Global Warming, Really...

[Pontifex Maximus]

Further proof to me that Global Warming is a figment of our imaginations.

Story

This means that temperatures haven't increased since 1998? 10 Years? Maybe its time our governments start paying more attention to important matters instead of wasting our time with something that isn't consistent.

[Heinz Guderian]

In the link it actually says:

• Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Natural Science Center.

Awesome.

I believe that global warming is taking place. Should i spam this thread with scientific links from bonafide journals and periodicals? Probably not.

[Pontifex Maximus]

UN study, that's all I got to say.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Can I just check if this works out?

Global warming > Ice caps melt > Melted cold water now flushes the seas > Seas cool > Air takes coolness from sea > Temperatures drop

Hmm.

[Pontifex Maximus]

That's your theory, which is completely devoid of a scientific study to back it up.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Further proof to me that Global Warming is a figment of our imaginations.

Story

This means that temperatures haven't increased since 1998? 10 Years? Maybe its time our governments start paying more attention to important matters instead of wasting our time with something that isn't consistent.

Sorry mate, but you've jumped the gun. Here's the story from a credible news agency:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm

"But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.

The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C."

It is unbecoming to be a cog for the we decide, you report network.

[Heinz Guderian]

^ omfg. I am so embarassed. Not for Ferretts, not for Shyam, not even for myself.

Thats all i gotta say

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Solar activity not correlated with rising temperatures

[Pontifex Maximus]

What, by ,merely stating that the BBC is better than Fox? That's a simple matter of a "mine's better" (ridiculous) arguement. We can sit here all day and swap news stories.

Besides, this only proves that the BBC is slanted as Fox supposedly is, I don't see your point.

[removeduser_487563287433]

What, by ,merely stating that the BBC is better than Fox? That's a simple matter of a "mine's better" (ridiculous) arguement. We can sit here all day and swap news stories.

Besides, this only proves that the BBC is slanted, I don't see your point.

No, it shows exactly the contrary. You read Fox's version and thus have embarrassingly presented it on this forum. But that's fine, you were misled. But really, there's no defence for you carrying on when I have provided an article that presents a true report of the UN document in question.

Why is it you wish to believe these experts when they agree with you, and immediately discard them when I point out they don't?

[Pontifex Maximus]

No, it shows exactly the contrary. You read Fox's version and thus have embarrassingly presented it on this forum. But that's fine, you were misled. But really, there's no defence for you carrying on when I have provided an article that presents a true report of the UN document in question.

Why is it you wish to believe these experts when they agree with you, and immediately discard them when I point out they don't?

Oh! You're right!!!











No. Do you in fact know how the UN wanted their document presented? Obviously the news agencies all present it differently.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Oh! You're right!!!











No. Do you in fact know how the UN wanted their document presented?

I'm almost certain they didn't want the hottest decade on record with tempratures set to increase part to be left out.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Same source...BBC more proof of bias. ATTENTION WORLD: The BBC is not the source of all truth!

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Same source...BBC more proof of bias. ATTENTION WORLD: The BBC is not the source of all truth!

Yes, the BBC reporting news from a group of scientists which tried to independtly confirm the hypotheis that Solar activity and cosmic rays are responsible for global warming . Obviously you didn't read the article.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Speculation about the future is a waste of time at best. Since when have we been good at predicting ecological occurances besides the patterns of comets and such? I don't plan my day based on the weather channel, those forecasts are usually wrong, why should this be any different?

They're basically saying "It's getting cool now but you just wait! We're in for a hot one!"

@Kelso

Independant scientists that merely tried to prove a hypothesis? We're talking about a UN group. I don't mean to sound rude, but I think our sources cary more weight.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Speculation about the future is a waste of time at best. Since when have we been good at predicting ecological occurances besides the patterns of comets and such? I don't plan my day based on the weather channel, those forecasts are usually wrong, why should this be any different?

They're basically saying "It's getting cool now but you just wait! We're in for a hot one!"

@Kelso

Independant scientists that merely tried to prove a hypothesis? We're talking about a UN group. I don't mean to sound rude, but I think our sources cary more weight.

Merely tried to prove a hypothesis? Merely? Don't try to downplay what I posted since you appear to not even know where the topic stands in scientific circles. Global temperature averages have increased substantially in the last 200 years, even the most hardcore anti-CO2 reduction people don't deny this! The thing they are trying to deny is that Human activity is contributing to this effect. One of the strongest hypothesis has been that rising temperatures has been linked to sloar activity (as stated in the link I posted),however, what these people found is that there is no evidence to back up this hypothesis.

From your own "source"

When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he told the BBC. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."
"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up."

Experts at the U.K. Met Office's Hadley Centre for forecasting in Exeter said the world could expect another record temperature within five years or less, the BBC reports, probably associated with an episode of El Nino.

Sentences of importance have been bolded, highlighted and italicised since you may have failed to read that bit.

[johnny5000]

Speculation about the future is a waste of time at best. Since when have we been good at predicting ecological occurances besides the patterns of comets and such? I don't plan my day based on the weather channel, those forecasts are usually wrong, why should this be any different?

That's like the difference between flipping a coin once and saying "this one will be heads" vs flipping a coin 1,000,000 times and predicting about half of them will come up heads.

They can't tell you that tomorrow will be exactly 0.1 degrees warmer than today, but they can tell on average, temperatures have been rising and will continue to rise in the foreseeable future.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Teehee, when the scientists agree with Pontifex that's all he has to say. When they don't they're speculating into the future! Woooooooooooooo!

Okay. What about the hottest decade on record part, Captain Selective?

[Pontifex Maximus]

Captain Selective?

Which decade are you referring to, the speculated 'hottest' decade which is supposed to be occurring sometime in the future? Or maybe the 90's?

Either way both are useless arguements, one is in the past and one might not even happen. I don't see where you're going with this.

[Heinz Guderian]

Dude ^, just run man. Wrong time. Wrong place.