Global Warming Is A Load Of Hot Air! Climate change has been the biggest concern for a whole generation. Now, however, a brilliant scientist has come up with proof that man is not to blame - and no problem exists.........

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 12:38 AM GMT
    Fill your tank with petrol, book another holiday, turn that patio heater up to 11 and breath a deep sigh of relief: the theory that humans are responsible for global warming is as good as dead, thank to an amazing new discovery by one of Americas top meteorologist. In his new best seller The Great Global warming Blunder, former senior NASA climate scientist Dr Roy Spencer demonstrates that all those scary computer -modelled predictions of of man made eco doom have been based on fundamental misconception of how climate works.

    'The mistake they made is to mix cause with effect'

    The worst case of mass hysteria we've ever seen'

    Now lets see how many feel that their false belief system on Global Warming has been proven wrong. But we did try to tell you so.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 12:44 AM GMT
    Oh, sure. This guy is a Creationist, who has also written: ""I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world..."

    Now if you wanna listen to anything this guy says, fine, but frankly, he's full of Christian religious BS. Before you quote somebody here, you better research him thoroughly, because if you don't, you can be assured the rest of us will. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 1:36 AM GMT
    Climate change is inevitable. It has happened many times, and will again, regardless of human intervention. Whether or not humans can impact the speed at which it takes place has yet to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    Taking the findings of one man to disprove the idea of climate change altogether is absolutely stupid. Yes it warrants more research, but it's stupid to stop there and say "oh it sounds right so he must be right."

    Oh and thanks for making me google. A link to your "proof" would have been very helpful.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 1:42 AM GMT
    Climate change, he shows is an almost entirely natural process ( I'm sure I've said something like that here before) on which human influence is negligible. Of course, sceptics have been making this point for years arguing that quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by man are so tiny that even if they were to double they would still be no danger Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). What they have been able to answer convincingly until now, though is the "alarmists" counterargument that CO2 emissions are exaggerated.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 1:55 AM GMT
    Pattison saidClimate change, he shows...

    Except no other mainstream climatologists support his views. So why do you?

    Because you are a renowned scientist in this field? Or because his views coincide with your political agenda?

    Well, sorry, science should be kept pure, devoid of political agendas, of any persuasion. Facts are facts, or should be, until politicians get their hands on them.

    The problem with you is that you start from a political position, that global warming does not exist, and you hunt for anything that supports that view. The rest of us are neutral, and follow the science where it leads us.

    I prefer the objective approach to the subjective. But I realize that requires the greater intellect, so perhaps that explains those here who formulate their opinion first, and then look for whatever questionable evidence they can find to support it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 2:22 AM GMT
    One type of feed back often cited by alarmists is cloud cover when CO2 causes the world to warm, they argue, it reduces the number of clouds. Clouds what help protect our planet from the burning heat of the sun, by reflecting solar radiation. So even if the effect on climate of CO2 is relatively small, the potential knock on effect is vast. This is why the predictions of temperatures rise made by the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) assessment reports are so terrifying. But according to Spencer, these alarmists have gotten wrong end of the stick. The mistake they have made is to confuse cause with effect. It's not man made global warming that is the causing cloud cover to grow thinner, leading to a spiral of ever rising temperatures. Rather it's natural variations in cloud cover that are helping to cause global warming
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 2:25 AM GMT
    Pattison saidOne type of feed back often cited by alarmists is cloud cover when CO2 causes the world to warm, they argue, it reduces the number of clouds. Clouds what help protect our planet from the burning heat of the sun, by reflecting solar radiation. So even if the effect on climate of CO2 is relatively small, the potential knock on effect is vast. This is why the predictions of temperatures rise made by the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) assessment reports are so terrifying. But according to Spencer, these alarmists have gotten wrong end of the stick. The mistake they have made is to confuse cause with effect. It's not man made global warming that is the causing cloud cover to grow thinner, leading to a spiral of ever rising temperatures. Rather it's natural variations in cloud cover that are helping to cause global warming

    Without citing credible evidence from experts this is just BS. "Natural variations in cloud cover" indeed! What insanity! Consistent "natural variations in cloud cover" over the last century?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 2:57 AM GMT
    The implications of this are enormous. not only does it mean that the billions of $$$$$$$$ of taxpayers money which have been pumped into proving the the connection between CO2 and climate change have been utterly wasted but it also means that the climate policy of most of the worlds leading industrial nations is based on a total lie. According to estimates by the International Energy Agency, it will cost the world at least $45trillion to deal with AGW. Under the climate Act Countries like Britten are committed to spending a whopping 18 billion ponds a year combating the effects of climate change, most of that will go on attempting to reduce their output of CO2 a gas which Spencer points out is not merely harmless but positively beneficial.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 3:33 AM GMT
    Why feed the troll?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 8:51 AM GMT
    The public debate over carbon dioxide needs to be re framed. Instead of asking, By how much should we cut back our CO2 emissions" We should ask 'Is there any compelling reasion to reduce CO2 emissions at all? Says Spencer who believes: More atmospheric carbon dioxide might be good for life on Earth"

    This does not mean that Spencer is a global warming denier. in fact all the evidence tells him that temperature in the past 100 years or so have risen. Where he differs from alarmists such as US environmentalist activist Al gore and NASA's fearmonger in chief Dr James Hansen is in his understanding of the cause. They want to blame Man: Spencer says it's down to mother nature. (why do people find that so hard to grasp?)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 8:54 AM GMT
    TigerTim saidWhy feed the troll?


