So the Danes made first trip through the Northwest Passage. Any guess on the cargo?

[VictorCharlie]

The climate is and has always been changing. The moniker switch is nothing more than a PR move by special interests so that no matter what happens they can take credit for it.

[Gandalf]

Or isn't it more likely that your argument is in fact just peculiar and it is you who are expressing the view that your opinion counts for more than those of most scientists and potentially the future of the rest of humanity.

For someone that rails against religion, I find your take on this pretty amusing. You are one of the boards premiere skeptics but on this you question nothing. The Earth has warmed and cooled multiple times w/o any help from man. The only science that is settled is that the Earth has been warming since the last ice age and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The relationship between man-made emissions and the most recent warming trend is still largely not understood. If 98% of all my predictive analysis on a topic was wrong, you, me and everyone else would come to a natural conclusion that my basic understanding of the topic was flawed. For some reason AGW doesn't get this kind of treatment despite the entire climatology discipline scratching their head about the last 15 years and all their models being utter failures. Once science is politicized the way "climate change" has been it stops being about data and empirical evidence and starts being about a zero-sum game. To work in my own quote, Mark Twain once said "It is easier to fool someone than convince them they were fooled." Keep up the end of the world fear mongering though, W and Obama would be proud.

There is a big difference between science and religion. The latter is hocus pocus and fairy stories, whilst the former is on the whole carefully researched investigation. Obviously I have far less time for the 'evidence' of a bunch of primitively informed men, than I do of people who carry out research and do so following careful checks and balances. Unlike religion, science cannot conjure up magic and Gods, but it can formulate reasoned explanations for the world around us and of course I trust that more than religion which is flawed to its core.

You disagree with most of the worlds science, yet what are your credentials? I am not a scientist, I know about my field and I can talk politics as politics is baby chess. However, I will not pretend to know better than the clear consensus of educated professionals trained in their field (not politics or economics which are bought). You are a tiny minority of the educated opinion, so what makes you know so much more than them. Where are your research papers? In what journals are they published?

Logic would assume that the opinions of the tiny minority of corrupted minds are bought by exploitative and deranged lobby interest groups which do invest significant sums of money into their own self preservation. Unless you have invested in nasty energy forms, I don't see what the argument is. You would sooner play the dice with the overwhelming consensus of research and opinion.

[El Kabong]

Global warming is not a good name for it. Probably be much more productive to call it 'climate change' as in the climate that was once north has moved even further south, south of the equator. Same happening to the far north too I hear.

Ah yes, the "catch all" of "Anthropogenic Climate Change" if it gets "too hot" then CLIMATE CHANGE, if it gets "too cold" then CLIMATE CHANGE, if a hurricane happens CLIMATE CHANGE if no hurricanes happen then CLIMATE CHANGE if there are more tornados or less tornados then CLIMATE CHANGE......do you guys not see that? Too much rain, too little rain, more wind, less wind, more ice, less ice, under the guise of Climate Change whatever happens we're at fault no matter if things change or they stay the same....it's a SCAM to perpetuate a false crisis to line the pockets of people like Al Gore.

Here's a conundrum for you Climate Change types....if humans COULD control the climate, if they could.........SHOULD they control the climate?

[VictorCharlie]

Or isn't it more likely that your argument is in fact just peculiar and it is you who are expressing the view that your opinion counts for more than those of most scientists and potentially the future of the rest of humanity.

For someone that rails against religion, I find your take on this pretty amusing. You are one of the boards premiere skeptics but on this you question nothing. The Earth has warmed and cooled multiple times w/o any help from man. The only science that is settled is that the Earth has been warming since the last ice age and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The relationship between man-made emissions and the most recent warming trend is still largely not understood. If 98% of all my predictive analysis on a topic was wrong, you, me and everyone else would come to a natural conclusion that my basic understanding of the topic was flawed. For some reason AGW doesn't get this kind of treatment despite the entire climatology discipline scratching their head about the last 15 years and all their models being utter failures. Once science is politicized the way "climate change" has been it stops being about data and empirical evidence and starts being about a zero-sum game. To work in my own quote, Mark Twain once said "It is easier to fool someone than convince them they were fooled." Keep up the end of the world fear mongering though, W and Obama would be proud.

