agw

The latest alarmist advert seems rather over the top. At the rate they are falling, the entire population of polar bears worldwide will be gone in, ... well, just hours. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/20/polar-bears-plane-stupid-ad

Quoting The Examiner: http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an...

FACT: The 20th century proved that every century of technological advancement carries with it a probability greater than zero that such advancement will destroy humanity or close. FACT: Given enough time and given continued technological advancement the probability approaches 100% that...

In 2008, energy consumption DECREASED in the Pacific Northwest: Link I found this information really interesting and surprising. There is still too little data to know, but I'm very curious is this is the beginning of a long term trend and if this trend will continue: that demand for energy...

I only just noticed that the BBC podcast, Point of View, has switched from David Attenborough to Clive James. His first is on Scepticism, but hurry as it's only available for another day or so. http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/pov

Some folks say current global warming is due (entirely or in part) to anthropogenic release of CO2, a known greenhouse gas. It is a problem worth dealing with now. Call this group Camp 1. Some folks say current global warming is not due to man's release of CO2, and dealing with CO2 is not...

I raise this partly in respone to my own (poor) behaviour in another thread and as an offer of explanation of some attitudes. Leaving aside that behaviour for the moment, I have so far been accused of being ignorant on certain matters (true perhaps), unable to grasp scientific concepts (in all...

It seems to me that the debate about AGW isn't just about the science. Who agrees?

Predicted outcome anybody? Also, I don't quite follow the logic of Fielding's conclusion based on the data cited in the quote above. Anybody?

Check it: http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2009/07/01/no_climate_debate_yes_there_is/ I'm not really a scientist as such but is there anything to this? Do any of these people cited in the article have a leg to stand on? Are they credible sources and engaging in good-faith...

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT) Climate Science is less about actual science and more about political posturing. This is demonstrated here by the constant appeals to authority.

Bikini Corals Recover From Atomic Blast (The University of Queensland, Australia) They survived water temperatures of 55,000°C degrees, yet they are surely doomed to extinction from a 0.6°C increase in temperature.

Carbon dioxide not to blame in ice age mystery (ScienceNews) The case supporting CO2 as a climate driver is failing.

No 'Burp' Accelerating Climate Change - Wetlands Likely Source Of Methane From Ancient Warming Event (Scripps Institution of Oceanography) More hysteria alleviated.

Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago (Geological Survey of Norway)

Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? (PDF) (Anthony Watts, AMS Certified Meteorologist) 89% of U.S. temperature stations are biased by +1-5 °C The temperature has only increased 0.6°C in the last 100 Years (IPCC)

Interesting new Docu. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbDmOt-vIL8&feature=channel_page what do you think about it?

Maybe this should be in the CT section? New Zealand's top climatologist and a world-renowned figure in climate change research has been sacked from his job as head of NIWA. (National Institute of Water & Atmospherics) The reason given - that Jim spoke to media without permission is...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?pagewanted=1&em Seems one of those rare breeds, a genuine AGW skeptic rather than a denier.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090315155112.htm

More fuel for the fire: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109115047.htm

Is Gloabl Warming occurring? Is it man made?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/30/polar.warming/index.html The entire article is a good read.

It's been less than a year after the supposed killer indictment of AGW theory was originally published, but after a sound thrashing in the literature, it seems to have been delivered a final kick in the nuts: So to cut a long story short, the whole shebang was down to dodgy instrumental data...

There are many on JREF who are genuinely concerned about AGW, and it's potential impact on our planet, and our lives. I was interested in what people were actually doing about it.

No smoking hot spot 1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. 2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. 3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say...

I would like this thread to not denigrate, so I would like to ask at the start that the evidence and the analysis is what is discussed. Please avoid accusations and name calling. I would prefer that this thread not go to a moderated status. One of the huge issues in the issue of the potential...

From; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080610112628.htm

In "God is not Great", Hitchens contends (if I read it correctly) that it is immoral for a person who doesn't really believe in in God, to decide to prostrate to god just on the off-chance there is going to be an post-mortem-judgment day... A so-called "hedge-on-Heaven" approach to religiosity...

Given that they don't accept evolution, about which there is far less uncertainty, what are we to make of that? Source; http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/10/baptist.climate/