[Newsbot]

Title: Climate change human link evidence 'stronger'
Category: Environmental
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2010-03-06 22:25:04

[ShepherdsDog]

The proponents of this theory get caught fudging the figures and suppressing evidence, and they expect people to take them seriously?

FLAIL.

[BeaverFever]

Oh, you mean unlike the "credible" climate change deniers, who are actually the same scientists-for-hire who denied that smoking causes cancer and that acid rain exists?

[stemmer]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Oh, you mean unlike the "credible" climate change deniers, who are actually the same scientists-for-hire who denied that smoking causes cancer and that acid rain exists?

So climate deniers believe in acid rain?

[BeaverFever]

they are the same scientist-for hire who got paid by the polluters to came out in the 80s and say that it did not exist.

[EyeBrock]

Here we go again. Now we've gone from 'carbon emissions' or 'carbon footprint' to the much more vague, 'human activity'.

The goal posts of proof move weekly. Climate change is real enough and there is geological proof that it's happened before, often.
What is difficult to prove is that human activity is worse than say a volcanic eruption and which one of the two is causing the damage?

[CanadianGigolo]

yip.... pretty soon human activity is going to be blamed for Earthquakes...

Humans are taking all the oil out of the ground, cause the Earth to shift!!! Sammy

[gonavy47]

Break out the pitchforks and hip-waders, the spindoctors are at it again!

[commanderkai]

CanadianGigolo CanadianGigolo:

ROTFL yip.... pretty soon human activity is going to be blamed for Earthquakes...

Already happens. Sadly.

[commanderkai]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Oh, you mean unlike the "credible" climate change deniers, who are actually the same scientists-for-hire who denied that smoking causes cancer and that acid rain exists?

I might as well ask for specific scientists? I mean, I'm not aware of all of the names for and against climate change, but if they're the same guys, there should be a record, no?

[andyt]

$1:

The study, which looks at research published since the IPCC's report, has found that changes in Arctic sea ice, atmospheric moisture, saltiness of parts of the Atlantic Ocean and temperature changes in the Antarctic are consistent with human influence on our climate.

Maybe consistent, but how do any of those data prove human influence? Aren't they just consistent with an increase in global temperatures, whether human or nature caused?

[N_Fiddledog]

This study is from the Met Office. They're in damage control mode. Yes, I did read in the article where they denied the one has anything to do with the other. I don't believe them.

They're connected to recent scandals, bad predictions, and other recent critique.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/156 ... r-computer

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weath ... -snow.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/25/m ... #more-9565

I suggest the Met Office needs global warming hysteria to justify it's mega-budget.

The study makes claims to look at recent studies, but ignores all the recent discoveries calling the hypothesis of catastrophe from human-caused warming into question. Those are too many to list here.

[Proculation]

CanadianGigolo CanadianGigolo:

ROTFL yip.... pretty soon human activity is going to be blamed for Earthquakes...

Humans are taking all the oil out of the ground, cause the Earth to shift!!! Sammy

It has already been said a lot of times. Even on the 'neutral' Radio-Canada: we see more earthquakes, bigger in intensity, because the higher temperature helps to tectonic plates to slide on each others.

.... even tho the earthquakes are located dozens of km under sea level where the temperature is stable @ ~ 300C ...

[sandorski]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Here we go again. Now we've gone from 'carbon emissions' or 'carbon footprint' to the much more vague, 'human activity'.

The goal posts of proof move weekly. Climate change is real enough and there is geological proof that it's happened before, often.
What is difficult to prove is that human activity is worse than say a volcanic eruption and which one of the two is causing the damage?

Holy Strawman!

Fail.

[Zipperfish]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

The proponents of this theory get caught fudging the figures and suppressing evidence, and they expect people to take them seriously?

FLAIL.

Some proponents. On both sides, I might add.