Global warming will kill us all!

[Mechagodzilla]

Holy crap, this is groundbreaking stuff.
We need to get this shit published STAT.

"I don't like Cindy Sheehan, therefore science is false."

IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!
Don't you see the implications of Nemesis's research here?*
Anything is possible as long as you dislike Cindy Sheehan!
The ramifications for science are astounding.

If we can get a team of researchers to coax Sheehan into saying warp-speed travel is impossible, we'll be visiting Mars within weeks.
Using what this procedure - which I call "the world's most blatant straw man argument" - we can prove that vegetables are fattening and whales cause AIDS!

Protip: at least one person in this thread dislikes Cindy Sheehan's wretched inanity almost as much as he dislikes yours.
What does this tell us about your unique practice of applying black-and-white polarity to a situation (called reality) where it absolutely does not apply?


*For a history of this thesis, see Nemesis's excellent essay "Everything is Permitted as Long as I Can Compare It Favourably to Islamic Extremism".

 

[Nemesis6]

Well, like the movie "The Day After Tomorrow", Cindy really proved global warming being a weapon of the radical left(Well, nutjobs in general, as was the case of the producer of the before-mentioned movie) in her interpretation of what caused hurricane Katrina, and we see people even more radical than her using it to gain influence, so that fact still stands. Global warming, when it's not used as a weapon in politics, is used by radical leftist nutjobs; For example the PETA and Greenpeace. Yep, the same guys trying to ban chlorine(Greenpeace) and the same guys who gloated at the deaths of fellow human beings dead from the Avian Flu(PETA). And please, spare me the bullshit, Mecha. I'm entitled to my opinion as I've told you earlier.

You know, I've been told that we're killing the globe, and when, for the very first time, I oppose that thought, I'm of course been insulted as the video states that scientists who do the same are. Except I haven't gotten any death threats yet.

I guess we should all heed the Goracle. You know, it's him, Al Gore. He's trying to save us from Manbearpig, he's being totally serial, but we're not listening, and because of our own ignorance, Manbearpig is going to kill us all because he doesn't care who we are. He just wants to GET us!

 

[CptStern]

oh stfu with the freakin moonbats already it's so tiring ...cindy sheehan, give me a ****ing break

 

[Nemesis6]

Be quiet, you'll make Manbearpig come. By the way, I didn't say moonbats this time...? I guess you see what you want to see. But I guess I'll have to elaborate for you: In one shot, you see what has become increasingly common: Communists, standing under a flag of the Soviet Union, protesting in front of a power plant. All in the guise of them actually caring about the environment. That's what I'm referring to. Did you watch it, by the way? If so, what did you think about it?

 

[Direwolf]

....did this thread just go off he deep-end or what?

And just for the hell of it: I can't stand Sheehan, and have a hard time watching Gore without cracking up, but I still think you're full of it.

 

[Nemesis6]

Well, they say that the time for discussion about climate change is over and that something must be done now, and I disagree with both notions. Untill I saw that, I didn't really care about it. But to get back on topic, it's not time to stop talking, it's time for graphs: http://www.shrani.si/pics/slika3yvv68.jpg

To quote Elliot from Scrubs - "Here's an inconvenient truth for you: Nobody cares."
Bah, people do seem quite divided on this issue, but the graphs don't lie.

 

[Hapless]

Where in that editorial was anything debunked. It just said the show and it's contributors were wrong. Didn't say why. Didn't list any, "peer reviewed journals," refuting the evidence. What are you talking about?

What "conclusive," evidence is there that it is either human-caused or human-accelerated? What, "conclusive," evidence is there that it is anything more than a natural warming trend as has happened numerous times throughout the billions of years the earth has been around? Scientific consensus? Since when is science decided by consensus? As you say yourself, science isn't a democracy. Did you watch the show?

I don't think there is a whole lot of denial of global warming. The denial comes in when a certain group or groups advocate for passing unnecessary laws to "protect" the earth from us when there is meager evidence that we are cause or contributor. These groups dress their advocacy in a faux-crisis, e.g. "OMG, warming will destroy us all in 10 years if we don't stop using oil and driving big evil SUV's." For reference, see An Inconvenient Truth for exactly this type of crisis-mongering.

What? Gravity is scientific law. The effects of gravity are quite plain to see and calculate. How does this relate to human-caused global warming?

Oh...well....ha ha

Actually I did read those. The word "uncertainty" pops up quite a bit. The authors were also careful to point out thst their conclusions were a possible explanation. If one reads news reports based on this research, uncertainty becomes certainty and possibility becomes absolute probability.

I never claimed a conspiracy. My point is that there is a lot of alarmism and wild claims with little basis in fact. For instance. I recall that at the end of 2006, there were several reports that 2007 would be the hottest year on record. Thus far, February of 2007 is reported to have been one of the coldest on record. After the hurricane season of 2005, the hurricane season of 2006 was supposed to be even worse, with unimaginable carnage. The hurricane season of 2006 turned out to be nothing of note. This sort of irresponsible "news" reporting, as well as very vocal agitating by some lunatic fringe groups and Al Gore's idiotic ramblings, not to mention calls for decertification of "deniers," by Heidi Cullen, have made it nearly impossible to determine what is actually going on here.

Now, the above is the entirety of posts I've made in this thread. Where do I say anything about "shadowy entities," or "conspiracies?" Where do I deny that global warming is occurring? You say you can, "read me like a book," maybe you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. Is it not a fact that people like Heidi Cullen have called for decertification of, "deniers?' Is it not a fact that February was one of the coldest on record? Is it not a fact that hurricane season 2006 went pfffffffttttt? Is it not a fact that the media exaggerates things like the supposed, "worst hurricane season evar," for ratings?


