[AMG]

Originally Posted by outmywindow

I was reading this article from the UN, and wondering what do the deniers know that the World’s scientists and Leaders do not:

You may call Tim Ball a denier, but it is still interesting to hear his opinion on what is behind the UN statements:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2840

And while we are on it, this is what some people think of the latest figures from NASA on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2871

[outmywindow]

Yes, I’m familiar with the CFP, they are a small “left wing” voice using "sensationalism" to drum up readership and market share, kind off like the Enquirer or Hello Magazines.

They will probably have some success, as the economic picture shifts and inflation kicks in, people will always look for a place to vent.

*See life guide manual #12.

[AMG]

Originally Posted by outmywindow

Yes, I’m familiar with the CFP, they are a small “left wing” voice using "sensationalism" to drum up readership

Well, smart move to publish what is considered "right wing" propaganda then...

How about the National Geographic then? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...l-cooling.html

Or the New York Times? http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...070&emc=eta 1

[NYCAP123]

I think that all of the world's leaders should vote on whether to present a resolution that states we should hire a consulting firm to determine if we should ask the world's scientist to write a joint paper in support of forming a committee to figure out who should be consulted for their opinion on convening an international conference to decide if global warming should be studied in a formal setting, the results of said conference to be brought before the united nations to determine the feasibility of asking the world court to intervene with developing international treaties to study.....
Or we could just look at the size of our landfills, taste the air in our cities, try drinking water from half the world's rivers and streams, look at the smoke billowing from exhaust pipes and smokestacks, look at the stockpiles of nuclear and chemical waste, etc., etc. and just admit that maybe we've screwed up and STOP. Oh yeah, where's the money in that? We need more debate. Let's form a committee

[AMG]

Originally Posted by NYCAP123

Or we could just look at the size of our landfills, taste the air in our cities, try drinking water from half the world's rivers and streams, look at the smoke billowing from exhaust pipes and smokestacks, look at the stockpiles of nuclear and chemical waste, etc., etc. and just admit that maybe we've screwed up and STOP. Oh yeah, where's the money in that? We need more debate. Let's form a committee

The topic is Global Warming and the problem (for some of us) is that our politicians have moved the focus from what you mention and instead are imposing taxes on carbon dioxide, which is not considered a pollutant. This is why at least I am very interested to find out if AGW is a scam or for real.

[NYCAP123]

Taxes on "carbon footprint", "green" cars, products and building programs, eliminate bacteria. It's all just a game of 3 card monte. We stand around debating dueling experts while our pockets get picked. Try just using common (very uncommon) sense and as soon as there is a buck to be made be suspicious.
Do we really need a study to determine that we are destroying our world. Is it global warming? Is it Benzine? Is it mercury or lead? What it is is salesmanship, greed and stupidity. I can buy a respected expert to counter any argument brought by the most respected expert you can buy.
I'd like to hear what can actually be done about it.

[outmywindow]

I think the underlying sentiment is that “nobody knows”, and the smarter ones like The National Geographic use a cautious approach.
Quoting a paragraph from the link that you posted:
Observe the use of “may” or “could” or “short term” or “temporary”.
__________________________________________


Cooler Climate May Hit N. America, Europe Next Decade

Shifting ocean currents could throw some cold water on global warming over the next decade, a new study suggests.
Europe and North America may soon experience chillier temperatures, thanks to natural North Atlantic variations that could temporarily mask the effects of human-driven, or anthropogenic, climate change.

"We believe that ocean currents and systems could, in the short term, change global warming patterns and even mean temperatures," said Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany.
Keenlyside explained that since record keeping began in the 19th century, the North Atlantic climate has changed in natural cycles that last a decade or more.
These shifts are likely associated, at least in part, with natural variations in ocean currents. (Related: "Ocean 'Thermostat' May Be Secret Weapon Against Warming [February 8, 2008].)
A new forecasting model, based on past and present sea surface temperatures, suggests the imminent onset of a cool-down cycle for currents in both the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific.
Keenlyside and colleagues, whose study appears in this week's issue of the journal Nature, hope to further quantify this effect and incorporate it into future climate predictions on the decade scale.
"I think it's just naive to think that there won't continue to be multi-decadal fluctuations in the [ocean] climate," he said.
Temporary Change

[AMG]

This is the language most often found in scientific reports. In the IPCC reports it is all over the pages, like this: "There is medium confidence that other effects of regional climate change on natural and human environments are emerging, although many are difficult to discern due to adaptation and non-climatic drivers."

About the "temporary change" we don´t know much either. On the Jisao website they say: "From a societal impacts perspective, recognition of PDO is important because it shows that "normal" climate conditions can vary over time periods comparable to the length of a human's lifetime."

[NYCAP123]

It's called equivocation and means take what I'm saying with a grain of salt for that's what it's worth.

[AMG]

Originally Posted by NYCAP123

It's called equivocation and means take what I'm saying with a grain of salt for that's what it's worth.

It rather means, this is what we know today. Like in all science.

[NYCAP123]

No, it means this is what we maythink or at least would like you to believe.

[Marmot]

Actually, it is the intelligent approach to avoid communicating a dogmatic position on an issue that has more variables than we may recognize.

[AMG]

Well said Marmot.

And since it is Friday night, I have the perfect answer to this topic...

[NYCAP123]

Very good AMG Listen, I'll be running down the LI Sound at 0800 tomorrow doing 30kts. I'm betting against global warming tomorrow, but if anyone can work it out for me in the AM I'd appreciate it.

[swing]

Forget global warming, the amount of people of earth is the problem. There isn't enough space to grow food, fish etc... The earth isn't getting any bigger. Disaster is a sure bet at some stage in the future.