global warming myth?

just heard a report on the news that NASA got their calculations wrong and have admitted there has not been any temperature increase in the last ten years, they've also discovered the polar ice caps haven't decreased in size in the last ten either. in fact according to there revised report, weather is the way it should be according to scientists without our input into climate change taken into account. global warming is becoming an inconvenient lie to most scientists I've talked to. whats your opinion? youtube has some pretty interesting vids disproving mans involvement into climate change.

there is no myth about global warming,every serious scientist accepts this, the dispute is the cause.if you can explain to me how pumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide,smoke particles,etc etc etc, into the atmosphere protecting the earth has no effect on our climate i'd be interested to hear. it's a bit like saying throwing litter and pollutants into the sea has no effect. if you want the views of serious scientists with no connections to industry i suggest you look at the top 100 world universities and access papers on the subject.best regards ,pat

To all those who think that Global Warming is just a myth,er Hello,where have u been recently,is this summers weather not enough to prove theres something drastically wrong.weve had months worth of rainfall in just a day,flooding,tornadoes,strong sun then loads of rain,unpredictable tides,hurricane force winds,and now were in for a tropical storm.
who says theres no such thing as global warming.

have u been recently,is this summers weather not enough to prove theres something drastically wrong.weve had months worth of rainfall in just a day,flooding,tornadoes,strong sun then loads of rain,unpredictable tides,hurricane force winds,and now were in for a tropical storm.
who says theres no such thing as global warming.

It could be caused by it, but it doesn't prove it. :)

To be honest I think the name is what gives it the problem. Warming. Who wouldn't fancy a bit of that. Why not call it "Global Stench Blossoms"?

Nah on a serious note, I think the arguements are blunted for several reasons.
1. Image. Like it or not, environmentalists generally have a negative image of being somewhat hysterical and somewhat small picture oriented. Many people will refuse to listen to anything from a Green Party activist/Natural scientist (Hi Ed Farrel) etc.
2. Solutions. Until someone comes up with a stone cold, irrefutable, simple as, like for like without the pollution alternative to oil/coal everybody is just wasting breath because no matter what side of the arguement the public err towards they still drive home and burn a shed load of fossils in everyday life.
3. Mega event. As awful as it sounds I think there needs to be an "Oh S**t" moment. Think Pearl Harbour, WTC, BBC in Ethiopia. Hurricanes are common, bad rains happen. Honest to God I think there needs to be an epic happening. London disappearing for instance before people take heed.
4. Lobbying. The oil vested interests and lobbyists are specatacularly well clued in, it'll take a lot to beat em down.

I’ve read thru’ this thread with interest. I’ve been arguing the point about global warming for the last few years with people and here are my 2 cents worth.

Global warming is real – the planet is warming up. But it was much warmer than now five thousand years ago: read up on the documentation about the Ceide Fields in north Mayo and any other documentation around that period. And the climate has changed over those intervening years, and in the years before that. In the 12th Century, we grew grapes and made wine here in Ireland, for example.

So I’m not convinced that we are responsible for it. For all the carbon, sulphur, we put out it is nothing compared to an everyday, volcanic eruption. This eruption, [url]http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060607.html[/url], earlier this year spewed out the equivalent of the whole output of China for a year in a couple of days.

I do see the patterns of warming and cooling over long periods in various research documents produced over the last year or two. One study linked the rise and fall of corn prices to the rise and fall of temperatures – both had contrasting, opposing patterns. Another study showed that the population of rabbits and hares in North America rose, linked to the equivalent survival rate of wolves due to the extra prey available, and these corresponded to warmer period which allowed longer growing seasons for the prairie grasses.

So I’d argue that the real cause of global warming is sun cycles. One further argument I would put to support this is the current weather situation on our neighbor planet, Mars. I’ve been following the Mars Rover expeditions over the last while and, until recent days, Mars was seeing the worst storms ever recorded since close examination began. (see link [url]http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/20070731a.html[/url]) . I don’t see how what we are doing on earth would have this effect on Mars.

And, from the cynical side of me. All these scientists who are insisting that we are the cause of global warming; ; lets remember that they have a vested interest in repeating that view. If they admit that they are wrong, the next sentence they will hear is ‘Bye, Bye, Mr. Outofajob’.

But on a serious note, we, and particularly us in Ireland, are not asking the right questions. If I am right and GW is natural, or if I am wrong and mankind is causing it, we cannot stop this process. What we should be looking at is what the effects are going to be and how do we mitigate them. We should be looking at what cities and towns will flood and seeing how we prevent that. Cork Galway, Waterford, Dublin, and many more places are in trouble if and when sea levels rise. We need the investments now and over the next few years to begin the protective process.

there will be no investment if a) there is still questions hanging over it - and "need for debate"

b) we need something catostropic - hurricane kathriona should have been used to this end and pretty much reflects the notion - your poor so youll luck out

western civilisations will be able to pay their way out of trouble by and large - whats another 25,000 dead bangladeshis?

i think global warming does allude to the global market and how something we do here in ireland can affect thousands of people thousands of miles away

its not cool, its not hawkish, its not manly/boistrous to talk about sustainablity (a redundant word almost at this stage) or social justice - but i do believe they are all interlinked

as we have the resource wars all over the planet currently

anyway im drifting off topic here but this chap covers generally the linkages of it all - but yet again not giving the doubters a definitive black and white answer - but hell some food for thought if your bothered

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6922065.stm

just to throw my ten pence worth in the pot.