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

As you can see from the above link to a well-known right wing rag there certainly is consistent praise for An Inconvenient Truth.....

I'm sure glad they made you a moderator. You certainly are moderate .

 

[Absinthe]

Well, like the movie "The Day After Tomorrow", Cindy really proved global warming being a weapon of the radical left(Well, nutjobs in general, as was the case of the producer of the before-mentioned movie) in her interpretation of what caused hurricane Katrina, and we see people even more radical than her using it to gain influence, so that fact still stands. Global warming, when it's not used as a weapon in politics, is used by radical leftist nutjobs; For example the PETA and Greenpeace. Yep, the same guys trying to ban chlorine(Greenpeace) and the same guys who gloated at the deaths of fellow human beings dead from the Avian Flu(PETA). And please, spare me the bullshit, Mecha. I'm entitled to my opinion as I've told you earlier.

I'm really not understanding this. Greenpeace and PETA think global warming is real, therefore it isn't?

NEWSFLASH: Nazis believed that oxygen was integral to human survival. It's obvious that the best course of action to take is to stop breathing immediately.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well, like the movie "The Day After Tomorrow", Cindy really proved global warming being a weapon of the radical left(Well, nutjobs in general, as was the case of the producer of the before-mentioned movie) in her interpretation of what caused hurricane Katrina, and we see people even more radical than her using it to gain influence, so that fact still stands.

Finally, someone is taking a stand and questioning the scientific accuracy of goddamn The Day After Tomorrow.
Your bravery might just slaughter that golden cow of the $cience Indu$try; it's easily the worst documentary I've ever seen!

I SURE WISH THAT IMAGINARY LIBERALS EVERYWHERE WOULD STOP CITING CINDY SHEEHAN AND THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW AS THE ONLY PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING.

It really sucks how that is always happening. In reality.
It really sucks that, in reality, imaginary liberals are citing Cindy Sheehan and The Day After Tomorrow as scientific evidence. Everywhere. In reality.
Everywhere in this reality.

...

It really sucks that imaginary liberals everywhere, in this reality, are citing The Day After Tomorrow and Cindy Sheehan, everywhere, as scientific evidence. In reality.

And please, spare me the bullshit, Mecha. I'm entitled to my opinion as I've told you earlier.

Please show me a single inaccuracy in anything I said OH WAIT YOU CAN'T BECAUSE YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN ACCURACY.
You have no right to deliberately spread falsehood in a privately owned forum. The policy in politics is that lies are spam, and I am calling you on those lies.
Ad hominem attacks against straw men waste everyone's time. In all seriousness, you're going to have to stop this.
Now.

We are talking about global warming as a mainstream scientific conclusion, and you keep bringing up bullshit that has absolutely nothing to do with anything remotely close to real science.


Sounds like time for a One-Act Play!


(enter Nemesis, and some people)


Nemesis: HAY GUYS WHAT IS HAPPENING

People: We are talking about heart surgery.

Nemesis: THE TEMPLE OF DOOM IS TOTALLY FICTIONAL. YOU CAN'T PULL A MANS HEART OUT THROUGH THE POWER OF YOUR MIND.

People: No, we are talking about real heart surgery. You know, with doctors?

Nemesis: PETA IS HORRIBLE COMPANY.

People: Yes, so...?

Nemesis: PETA USES HEART SURGERY TO TRY AND SAVE ANIMALS. HEART SURGERY IS A LIE.

People: That doesn't even... make any... ah, screw it, let's just walk away.


(exeunt people)


Nemesis: PETA AND STEVEN SPEILBERG ARE LIBERALS.

Nemesis: I'M ENTITLED TO MY OPINIONS!

Nemesis: I SAW AN EPISODE OF SOUTH PARK ABOUT IT ONCE ON A BLOG!!

Nemesis: WHY AM I BEING PERSECUTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY?!!


The end.


And I mean that.

 

[Hapless]

Nobody expects the Climate Inquisition!! Our main weapon is surprise, surprise and fear....our TWO main weapons are surprise, fear, and ruthless obfuscation.....AMONGST our weaponry are such diverse elements as surprise, fear, ruthless obfuscation and an almost fanatical devotion to Al Gore oh DAMN!!!

--Grand Inquisitor Cardinal Mechagodzilla

 

[Nemesis6]

You like me, don't you, Mecha?

Anyway, Absinthe, in this case, what's important is to take a look at the people who seem to be at the front of this fight against climate change. For example, the maker of the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" stated that the movie at least started discussion about global warning, whether or not the film was authentic. That's good and all, but when you take a look behind the scenes, the book on which the movie is based is written by a guy who believes aliens abducted him and warned him of the Earth's impending doom. So when you have a nutjobs like this urging discussion, how can you expect a sensible debate? And furthermore, how can you expect these people who might have quite a different agenda to tell the truth if it discredits them? Seeing as Greenpeace tried to ban the use of Chlorine, maybe, and I'm saying just MAYBE... They might have bigger bullshit up their sleeve than the banning of an element?

Global warming is real, but we're pretty much insignificant to its progress. Hell, if anything living is heating it up, it's our discussions about it.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Now, the above is the entirety of posts I've made in this thread. Where do I say anything about "shadowy entities," or "conspiracies?" Where do I deny that global warming is occurring?

You just claimed IN THIS EXACT SAME POST that the media is deliberately misleading the public about global warming, to get ratings.

But really, the point is not that you're a conspiracy theorist.
The point is that it is that you are painfully ignorant about what you are trying to talk about.
Even conspiracy theorists are correct sometimes.

Is it not a fact that people like Heidi Cullen have called for decertification of, "deniers?'

