Modern Vespa

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

The idiot liars don't call it "Global Warming" any more, the new lie term is "Climate Change". I think a long time ago like in the 80s they called it seasons.

Prior to the ice age the planet was very very warm. I don't know why it was so warm but I am sure humans had nothing to do with it. Then over a millenia what we refer to as the ice age occured. And I am certain that humans had nothing to do with that alteration. So even though there is no GW, why shouldn't there be?
The fact that ANYONE buys this crap as science is beyond me. The lack of intellect on the subject, and the fear that is cast on the populous, and the revalation that money is going to be the solution that "fixes" the made up, human induced problem.

So here is to Piaggio for confirming their belief in the lie. or is it just marketing?

Yeah and just think of all the extra layers you would need to wear just to ride a few blocks in an ice age....go global warming

Seriously, don't let a nice thread like this get bogged down in misconceptions and terrible old jokes. Here's what Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn had to say on the matter:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/10/02/net_builders_kahn_cerf_recognise/ As someone who works every day with some extremely bright climate scientists, all I can do is sigh at comments like this. When the researchers are terrified about what their models are predicting, and are very worried about the trends in ocean temperatures, then you know there's something going on. These are extremely level-headed, serious guys, but they're actually starting to panic.

The post-1850 warming trend has seen the climate system change with unprecedented speed. We are moving outside the climactic envelope in which civilisation developed, and in which the ecosystems we depend on have evolved. The best predictions we have (such as the AR4 20C3M model simulation) are predicting a warming of between 3 and 4 degrees Celsius this century if we don't act.

I can understand people being somewhat skepical... but I can't understand the outright hostility towards what the world's leading climate scientists are saying. The scientists are serious guys, and their results are reproducible, verifiable, and peer-reviewed. Yet, for whatever reason, people who have no knowledge of the field are calling them liars, or are insinuating that they have some hidden political motive. I know many of these guys, I can say that these sort of allegations are total garbage.

Yet they can barely predict the weather tomorrow, let alone two weeks from now.

And there are a lot of scientists that say your scientists are wrong. And a lot of them use to agree with your scientists, but new research has been done and a lot are backing off there endorsements.

Wayne B

Smart people make mistakes too ......even the highly educated.

The world is flat and bloodletting is a good cure all for most illnesses.


The creation of carbon offset credits is such a joke.

Tell us how you plan to police the offset when its in some
far off province in China. Might as well sell acerage off the moon.

I appreciate all the spirited comments even if we have strayed way off the original topic.

You're right. Predicting air temperatures and short-term weather patterns is extremely difficult.

But observing and modelling the trend in ocean heat content is a totally different matter. This is the main issue, and the main focus of research. Most of the energy in the climate system is stored in oceans, not the air.

Dismissing the current research because "the weatherman got it wrong yesterday" is misguided. Climate research is a totally different field. Actually, there are very few serious researchers who disagree with the scientific consensus. It's just that those who do disagree are very vocal about it.

But a few posts back you said in a response to Durango ..."(and I can't believe there are still skeptics)"...

which is it? if you can't believe their are still skeptics then how can you understand people being somewhat skeptical? Not trying to rag you but they appear to be opposite views.

Just trying to figure out your postion cause i do agree with you on a couple things. 1. Hostility is a waste of time and not productive. And 2. I can also understand people being somewhat skeptical(if this is what you really mean) cause I am one.

And you have a few over there too it seems. Ian Plimer and Paul Sheehan's admission that Ian makes good points. Oh and that pesky senator Fielding

Everyone should always be sceptical about everything, surely, that's a survival necessity. However that doesn't stop this GOG from being concerned about the most likely (not certain mind) predictions of what will happen in the next hundred years. I fear for those in low-lying areas, say no higher than 10m (33ft) above current sea level.

And for the UK, Deity forfend that the Gulf Stream switches. "Global Warming" might mean a new Dark Ages here.

I can understand people being somewhat skeptical. For example: "Maybe it's not as bad as the bulk of models predict, maybe we will only see warming in-line with the more optimistic predictions (i.e. 2 degrees warming over the next century, not 3 or 4)".

But I can't understand people who totally dismiss the climate science and see it as some giant conspiracy. As if tens of thousands of researchers worldwide are somehow perpetrating a giant practical joke.

Read the IPCC's 2007 report, it's actually a pretty accessible document. Ocean temperatures are rising, air temperatures are trending up, and the Arctic ice sheet is retreating every year.

The real worry among co-workers of mine (who know a lot more about this topic than I do) is that the Arctic ice sheet will disappear altogether in the next few decades, causing a considerable warming of the entire Arctic region, which will in turn melt the Arctic permafrost. This will then release the sequestered methane in the permafrost. It's a worrying thought.

Crap. Give me the old days when it was just commies under yer bed ya had to worry about all night...

Thanks for the clarification Marlor. I don't think as many totally dismiss climate science as much as they question some of the motives of the people behind the opinions. On both sides.

Anyway I respect what Paul Sheehan of the Sydney Morning Herald and global warming advocate said at the end of his review of Dr. Ian Plimer's new book "Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science":

"Heaven And Earth is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." --Sheehan

Here is the article if anyone is interested. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/13/a-brick-through-australias-agw-window/

It is what is not being said that is just as important.
http://www.godgunsandgold.com/commentary.html

Mike

Three 'G' words I don't personally like very much, I must say.

Plimer's book raised a bit of a fuss when it was released, but it certainly has its detractors:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html

But of course, as it should be. Point is that there are people on both sides with credibility and questionable motives so of course there is going to be skepticism and doubt. And with good reason. Anyway nice chatting about this but I don't want to push the moderators anymore... ride safe

Got my letter yesterday ......thank goodness, I was beginning to feel left out. Not impressed....gave it a visual scan, and didn't find "free oil change" anywhere. Sooooooo, mine lies in the same place as sushi's