SARrugby.com

and it backs up your contentions.

As the total failure of every climate accord, from Kyoto to Doha, to get those nations whose CO2 emissions are rising to agree to policies to cut them becomes more and more obvious, so the risible public statements of Global Salvationists become ever more strident and frankly, ridiculous.

The aim was to reduce the rate of growth of CO2 emissions if not reverse that growth, instead human CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere at an ever faster rate as less developed countries strive for the material standard of living enjoyed for decades by more developed countries. They aren't going to change their energy policies because a bunch of open toe sandal wearing hippies masquerading as NGOs tell them they must.

Fortunately, the total failure of these social engineering cabals thinly disguised as climate gatherings is irrelevant because all the climate models have been proven to wildly exaggerate the consequences of increasing CO2. Of the three emissions scenarios (No increase, Reduced rate of increase and Business as Usual) at the core of the IPCC projections, the actual increase since 2000 is very significantly greater than business as usual but the projected consequences are wholly invisible.

In terms of statistical significance, global mean temperatures have not risen for more than 15 years, sea surface temperatures have not risen for 10 years, there has been no increase in the rate of sea level rise for 90 years. True, arctic sea ice extent & volume has declined but antarctic sea ice extent & volume has increased, land ice extent and volume remains in dispute with as many peer reviewed papers saying it's increasing as saying it's decreasing.

Trends in extreme weather are down, there are fewer or no changes in frequency of droughts, floods, cyclones, tornados and heat waves. Regions with 20th century records of water shortages now have too much precipitation, while others with a history of major flood events are drier.

In short, the post modern 'science' of climate change is discredited while the serious science of astronomy increasingly indicates that the next 20-40 years are going to be characterised by solar activity at Maunder Minimum levels, when winter temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were 2-3°C cooler than in the modern warm period.

It doesn't matter how often or how loud Global Salvationists wail, it's going to be clear within 2 years that the temperature forcing due to CO2 ppm increase is overwhelmed by natural variations.


 

Seems this whole climate change businss is being discredited by real science.

Looks to me like u just included a few graphs to try and give yr ignorance some credibility. The graphs u put up mean absolutely nothing. Here's a graph that is actually relevant in terms of how temperatures are increasing & what we can attribute those increases to:

U see.... forgetting for a moment yr laughably ignorant (& unreferenced) notion that mean temperatures haven't increased for the last 15 years........it's not only about mean temperatures rising and falling, it's what we can attribute those rises and falls to. Even idiots know that global temperatures on earth have risen and fallen dramatically for billions of years but this is the first time that mankind is actually causing climate change...... & that is worrying........ unless yr so selfish and inconsiderate that u only worry about yr own generation and not the future of mankind & the planet..... which is what you climate denialists seem to be doing.

Not suprised to see that u are one of the global warming denialists, Baboon-ou. Only the hopelessly stupid and naive are still trying to pretend that global warming is not a real and serious threat. Science has accepted global warming as a fact and it won't be long before people like u (and Moffie by the sounds of it) will be ridiculed to the same extent as Young Earth Creationists or members of the Flat Earth Society.

Don't say u weren't warned!

rooitwit you complete dope  we are heading for colder times not hotter. But I guess a gullible oak like you would be the first to caught out!

In short, the post modern 'science' of climate change is discredited while the serious science of astronomy increasingly indicates that the next 20-40 years are going to be characterised by solar activity at Maunder Minimum levels, when winter temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were 2-3°C cooler than in the modern warm period.

 bunch of open toe sandal wearing hippies masquerading as NGOs tell them they must.

but the projected consequences are wholly invisible.

It doesn't matter how often or how loud Global Salvationists wail, it's going to be clear within 2 years that the temperature forcing due to CO2 ppm increase is overwhelmed by natural variations.

Hope you are getting the picture rooitwit. Some climatologist I recall think we are heading for an ice age and any warming effect if it happened should be welcomed.