Who cares? She's not a scientist.

Is it not a fact that February was one of the coldest on record?

Global warming is an overall rise in average temperature.
The coldest day is not relevant to the average. because it's an average.
Math is my weakest subject, yet even I know the basic concept of what an average is.

Is it not a fact that hurricane season 2006 went pfffffffttttt?

Being "science" and on TV does not guarantee accuracy, otherwise your Channel 4 video would be nominated for a peace prize.
Even in real science, again, things are always dealt with in terms of probability. No-one ever claims 100% accuracy, and this hurricane thing you keep going on about is no exception.

As you can see from the above link to a well-known right wing rag there certainly is consistent praise for An Inconvenient Truth.....

Oh, hey, some of the few valid examples of criticism. Better throw that baby out; there's some bathwater on it.

"We need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is,' Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Gore. 'On the other hand,' Dr. Hansen said, 'he has the bottom line right: most storms, at least those driven by the latent heat of vaporization, will tend to be stronger, or have the potential to be stronger, in a warmer climate."

What damning criticism; he has the bottom line right, and most storms will be stronger!

"a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore?s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period."

Again, Gore is doomed. It's only the hottest it's been in 400 years, according to recent research released AFTER the movie.

"Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton who advised Mr. Gore on the book and movie, said that reasonable scientists disagreed on the malaria issue and other points that the critics had raised. In general, he said, Mr. Gore had distinguished himself for integrity.

'On balance, he did quite well — a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject,' Dr. Oppenheimer said. 'For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, you’re going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right.'"

THAT LUNATIC ASSHOLE.

I'm sure glad they made you a moderator. You certainly are moderate .

Of course I'm not moderate. I'm objective.
Moderate means going easy on you. Moderate is for retards.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Nobody expects the Climate Inquisition!! Our main weapon is surprise, surprise and fear....our TWO main weapons are surprise, fear, and ruthless obfuscation.....AMONGST our weaponry are such diverse elements as surprise, fear, ruthless obfuscation and an almost fanatical devotion to Al Gore oh DAMN!!!

--Grand Inquisitor Cardinal Mechagodzilla

So let's see:

-The idea that science is better than pseudoscience = spanish inquisition.
-Saying that global warming is real, but not anything that makes me terribly concerned = fearmongering.
-Absolutely no obfuscation = obfuscation.
-Agreement with scientific consensus = fanatical devotion to Al Gore, a politician to whom I am rather indifferent. (See above point about not being terribly concerned.)

When batting, you have to hit the ball. Not miss it.
Striking out may be easier, but it isn't good.
Just so you know.

I love the persecution imagery though. Keep it up.
Keep in mind, however, that just because you're scrambling to throw yourself on the cross, it doesn't make you actually dangerous enough to crucify.
But hey, keep reaching for that rainbow. Maybe you'll say something valid by accident, forcing the hand of the evil science media.
Then you can be just like a real martyr!

You like me, don't you, Mecha?

No, but I'm glad you both seem to have given up on ever presenting a convincing rational argument.

LAWL JOKES minus actually being correct equals more toothless than my dead grandpappy.

 

[Hapless]

You just claimed IN THIS EXACT SAME POST that the media is deliberately misleading the public about global warming, to get ratings.

But really, the point is not that you're a conspiracy theorist.
The point is that it is that you are painfully ignorant about what you are trying to talk about.
Even conspiracy theorists are correct sometimes.

Explain to me how I am painfully ignorant.

Who cares? She's not a scientist.

http://press.weather.com/index.php/meteorologists/10.html

"Dr. Heidi Cullen is the climate expert at The Weather Channel and a scientist formerly with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the International Research Institute for Climate Prediction."

I guess you forgot to check that out before you posted it. Painfully ignorant?

Global warming is an overall rise in average temperature.
The coldest day is not relevant to the average. because it's an average.
Math is my weakest subject, yet even I know the basic concept of what an average is.

I know this. I was pointing out the wild reporting regarding the "hottest year EVAR," and how you don't really hear about that much now.

Being "science" and on TV does not guarantee accuracy, otherwise your Channel 4 video would be nominated for a peace prize.

But being science and in the MOVIES does guarantee accuracy. I see.

Even in real science, again, things are always dealt with in terms of probability. No-one ever claims 100% accuracy, and this hurricane thing you keep going on about is no exception.

Again, did the media not breathlessly report over and over again how extremely bad the 2006 hurricane season was going to be? Let's see:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/storms/2006-03-03-2006-hurricanes_x.htm
http://www.hurricanesafety.org/2006forecast.shtml
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2006/02/10/65247.htm

That's just a few.

Oh, hey, some of the few valid examples of criticism. Better throw that baby out; there's some bathwater on it.

You said there has been consistent praise of the movie with only kook blogs and the like disagreeing. Wrong.

"We need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is,' Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Gore. 'On the other hand,' Dr. Hansen said, 'he has the bottom line right: most storms, at least those driven by the latent heat of vaporization, will tend to be stronger, or have the potential to be stronger, in a warmer climate."

What damning criticism; he has the bottom line right, and most storms will be stronger!

"a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore?s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period."

Again, Gore is doomed. It's only the hottest it's been in 400 years.

Wow. 400 years ago it was as hot or hotter than today. But that in no way casts any doubt on the assertion that the current warming is anthropogenic.

"Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton who advised Mr. Gore on the book and movie, said that reasonable scientists disagreed on the malaria issue and other points that the critics had raised. In general, he said, Mr. Gore had distinguished himself for integrity.

'On balance, he did quite well ? a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject,' Dr. Oppenheimer said. 'For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, you?re going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right.'"

