Please post in this thread a better refutation of climate change than "it is really cold today"

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

You can impose all the restrictions you want on greenhouse gases, but it won't stop the climate from changing. However, it will make food, energy, and everything else more expensive causing suffering worldwide and hobbling efforts to adapt to the changing climate.

Exactly.

Here is the link to the cosmic ray study I referred to earlier. You'll probably need to find a layperson description of it however. Do a search for Svensmark and cosmic rays.

Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds

Henrik Svensmark

National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038429.shtml

The change in diurnal temperature range is inconsistent with greenhouse gas warming. Consider yourself refuted.

Here is a link to the Svensmark Cosmic Ray Theory of Climate Change. Basically, the sun's magnetic field doubled in the 20th Century (leading to global warming) but solar activity is now decreasing. Increased solar activity means increased solar magnetism, which shields the earth from cosmic rays. That leads to fewer clouds and higher temperatures. Solar activity has decreased markedly over the past few years and now stands at a 100 year low. Low activity means less solar magnetism so more cosmic rays reach the atmosphere and create clouds, leading to global cooling. Svensmark believes the earth is heading into a cooling trend that could last for at least a decade. You can read the rest here.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/

There is virtually no predictive value in 100 year old data, which is essentially all we have in terms of temperature. Perhaps 40 year of relatively accurate data.

To draw any long-term conclusions, not to mention projections, over recent temperature changes is not only irresponsible, it flies in the face of the long accepted scientific method.

So maybe the globe is warming, and maybe we caused it. That means nothing in terms of what will happen tomorrow, or if we had any impact on it.

I live where there USED to be glaciers. That was 10,000 years ago. Actually I live right on the edge of where they were. Flat going north or west(where they were) and hilly going south or east. I don't think we had a bunch of factories going, were eating a bunch of flatulant cows, or driving around all day in the Escy with the back windows broken out back then.

Why don't YOU tell me what caused that GLOBALL WARMING?

This thread shows the discussion on climate change is now ideological, not scientific. People select, modify, and mobilize evidence so it fits their particular reasoning. There's no dispassionate exchange on the limitations of data. Instead there's only people clinging to the same old positions. Those that "believe" in human driven climate change claim everyone outside their ideology is scientifically ignorant. While people that "deny" human driven climate change claim others are alarmists. Both groups claim that other people are idiots. And both groups never (will) make a worthwhile point.

I hate when politicians drag science into their slimy domain.

If you’re capable of focussing on a single subject for 30 minutes and are capable of understanding something of the science involved - listen to what Lord Monckton has to say.

He’s confident enough to describe those Gore clones as ‘crooks’ - as I’ve mentioned before - bet they won’t dare sue for libel.

http://www.cfact.tv/2009/12/07/lord-monckton-on-climategate-at-the-2nd-international-climate-conference/

If you’re capable of focussing on a single subject for 30 minutes and are capable of understanding something of the science involved - listen to what Lord Monckton has to say.

He’s confident enough to describe those Gore clones as ‘crooks’ - as I’ve mentioned before - bet they won’t dare sue for libel.

http://www.cfact.tv/2009/12/07/lord-monckton-on-climategate-at-the-2nd-international-climate-conference/

More evidence from the geologic and hydrologic communities about the importance of solar irradiance, the PDO and the NAO in warming and cooling events over the past 15,000 years. Also has charts showing very fast warming and cooling over a short time period. Also includes plenty of evidence contradicting the theory that CO2 forces warming or cooling.

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/geoev.pdf

Read "Break Through" by Shellenberger and Nordhaus. They are considered the "bad boys" of environmentalism. It's hard to briefly explain their ideas, but they are against the politics and are critical of the science. They do "believe" (if that's the way you think of things) in anthropogenic climate change, but they take it from a multitude of avenues. If you want to get past the bullshit controversies and into the actual historical, cultural and scientific basis of climate change, check out this book. It's not propaganda of any kind. They've been shunned by both liberals and conservatives alike, yet praised by philosophers of science everywhere.

Here's an incredible article about them:

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/15-10/mf_burning

Someone spread this around to the other threads about climate change. Most of these conversations were taking place in the 50s. Get a grip on reality.

The Briffa (also at CRU) study of Yamal Peninsula larch tree rings has become one of the leading proofs of global warming, replacing Mann’s now-discredited hockey stick chart shown in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. The Yamal tree ring study is widely cited and appears in IPCC 4 as proof of climate change.

The article in the link below explains how Briffa switched from one data set to another throughout history to create a chart that showed what he wanted to show. He manipulated these different data sets to 1) eliminate the Medieval Warming Period (when temps were higher than now yet CO2 levels were much lower) 2) cherry-pick only 10 out of hundreds of larch trees in the study to create the desired pattern for rest of the chart up to 1960 3) to include one tree that was so far out of the norm that it accounted for almost half the warming by itself, and then 4) replace larch tree data with actual temperature readings from 1960 onward when the larch tree ring data suddenly showed a decline in temperature that would have disproved their hypothesis.

From the article: “In other words, what has become arguably the most influential evidence to support unprecedented global warming, developed, copied and promoted hundreds of times, has now been [debunked].”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html