(March 14, 2014 at 9:56 pm)psychoslice Wrote: I don't really know if all this panic about climate change is right or wrong, but I do know that the climate as always been changing for thousands or millions of years.

From the viewpoint of what climate change means to the biosphere as a whole it doesn't really matter. Just like in the past some species will go extinct, some will adapt and survive, some will thrive and expand.

What climate change means to a 7 billion strong species that needs a shitton of food, has a tightly linked world-wide economy that directly affects our individual quality of life, and have massive populations concentrated in small areas it really matters a whole hell of a lot.

(March 14, 2014 at 10:27 pm)Rahul Wrote:

(March 14, 2014 at 9:56 pm)psychoslice Wrote: I don't really know if all this panic about climate change is right or wrong, but I do know that the climate as always been changing for thousands or millions of years.

From the viewpoint of what climate change means to the biosphere as a whole it doesn't really matter. Just like in the past some species will go extinct, some will adapt and survive, some will thrive and expand.

What climate change means to a 7 billion strong species that needs a shitton of food, has a tightly linked world-wide economy that directly affects our individual quality of life, and have massive populations concentrated in small areas it really matters a whole hell of a lot.

Of course that's true, and it might be that we need to depopulate ?.

(March 14, 2014 at 10:30 pm)psychoslice Wrote: Of course that's true, and it might be that we need to depopulate ?.

Well that would certainly delay the crisis for a while. The trick is how to force that policy on 7 billion humans that live in around 200 countries.

(March 14, 2014 at 10:34 pm)Rahul Wrote:

(March 14, 2014 at 10:30 pm)psychoslice Wrote: Of course that's true, and it might be that we need to depopulate ?.

Well that would certainly delay the crisis for a while. The trick is how to force that policy on 7 billion humans that live in around 200 countries.

That's true, we are too frightened to bring up the subject of not over populating the earth, we just have to let it get to a stage where its too late I suppose.

We're peaking. Just about all experts on the subject believe our total population will be on the decline in the latter half of this century. The US would already be declining if not for immigration.

(March 14, 2014 at 10:47 pm)Rahul Wrote: We're peaking. Just about all experts on the subject believe our total population will be on the decline in the latter half of this century. The US would already be declining if not for immigration.

That's good, I myself have never had children and never will, I've done my bit lol.

(March 14, 2014 at 11:43 am)popeyespappy Wrote: I find it interesting that your chart showing a mean of the major temperature records shows no increase for the period in question yet each of the temperature records shows an increase.

And I find it interesting that you go straight to graphs instead of straight to the climate scientists.

Cause and Effect, by Scott Denning - 02/Mar/2014:

• A very common misconception about climate change is that projections of future warming are based on extrapolation of recent warming trends. This misconception is fed by media reporting: both “fourth warmest January on record” and “global warming pause” narratives suggest that we’re waiting with bated breath to see what the climate will do, and whether emerging trends can be understood. Even well-intentioned science outreach often starts off with a graph showing rising temperatures as if this is the basis for our understanding and prediction.
  
  But our expectations of future warming are not based on extrapolation of recent trends. Rather, we expect climate to be warmer in the future than in the past because we know that greenhouse gases absorb and then re-emit thermal radiation. As people around the world burn more and more fossil fuels, concentrations of greenhouse gases increase, so that solar energy accumulates under the extra absorbing gas. Scientists expect accumulating heat to cause warming temperatures because we know that when we add heat to things, they change their temperatures.

His explanation is that global warming projections are based on science rather than on observation. This is an admission that the science doesn't agree with observations.

• Roy Spencer:
  

Part of the problem is we're told the models are reliable because they can reproduce the 20th century trend in climate. However, models that are just 7 years old couldn't even forecast accurately the last few years. If they were actually reliable they would been able to forecast the past 100 years plus the future 7! If 2007 models couldn't paint an accurate picture through to 2013, why should we believe they can paint an accurate picture through to 2100? The fact is that no matter how accurate their modelling of the past is, they are not reliable if they can't accurately model the future. The excuses that climate scientists are coming up with are a complete cop-out, this idea that "it's just a blip". Just a blip? In 86 out of 90 climate models?

The IPCC predictions have failed.

I'll preface this comment by stating that I'm not a repub.

While it's important to note that mankind has contributed to some of the ill effects causing unexpected ''climate changes,'' I think that it's sadly morphed into a capitalist's wet dream. Sad when people find ways to make money off of something as simple as nature.

People will find ways to make money no matter what the cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxCzW6RWoLg

The people most often listened to in Climate Science are not the climate scientists.

A friend of mine is a geologist, we'll call him Anthony (because that's his name). I had a discussion with him a couple of years back about Tim Flannery's position, and he said he quite likes Tim Flannery. I asked him - why is he given a job that he is not qualified for being that he's not a climate scientist? He said "well he is a climate scientist". Well, I hate to say it, but this is one of the times that I am right. That Flannery would be presumed to be a climate scientist from his government appointed position is clearly evident.

Flannery was appointed by the previous government to be the part-time Chair of the Climate Commission for a salary of $180,000 - his job was basically to spew his propaganda. There's money to be made in supporting climate change, that's for sure. But what infuriates me much much more than this is the $90 million of taxpayer money given to his company Geodynamics Limited. They claimed that it would relatively simple to generate power from geothermal activity. That was in 2002.


Here's a clip I made explaining what it's like to waste $90 million:

http://youtu.be/rolHSTWp3w0

Now let's get back to the issue which is the climate projections. If you are going to say that it isn't relevant that recent observations are in 95% disagreement with recently-made projections, then you are creating impossible conditions.

Or I can state it another way - the way science advances, as climate scientist Scott Denning puts it in the video, is through falsification. A theory has to be falsifiable to be valid. Having theories that are not falsifiable isn't science, and this is the big problem. How are climate models falsifiable if their overwhelming failure to predict climate is merely ignored?