THAT LUNATIC THAT ASSHOLE

So basically, Gore plays fast and loose with the facts, even admits it himself in that article, but his heart is in the right place so we'll give him a pass. I see.

"Of course I'm not moderate. I'm objective.
Moderate means going easy on you. Moderate is for retards.

Oh please, go easy on me, please, pretty please. Your massive intellect and unassailable logic are too much for me.

 

[kirovman]

Jesus, people trying to politicise science really gets my goat.

Human induced climate change is supported by overwhelming evidence, I don't care what Al Gore, George Bush or Osama bin Laden says, what they say has no bearing on the reality of science.

And nonscientists coming and disregarding peer-reviewed research papers because they contain "Uncertainties" is the height of idiocy; uncertainties feature in every research paper, because nothing can be measured precisely, there's always a margin of error, no matter how tiny.

Ad hominems (attacks on certain persons) or any other logical fallacy does not discredit a scientific theory. Rather, providing evidence against them does.

Rather than watching a (mock)umentary on TV, read some actual research papers from the Institutes of Physics and Climatology.

Otherwise you're just pseudoscientists who believe the Earth is flat.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Explain to me how I am painfully ignorant.

I've repeatedly had to tell you about pretty basic stuff about science, like that scientific consensus is important to the function of science or that uncertainties are the norm in science, and not evidence of weakness.
You supported, and as far as I can tell still support, this video - which is basically checkmate in the question of your personal knowledge.

For some reason you keep conflating the ways the media reports science with the actual science itself.
So we're getting this weird sort of paradox.
Q:Why is the science bad? A: THE MEDIA

Q: Why is the media bad? A: THE SCIENCE

Add the perponderance of straw-man arguments and the litany of trivial objections and I think you'd be more authoritative in a clown costume at a birthday party.

I guess you forgot to check that out before you posted it. Painfully ignorant?

I googled for her, but didn't find anything except that she worked on the weather channel. I assumed she was just an anchor or something.

But my point still stands: she has no authority in the scientific community.
She has no more power to decertify people than you do. Drop the panic.

I know this. I was pointing out the wild reporting regarding the "hottest year EVAR," and how you don't really hear about that much now.

Make up your mind. Is the media evil, or is it science?

But being science and in the MOVIES does guarantee accuracy. I see.

No, stupid, I never said that. Jesus.

The movie is relatively very accurate. And not because it's a movie but because it's been evaluated by real scientists.

I am actually shocked at how accurate it is for a film by a layman about a newly emergent scientific paradigm.

Again, did the media not breathlessly report over and over again how extremely bad the 2006 hurricane season was going to be?

Are you blaming the media or science? Make up your mind!
Science said that increased hurricanes were likely, not inevitable. The media reported that speculation the same way it always does for any such speculation.
If you think this phenomenon is unique to global warming, I direct you to my earlier point about ignorance.

You said there has been consistent praise of the movie with only kook blogs and the like disagreeing. Wrong.

Oh, I see the trouble: you are living in a crazy world where "consistent" and "universal" mean the same thing for some reason.

That honestly explains everything, especially in light of the whole "moral absolutism" thing.

Wow. 400 years ago it was as hot or hotter than today. But that in no way casts any doubt on the assertion that the current warming is anthropogenic.

Are you talking about average temperatures or highest temperatures?
Also, what is the mechanism for this non-anthropogenic warming?
What peer-reviewed papers support your non-anthropogenic theory?

Really, you're basically just saying "it was hot in the past so therefore it will never get hotter." Out your ass.

Oh, and so now the science is at fault and not the media.

Could you do me a favour?
Read up on Thomas Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions.
For science to function properly, the dominant paradigm is only overthrown when major flaws are pointed out and the data is successfully restructured into a new paradigm. No theory is even close to doing that yet.
The difference between major and minor flaws, which you seem to disregard, is why we even have a concept of trivial objection. Forest for the trees, etc.

So basically, Gore plays fast and loose with the facts, even admits it himself in that article, but his heart is in the right place so we'll give him a pass. I see.

That's not what I am saying at all. Stop doing that.
He's a layman presenting a reasonable bad-case scenario. He is extremely accurate about the science, and there are some disagreements with what he says, but here is a hint:

THERE IS ALWAYS DISAGREEMENT IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. THAT IS WHAT ALLOWS SCIENCE TO EXIST.

No-one says "well, we've learned everything. Let's wrap it up and go home". Science is subject to constant debate about everything. The geocentric universe, physics, relativity. All of it emerged from debate between multiple competing theories. If there was no criticism, none of those would have emerged.

Even Copernicus' theory that the Earth travels around the sun had critical gaps until Newton was able to theorize the law of gravity that would explain the formation of an orbit.

The difference between your stuff and Newton's is that Newton's theories were infinitely more persuasive.
And not in terms of the media. The media is largely irrelevant to the progress of science except for publicity.
Newton had adequately persuasive evidence.
You, on the other hand, do not.

By all means, continue your quest to prove your theory, but stop giving yourself more creedence than you have managed to deserve.
Your theory is on the fringe for a reason, and that reason is that it is simply less proven than the current theory.

 

[Warbie]

Forgive me if i've missed it in this thread (point me in the right direction if I have), but i've still yet to read a convincing reason why man made co2 is contributing to global warming in any meaningful way.

On the one side I've got my parents telling me how co2 levels have been far higher than they are now before man arrived - and during many of these times it was quite literally freezing cold - and other sources saying how co2 is at best a very minor contributer to global warming, and that our contribution is a very tiny percentage of that.

I've watched the Inconvenient Truth, the Global Warming Swindle, read up on bits and pieces in between playing WoW, and am still very much a doubter. Seeing the direction this thread has taken I was a little weary of making a post at all, but thought sod it, why not.