There is a big difference between science and religion. The latter is hocus pocus and fairy stories, whilst the former is on the whole carefully researched investigation. Obviously I have far less time for the 'evidence' of a bunch of primitively informed men, than I do of people who carry out research and do so following careful checks and balances. Unlike religion, science cannot conjure up magic and Gods, but it can formulate reasoned explanations for the world around us and of course I trust that more than religion which is flawed to its core.

You disagree with most of the worlds science, yet what are your credentials? I am not a scientist, I know about my field and I can talk politics as politics is baby chess. However, I will not pretend to know better than the clear consensus of educated professionals trained in their field (not politics or economics which are bought). You are a tiny minority of the educated opinion, so what makes you know so much more than them. Where are your research papers? In what journals are they published?

Logic would assume that the opinions of the tiny minority of corrupted minds are bought by exploitative and deranged lobby interest groups which do invest significant sums of money into their own self preservation. Unless you have invested in nasty energy forms, I don't see what the argument is. You would sooner play the dice with the overwhelming consensus of research and opinion.

You clearly don't understand what the science is on this issue or what I believe but much like a religious believer have no shortage of faith in the politically charged talking points you are being fed.

Interesting article on confirmation bias
Climate Change and Confirmation Bias - Reason.com

But just in case you need an actual scientist's take on it,

Can We Trust the U.N.'s IPCC Climate Models? - Reason.com

[Gandalf]

No, it isn't political. Personally, I think it became political when the work of Tesla was dismissed into the garbage pile and fossil fuels (mainly oil) became God. It was a mistake and since then everything has been invested into oil and the US financial corporations in particular refuse to sway no matter what.

Energy has become such a money spinner and has made some very, very rich. It became political going down that route. Genuine scientists don't have a financial motive in this, but little old America....Well, you know the score.

I will read the links properly with a cup of tea in the morning. With this issue I have no vested interest, if anything I should be indulging in doom and gloom, but I try not to. I think science caused it and I think science can reverse it and I want everyone to continue happily. Of course, there is the other side of me that says you are all fucked and you will deserve it.

I just don't think it is tenable to assume that burning the planet to a cinder is part of a natural process and to just ignore things. Things are changing and thus we have an obligation to change. If you don't change, then you should and will become extinct. I have no worries about that, but some of you have children. You cannot play games and it just shocks me. Well, actually, no maybe I am not shocked anymore.

[Andre]

Global warming is not a good name for it. Probably be much more productive to call it 'climate change' as in the climate that was once north has moved even further south, south of the equator. Same happening to the far north too I hear.

Ah yes, the "catch all" of "Anthropogenic Climate Change" if it gets "too hot" then CLIMATE CHANGE, if it gets "too cold" then CLIMATE CHANGE, if a hurricane happens CLIMATE CHANGE if no hurricanes happen then CLIMATE CHANGE if there are more tornados or less tornados then CLIMATE CHANGE......do you guys not see that? Too much rain, too little rain, more wind, less wind, more ice, less ice, under the guise of Climate Change whatever happens we're at fault no matter if things change or they stay the same....it's a SCAM to perpetuate a false crisis to line the pockets of people like Al Gore.

Here's a conundrum for you Climate Change types....if humans COULD control the climate, if they could.........SHOULD they control the climate?

Its no conundrum mate we need to manage what we do and aim for balance within nature not control of it or others through it!

Same thing goes for oil really, would you pull the oil out of hot motor? Would you pull the oil out of a hot planet that has plates that grind together?
Do you know in New Zealand every time there is seismic activity in Greece they get it too down there in the same area, happens every time its no coincidence everything has connections some strong some not so strong but its all connected.

