Climate change is a religious belief

"last laugh" - are you sure? The Latif paper says

El Nino in a changing climate : Abstract : Nature
Looks to me like they're saying that man made causes of climate change are having a significant affect.

---

ZEN#234, TWO#

At the beginning of that article
Why is the characteristic 'anomalous warming'.

Gives me the strong impression that there are too many bits of the puzzle missing to support the stance.

---

The Cardiomyopathy Association a heart muscle research leader
http://www.cardiomyopathy.org

Accelerated ageing made easy

That's very interesting. Would you share your calculations, that reinsure you about the lack of 1 foot change worldwide?

Give me a coherent set of figures to start from, all the ones so far have been either irrational or disputed.

---

The Cardiomyopathy Association a heart muscle research leader
http://www.cardiomyopathy.org

Accelerated ageing made easy

That is the quandary created by the junk science methodology government researchers tend to use.

The problem is that it IS faith, because real scientists do NOT believe in some specific "consensus" at all.

Actual scientists are fallibilist. This means they stipulate, at all times, that all knowledge they have is only a best guess. No actual scientist would say "the earth is definitely warming because of humans, and definitely will continue to get warmer if we don't do something about it".

The rules of science don't allow for this kind of ridiculous statement, which is in fact one of faith, not fact.

I did the math for that, once, and it's not enough to compensate for the ostensible melting of the land-locked ice.

More important is the fact that warming would cause increased precipitation. In fact, it has been credibly proposed that warming trends may cause the "ice ages", as the greater amount of accumulating ice produced by warming can't be melted fast enough even by the warmer temperatures.

So, in fact, the sea levels may not rise even with warming...it's just more supposition on the part of people who purport to be scientists, yet state speculation as if it were fact.

There are SO many factors, that we don't have the slightest idea what the effects would actually be, if we ever had actual, significant warming.

Don't forget that biofuels have a bigger carbon footprint than "fossil" fuels.

Oh, and that oil may well not be a fossil fuel, anyway...there is accumulating evidence that oil is produced: Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find

So yet another reason why government coercion to make things "better" is always a bad idea...what is obviously right, may well actually be wrong.

Of course they are, they're money-grubbing pseudoscientists.

They will go to their graves denying they were wrong, like Columbus dying convinced he'd colonized India.

As the evidence of the cooling trend is mounting, they are scrambling to come up with ways to say this changes nothing. The hot trend right now is "the natural cycle is cooling, and this will temporarily offset the man-made warming, but then warming will resume later on...so we still need you to give us money and pass more laws"

Just as a matter of interest, what type of scientist are you? These people seem to get their stuff peer reviewed and into periodicals like Nature and so on, where's your peer reviewed publications?

Or are you a journalist?

Oh, I forgot to add, there's an Introductions section on this website so you can tell us about yourself and what motorbikes you own, welcome in

---

KX Riders.com

A money grabbing consultant: Climate change is a religious belief
No response to that post, above.

---

ZEN#234, TWO#

It doesn't take a "they", all anyone has to do to learn about your socialized, coercively imposed health care system is to follow your own media. As with Canada, it seems like all the positive hype about those two failed systems comes from outside the country, while in each case most of the non-government coverage within the country is about the positively sociopathic disaster that everyone is forced to suffer.

Bizarre!

Speaking from personal experience I'd far rather have this health care system than yours. "Our" media, you mean like the stuff owned by Rupert Murdoch? We may have special claim to various failures but our medical system isn't one, ask any of the millions at the bottom of the heap over here and over there.

---

The Cardiomyopathy Association a heart muscle research leader
http://www.cardiomyopathy.org

Accelerated ageing made easy

As has been noted on here by some of the argumentum ad hominem team, I'm a consultant, not employed as a scientist. Which makes my greater knowledge of scientific methodology that much more embarrassing for the pseudoscientists.

And I've already noted that peer review is no more a legitimate means of quality check in scientific publication than it would be in any other form of publication. Imagine if all journalists had to have their writing approved by peer review. We'd all cry "censorship", and that's all peer review amounts to. It is one of the impediments against hard science, not proof of science.

And is there anyone in your cult actually capable of refuting the scientific or methodological arguments being made here, or do you kids have nothing but the intellectually cowardly fallacies to offer?

We keep making points on the actual issue...along with whatever side points we offer...and you guys never address them.

Has anyone on this list, other than myself, read the IPCC reports in full? Or at least the detailed summaries, outside of quips repeated in soundbites by Liberal politicians?

Here's another one for you:

Are you aware that NOAA's own numbers say we're in our fourth year of global cooling? Why are they not mentioning this? Why did they refer to the last three years of cooling only as "one of the ten hottest years on record", instead of as "the nth year in a row of accelerating decline in temperature"?

Why do they only project out trendlines that go in the direction that makes them the big bucks? If they were do to that now, they'd be predicting an ice age (for the third time in the past 114 years), why are they not?

Here, check out NOAA's global mean surface temperature data for the past 11 years, I'll throw one together here:

Wait...the system doesn't allow me to attach an image? Argh...hang on.



There. Notice the current trend, clearly downward. In fact, if you look at the entire data set (available here ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ano...1-2000mean.dat ) you will notice that the only times you get three years going against the existing trend, it ends up being a complete reversal of trends, altogether.

As I said, don't take my word for it, use NOAA's data set, import it into Excel or whatever, and see for yourself. I use an 11 year moving average trendline here: 4th Year of Global Cooling, NOAA Says But Now You Know and still the trend is now downward. And you can see (second chart) that this process ALWAYS follows what becomes the real trend. In other words, the line is always LATE in recognizing a reversal.

We are in a cooling phase...and the pseudoscientists were saying we were in an upward trend, caused by humans, that could only be stopped with a huge reversal of our pollutive ways. Did we suddenly stop polluting?

Actually answer some POINTS. I feel bad for your side, as you argue against it by your evasion of any actual assertions made by your opposition.

amazing that someone who believes that...

can use a phrase like:


Clearly a faux-scientist... the kind that uses a moving average, long enough (why 11 years, NOAA use 5. Why is that wrong? what's your confidence limits using 11? Go on, actually do some Science, not just faux-science... you must have done some since highschool) to prove what ever he wants. In this case, I suspect, some weird kind of anti-big government, libertarian thing who sees Climate Change (probably along with the UN, universal health care and warning labels on food) as leading to Socialism...

---

ZEN#234, TWO#

Not only are you full of shit, you're also a cunt . No, I'm not going to back up my claims with evidence, I'm going to let you do it by continuing to post, cunt .