I studied geology at uni. one of the topic involved was studying the earths movement around the sun, i.e giving winter and summer seasons etc, you'd expect that we revovle around the sea in a pecfect circle, no it is more the shape of a rugby ball.

if you add into this factor the fact we move around the universe as well as around the sun it has been calculated that it take approximately 100,000 years to do this, again it is not a pecfect circle therefore we come close to the sun at time and this has an adverse effect on the planet.... Gobal warming

I'm not a yea or nay on global warming, it is clearly happening but the cause to me is still unproven.
1. Anyone who works on computers know that simulations are never accurate as they are generally produced by someone with the outcome already decided in their head. i.e. : Someone who believes in global warming will disregard results that don't agree with their prejudice, or will modify the variance parameters to produce something thats closer to what is expected in their heads. 'hmmm... if I multiply by 3 instead of 2 that graph line is closer to what I was expecting... '
2. The line ' It's the hottest Summer in 62 years ' .... what happened 62 years ago to cause that extreme in weather?

3. Mega event. As awful as it sounds I think there needs to be an "Oh S**t" moment. Think Pearl Harbour, WTC, BBC in Ethiopia. Hurricanes are common, bad rains happen. Honest to God I think there needs to be an epic happening. London disappearing for instance before people take heed.

No one took much heed when New Orleans disappeared, I don't think London or anywhere else will be any different...

hold on a minute, hurricane Katrina was a hurricane, end of. hurricanes are no new phenomenon, the only difference with Katrina was that it hit a relatively high populated area BELOW SEA LEVEL that was in a prosperous country. its not the first time its been hit and it wont be the last.i hear theres a new hurricane on the way, hurricane Dean, i know lets blame global warming, not mother nature, because hurricanes never happened before we arrived and started pumping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. and even if all the polar ice caps melt sea levels world wide will only rise by 20cm, or if your al gore 20 meters.

Thats spmething I always point to man. "Wettest summer in 80 years" etc. Just means 80 years ago was as bad and there was no mention of global warming.
Just to reiterate I DO believe GW is going on I just think the arguements are being put across in the media really ineffectively.

hold on a minute, hurricane Katrina was a hurricane, end of. hurricanes are no new phenomenon, the only difference with Katrina was that it hit a relatively high populated area BELOW SEA LEVEL that was in a prosperous country. its not the first time its been hit and it wont be the last.i hear theres a new hurricane on the way, hurricane Dean, i know lets blame global warming, not mother nature, because hurricanes never happened before we arrived and started pumping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. and even if all the polar ice caps melt sea levels world wide will only rise by 20cm, or if your al gore 20 meters.

20cm is plenty - it will do plenty of damage/erosion - maybe not dramatic stuff - but wait til you see how much has to be spent in sea damage prevention in populated areas

the best that will be done is deflecting damage from an urban centre further down the coast to a lesser populated area that will ruin the coasts there

there is plenty of evidence for this after billions being spent on erosion prevention work in britain

the government here has already highlighted these vulnerable areas after tireless work by the climatic group icarus in nuig maynooth - and plans are underway country wide to shore up these areas

the seas around ireland are going to increase by 15cm until the end of the century with measures in place - without them and any global measures with business as usual in the west and the expected increases in china and india - this could be up to 90cm

90 cm is huge

i find it difficult to understand why people generally put their faith into scientists developing new medicines and researching into the causes of disease but, regard them with distain in matters such as global warming and its cause and effect. one contributor mentioned computer modelling as being prone to error but, we're quite happy to take the drugs which are developed by chemists and other scientists using these methods. the IPCC,Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,was formed in 1988. it was formed from the WMO,World Metrological Organisation and the United Nations Environmental Programme,UNEP to evelauate the risk of climate change brought on by humans.the IPCC bases it's judgement on published scientific literature. the IPCC fourth assesment report on climate change 2007 concluded,most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures is due to anthropogenic [man made] greenhouse gas concentrations via the greenhouse effect. natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 but,a small cooling effect since 1950. these conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science,including all of the academies of science of the major industrialised countries.the American Association of Petrolium Geologists is the only scientific society which rejected the conclusions if the IPCC. best regard, pat

I think the oil industry has done a lot to muddy the waters with this one, they've paid for a lot of BS from partisan "scientists" ( I use the term lightly). It's unfortunate that with science these days you need to look at the source of the funding just like you need to check the politics of a newspaper to find out the real agenda.

Ask yourself this.
Does the world go through extreme cycles of warm and cold such as in ice ages? Indupitably.

Does mans activity on the planet have an effect on these natural cycles, possibly accelerating or decelerating them? Most possibly.

If you think most possibly to the second then you need to cut back on your carbon footprint, if you don't think so then you're sticking your head in the sand.

i think its bull poo to say that global warming is a myth and that humans have had nothing to do with it, and i think its blind sightedness by a lot to say that car emisions and other co2 producing machines are not the number one or number two cause of it. i take into account that the earth will heath up and cool down in cycles but does no one think this cycle is a little fast? a lot of the cod stocks have disapeared for the irish sea, some due to over fishing but some due to the fact that the temp of the water doesnt suit them any more and the have started to migrate further north. co2 does effect climate change have a look at the size of the hole in the ozone layer and have a look at what the ozone is supposed to do for the planet earth then have a look at what is causing the hole to get bigger.

after passing about 20 pages of appendicies there are clear pages in short paragraph format explaining it all

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publica ... ndbook.pdf

there are clear pages in short paragraph format explaining it all

Thanks. I usually have difficulty with long paragraphs ;)

well its a summary of sorts - the other publications are hardcore - very long and complex