We change alot of things in degrees here,we have striped the Earth of trees and put grass and cows down instead, that is massive,Hello that in itself has had change effects on climate it is indisputable.

Its obvious we changed rain fall patterns, total air conditions and flows by doing it.

Even raw pollution can be seen in the air above every city (It is so fucking obvious that is us doing it). We suffer cancers on mass, again hello its us.

For me that is all so obvious that we do have our effects on the changes.You strip the earth of trees and allow China to continue into rainforests etc you disrupt the balance of nature and it spreads out from there.

The argument should be percentage and management not have we or havent we contributed.

I see your point totally, but it isnt one sided, both sides on the extremes are guilty of what you point out and both seek their cash cow at our expense.

As there are up and running businesses on both sides that have their own future invested in large sums of cash in both arguments; they will both pay scientists to find for their own side. $$$$$$ is all it is.

Again balance is the key. Taking sides isnt, the rip off we get to pay for from both sides extremes is intolerable to normal common sense and wastes all of our time.

[Gandalf]

Having read the articles, I don't find myself being persuaded against the consensus. I think Andre has pointed out the obvious changes in the past few centuries and it is unbdoubtedly changes that have been caused by man. Deforestation leads to the formation of deserts, excessive cars in the cities leads to smog, these are obvious aspects of ecological and environmental change. The bigger picture is where I am not an expert and will never claim to be, but it all seems to point to the human population explosion and massive consumption of energy (oil and coal) as being the most probable causes of change. Now this is not set in stone or absolute, but why would you play a lottery with the future of your children, when it is just common sense to lead a cleaner more positive life. Who wants to live in the smog drenched rat race cities? For financial reasons most don't have a choice, so why not at least have clean cities, breathable air etc. It just seems incredibly selfish to resist change when there are obvious harmful affects on the quality of life. Nobody is arguing Lyle's ridiculous argument of living in primitive societies again, but to just clean up our act. Actions do have consequences and yes you do have responsibilities.

[El Kabong]

Again: If humans COULD control the climate, SHOULD they?

Answers please, and also don't twist or change the meaning of the question it's a simple "Yes" or "Non" and then reasons why you think that

[Andre]

YES.

Lyle we do change the climate! What do you mean should we,if we can?

Is this your thoughts trying to corral us into a one sided political plan again?

We have come so far on the planet that we have concrete and cities in place of trees, of course we change and have changed the fucking thing!

Now we have to balance what we are doing which is changing somethings that are detrimental to us back to a more natural way before we turn the lot into a choking shit hole like some smog filled concrete jungles we call cities.

Mate even the bees dont exist in China any more they are gone!!! It was from; (what science can make out) over use of chemicals on crops that weakened their immune systems to a natural bug they used to be able to fight off naturally!
Thats us again mate, we changed the nature on bees!

Now the Chinese get up ladders in their fruit crops and hand pollinate the flowers one by one.

So fucking YES we have to try to change some of it back a little bit now!

BALANCE MANAGEMENT !!!

Man its so simple it isnt this way or that way only! Those extremists on both sides are making excuses up to fight each other cause thats their political bent and so its their life, none of the mouths help out the real middle problem, they waste their energy and our cash on fighting each other.

[VictorCharlie]

Interesting article. The report referenced is linked below it.

Climate Study: Evidence Leans Against Human-Caused Global Warming

Climate Change Reconsidered

[El Kabong]

YES.

Once upon a time Andre, man tried to help wildlife population by killing off wolves. We killed scores of wolves and we found out that wolves are a key part of the environment which help control overpopulation, spread of disease, starvation, amongst other animals.

MAN fucks up is my point Andre, God does not. If this Earth is only meant to house us for X amount of time we either have to A) Accept that fate or B ) Use our brains to help us survive here or elsewhere...but for humans to change the climate to suit their own needs, I think that's incredibly egotistical and shortsighted as other species will suffer and die DUE to our intervention and if we truly care about the EARTH then we'll let it do what it needs to do and in the end as George Carlin said, it'll shake off humanity like a case of fleas.