Poland blocks any action on climate change

That one's only just beginning.


Somehow, I prefer scientific consensus to the opinion of you..

can you read? i provided a link which is crucial to the understanding of whether there is a negative or a positive feedback involved in co2 levels rise and global warming


it somehow looks like you cannot think for yourself and must rely on people to tell you what you should believe in

have anyone ever heard of the effect of clouds on the Earth albedo??? the c02 warming is self-defeating becasue the more warming there is the more evaporation from the oceans occurs and the more evaporation the more clouds there are

Somehow, I suspect environmental scientists have noticed that we have clouds.

ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

read the Water Vapour paragraph thouroughly

Is that some sort of American thing?

They caused most of it with ethyl lead.

Funny how these discussions usually devolve into arguments from authority. On the other hand, this is what makes things like these emails' "climategate" and this Himalayan fiasco significant: it absolutely demolishes arguments from the authority of the IPCC. Sure, it does not prove that the IPCC and the "experts" are wrong, not at all, but it does show that we can't blindly trust them (and possibly that we can't trust them at all).

Scientifically speaking, the situation is pretty simple really:

Yes, there is hypotesis that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so, we would expect some small (up to 2C) temperature increase if it goes up.

(On the other hand, this small increase might cause either negative feedback - canceling the warming or maybe even making it colder, or positive feedback, making it even warmer. We have no idea which, really, although there are some indications that the feedback is negative.)

And yes, there has been a small increase in temperature in 1970-1998 - though the temperature has dropped since then.

So sure, it's possible that this increase in temperature is due to CO2, since the temperature increase (though not the recent temperature drop) correlates somewhat well with the rise in CO2.

That's a fine hypothesis. On the other hand, the warming might be due to natural factors (and CO2 does not correlate well with temperature in the past). So far so good. We have also a pretty plausible hypothesis here.

And at this point, it's up to the "warmists" to provide evidence that CO2, not other factors, is the cause of this recent warming. However, this is where their substantive arguments end, and they start arguing from authority, and providing various arguments that show that the Earth is warming, but not arguments that CO2 is the cause

They simply never take the next step of testing their hypothesis with evidence (and no, computer models and estimates are not evidence).

So no evidence for this hypothesis has been given.
In fact, there is evidence against it! Check out "missing hotspot" and "Vostok ice-cores", among other things.

That's the current state of the "science", with regard to arguments of substance. Politics, propaganda and credentials are irrelevant. It's evidence that counts.

it looks like you can't read American, so sad for you :)

Very easily - evidently better than you since you've cited something that doesn't in any way contribute to the discussion or have any bearing on the one undeniable fact - that man-made climate change is increasing.

And thats coming from an Oilman,

There is discussion on whether Climate change is happening, its between the educated people and scientists against the journalists, politicians and trolls.

There is no scientific evidence that CO2 is not causing a rise in earth's temperature.

None.

There is no science that says global warming is not happening

you can't understand what you read evidently - the link reads in short as follows: there are positive and negative feedbacks to rising CO2 driven global warming in the atmosphere and that scientists currently don't know which are stronger - which leaves the possibility for null CO2 driven global warming due to negative feedback from water vapour - global warming can be caused then by something completely different to the rising of CO2 levels

what is more the ice core samples show no simplistic if any correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature

Poland inadvertently got out of trouble with international law, because it reduced its emission unintentionally in the 90's, due to the mass closure of its industry. Today, cutting down on coal would push them into the hands of the Russians and gas etc, I know this obvious!!but, is this not where this argument should be going, rather than entertaining the waffle from the loons in the climate change denier's brigade.

For once we agree - because it's common sense. The governments of the world are not panicking for the sake of it.

What we're doing here is stopping billions of dollars worth per year of gas being wasted and burnt away in huge fires.


That is the absolute opposite of the truth.

There no actual evidence that CO2 ever significantly influenced temperature.

I thought we could expect ipso facto that if CO2 increased there was bound to be at least "some small temperature increase?"

It, on the other hand, have never varied in ten years.

CO2 has nothing at all to do with changes in average world temperatures.

Nothing. At. All. It's a straw man.

The reason we end up talking about personalities and credentials in these threads is because GLOBOWARMTHINKISM NEVER MADE ANY SCIENTIFIC SENSE ON ANY LEVEL AT ANY TIME.

