I believe the onus is on the denier/skeptics to provide evidence contrary to the established scientific beliefs.................but we'll just end up posting swathes of links no one will read on both sides of the debate


Source - NASA


Gobal Temp Rise from 4 separate sources - NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency

97% Of Published Climate Scientists agree that mankind is influencing climate change

Source - J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus.

And of course we have the dangerous side of polls and statistics where 30% of US Republicans voted in favour of bombing Agrabah - a fictional city from Aladin ROTFLMAO

I am reading posted links, but a couple of graphs shown in isolation do not amount to a readable document.
Within my link below you will quickly find an article about changes of mind among the scientific community + further commentary about the corruption of the data sets used for the temperature graphs - Piers Corbyn, the "amateur" weather forecaster, has also drawn attention to the phenomena of altered data to suit preconceived ideologies derived from computer based modelling that did not come up with the "right" predictions (it's in his website linked earlier).
JoNova
She is an Aussie so she doesn't mince about in her blog

__________________
Dave

My last post will only remain true until the lady blogger makes a few more entries into her home page.

So, here are better links.
[url=http://joannenova.com.au/2015/12/10-reasons-we-know-global-warming-is-not-man-made-physics-prof-explains-his-switch-to-skepticism/]10 reasons that show global warming is not man-made. Physics Prof explains his switch to skepticism.
29 Dec 2015

http://joannenova.com.au/about/archives/

http://joannenova.com.au/about/index/

__________________
Dave

So you're saying they are false? Or do you believe NASA, et al along with those who carried out that research are wrong?


Evidence?


But are you disputing that the link between Co2 and climate change or the problems with computer modeling? In your mind could it be you are more likely to believe an amateur in Australia because it conforms with your worldview, more than agencies like the International Panel on Climate Change, the MET, NASA, etc? By the way that blog comes across as false, shrill, loaded and cherry picked, to say the least.

Oh ok, sbut third world countries poor infrastructure and design have nothing to do with the slides or inability to get back up and running. Nothing new we have been having dramatic shifts for some time, welcome to earth.
From the founder of the Weather channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

lol the International panel was a joke, others have came out against it. Further nobody has bothered to refute what stated about all those international countries NOT taking any actions about the supposed DIRE danger.

See;

Argumentum ad lapidem

- dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.

Appeal to authority

- where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it (besides not even caring to disclose said authorities?)

- perfect example of an inductive fallacy (not to mention cherry picking) i.e. that unknown quantity of undisclosed nations allegedly took no action to mitigate consequences of climate change therefore climate change isn't real.

\

Edit: Truly, reasoning with you is impossible, especially when you make zero attempt in your life to learn anything objective at all.
Sad and entertaining.

The thread has moved along at a pace; barricades have been strengthened, positions reinforced, reinforcements summoned and minds increasingly closed.

A word about blogs:
They didn't exist a short few years ago - we were reliant on the Main Stream Media (MSM) and other printed matter + the spoken word.
The general tradition of dissemination of information consists of a top down approach, based on the existing establishment of the day - through recorded history this has been the case and until very recently that is how things have been done, whether it be the Iman preaching from the pulpit (mixed religions therein) to the illiterate congregation or whatever.
Now, remarkably, here we are discussing a subject on a worldwide basis, more or less in a single language (with occasional tower of babel misunderstandings).


I like blogs because they pull together views, of all kinds, and are a developing new outlet for discourse such as occurs in here, now and again.
Of course some blogs are better than others just as there are websites that are better than others.
Right enough, a reference to a blog requires an open mind to actuallly do some reading/research; it is all too easy to hang on to the status quo, accepted dogma in a semi-religious fervour which is the outcome of the settled science scenario so beloved of our lords and masters.
In summary blogs are a convenient means of accessing information in a bottom up manner - that does require the will to do so of course.

Now, there is an enormous publicity machine that lies behind the current infatuation with so-called climate change (CC).
The CC that conveniently changed it's name from Global Warming (GW) when the evidence started to indicate that GW is not occurring, or it is occurring to a very small degree which does not threaten the current world order.
Compound that with the increasing indications that the raw data has been corrupted.

I very much doubt that anyone in here is very well read on the subject matter or is directly involved in the issues in their everyday existance - no one has spoken up in here to say "I am your great saviour who is all knowing on this issue, trust in me" or words to that effect.
I certainly have not.

Just one more point on the settled science:
Last century, Einstein developed theories in physics that confounded the Newtonian laws that had served us well for a few hundred years. But, Newtons laws of motion do continue to serve us well in our day to day affairs especially in the world of engineering.
Now, current physics is developing theories which indicate that Einstein was less than correct just a few years ago.
But I am supposed to accept, according to some postings in here, that the science of CC is a done deal; no arguments will be brokered, it is unacceptable to dissent, plain wrong man! Accept the truth pill.
As I mentioned a few pages back; that is medieval thinking, at best, and it really does work out well for the top down dissemination of smoke screens that divert from the real issues that the powers would rather not address.

I also mentioned a few pages back about the wolf that is much nearer the homo sapiens sledge; that is a subject that I have been following much more closely than CC over the past couple of years, so apologies if I have not provided full disclosure of every single source that I have considered in the past with respect to this thread topic.
Do your own research I would say, and remember to consider what folks are doing rather than what they are simply saying during this El Nino year and in the future.

__________________
Dave

It is the case that one blog doth not a summer make.
It is necessary to read into the JoNova blog in order to see the content; it is well enough organised to find the information.

Elsewhere, the debate is lively and continuing:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ata-tampering/

Quite frequently, the discussions appended to blogs continue to delve into the items under consideration in an informed manner.
Such discourse is very up to date in this bit of that website:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ering-in-2014/

Regarding NASA:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ience-at-nasa/

So, yes, there is dissent about the computer modelling; in both the potential for corruption of the raw data, and in the modelling itself - that latter feature has not been mentioned in here up to now, but it certainly has been elsewhere.

The very old computing adage, GIGO, comes to mind, but even that does not recognise that the electronic model in the computer brain has to have some level of credence.
Reference can be made to Steven Goddards' professional work in writing computer software for some input about this aspect.

Of course there is ongoing dissent about the alleged corrolation between CO2 and the potential for warming the planet; it will be a much poorer world when there is no dissent within science, as has been mentioned earlier.

__________________
Dave

Recently I came upon the item linked below and it reminded me of the extract shown above concerning a certain Dr Hansen, employed by NASA and who pulls in big bucks each and every year to publish.
C3: 2013: The NASA/Hansen Climate Model Prediction of Global Warming Vs. Climate Reality

It's just another example of how the alarming forecasts of even a few years ago just don't stack up with current measurements.
(a decade is a long time in climate science when the internet can retrieve data so readily - oh for the old days, when paper records could be more easily forgotten).

There's a whole load more reports here, peer-reviewed even:-
C3: 1 Peer-Reviewed Studies
Not omitting a few pesky other items:-
http://www.c3headlines.com/2-stubborn-facts/

__________________
Dave

....... no cause for concern for the Arctic sea ice, it is self regulating itself on a cycle of about 60 years:-
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/
This blog writer specialises in writing about the Arctic while, along the way, he has a few pithy comments about aspects of the IPCC reports and their selective use of very dodgy temperature records.

+
A tribute to a guy who was mentioned earlier in this thread (with an interesting comment at the end about populations brought up with communism and its' media).
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/06...hael-crichton/

__________________
Dave

Here's a handy hint for you.........................

When the only posts in over a week are yours, the rest of the forum has got bored and moved onto something either more interesting or more productive