articles...

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-percent-consensus.html

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/18/5-scientific-reasons-that-global-warming-isnt-happening-n1796423/page/full

http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/is-global-warming-real.php

Who's right... who's wrong? Perhaps everyone is wrong and everyone is right. In the end, I just enjoy watching everyone throw poop at each other.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Personally, I just don't know. There are these articles...

http://www.climatech...-consensus.html

http://townhall.com/...96423/page/full

http://www.conserve-...arming-real.php

Who's right... who's wrong? Perhaps everyone is wrong and everyone is right. In the end, I just enjoy watching everyone throw poop at each other.

Look into the sources of those articles - all Right Wing opinion forming websites. Given that these are exactly the outlets who have been bought off by the fossil fuel industry (and there is well documented evidence for this) they cannot be trusted to be telling the truth.

The only reliable source of information is from climate scientists who have had their work published in peer review journals - that is how you tell if a piece of science is worthy of consideration since it ensure it has met some basic level of adherence to the scientific method. None of those articles passes muster. if you disagree then you are in the same bed as the climate denial conspiracy nut jobs who believe that almost all scientist are lying to them.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 12, 2016 by Br Cornelius

[Black Monk]

There is approximately 97% consensus of all peer reviewed studies that agree that current warming trends are indeed man-made.

Sorry, but I don't believe you.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Sorry, but I don't believe you.

It nice then that your belief is totally irrelevant.

Br Cornelius

[seeder]

Sorry, but I don't believe you.

And yet you can not offer any info to the contrary, can you?

[Black Monk]

It nice then that your belief is totally irrelevant.

It's actually a belief shared by many millions of people around the world.

[Black Monk]

And yet you can not offer any info to the contrary, can you?

I certainly can. As per usual, you Warmist loonies are peddling myths and lies.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

It's actually a belief shared by many millions of people around the world.

Which still makes it a tiny fringe minority since there are over 7 billion people in the world and over 80% of them accept the science.

Br Cornelius

[Guest Br Cornelius]

I certainly can. As per usual, you Warmist loonies are peddling myths and lies.

Go on then, knock us out with your evidence,

Loons means to be out of touch with reality - I suggest a look in the mirror is in order.

Br Cornelius

[Aftermath]

I think y'all are cray cray... the poop is flying.

Both sides believe they are right, both sides have research to back them up, and both sides ridicule, refute, and refuse to accept the other's research... sounds a lot to me like religion.

[Black Monk]

Go on then, knock us out with your evidence,

Loons means to be out of touch with reality - I suggest a look in the mirror is in order.

Br Cornelius

Okeedokee...

97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

Written by Popular Technology on

02 December 2015

The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it.

"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [uK] that the energy minister should cite it."

- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.

[ Journal Coverage ]

Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (PDF) (October 2014)

Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (PDF) (October 2014)

Science & Education - Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (PDF) (August 2013)

[ Media Coverage ]

American Thinker - Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)

Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)

Canada Free Press - Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)

Financial Post - Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)

Financial Post - The 97%: No you don't have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)

Forbes - Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (May 30, 2013)

Fox News - Balance is not bias -- Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)

Herald Sun - That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)

Power Line - Breaking: The "97 Percent Climate Consensus" Canard (May 18, 2014)

Spiked - Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)

The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)

The Daily Telegraph - 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)

The Guardian - The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)

The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)

The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)

The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud (May 20, 2014)

The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)

The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)

The Press-Enterprise - Don't be swayed by climate change ‘consensus' (September 10, 2013)

The Tampa Tribune - About that '97 percent': It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)

The Wall Street Journal - The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' (May 26, 2014)

Troy Media - Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change "consensus" (February 18, 2014)

WND - Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)

To see the rest of the 97 articles, go here:

http://www.climatech...-consensus.html

Edited April 13, 2016 by Black Monk

[Guest Br Cornelius]

I think y'all are cray cray... the poop is flying.

Both sides believe they are right, both sides have research to back them up, and both sides ridicule, refute, and refuse to accept the other's research... sounds a lot to me like religion.

No, one side has overwhelming evidence to base its conclusion on, the other thinks they are right. Spot the difference there.

Br Cornelius

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Okeedokee...

97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

Written by Popular Technology on

02 December 2015

The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it.

"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [uK] that the energy minister should cite it."

- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.

[ Journal Coverage ]

Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (PDF) (October 2014)

Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (PDF) (October 2014)

Science & Education - Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (PDF) (August 2013)

[ Media Coverage ]

American Thinker - Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)

Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)

Canada Free Press - Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)

Financial Post - Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)

Financial Post - The 97%: No you don't have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)

Forbes - Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (May 30, 2013)

Fox News - Balance is not bias -- Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)

Herald Sun - That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)

Power Line - Breaking: The "97 Percent Climate Consensus" Canard (May 18, 2014)

Spiked - Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)

The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)

The Daily Telegraph - 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)

The Guardian - The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)

The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)

The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)

The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud (May 20, 2014)

The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)

The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)

The Press-Enterprise - Don't be swayed by climate change ‘consensus' (September 10, 2013)

The Tampa Tribune - About that '97 percent': It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)

The Wall Street Journal - The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' (May 26, 2014)

Troy Media - Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change "consensus" (February 18, 2014)

WND - Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)

To see the rest of the 97 articles, go here:

http://www.climatech...-consensus.html

All of those are journalist reports - which is not presenting evidence. Do you understand what evidence is ?

Br Cornelius

[Black Monk]

Typical Warmist. Even with all the evidence to the contrary - 97 articles which state that the "97 consensus" peddled by the Warmists is a load of tosh - he's still clinging on to his discredited religion no matter what.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Typical Warmist. Even with all the evidence to the contrary - 97 articles which state that the "97 consensus" peddled by the Warmists is a load of tosh - he's still clinging on to his discredited religion no matter what.

You don't understand evidence do you. The study is statistically accurate and if someone wants to refute it then they can easily publish a counter argument and have it tested in a peer reviewed journal for sound methodology. A journalist need never do any of those things, they are paid to express the opinion of their editor and they generally repeat the same story as everyone else, that is why all 97 of those papers are essentially just repeating the same soundbites.

But really this is just a side show, what I really want you do is show me why the physics of climate change is flawed - because if you cannot do that then the physics says warming must happen when you increase the concentration of greenhouse gases. That has never been dis-proven, so do your best and show us how increasing CO2 in the atmosphere cannot effect the temperature.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 13, 2016 by Br Cornelius