 

[Hapless]

Here's what I beleive, and have stated in this thread:

1. Global warming is apparently occurring.
2. There is doubt as to whether it is anthropogenic or part of a natural cycle.
3. Al Gore's movie is inaccurate and alarmist.
4. The media is even more alarmist.
5. Some scientists and advocates have called for decertification of doubters, compared them to Holocaust deniers, and in one instance called for Nuremburg-stye trials for doubters.
5. This has served to cloud the debate over exactly what is happening and what should be done about it.

Now, Mecha, which of these don't you agree with, because it seems to me we do agree on most points except for semantics?

 

[SAJ]

Explain to me how I am painfully ignorant.

*Irony, I'd like you to meet Hapless.
Hapless, irony.* Its about time you were introduced properly.

I know this. I was pointing out the wild reporting regarding the "hottest year EVAR," and how you don't really hear about that much now.

Probably because you cant take an average reading of a year until its actually over. It was only at the end of 2005 that scientists were able to say that it had been the hottest year on record, ever.
It is bad journalism to claim that any given year *might* be something special when its too early to tell, but given that all of the 21st century is in the top twenty of hottest years, its probably not too far of the mark

Rank Year
1 2005
1 1998
3 2002
4 2003
5 2004
6 2001
7 1997
8 1990
9 1995
10 1999
11 2000
12 1991
13 1987
14 1988
15 1994
16 1983
17 1996
18 1944
19 1989
20 1993

Again, did the media not breathlessly report over and over again how extremely bad the 2006 hurricane season was going to be? Let's see:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/storms/2006-03-03-2006-hurricanes_x.htm
http://www.hurricanesafety.org/2006forecast.shtml
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2006/02/10/65247.htm

That's just a few.

Again, bad journalistic interpretation of science, does not equal bad science. What the scientists said was that as the seas warmed you should expect to see more potentially powerfulpowerful hurracanes, not more of them and not straight away.
(I have to guess at the quality of hurracane reporting in the USA, as there's not much call for it round here)

Wow. 400 years ago it was as hot or hotter than today. But that in no way casts any doubt on the assertion that the current warming is anthropogenic. :

The whole medival warm period is a red herring, it was a localised phenomena, not a global one. The global average temperature is what concerns us here.

An ice core from the eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula, clearly identifies events of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.[14] The core clearly shows a distinctly cold period about AD 1000?1100, neatly illustrating the fact that "MWP" is a moveable term, and that during the "warm" period there were, regionally, periods of both warmth and cold.

From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

 

[DaMaN]

Forgive me if i've missed it in this thread (point me in the right direction if I have), but i've still yet to read a convincing reason why man made co2 is contributing to global warming in any meaningful way.

As I posted previously in this thread:

I've posted in other Global Warming topics, but I figured I might as well post here too:

First of all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fcezh2-jO8

On a more serious note, as far as I can see, there are three primary elements to Global Warming:

1. Is the Global Warming phenomenon itself real? (Do Greenhouse Gases heat the Earth?)
2. Are there more Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere now than in comparitively similar periods of time?
3. Is the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases attributable to humans?

In this post, I intend to prove all three of these postulates.

1. Global warming is real. Adding carbon dioxide or methane to Earth's atmosphere makes the planet's surface warmer. If it didn't, the Earth would be uninhabitable. See Wikipedia:

Adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer; greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 ?C (54 ?F) lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding carbon dioxide or methane to the Earth's atmosphere will, absent any mitigating actions or effects, result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and methane will be, when allowing for compounding or mitigating factors.

Click here for more on the Greenhouse Effect, first discovered in 1824


2. Currently, there is a much higher concentration of Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere now than in comparitively similar periods of time.

Refer to Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations. This scientific report gives the current concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, as well as concentrations prior to the Industrial revolution.
Some highlights:
Carbon Dioxide:

Pre-1750 Concentration: 280 ppm
Current Concentration: 377.3 ppm​

Methane:

Pre-1750 Concentration: 730/688 ppm
Current Concentration: 1847/1730 ppm​

Nitrous Oxide:

Pre-1750 Concentration: 270 ppm
Current Concentration: 319/318​

Tropospheric Ozone:

Pre-1750 Concentration: 25 ppm
Current Concentration: 34​

For further information on this report, see: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

Note: Scientific sources, calculations and experimental methods are also contained within this report​

For more information about the increase of greenhouses gasses, see Wikipedia's entry on Increase of Greenhouse Gasses


3. The increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases is attributable to humans.

As seen in point 2, with the advent of the Industrial Age has come increased Greenhouse Gases. There have been no extreme global events (such as volcanoes spewing ash for 300 years) other than human activities that account for this. Therefore, it seems likely that the increase of Greenhouse Gases is the fault of humans.

To lend credence and authority to this statement, I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations".


Hence,
1. Global Warming via the Greenhouse Effect is real.
2. There are more Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere now than in a comparitively similar period of time.
3. According to the IPCC, there is a greater than 90% chance that this increase is caused by humans.

 

[Warbie]

The 'comparitively similar periods of time' all seem to be very recent - just a few 100 years infact. Surely we should be looking at climate change over a much longer period? As I posted a while back - pre man there was a period in which there was 14 times the level of co2 present in the atmosphere today, and it was very cold.

It's not really a question of whether increase in greenhouse gasses cause global warming, rather how much affect we actually have (for me anyways). I could piss in the pacific and raise sea level, but wouldn't be responsible any flooding that might occur. I've also yet to read anything conclusive as to whether increases in co2 are responsible for global warming, or whether it's the planet heating up that results in more co2 being produced.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

1. Global warming is apparently occurring.

Yes.
Global warming is the dominant paradigm that forms the normal science in the study of climate.

