No, it isn't. Climatologists continue to look for lame as reasons why their doom and gloom predictions from forced models designed to return what they want and not tell them the truth are failing miserably.

Whether it is or not, the remedies (conservation of energy resource primarily) make sense to do for other reasons. I doubt it is happening to the extent it's being hyped, but we should support efficiency gains in any case. I voted for Romney as well.

What about the icecaps? And the global increase of temperature? Is it just Earth going though its natural climate cycle?

Force, are you trying to be a moderator of this conversation or a participant? If it's the former, it's not going to work; you can't moderate this place. If it's the latter, step it up...

@bo_sox48 why does it matter?

Because the whole ice caps/Al Gore propaganda and shit like that doesn't get far around people like just about everyone on this forum that have some degree of an educated opinion.

Is it real? Maybe. Maybe not. Conservatives and Liberals are both using the issue in the worst way, to demonize their opponents as idiots. There's a perfect opportunity here for everyone to get what they *say* they want, national security, reduced emissions, and everything else, just by ramping up efficiency standards. Unfortunately the issue is too politically useful to actually resolve.

Anyone read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton?

"What about the icecaps? And the global increase of temperature? Is it just Earth going though its natural climate cycle? "

There are are natural cycles, but for the current situation, AGW is best fit with the evidence. That is what the majority of climate scientists believe.

Tendmote +2 (one for each post)

Global warming is a myth. It isn't warming up.

And referencing a Michael Crichton book... It is *fiction*. Just like Jurassic Park and Andromeda Strain. We haven't seen any diseases brought back to earth by satellites and there are no islands in the Pacific ocean populated by dinosaurs.

Draug so you are now stating categorically that climate change is not occurring... let's rewind this converstation to an earlier thread on the subject

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=1082987#1082987

<Quotes>

YJ: I am NOT part of the consensus. I'm not qualified to be. I am a non-expert who takes the advice of experts. If and when the experts change their mind, so do I. I can't make it any more plain than that.

Draugnar:So you can't think for yourself and analyze data and trends? You don't have to be an expert to know that 1+1=2, not 3.

spyman: Draug are you claiming that you have conducted a statistical analysis of climate change data? Or at least some kind of deductive debunking of climate change theory?

Draugnar: No, but I am saying that I can read it critically without being a world renowned expert just as any entry level programmer could read the facial recognition code I am working on and understand the concepts at a basic level.

spyman: And what does your critical reading tell you? How did you arrive at your conclusion?

Draugnar: I arrived at no conclusion and made no claim to one. I was just telling YJ to read and think for himself and don't let the establishment tell him what to think.

</End Quotes>

As shown above, in this thread you were a little fuzzy about where you stood and why. But now Draug you are saying this with regards to climate change...

Draugnar: "No, it isn't. Climatologists continue to look for lame as reasons why their doom and gloom predictions from forced models designed to return what they want and not tell them the truth are failing miserably. "

I get it that you could argue that was not the point of your earlier comments, that your intent there was simply to berate YJ for not thinking for himself (ie foolishing listening to experts, when all he has to to is conduct his own statistical analysis)

Let's not beat around the bush Draug you have *arrived at a conclusion*. How did you arrive at conclusion? I know it wasn't from "listening to the establishment". Who were you listening to? Was it your own analysis... and if so maybe you could talk us through the steps?

Crichton's book is anti-environmentalist, Draugnar.

More proof that you just shoot from the hip.

"Draug so you are now stating categorically that climate change is not occurring... "

That wasn't the question. The question was "Is global warming occurring?" You fail. Please try again. I said *nothing* about climate change (in fact, I believe climate change is occurring just not at the radical swings the extreme alarmist are stating and not as directly attributable to man as they would like us to believe. Yes, the climate is changing just as hit has for millions of years. Ica ages, dinosaurs and volcanos, any of these sound familiar? Man is having *an* effect. How much? That is up for debate. But the alarmists don't serve a positive purpose.

