250 replies to this topic

[noggin]

Gray-Wolf, on 23 January 2010 - 22:27 , said:

Oh now Dev! let them have their final flurry......

.........and "we" must let you have yours too, wolfie!


Many are the times that I have thought to myself that I am not going to post on this merry-go-round again. But then I find myself irresistably drawn back into the fray.

What I find barmy really is the fact that we all seem to want the same thing.....a cleaner planet, sensible use of it's bounties and sustainable power into the future.

Ah, well, peace and love to all (except Gordon Brown and that lot).

[Devonian]

Rorky_Lichfield, on 23 January 2010 - 23:40 , said:

I am going to archive this post so in 5 years when this whole masquerade has boiled over you can realise what a hyperbolic, ignorant post that was '2/3 of humanity' - give me a break.

Good idea!

[Gray-Wolf]

noggin, on 24 January 2010 - 10:02 , said:

.........and "we" must let you have yours too, wolfie!


Many are the times that I have thought to myself that I am not going to post on this merry-go-round again. But then I find myself irresistibly drawn back into the fray.

What I find barmy really is the fact that we all seem to want the same thing.....a cleaner planet, sensible use of it's bounties and sustainable power into the future.

Ah, well, peace and love to all (except Gordon Brown and that lot).

I know that to be our truth Nog's, none of us 'want' the things we have caused and I think each and every one of us would do our damnedest to have things different.

Kiddie and Mrs went to see Avatar......can't escape the message even whilst escaping eh?

[Dartmoor_Matt]

The Sunday Times does it again...

New evidence proves that there is no link between the increased cost of natural disasters and climate change, as the IPCC report stated in 2007.
(from a non published, no peer reviewed report, which when finally published in 2008 had caveats saying there was insufficient support to make the claim, which the IPCC failed to mention before the Copenhagen conference, despite knowing)

Quote

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

Full story here Or of course in the Sunday Times

One mistake, two mistakes, however many more

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Time to personally bin this thread. NASA now possibly fudging temps, the Himalayan glacier farce, the IPCC allegedly using false data to cajole governments into AGW policies...it stinks. And it will go on and on and on.

BFTP

[Optimus Prime]

BLAST FROM THE PAST, on 24 January 2010 - 23:50 , said:

Time to personally bin this thread. NASA now possibly fudging temps, the Himalayan glacier farce, the IPCC allegedly using false data to cajole governments into AGW policies...it stinks.

That's a ridiculous statement.

Anyway it makes me laugh people are still so ignorant and single minded that the population as a whole, in fact the huge over-population as a whole has no efefct on the climate.

We're leading ourselves into suicide and yet due ignorance, dumbness and denial nothings being done to stop this.

[pottyprof]

I have to be honest here.. I'm getting a little fed up with not being able to find actual temperatures for the globe. We have to accept anomaly charts. This year so far and the back end of last, we have had some interesting records regarding cold but we just have anomaly charts.

I'm sorry but what does an anomaly chart prove when you want to see the data? Something ain't right. It's like everything is hidden.. More so since a certain problem cropped up.

The governments want us to believe that we are warming but we cant see the figures and they wonder why all the doubt.....

Anyone got a link to the actual data??? ie current up to last week? It used to be available..

[pottyprof]

BLAST FROM THE PAST, on 24 January 2010 - 23:50 , said:

Time to personally bin this thread. NASA now possibly fudging temps, the Himalayan glacier farce, the IPCC allegedly using false data to cajole governments into AGW policies...it stinks. And it will go on and on and on.

BFTP

Fred.. No point in binning something when questions still need answering. Regarding the IPCC.. The problems that are now surfacing will happen while money is changing hands. Perhaps now they may look at how things are financed?

[Gray-Wolf]

BLAST FROM THE PAST, on 24 January 2010 - 23:50 , said:

Time to personally bin this thread. NASA now possibly fudging temps, the Himalayan glacier farce, the IPCC allegedly using false data to cajole governments into AGW policies...it stinks. And it will go on and on and on.

BFTP

The evidence of change will make itself ever more apparent.

Maybe the 'facts' will be brought to us by experts at first (weather cycles out of synch, missed monsoons and all the extreme events that local extremes in climate drive in the short term) but eventually they will be such as to have the most ardent serptic wondering.

If this is not so then there is not 'climate change'.

As ever the Arctic WILL be the place to show us the way.....

[Iceberg]

Dartmoor_Matt, on 24 January 2010 - 18:19 , said:

The Sunday Times does it again...

