I'm all for investigation to find facts, not make believe. Mistakes made sometimes? Of course. An open mind on most subjects helps find facts and adjust from there. Wishful thinking to back ideology is not my idea of facts.

Ignoring an issue because it is inconvenient is not science either.

If you look at the graph posted with an open mind you will see clearly that something changed at around the time of the industrial revolution.

Does that mean that it changed because of the industrial revolution well there simply isn't enough data to make that comparison, is it a natural "random" event; again not enough data to support that either. All we can say is that according to that data temperature patterns changed at around 1760 and that is worth investigating.

The great problem now faced is that the global warming issue has become so polarised that we run the great risk of doing science to prove a point and that leads to subjective and not objective results.

I am not a scientist, in fact, I'm really lousy at anything Algebra and above. I wouldn't be so stupid to say that global warming doesn't exist and anything we can do to fix it might be a good idea. However, this does not mean we should go overboard on it and especially so if it hurts our military capabilities any and other countries are building their military arsenals to kill or outgun the hated Americans. I think if we try to do right by the environment, it has to be balanced with at least that thought in mind.

Originally Posted by AikiRooster

I am not a scientist, in fact, I'm really lousy at anything Algebra and above. I wouldn't be so stupid to say that global warming doesn't exist and anything we can do to fix it might be a good idea. However, this does not mean we should go overboard on it and especially so if it hurts our military capabilities any and other countries are building their military arsenals to kill or outgun the hated Americans. I think if we try to do right by the environment, it has to be balanced with at least that thought in mind.

I am not entirely a believer in global warming either I do however think it naive to believe that man has not had some effect on his environment (how much is what we are debating) and I believe it a wiser policy to err on the side of caution now than ignore an issue and be bitten on the arse by it 5-50 years down the track.

What do you suggest about other countries who are enemies or at least pretentious allies (Russia, China, etc)? Some of them refuse to do anything in regards to fixing global warming and just concentrate on building their military arsenals? Why should we be the only ones making the changes, when to me it seems if it is not a global effort, what we do here won't matter much if most parts of the world continue doing what they want with no concern for global warming besides the politically correct lip service but with no action to go along with.

Originally Posted by AikiRooster

What do you suggest about other countries who are enemies or at least pretentious allies (Russia, China, etc)? Some of them refuse to do anything in regards to fixing global warming and just concentrate on building their military arsenals? Why should we be the only ones making the changes, when to me it seems if it is not a global effort, what we do here won't matter much if most parts of the world continue doing what they want with no concern for global warming besides the politically correct lip service but with no action to go along with.

As I have said before necessity is the mother of invention I am sure a hydrogen powered tank will be just as effective as a gas powered one.
Military's world wide have adapted to change and in many cases lead the development in new technology I cannot imagine this will be any different.

Newt Gingrich for President. His energy idea's are very impressive by the way.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Actually that graph shows that there is an upward trend and if you agree that the 1760 is that generally accepted "eve" of the industrial revolution you graph shows that a standard "sine wave" effect was in operation before that date, since that date there has been no such effect just a general warming process.

For example between 1659 and 1746 there is a normal heating and cooling cycle with a mid point at 1659, a trough at 1688 a peak at 1720 and a return to the mid point at around 1750 but instead of it continuing to decline to another trough at what would have been about 1775 (a cycle rate of about 90 years) it suddenly begins climbing around 1760 with a much flatter cycle and only shows a limited trough around 1891 and then at at about 1975 temperatures begin to climb noticeably.

You will also notice that the cold trend lines have grown increasingly shorter over the whole period.

But of course, If that were not so, it would be a steady or downward trend

Basically the first third of the graph is what you would expect from cyclic system the last two thirds are not and it is interesting that it corresponds with the beginning of the industrial revolution and in fact the temperature increase is actually more pronounced than appears as even though the mean has not shifted a lot the temperature troughs have disappeared.

I don't wish to get into a maths debate here (It's not my game) but there's a lot more to it than that. Not the least of which is the fact that we can't see the cycles prior to the start, the only clues given being that the late 1500s were the end of a protracted cool period in Europe. Never the less the first cycle seems to be pretty radical. Both the decline and rise being steeper and longer than anything we have seen to date. What would the doomsayers have said had they have been around then?

Regardless of all else, the possible effect caused by man, or for that matter anything else, has been so small as to be insignificant when we consider the increase in pollution over the time in question especially when we take into account that the upward trend had started well before this period began and has not actually increased in overall rate during that time.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Ignoring an issue because it is inconvenient is not science either.

Nobody is ignoring it, it's just that some people refuse to be stampeded by a noisy and as yet unproven minority.

If you look at the graph posted with an open mind you will see clearly that something changed at around the time of the industrial revolution.

There are changes at any point one wishes to name, right down to the daily maxima and minima and they don't always follow a pattern, just look at the variations in any of the trends, some longer some shorter, some steeper some not so. All that really means anything is the overall trend, especially when we take into account the time periods over which these cycles might occur.

The great problem now faced is that the global warming issue has become so polarised that we run the great risk of doing science to prove a point and that leads to subjective and not objective results.

My point precisely.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Nobody is ignoring it, it's just that some people refuse to be stampeded by a noisy and as yet unproven minority.

There are changes at any point one wishes to name, right down to the daily maxima and minima and they don't always follow a pattern, just look at the variations in any of the trends, some longer some shorter, some steeper some not so. All that really means anything is the overall trend, especially when we take into account the time periods over which these cycles might occur.

Not true from the data presented the patterns are easily determined (I would rate it as a very good example of a noticeable change graph on multiple axis) not only is the amplitude decreasing but the wavelength is increasing and the whole pattern is creating and upward trend, you have produced an excellent bit of evidence that global warming exists however we all knew that because it is a natural phenomenon.

The funny thing is that you have also managed to link it to the industrial revolution which could lead to claims that man is influencing it, however that would be speculation.