    Why do leftist here when false belief systems are challenged they fob it off as being done by trolls, yet never look at their own actions in the same way. Why is this so? I means wouldn't it be a sad world if all homosexuals thought the same, yet there are those who feel we should think as they do, now how limiting is that, even a dead fish can swim with the flow man.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 8:57 AM GMT
    HAY GUYS LOOK AT MY TOPIC NOW IT HAS AS MANY WORDS AS POSSIBLE IN THE THREAD TITLE BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO ADHERE TO BEING CONCISE OR IN OTHER WORDS EFFICIENT BUT I'D RATHER BE REDUNDANT AND MAKE THE TITLE AS VERBOSE AS POSSIBLE DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY POINT OF VIEW YET?
    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 9:06 AM GMT
    As the world's greatest expert on satellite temperature monitoring. Spencer has access to the most accurate climate data yet collected. What his observations have shown him is that , yes there has definitely been 0.7C of Global warming since the beginning of the 20th century, but that three quarters of this was caused by natural process called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

    The PDO is a shift in weather patterns over the North Pacific Oceans. It moves in cycles of around 30 years which funnily enough, is about the length of the various periods of warming and cooling which got alarmists so worked up in the 20th century.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 13, 2010 10:27 AM GMT
    Climate change is not in the future
    It is happening Now and the proof is all around you
    To disbelieve in climate change at this point puts you in league with the flat earth people and the holocaust doubters

    or you have an organic brain disease
    there is no other choice
    There is SO much evidence that to come to any other conclusion is just crazy
    so ... how was you CT scan Pattison?
  • cowboyathlete

    Posts: 1346

    May 13, 2010 11:00 AM GMT
    paulflexes saidClimate change is inevitable. It has happened many times, and will again, regardless of human intervention. Whether or not humans can impact the speed at which it takes place has yet to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    Taking the findings of one man to disprove the idea of climate change altogether is absolutely stupid. Yes it warrants more research, but it's stupid to stop there and say "oh it sounds right so he must be right."

    Oh and thanks for making me google. A link to your "proof" would have been very helpful.
    Amen
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 11:17 AM GMT
    ....Pattison could self-immolate on that barbecue if he is not careful - Occ Health and Safety rules still apply as you throw the shrimps ..self-immolation is also called 'Personal Warming' ...
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    May 13, 2010 11:47 AM GMT
    68ymhs.jpg
  • neosyllogy

    Posts: 1714

    May 13, 2010 12:04 PM GMT
    C'mon guys!
    All the best new science is published in paperbacks!
    Scientific journals are for goosesteppers I hear...


    [Edit: Actually, checked and he says that he has a peer-reviewed paper coming out that supports this. I'm not expecting to be impressed, but I'll give it a looksee.]
  • Delivis

    Posts: 2332

    May 13, 2010 12:14 PM GMT
    Never believe a single scientist on any issue. You can find a solo crank or a small group of them anywhere if you look hard enough.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 1:06 PM GMT
    WHY DO PEOPLE STILL TAKE PATTY SERIOUSLY? HE IS A TROLL. HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A TROLL. HE TROLLS.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 1:44 PM GMT
    NetTroll.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 2:11 PM GMT
    Yes, let's trust a Creationist to conduct sound scientific research/analysis.

    If he has all the answers, he should look to the scientific community for peer review... not run to the media to feed the sensational ideas of the ignorrant public.

    If he has the 'smoking gun' as our dear Pattison suggests, Mr. Spencer should try to convince those in the scientific community. But something tells me Mr. Spencer hasn't... and won't.

    I find it funny that conservatives like to label scienctists, researchers, and professors as being 'extreme leftist elitist!' OH MY GOD those evil intellectuals! There is a huge difference between eco-terrorists and scientists, researchers and professors. Sure, they are biased (what human isn't?); sure, sometimes they're wrong (what human hasn't?)

    But there is no conspiracy! Climatology is using the SAME scientific method and scrutiny as Immunology, Biology, Astonomy, Chemistry, etc.

    If there is a better explanation out there for climate change it will surface in time. But there is plenty of convincing evidence for anthropogenic climate change... and people like Pattison will not change the minds of the majority of the scientific community.

    And people like Pattison make it seem like sustainable living (including trying to lower one's carbon footprint) is the bane of society! *OMG no way am I going to recycle that peice of paper! No way am I gonna walk two blocks to the liquor store... I'm gonna drive my Hummer instead! No way am I going care about the ecosystem and polar bears! God created humans and has allowed them to take whatever they want--no matter what--from this planet! Jesus is coming soon anyways... who cares about the planet!*
    How more selfish can we humans get?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 2:23 PM GMT
    This sums up my views. A video worth watching, regardless of what -side- you're on.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ


    P.S. It's always possible for science to get it wrong. If they always knew what they were doing... it wouldn't be called "research." And that works both ways.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 2:34 PM GMT
    Photobucket


    story.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2010 2:36 PM GMT
    KentuckyTuss saidThis sums up my views. A video worth watching, regardless of what -side- you're on.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ


    P.S. It's always possible for science to get it wrong. If they always knew what they were doing... it wouldn't be called "research." And that works both ways.



    See to me, it's all about the arrogance of ignorance.

    How can we aggregate all the pollution and changes we've made in the world since the Industrial Revolution? How many rivers, how many tonnes in oil and waste have been leaked into the oceans? How many contaminants spill into the soil and cause salmonella in food?

    It's hubris to think we don't have that kind of affect on our environment, and it never takes much to alter it either, but it happens so slowly, over periods of years we begin to develop its normalcy, and think it's fine.

    The idea of a culmination of our profligacy and imprudent needs and uses of certain foods, materials and energies is a damn scary idea, and it's easier to be arrogant about history, and arrogant about our ignorance, an ignorance we chose.