dont believe in climate change, come to ireland

anto-t wrote:

hole in the ozone layer 30% smaller

The ozone layer has showed signs of recovery in the last decade but it will be at least 2050 before it has recovered.
And why has it recovered? because we have been phasing out the use of CFCs for decades.

So in short, we discovered we were causing a problem, we stopped doing it, problem starts to go away.

anto-t wrote:

East Antarctic ice sheet gained about 45 billion tonnes of ice

Way to pick and chose your facts to suit yourself, some area's of the Antarctic have had increased snowfall and there are several reasons for this one being that stronger circular winds caused by cooling in the upper atmosphere which is being caused by the hole in the ozone layer are blocking warmer air reaching some part of the Antarctic.

This is only one way the Antarctic is being affected, some area's have increased snow and ice while other area's are disappearing at an astonishing rate.

anto-t wrote:

global warming stopped in 1998.. alfter the temp decreased after 25 years..

No your wrong and my link is better than yours:rolleyes:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn14527

The ozone layer has showed signs of recovery in the last decade but it will be at least 2050 before it has recovered.
And why has it recovered? because we have been phasing out the use of CFCs for decades.

So in short, we discovered we were causing a problem, we stopped doing it, problem starts to go away.

There was never any real doubt as to the fact that CFC's caused ozone depletion, a hole was found, a cause was found (simple bucket chemistry) and the problem was fixed. There are numerous examples of environmental controls like this that have worked e.g. the problem of acid rain in northern Europe in the 1980's.

The problem with the whole man made global warming campaign is that it is based on an unproven theory. All predictions for temperature change are based on models, the variables / assumptions / inputs for which can be changed to suit the desired result. We can't accurately predict the weather for next month so how can you predict it in 50 years? Using IPCC issued reports on which to base beliefs is a joke. The IPCC is not a scientific organisation but a bureaucratic one. The reports that are issued to the public have been heavily modified by non scientists to reflect the desired position.

The most interesting thing to me in all of this is the absolute refusal of the believers to engage in proper debate with the non believers. Once a non believer gets the better of a believer, which is not a difficult task, the debate descends into personal abuse and scaremongering.

It agravates me greatly that people still swear that humans haven't had an impact on our climate.

It displays ignorance on par with flat-earthers & creationists.

Referring to flat earthers and creationists would suggest that you believe in evidence backed science. Perhaps you should go read the source material on which the theory of climate change is based rather than accepting what you are being fed by mass media like a sheep.

You are spot on.

Until now there has never been a single shift in climate in the earths entire history.

Ever.

Heres an apple, here's an orange. Look how similar they are!

You'ill have to explain that one for me.

Do you have anything to back that up, or is it just something you 'know'.

I have as much evidence as you have for man made global warming. As an example of how science fact can be corrupted see here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece Another example, in the 1930s there was a theory accepted by most of the worlds learned people and governments. It was based on some dodgy science to say the least. Governments adopted polices to encourage / enforce it; major universitys taught it as fact. The theory was eugenics, and in 1939 Hitler took this theory to its ultimate extreme.

especially if you can ignore any kind of evidence on the opposing side at will as being 'modified by non scientists'.

Give me peer reviewed scientific reports that show evidence of man's infuence on the earths climate and I will make a decision. Do you really think that John Gormly was right when he stood in a flood in Carlow and blamed it on global warming when anybody with half a brain knows that the poor (corrupt?) planning allowing houses to be built in areas prone to flooding was the cause of the problem.

Just because you "don't believe the hype" does not mean that the theories are not correct. To go back to your simple bucket chemistry example, do you really believe that the billions of tons of greenhouse gases that we create every year are sufficiently aborbed back or are miniscule when compared to volcano emissions? At the very least what we do produce is an excess to earths natural cycles.

I unlike your average green am not arogant enough to think that just because I don't believe it it isn't true. I remain to be convinced. I believe in climate change, I am just sceptical as to man's influence upon it. As a former research scientist (in my youth) I take the view that it is impossible to change an input into a system without some effect. The question here is the magnitude of the effect, and again I remain to be convinced.

With regard to debate, a theory of such proportion is hard to prove and this is what the skeptics depend upon. A theory where the phenomenom is also naturally occuring (given the expanse of time that it is always compared to and the relative time it has been observed). This is what tobacco companies also use as a defense. Lung cancer can occur in non smokers and smokers do not always get lung cancer, therefore there is absolutely no way that you can prove that a smokers lung cancer was caused by cigarettes, which is of course true. Based on your current thinking, would you also agree with Big Tobacco that cigarettes do not cause lung cancer?

There is undeniable epidemiology evidence to show the link between lung cancer and smoking. You have just agreed with my main point by saying that a theory of such proportion is hard to prove, so you are in fact basing your belief in this theory not on scientific fact but on a hunch?

I still become uneasy when global warming is used to try and stifle developing countries economic growth. China and India are going to pose a big challenge to the US and the EU in terms of trade and commerce, yet these are the countries that are being targeted by the green movement and increasingly western governments in an attempt to stop them develeoping. And I guarentee you that in our newly brought forward budget there will be significant 'carbon taxes' introduced to save us from ourselves (and to help pay for the running of our schools and hospitals).

pirelli wrote: »

Or the I might have meant to be an it, meaning you geko was jumping to the OP's defence, unless Terry can check the IP address in which case good excuse.

I have to be honest with ya, bud. That didn't make a whole load of sense.