EVER

sciencemag.org/content/283/5408/1712.short - here's your perfect correlation (there are considerable lags between CO2 levels and glaciatons deglatiations)

It’s a little more complicated than you say, Earths albedo is much more than cloud cover.

Warming as you concede, leads to a reduction in ice and thus a reduction in overall albedo. More moisture in the atmosphere as you say leads to a higher specific heat capacity for the atmosphere meaning it retains more energy ultimately derived from the sun. The interaction between the oceans and the atmosphere which has warmed leads to sea temperatures rising which leads to the ability of the oceans to absorb more CO2.

More CO2 in the atmosphere together with other things (methane and water vapour) causes more of the suns energy to be retained by the atmosphere. Most methane is released into the atmosphere from perma frost areas where it has been locked until warming caused it to be released.

CO2 samples from ice cores simply indicate historic co2 levels in the atmosphere with no temperature records to cross check against except the records derived from dendrochronology. These records show a strong correlation between CO2 and global warming.

The science says more co2 results in more energy retention of the energy that reaches Earth. The question is is this man made? And the scientific consensus is that it is.

Sceptic have had to concede that global warming is happening so they now point to all sorts of possibilities that global warming is not man made without a full understanding of the exceptionally complicated interaction between the oceans and the atmosphere.

There are many more factors involved here.

That's a very interesting scientific explanation...
But surely Poland should follow the lead of bigger economies such as USA and China...

I believe that man has definitely contributed to it,but as to what extent...........

Global warming = hot air...

What 'perfect correlation'. I wonder if you've considered a reason why there are timelags with ice core samples. Scientists certainly have.


The Industrial Age has caused immense damage.

geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html



In other words, historically, hundreds of years of increased average temperatures, due natural factors such as changes in solar activity, have been causing the rise in CO2 levels.


Err... China? You are joking, right?, as it is sometimes hard to tell.

in other words CO2 was not the factor of warming from the ice ages but the rising levels of CO2 were the results of warming, which is not surprising when you think that colder oceans retain more CO2 than warmer oceans

How do they know what the temperature was when there are no temperature records and other methods to gauge local temperature are missing or highly inaccurate?

Due to human industrial activity - of that the scientific community have no doubt.
The nonsense you and gumishu posted about Co2 lags is a popular myth among climate change deniers, however it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.



skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

If Methuselah were born today, he'd be a very old man before he'd be able to tell anyone if anthropogenic climate change was happening.

I would far prefer the billions of euros being spent on useless schemes (e.g. wind and solar in Europe) to be spent on saving lives NOW.

Why should people still die miserable, preventable deaths in their millions, while the Danny Cohn-Bendits of this world go round screaming about their own importance? Again.

Clean water, concrete floors (not dirt), medicines ...

Wrong. When did you stop beating your wife?

One cannot call a "myth" something that is based on hard scientific data. There is evidence that CO2 levels are rising hundreds of years after the rise of global temperatures.

CO2 has no implication in temperature rise. There is no scientific evidence it has any bearing on temperature changes unless you believe that something that follows in the wake of a temperature change can alter the past. There is no science to show this.

I challenge you to quit making stuff up and point me to your sources that indicate CO2 precedes temperature changes in paleoclimatology. I've only had 15 years of exposure to the subject so it is possible I missed something.

Now give me any hard evidence that CO2 indeed is causing global warmning (no, computer simulations and predicions are not evidence, especialy when comming from people known to falsify data.)


Yeah, it's not like Globalwarmthinking is affecting worldwide policies, promoting new taxes and other sh!t

Unfortunately for your argument, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the hard fact of man-made climate change. Why not check out the link I posted

Or just stick to posting about other fantasies like:

So give me some measurable evidence that it indeed happens.


I did. Nothing of value there, just some guys spinning yarns, without basing it on any evidence. It is irrevelent what titles these guys have, once again, credentials, personalities and agendas are completely irrelevant here.

It's arguments and evidence that matter. But no one is talking about that.

Quite a few highly respected studies in there.


Most scientists and academics would strongly disagree. No. wait a minute. All scientists, in fact.


You seem to have a pretty one track agenda here. Why? Is it to do with:

So you are telling me that you dont have any arguments, save for a couple of titles of other people? And some petty bickering? I guessed as much.

Read the link - look at other sources debunking the deniers' agenda and understand that the scientific community is generally reliable on matters on science.

And stay away from: