Climate Change Politics

you said the significance of the 12 letters is that the coal industry..blah blah".but is it the problem that the coal industry sent those letters, or requested them sent ? You've not only NOT SHOWN what you claimed, but what you claimed is meaningless, as to AGW "reality or not reality".

It's meaningless"Chicken Little" gabble.

I did answer to "if we see temperature rise"...you need to bring truth, not fictions you make up on the fly.

Much of the original data that could tell us something - entrusted to East Anglia - has been destroyed.

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme


David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change.

Are we seeing temperature increases, yes or no?

We see here a prime example of the deniers mind, unable to argue their point of view , unable to even construct a reasoned objection. Confused , bewildered they resort to abuse and childish humour?

One last time, are we experiencing temperature rises?

Over ten thousand years, over ten years, over a hundred years, or over TEN DAYS ?

and where ? On the equator in summer, or at the north pole in winter ? what are you even talking about ?

It's incoherent.

Ah its in the detail. You spent a great deal of time arguing that the temperature figures have been rigged, those temperatures, you know, the ones you disputed.

yes, rigged as to the historical data and projections. That is what has been done. Raw data is now gone. Thanks to The Climate Change Heroes.

so we should throw any politicians - those who dare disobey the Climate Change Heroes' fiat , to offer up 1 or 2 % of world income - in jail.

---------- Post added 12-21-2009 at 12:02 PM ----------

I think we'll all benefit if Jones is jailed for a very long time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnCLQIYNYgo&feature=player_embedded#

You are telling me that the temperatures have not risen. So why are you referring to the temperature having risen in historic terms? You cant have it both ways. If you are telling me temperatures having risen since the last ice age in a contiguous manner, why are you denying the figures indicating increase.

Ice core measurements have never indicated the increase in temperatures over such a short period of time. If you intend disproving the consensus of scientific opinion, you need to be precise in your claims. You need to explain why the ice caps and glaciers are melting at such a rate and why the sea is becoming more acidic? Pulling silly links from your hat of contempt convinces no one.

I'm saying it's obvious that since the last Ice Age, temps have risen. Not in a straight line, but with peaks and valleys. There is no conflict there with what I've said. You've illictly inserted several other words, to add to what I said.

How is this not a conflict when you claim that temperatures having been rising but then deny it. Are you now saying they are rising but not as significantly as reported, is it a matter of degree now? Don't put ice ages on the agenda as they are created by global phenomena, long before man made his footprint visible.

Nit picking and questioning every scrap of temperature records is not being sceptical but intentional professional propaganda by invested interests. The middle age weather patterns can be attributed to natural phenomena, the rises we are obviously seeing have no visible natural causes. They are directly linked to emissions and those emissions have been caused by man. We see the deniers changing tack when one attempt at scoffing fails they move to another , ever time we see the same vested interest behind the attempts at denying. Deniergate: Turning the tables on climate sceptics - environment - 14 December 2009 - New Scientist

You are telling me that the temperatures have not risen.

Warming, that has been going on since the last ice age. That was your claim. Your house was under a significant amount of Ice.

Now I dont mind how you answer my question, they are not trick questions. You decide, you can change your mind if you like. The world has being doing what and for how long. Its been constant , changing , you decide. I know what I believe and im prepared to state it.

And that the surface of earth would seem, obviously, to be warmer now, than in the last Ice Age.

I think it does bother you what I believe , because i represent the vast majority of intelligent interpretation of available facts. You have constantly avoided to have any real debate on the subject but only blurted out either abuse or pointless rhetoric.

I will leave you to your certainty of a world safe in the hands of the self interested power moguls.

Continue to select the selective figures or the minor discrepancies that feed your certainty.

Avoid the blatant truths of acidic oceans, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, just be happy man, everything is just a big left wing trick to spoil your splendid way of life.

How about the 1) mean absolute temperatures and 2) rate of temperature change between 1800-1899 as compared with 1900-1999?

That's a specific question for you...

That is not a specific question; "How about...".

Unless the specific kind of answer you are looking for is "Yeah, 1800-1899, really something, eh ?"

You're right.

So let me ask you more direct questions that will keep you on track, since you're apparently quite distractable when confronted with the propositional interrogative idiom "how about".

Answer these questions to the best of your ability:

1. Have global temperature readings been higher in the 20th century as compared with the 19th century?

2. Is there evidence that the rate of global mean temperature change has accelerated during the last 100 years?


Even yes / no would be enough, though xris has given you ample opportunity. So without attribution as to anthropogenicity or lack thereof, can you at least confirm your literacy with the above two questions?

You're right.

So let me ask you more direct questions that will keep you on track, since you're apparently quite distractable when confronted with the propositional interrogative idiom "how about".

Answer these questions to the best of your ability:

1. Have global temperature readings been higher in the 20th century as compared with the 19th century?

2. Is there evidence that the rate of global mean temperature change has accelerated during the last 100 years?


Even yes / no would be enough, though xris has given you ample opportunity. So without attribution as to anthropogenicity or lack thereof, can you at least confirm your literacy with the above two questions?

confirm literacy to whose satisfaction ? Your satisfaction does not particularly interest me.

Seemingly you cannot properly state a question for me, so that I could possibly then look for an answer, for you.

I've already stated what I have to say on the matter - you can find fault with that.

I wonder if I could ask something about this. If mean temperatures have been higher in the 20th century, what does that tell us? Is temperature data for the last 100 years, or the last 1000 years sufficient to say something statistically significant about our situation?

I can't find fault with it because you haven't actually communicated anything. There's nothing to criticize -- simply because there's nothing at all.

Well, first, take note that you are misusing the phrase "statistically significant" here. Statistical significance has to do with comparison between groups and determination of how likely it would be that the observed difference is due to chance. In order to speak of statistical significance, then, you need to define your comparators.

So if you take two groups, one is ambient temperature readings in a given location during the 1890s and the other is the same but during the 1990s, you can of course calculate statistical significance.