Rooitwit just to help you see the folly of your ways and how you hav been duped read this:

TEN MYTHS of Global Warming

 MYTH 1:  Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT:  Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

MYTH 2:  The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase. FACT:  Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17^th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

 MYTH 3:  Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT:  Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO₂ content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO₂ is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO₂ levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO₂ as a result.

MYTH 4:  CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT:  Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO₂, CH₄, Ozone and N₂O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO₂ constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".

Those attributing climate change to CO₂ rarely mention this important fact.

MYTH 5:  Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT:  Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6:  The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT:  In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1)     “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2)     “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming. 

MYTH 7:  CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT:  This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is.  CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included  CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT:   There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale.  Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

MYTH 9:  Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

FACT:  Glaciers have been  receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

 MYTH 10:  The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT:  The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica. 

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise

Seeing the light rooitwit. Admit it - you have been conned much like the Y2 con

Baboon-ou, I'm afraid yr wasting yr time copying and pasting all this ignorant and stupid hogwash cuz Im not reading it.

Before u have a cry about that, ask yrself this question........... if someone gave u a book to read and said that reading it would make u believe in the tooth fairy, would u waste yr time reading the book?

rooitwit please - you are not reading it becuase it conflicts with your brainwashed views.

You probably think the climate is a reality because of all the hot air that surrounds you ! Bwahahahahahaha

I am glad you have got past believing in the tooth fairy rooitwit but some day you might realise that is not much too shout about. Come on let the light shine in!

LMAO! I love the irony of u saying rooitwit this and rooitwit that while saying things like "brainwashed" and "let the light shine in" at the same time!

Ive asked u before to put up some links to rooitwits old posts so I can see for myself what the fuss is about but u chickened out. I'd still like those links cuz Rooitwit/Rooinek/Rooiass sounds like a legend who obviously kicked yr ass (and Moffie's) so hard that yr still crying about it.

Anyway, I see I hurt yr feelings when I said I dont read yr rubbish. Don't feel too bad Baboon-ou, it's not really personal. If a vervet monkey was given a typewriter to play with then I wouldn't bother reading the output for much the same reason as I don't read what u write on here.

A truly rugby related thread! LOL. Still interesting I guess. I am kinda on the fence with this one. There is evidence for and against global warming and the reasons for it, but it all comes down to one thing. When the environmentalists do the tests the results show that there is global warming and that it is man's fault. And when the Oil companies etc do the same tests, they show the opposite. Bottom line, when you throw enough money at researching something, you can either prove, or disprove whatever you want. I have the following view, when a glacier breaks through my back door here in pretoria, or when I have to catch a boat from here to Joburg, then Global warming will be real...until then, I'll let those for and those against go back and for leaving nothing but questions.  

Wahhahahahahaha you don't read what I write on here you say. Jallopy your creds now well and truly shot! Hahahahahahaha

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

the global warming myth is just complete and utter hogwash. the tests by real sciencetists proves that the earth has not risen in temp in the last 16 odd years and has even in some parts of the world lowered than normal. 95% of the earth heat comes from the sun via solar flares and there has been increased activty in that front. the whole agenda of the so called co2 convention is to try and stop 3rd world countries of gaining any form of economic freedom. co2 by its nature does not increase temp. even planets like mars's ice caps on its poles are melting so can you tell me that my SUV here is melting mars's ice ?????

they want to enforce that carbon tax just to finance some more programs and the global warming myth is just another ponce making money scheme. its based on lias and deception but the poor basterds that believe this hog wash are the worst

why do you think the likes of the west are so mellow in regards to signing the kyoto agreements amoung others ???

to stats that i have seen the mid 1600's the world ave temp was at lot higher that what it is now. its just  a cycle that we are going through. no amount of human interaction can cause this type of warming.

Rooitwit something else for you to chew on. Much more is going on in the world than we the masses might think.