2. There is doubt as to whether it is anthropogenic or part of a natural cycle.

Misleading.
Non-anthropogenic theories do exist, but only represent a rebel fringe group of the scientific community. They have not gained enough evidence to challenge the dominant anthropogenic theory on an equal playing field.
Anthropogenic theory is more currently far more valid when examined objectively, which is why it has the support of scientific consensus.

3. Al Gore's movie is inaccurate and alarmist.

No.
As pointed out, the movie is extremely accurate. It features some debatable points, but the existence of debatable points is not unusual. Scientific debate about any such contemporary theory is inevitable, and in the context of the film is relatively mild.

As for alarmism, that would depend on the validity of his claims. As I've already pointed out, his claims are considered largely valid.
Gore presents plausible dangers posed by global warming, with the main debate being over how soon and how severe the events will be when they occur.

4. The media is even more alarmist.

Misleading.
The media (I'm refering to the american media, because that's what I assume you're talking about) is definitely "more alarmist" than Gore, given that Gore is not very.

However, this isn't unusual for the media concerning any and every topic. Pedophiles on myspace, videogames killing people, what food might kill your pet, the latest dead girl soap opera mystery, terror threats, etc.
This is practically as old as the news itself.

Your concern seems to be less that the media is alarmist than it is that the media is alarmist about a topic you find objectionable, which is a poor stance.

Solution: subscribe to BBC international. That channel has pretty much zero alarmism, and all the latest reports on cricket.

5. Some scientists and advocates have called for decertification of doubters, compared them to Holocaust deniers, and in one instance called for Nuremburg-stye trials for doubters.

Misleading.
Using the odd behaviour of "some scientists" to damn the vast majority of scientists is dumb.

Secondly, this is not terribly unreasonable to expect when you realize:
-It is very widely accepted that global warming poses some danger to human life and/or animal and plant life.
-Most criticism of anthropogenic global warming is utterly spurious, like the utterly bullshit Channel 4 video.

So the rare conclusion that people (to a large degree pseudoscientists making nonsensical claims) should be called on their shit is inevitable.

The nuremberg comparison seems spurious nazi analogy. More like the Scopes monkey trial in reverse, if anything.
And regardless, it's extremely unlikely to actually ever occur.

5. This has served to cloud the debate over exactly what is happening and what should be done about it.

Huh?
Again, you're blaming a ton of factors here in one fell swoop.

American news media currently suck, as they always have.
That's inevitable, but it really only affects public perception. The media has no impact on actual science.
The main source of obfuscation comes from things like the Channel 4 video, cindy sheehan and you, where people with absolutely no scientific merit are making up pseudoscientific claims because they don't fully understand science - or want to manipulate it.

Al Gore is not part of that camp because his science is being used correctly, provoking some inevitable healthy debate.
Channel 4, Sheehan and you use no science at all, making you barely even worthy of debate.

Mainstream science itself isn't responsible for any signifigant obfuscation, and there is little to no evidence of censorship being applied to any valid research.

So the point is that your anger is misdirected, because most of this nonsense can be laid both literally and figuratively at your feet.
And although most of the obfuscation is from pseudoscientists of the right, I'm not making a political distiction here.
The point is the problem comes from plain old bipartisan stupidity.
Hence why you need to try harder and increase your standards.

 

[SAJ]

The 'comparitively similar periods of time' all seem to be very recent - just a few 100 years infact. Surely we should be looking at climate change over a much longer period? As I posted a while back - pre man there was a period in which there was 14 times the level of co2 present in the atmosphere today, and it was very cold.

Having both parents as scientists in this field ought to give you a head start here, it took me five minutes or so to find these
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
As part of these entries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology
Its not definitive, but if look at them you will see that the biggest variations in global average temperature happened between(roughly) 100-500 million years ago, by pure coincidence(not), two out of three models of carbon dioxide levels show the highest concentrations in around the same period. The relationship between CO2 concentrations and the temperature record as shown in those graphs are remarkable. What nature has been doing for millions of years is storing billions and billions of tons CO2 and methane underground in the form of hydrocarbons( oops, just lost the christians with that one) and what mankind has been doing for the last two centuries is digging it up up and setting fire to it all, thus liberating captured greenhouse gasses(hurrah).

It's not really a question of whether increase in greenhouse gasses cause global warming, rather how much affect we actually have (for me anyways). I could piss in the pacific and raise sea level, but wouldn't be responsible any flooding that might occur. I've also yet to read anything conclusive as to whether increases in co2 are responsible for global warming, or whether it's the planet heating up that results in more co2 being produced.

I would ask you to look at the graph for CO2 again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
Look at the last 10-20 million years on the far left. All three models stop occilating wildly and reach a kind of equilibrium with CO2 in the low hundreds parts-per-million. Now reread DaMan's post again, specificaly this part

Refer to Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations. This scientific report gives the current concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, as well as concentrations prior to the Industrial revolution.
Some highlights:
Carbon Dioxide:
Pre-1750 Concentration: 280 ppm
Current Concentration: 377.3 ppm
Methane:
Pre-1750 Concentration: 730/688 ppm
Current Concentration: 1847/1730 ppm

A rise in Co2 that is contrary to the trend of millions of years, and a rise in global temperature averages that neatly coicides with the rise in CO2. Its small in terms of the overall paleo-climatology picture but, as you already know, its happening with unprecidented speed, a pace unknown in climate history.
There's a quote regarding ice core records of CO2 that scares me shitless

The picture is the same: carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall in step.