Instead of trying to focus everything on panicking everyone, they should look to the solutions they like and provide reasons outside of "the sky is falling!" to get people to do them. Alternative energy? I'm all for it. Reducing pollution in general and especially air pollution? Also all for it. I like being able to breathe and any demonstrable change that effectively cleans the air, I will get behind.

So, no, global warming is not happening. But the climate is changing. See the difference, kiddies?

You're being pedantic Draug. We both know we're talking about AGW. You sound like you are trying to avoid the question, which you have still not answered.

Where do you get your information from?

Another fail...

"Yes, the climate is changing just as hit has for millions of years. Ica ages, dinosaurs and volcanos, any of these sound familiar? Man is having *an* effect. How much? That is up for debate. But the alarmists don't serve a positive purpose."

That was what I posted in my very last post. That directly answered you question with regards to climate change. I stanbd behind my statement. I wasn't being pedantic. I answered the question asked. "Is global warming occurring?" No, it is not. Your question of "IS climate change occurring?" the answer is yes. I don't know how much more clear I can be.

Draug please. We are talking about human impact on climate. Your position is that humans have an impact but not much, which goes against what pretty much every university and major scientific body in the world is telling us.

How did you arrive at your conclusion that humans are not having much of an impact.

No, my position is that humans have an impact but there is a debate about how much. How can you have a college degree and not be able to read?

Proof of warming.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth501/content/p5_p3.html

And I *never* trust "universities" and "scientific bodies" to tell me the truth. Liberal bias runs rampant in university communities and it has a pretty strong hold in the scientific community which is looking out for number one and their paycheck aka grant.

"I said *nothing* about climate change (in fact, I believe climate change is occurring just not at the radical swings the extreme alarmist are stating and not as directly attributable to man as they would like us to believe."

This is what you said Draugnar. Stop with the word games.

Really putin? Decade plus old data? Can't find anything from the last 3 years?

"Liberal bias runs rampant in university communities and it has a pretty strong hold in the scientific community which is looking out for number one and their paycheck aka grant."

If they were interested in nothing but money they'd go to Big Oil and do whatever study they wanted the scientific community to do for them. But they don't.

Where do you get your information from? And why is it supposedly more truthful?

Oh, and someone should correct the chart. It is either from 1861 to 1990 or 1961 to 1990 (check the X-axis label on the left).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

Documents how "skeptics" manipulate recent data to deny recent warming trends.

And I ask again, where do you get your information from and how is it more trustworthy than the entire climate science community?

One of the biggest problems facing the world today is global warming. Many scientists believe that our production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is having a heating effect on the atmosphere, and this could be very dangerous for human life. This essay will examine the problem of global warming and suggest some ways of solving the problem.

Many problems could result from global warming. One of the biggest problems is rising sea level. This could result in the flooding of low lying coastal areas and cities, such as Egypt, the Netherlands, and Bangladesh. Some countries might even disappear completely! Another problem caused by global warming is changes in weather patterns. Many areas of the world are experiencing increased hurricanes, floods, and other unusual weather. A third problem associated with global warming is the effect on animals. Fish populations could be affected, while some insects which spread disease might become more common.

There are several things we can do to solve the problem of global warming. One solution is to stop producing C02. We can do this by switching from oil, coal and gas to renewable energy. Another solution is to plant more trees. Trees absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, which is not a greenhouse gas. A third solution is to use less energy and to recycle more products. Generating electricity is one of the main sources of carbon dioxide. If we use less electricity, we will produce less C02.

In conclusion, if we make small changes now in the way we live, we can avoid huge changes in the future. Scientists, governments and individuals must work together to overcome this threat.

Hey Draug.
Take your head out from up your clacker.

If you had even LOOKED at that book, you'd have worked out it was half full of bibliography and discussion on global warming and if it was all that it was claimed to be. My reference was in direct reply (and...fucking adjacent to...) toTendmote's comment. You're not the only one in this thread.

Narcissistic Ass.