Rooitwit if you dont read views contrary to your own how will you ever progress. Talk about being narrow minded!!!.

Muncher I think this world order story has truth in it. 

Anyhow before they outlaw tennis I must have one last game!

Muncher thanks for the link I have copied it and will read it later.  Apaprently also the more CO2 the faster plants and particualry trees grow - they love it. However I do not blieve in unsustainable growth and degradation of the planet.

Beeno has left the building!

Interesting. So your response to me telling u that I don't read yr long-winded, stupid & poorly-written diatribes is to put up a long-winded, stupid & poorly-written diatribe?

Not sure why u think I might be interested in yr bizarre conspiracy theories & I honestly thought I'd made that clear, but in case yr still confused, I'm not in the slightest bit interested in yr idiotic rambling copy & pastes & I'm not reading them. Sorry.

Wow Rooinek's own chart shows a massive(sarcasm intended),  0.4 degree temperature change in 100 years. That with increased sun activity, recovery from the Little Ice Age of the Middle Ages and massive tinkering with measurement sites.

Why am I not impressed?

"Why am I not impressed?"

Uhhhhmmm . . . because you're very, very stupid?

But not gullible and not a bare faced liar like you ....heh?

These are the records for Chicago in July....the hottest month.....from the war to the present. You will note, there is no hottest day set in the period after 2000....for any day in July.

By contrast there are three coldest days set in the period after 2000.

This is not consistent with warming temperatures in the Midwest. Some might argue this is random selection, but it's no more random than much of what the Warming Nutters give us.

So far we have a plausible theory but no clear cut proof of warming. Rooinek provides a graph that shows (very) slight warming coinciding with Greenhouse gasses going up. I think you would find the correlation even stronger with the number of partial, well funded scientists entering the field of Climate Change. The bias is massive.

But whatever the truth, they have no solution. The Kyoto treaty pushes back the temperature curve by 5 years at a monstrous cost. With the huge population we now have on Earth, the far bigger risk is falling short on energy and thereby triggering a famine with catastrophic loss of life.

Hell we can't even deal with our economic problems today. Let alone if industry is forced to use alternative, in many cases negative delivered energy, sources. And I exclude in this,  clean electric cars that are plugged into dirty coal!

Population growth is unsustainable....there is your root problem.

the economic woes are all down to derivative fraud by the major banks to try and defraud and steal money. pure corporatism is to blame as banks and finance houses are givin free reighn to operate as they please. the kyoto treaty's main purpose is to de industryalise the 3rd world and major countries to reduce the standard of living turning the masses into wellfare cases. nothing short of pure socialism and communism as most major enviromentalists/eco warriors have a strong commie background and upbringing,. they have the views that people are evil and world population is based upon there twisted views. i read one report stating that there is enough capacity for the world to even sustain a population of 32 billion with current off the shelf solutions.

people are resource obsessed but history has shown that humans always find alternative ways and means to attain energy. the real issue is that the main role players want to make money things like coal ext are being labelled as the culprit but coal cant be controlled and as such is being targeted. coal does not pollute more than any other energy source and is more eco friendly in the long run than nuclear power. the big energy players wants to shut down the competition and just make more money.

stats have shown the only true way to reduce population as one looks at europe and other developed areas is to create a stronger middle class and the net result is population that retracts where as the poor of the poor generally tend to produce children in the masses. studies have shown that wealth and properity generally leads to lower birthrates and the reverse is true.

the state should really cut back on welfare and lower taxes on the middle class. the few trying to support the many is a unsustainable model that will only cripple the middle class and create more poor people. less state and more personal wealth is the real answer

Muncher this is not the only mythy around. How about the peak oil myth. Read these extracts from an article I saw:

Until we get honest objective science, it's every man for himself. The Warming lobby is an intolerant juggernaught, that brooks no debate.

The new element in the equation is fracking, which has exposed vast reserves of gas.