Like tiny time capsules, bubbles trap ancient samples of atmosphere
"Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change. Over the last 200 years human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range," explained Dr Wolff.

The "scary thing", he added, was the rate of change now occurring in CO2 concentrations. In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years.

"The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don't have an analogue in our records," he said

Source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5314592.stm

Honestly, I dont know what more you need in order to be concerned. If its absolute certainty that you need, then by the time you get it, it will already beyond mankind's ability to affect change. Even then there will be debates and clarifications, its inherent in the nature of science.

Go ask your parents if you dont believe me.

 

[Vigilante]

I'd really like to know this:

Is there really a several-hundred year lag between the rise in temperature followed by the rise in CO2 content? That was the most profound point I got from this documentary, whether it is BS or not.

 

[SAJ]

I'd really like to know this:

Is there really a several-hundred year lag between the rise in temperature followed by the rise in CO2 content? That was the most profound point I got from this documentary, whether it is BS or not.

Apparently so, it was news to me also, but as it happens, it serves as another example of the program makers deception. When I saw the program I was deeply suspicious but at the same time you can see that it has limited value today as we know that we have been expelling billions of tons of CO2(and other greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels since the industrial revolution.

So it doesnt follow that CO2 is increasing due to temperature rises, which was Durkin's obvious implication (which, you notice, he allows the viewer to make rather than say so himself). We -mankind- are responsible for increased CO2 concentrations, its very illogical to try and get out of responsibility for that one.

"Temperature leads CO2 by 800 years in the ice cores." Not quite as true as they said, but basically correct; however they misinterpret it. The way they said this you would have thought that T and CO2 are anti-correlated; but if you overlay the full 400/800 kyr of ice core record, you can't even see the lag because its so small. The correct interpretation of this is well known: that there is a T-CO2 feedback:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414 More reading on the subject here ;http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

Here's a snippet of what Sir John Houghton the former chair of the IPCC had to say about the programme

Here I briefly point out the main lines of evidence for human-induced climate change and then address some of the main arguments presented in the programme.

1. First, it is important to note that the main lines of evidence for human-induced climate change not addressed in the programme were:

* growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere mainly due to fossil fuel burning to a level greater than for at least 600,000 years;
* observations of global warming at the earth?s surface (in magnitude and pattern) consistent with the increase in greenhouse gases, the basic science of which has been known and understood for over 200 years.
2. Climate is always changing ? TRUE. However, the programme also argued that changes in global average temperature over the last 50 years and as projected for the 21st century are within the range of natural climate variability as observed over the last few millennia ? NOT TRUE.

Many of the prominent climate changes over past centuries have been regional in scale. Global Warming is concerned with global scale changes. The IPCC 4th Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers has a particular section summarising the conclusions of detailed studies using a wide range of paleoclimate data. It concludes that ?Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years.?

3. That carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round - TRUE. The programme went on to state that this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC ? NOT TRUE.
For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide.

4. The troposphere is warming less than the surface ? NOT TRUE.
This raises a debate that took place in the 1990s but which has now been resolved. There is now agreement among the scientists involved in measurements that trends in satellite observed tropospheric temperatures when properly analysed agree well with trends in surface temperature observations. The programme also stated that warming should continue to higher levels. That is not the case. In fact, higher levels are observed to be cooling, consistent with the science of global warming that indicates that there is warming below and cooling above the ?blanket? of additional carbon dioxide.

5. Volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning ? NOT TRUE. In fact, none of the large volcanic eruptions over the last 50 years feature in the detailed record of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

6. Changes in the sun influence climate ? TRUE. They cited the Maunder Minimum in the 17th century when no sunspots were observed, as a probable example. Solar influences are the main driver of global average temperature in the 20th century ? NOT TRUE.

Changes in solar output together with the absence of large volcanoes (that tend to cool the climate) are likely to have been causes for the rise in temperature between 1900 and 1940. However, the much more complete observations of the sun from space instruments over the past 40 years demonstrate that such influences cannot have contributed significantly to the temperature increase over this period. Other possibilities such as cosmic rays affecting cloud formation have been very carefully considered by the IPCC (see the 3rd Assessment Report on www.ipcc.ch) and there is no evidence that they are significant compared with the much larger and well understood effects of increased greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

7. Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change - NOT TRUE.
In the programme, this was illustrated by a statement made by a youthful Professor Smagorinsky, a pioneer in climate modelling, speaking in the 1980s explaining some of the inadequacies of early models. Climate modelling has developed enormously since then. Modern models include detailed coupling of the circulations of atmosphere and ocean and detailed descriptions of the interactions between all components of the climate system including ice and the biosphere. They have been tested thoroughly in their ability to reconstruct current and past climates. The 30 or more major modelling groups in the world regularly compare their methods and their findings. Contributors to the programme with their parodies of climate models just demonstrated their complete ignorance of the significance and capabilities of modern models.

8. The IPCC process stifles debate and is used by scientists to further their own self interest ? NOT TRUE.
I chaired the main meetings of Working Group I during the production of the first three IPCC scientific assessments. I can say categorically that the process was very open and honest. The aim was to distinguish between what was reasonably well known and the areas where there is large uncertainty. The chapter groups had complete freedom to investigate and assess the scientific literature and draw their conclusions.

Contrary to the impression given in the programme, no one ever resigned from being a lead author in Working Group I because of their disagreement with the process or the final content of their chapter. In fact, no one ever communicated to me a complaint about the integrity of the process.

