Actually, no, it's not. Apparently you're one to jump into something without looking first, though, which says a lot about you.
No one deny's that Earth's climate has and continues to fluctuate over different lengths of time and by different amounts. The problem comes in where lunatic's insist man is destroying the world and causing this when geological and climate-logical studies show these warming and cooling trends have existed long before there were cars, co2 emissions and even before man. Yet when anyone points this out the wackos go crazy.
Actually, yes, it is. You have no grounds to assert immunity from a political agenda while proclaiming that others have one. That in itself is indicative of such an agenda.
Actually the people insisting that the current warming trend is humanity's fault and freaking out are denying that Earth's climate has and continues to fluctuate. They insist that there is a "normal" temperature, and that through whatever bullshit they come up with we can somehow trap Earth's climate in some kind of stasis where climate never changes, species never go extinct, etc.
No it isn't. Stop projecting. Ah yes, the "let's wait and get more information so we can understand what the fuck is going on" agenda. Such a horrible agenda to have, I'm sure.
See, this is pure invention, a completely dishonest representation of a position that you must by now be aware of. If you were in fact merely undecided or "looking for evidence", I put it to you that you would not use such tactics.
What I described was the actual position I've had to deal with more than once while discussing this topic. I don't have to make shit up about stupid people, and just thinking someone is stupid for showing a general lack of logical thought process or even basic knowledge in the area they are discussing does not constitute a political agenda.
Adapt. I'm not touchy feely about whether or not the snail darter or whatever survives - species have come and gone for millions of years. Does that make me a callous bastard? Meh. Okay. All that is not to say I object to reasonable and specific alterations in behavior (like, for instance, requiring oil be recycled when you change it and not poured in the ditch or whatever) - that's part and parcel of adapting. But glorious meta-schemes to try in influence massive systems that we barely understand at an astounding economic cost to achieve a goal that might not even be possible and might not, if achieved, cause the predicted result? Eh. Not interested.
Actually, this is a bit of BS in of itself - I've seen very little about global cooling. Certainly nothing in the mainstream press. What I have seen a lot of is 'it isn't warming.' And that's very much true when you look at the IPCC projections against what's happened in the last 10 years. More CO2 does not equate directly to higher temps. We've seen that over and over and over again. Hell, there was a big publication a while back that said there's more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there has been in the last 15 million years. Problem with that? During that time period it's believed temperatures were 5-10 degrees warmer than they are now. The climate is a very complex system. Oh, there's another thing that quite a few statisticians agree on - that the climate models are bunk, especially the predictions based on them. I'm sure CO2 does have some influence on temp. I just don't agree that every single feedback in the cllimate system is a positive one, which is what all the IPCCs models assume. The IPCC models don't show a linear progression in temperature to CO2. They claim it's exponential. We certainly haven't seen that.
Sure. A shame that you then attributed it to "the people insisting that the current warming trend is humanity's fault" without any qualifier, when you know it's not the view of the scientists involved or anyone in this thread. "Just looking for evidence."
We would all be interested to see some of these previous "warming and cooling trends" comparable to those of the last 100 years.....
You are aware that at various points in history there was no ice in Antartica, are you not. Here is one small example
Well, the difference between now and the past is the CO2 level we have now has increased very very quickly indeed comparatively
It appears that it's you that cannot read. The reason there was no ice in Antarctica at one time was because it wasn't at the south pole and has since moved due to plate tectonics. So please reference a cooling or warming period comparable to the last 100 years...
THERE ARE MASS EXTINCTIONS GOING ON!?!?!?!?! HOLY SHIT!!!!!1111ONONOONEE Assuming that this is accurate (and I'd need some evidence from a credible source before I'm prepared to do that) this is UNPRECEDENTED! We've NEVER in the WHOLE HISTORY OF THE EARTH had mass extinctions! Mass extinctions are just a part of evolution. Just ask the Tyrannosaurus Rex or the Woolly Mammoth. You do believe in evolution, don't you?
The climate will change regardless of man. And unless you can show ABSOLUTELY that A) there is man made climate change, B) to exactly what extent man is responsible for that change, and C) exactly WHAT man-made factors are involved, then adapt, improvise, overcome is your only viable option.
Yet even when it was increasing very quickly in this time period, CO2 levels have not equated with temperatures, as the cooling between 1940 and 1970 shows. Of course, how would we know if that were actually true or not? Requests from the world's leading authority, the CRU in East Anglia, that they share their base data have always been refused. They finally admitted that the temperature records that they put into their algorhythm to pump out the temperature actually don't exist any more - they purged the base data because supposedly they didn't have sufficient storage space to hold it. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/ Of course, that comment is questionable as well. Of particular note is this: before admitting that they don't actually have the raw data any more, they responded for years of FOIA requests from various scientists, the head of the CRU temp team Prof Phil Jones refuses to hand out the data. Why? And I quote: Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. Wow, is that EXACTLY what is wrong with science today. The entire point IS for it to be reproducible by others. That is just completely inexcusable.
That graph is at an (inconsistent) scale of millions of years. Where's the cooling or warming period comparable to the last 100 years?
Do you recognize this quote So now it's too long of a trend. Bottom line is that in geologic terms 100 years is nothing. Looking back at all of Earth's history we see major shifts in temperature. We are now in a cool phase. Given the history the graph shows why would anyone think we'd never have a warm cycle in the natural course of events?
Being able to show that climate change will continue as predicted would be good too. Hell, even a single accurate post-diction would be nice.
No, it's not any current trend. It's a graph of the temperature changes throughout earths history. Nobody has any beef with that. You were attempting to show a cooling or warming period comparable to the last 100 years, remember? Your inability to do so is noted.
Wrong again. I was showing that the Earth's climate has changed in the past and continues to do so. I was showing that the climate has been warming and cooling since long before man came around.
Nooo. The T-Rex and Wolly Mammoth were killed off by climate change. Climate change because of our vehicles. /leftist