I should mention, however, a case of disagreement that occurred in Working Group 2 of the IPCC that dealt with the impacts of climate change ? a more complex area to address that the basic science of Working Group I. Professor Reiter who appeared in the programme described how, unfortunately, his expert work on malaria failed to get recognition in the relevant IPCC chapter.

http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83

I would also recommend George Monbiot's article about the film. It was critizised here before for not citing his references, but if you go to his site the article is there complete with cititations for every claim made. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/

Before I go, there's more on your question, here http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/yet_more_tco2_lags.php#more

 

[SAJ]

Sorry for the double post , but look what I woke up to

World breaks temperature records
Staff and agencies
Friday March 16, 2007
Guardian Unlimited


The world experienced its warmest period on record during this year's northern hemisphere winter, the US government said today.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report said the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature for December to February was the highest since records began in 1880.

During the three-month period, known as boreal winter, temperatures were above average worldwide, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and areas in central United States......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weather/Story/0,,2035667,00.html
Wasnt someone saying before how cold it has been this year, and that there was all this media bullshit predictions that 2006 was going to be a record breaker?

 

[Warbie]

Honestly, I dont know what more you need in order to be concerned. If its absolute certainty that you need, then by the time you get it, it will already beyond mankind's ability to affect change. Even then there will be debates and clarifications, its inherent in the nature of science.

Cheers for the links - i'll have a read and mull them over and pass them over to my parents to see what they make of them.

 

[Direwolf]

As I stated before, the concern seems to be less over the net amount of CO2 in the air, and more about the fact that its all of a sudden rising very fast in relation to these natural trends. No one's suggesting the Earth is going to go all Venus on us, its just the idea that we might be throwing wrenches into machines that we don't yet understand. And a relatively small wrench can mess up a REALLY big machine.

 

[Nemesis6]

Well, Al Gore thinks he has it all figured out, so why are we not heeding the Goracle? You know, the former Vice President, Al Gore. Bah, speaking of global warming: http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/07.03.13.StretchingTruth-X.gif

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I get all my education from political cartoons too.


No, seriously. I love how SAJ posts page after page of scientific evidence and you're like oh yeah I saw a cartoon once so there.

Could you do us a favor, cut out the middleman, and just cite GI JOE as your leading expert?

 

[Jintor]

GI JOE knows everything, MechaGod. Don't Mock him!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

GI JOE ain't got shit on the C.O.P.S.


I will agree that there is some censorship like that alleged in Nemesis' cartoon:

"The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said."

link

I wonder what it's like to be less accurate and unbiased than a parody of your own position?

 

[CrazyHarij]

i saw an inconvenient truth today and im wondering what the major criticism on it is.

found it very enlightening and i dunno why the hell it would be inaccurate as it has very profound sources

 

[Nemesis6]

Well, the inconvinient truth is that the rise in global warming is not related to CO2, but rather to solar activity. When you superimpose a graph of the increasing temperature of the Earth with one illustrating solar winds and/or sun spots you'll end up with something like this: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image191.gif, or this - http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/bmendez/ay10/2000/notes/1127.jpg, or this - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

[Jintor]

But if Co2 is a contributing factor and one that we can control, then...?

 

[SAJ]

Well, the inconvinient truth is that the rise in global warming is not related to CO2, but rather to solar activity. When you superimpose a graph of the increasing temperature of the Earth with one illustrating solar winds and/or sun spots you'll end up with something like this: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image191.gif, or this - http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/bmendez/ay10/2000/notes/1127.jpg, or this - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Dont read too well do you?
Solar forcing as a contributing factor in the variation of the greenhouse effect is well known and not contraversial in the slightest, in fact it forms a part in most climate simulations.

Lets look at your first graph shall we?
I can see that it is attributed to Simon Calder, I wonder whose work mr Calder is citing. A quick search gives us this reference

In his book "The manic Sun", Nigel Calder highlights 3 Danish scientists who developed an alternative for the temperaturechange. Svensmark, Friis-Christensen and Lassen found that the length of the solar cycle was inversely proportional with the temperature-evolution: a short cycle meant a warmer Earth, and vice versa.

(1) So Calder's source for his work is none other than Friss-Christensen Lassen, they sound familiar ...

The film's main contention is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991 by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen that recent temperature variations on Earth are in "strikingly good agreement" with the length of the cycle of sunspots.

Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the "agreement" was the result of "incorrect handling of the physical data". The real data for recent years show the opposite: that the length of the sunspot cycle has declined, while temperatures have risen. When this error was exposed, Friis-Christensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results. But this too turned out to be an artefact of mistakes - in this case in their arithmetic.

So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of demonstrating that the sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the sun and global cloud cover. This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that, when the right data are used, a correlation is not found.

So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen's co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared there was a correlation - not with total cloud cover but with "low cloud cover". This, too, turned out to be incorrect. Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere. Accompanying the paper was a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays

So Friis-Christensen's findings are demonstrated -time and time again- to be completely without basis in fact, and therefore so is anything derived from their work, Simon Calder included . So out go all those nice little graphs that seem to show a one to one relationship between solar cycle variations and global temperature.
Instead we have solar variations as a part of the greenhouse effect see here .(3) Here you see three graphs representing three climate simulations.
The first shows what you should see if you had no variation in greenhouse effect. It doesnt match .
The second shows the manmade contribution only. Its coser, but no cigar.
The third garph includes all (known)contributions to greenhouse variations, including solar, and its a pretty good fit.

Its only a graph at the end of the day, but its there to illustrate this. Solar forcing is a known part of the global warming effect, its not contraversial and its certainly not an alternative explanation to the changes that we are seeing now.



PS; Your last graph comes fro this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming which I would recommend to anyone wishing to do further research

(1) http://members.chello.be/j.janssens/Climate.html

(2) http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/

(3) http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/450.htm#fig127

 

[kirovman]

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/9268/durkinfakegraphsym7.jpg