New evidence proves that there is no link between the increased cost of natural disasters and climate change, as the IPCC report stated in 2007.
(from a non published, no peer reviewed report, which when finally published in 2008 had caveats saying there was insufficient support to make the claim, which the IPCC failed to mention before the Copenhagen conference, despite knowing)



Full story here Or of course in the Sunday Times

One mistake, two mistakes, however many more

Sorry Matt but what a load of tripe. Robert published several papers in 2006 ALL of which claim/warn about the risk of GW on the insurance industry.

The times article however doesn't mention which one it's talking about.!.Nor does it mention the section of the AR4 report.

To me this looks like a case of pure journo nonsense trying to prolong a story.

I've said that the IPCC needs to change, but until the skeptics grow up a bit the mire will only get thicker.

PP, to my knowledge there has only been 1 issue with the IPCC, the rest is pure bunkum. You can also get absolute temp data from Spencer, MSU, and the NCDC data for global temps, nobody is trying to hide it. There is a useful site that shows a portion of Christies true global temps from sat which is updated daily but I don't have the link atm.

[Devonian]

pottyprof, on 25 January 2010 - 01:44 , said:

I have to be honest here.. I'm getting a little fed up with not being able to find actual temperatures for the globe. We have to accept anomaly charts. This year so far and the back end of last, we have had some interesting records regarding cold but we just have anomaly charts.

I'm sorry but what does an anomaly chart prove when you want to see the data? Something ain't right. It's like everything is hidden.. More so since a certain problem cropped up.

The governments want us to believe that we are warming but we cant see the figures and they wonder why all the doubt.....

Anyone got a link to the actual data??? ie current up to last week? It used to be available..

PP, I look at temperature reading (measurements) like the measurements of heights of individuals.

Now, with a lot of either measurement you can find out average height or average temperature. But, to find out if people are getting shorter or taller you see if the average is changing. If it is then there is a -ve or +ve anomaly.

Indeed, what can just looking at individual heights (or temperatures) tell us? YOu surely have to look at all the data and analyse it?

Edit: of course I'm assuming there is data (becuase, well, there is). Are you saying there isn't any?

BLAST FROM THE PAST, on 24 January 2010 - 23:50 , said:

Time to personally bin this thread. NASA now possibly fudging temps, the Himalayan glacier farce, the IPCC allegedly using false data to cajole governments into AGW policies...it stinks. And it will go on and on and on.

BFTP

Yes, I'm sure there are people who'd like the whole notion of AGW quietly air brushed away.

Edited by Devonian, 25 January 2010 - 10:20 .

[Solar Sausage]

BLAST FROM THE PAST, on 24 January 2010 - 23:50 , said:

Time to personally bin this thread. NASA now possibly fudging temps, the Himalayan glacier farce, the IPCC allegedly using false data to cajole governments into AGW policies...it stinks. And it will go on and on and on.

BFTP

I wonder why, what with the upcoming 'Climategate' enquiry, would sceptics suddenly be wanting things hushed-up?? An interesting turn-of-events methinks??

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Potty
Its because it is a headbanging thread that will never get resolved until we

a] plunge into colder temps
or
b] see the planet melt before us.

Whether believers like it or not, the climategate, the Himalaya farce, the hockey stick, Had CRU, GISS, IPCC handsup...who is really telling the truth? We won't get the truth until one or other points happens.

BFTP

[Devonian]

BLAST FROM THE PAST, on 25 January 2010 - 12:35 , said:

Potty
Its because it is a headbanging thread that will never get resolved until we

a] plunge into colder temps
or
b] see the planet melt before us.

Whether believers like it or not, the climategate, the Himalaya farce, the hockey stick, Had CRU, GISS, IPCC handsup...who is really telling the truth? We won't get the truth until one or other points happens.

BFTP

Blast, do you trust the satellite data produce by well known AGW sceptic Dr Roy Spencer?

[sunny starry skies]

BLAST FROM THE PAST, on 25 January 2010 - 12:35 , said:

Potty
Its because it is a headbanging thread that will never get resolved until we

a] plunge into colder temps
or
b] see the planet melt before us.

Whether believers like it or not, the climategate, the Himalaya farce, the hockey stick, Had CRU, GISS, IPCC handsup...who is really telling the truth? We won't get the truth until one or other points happens.

BFTP

climategate - nothing there substantive to trouble the science.
Himalaya farce - ditto, though should prod IPCC to be even more scrupulous about every shred of data
the hockey stick - sound enough to me http://www.realclima...e-hockey-stick/, and actually it's not that important... http://www.realclima...ick-were-wrong/
Had CRU - you're repeating yourself here, or are you suggesting there's something wrong with the dataset?
GISS - watts wrong with that? It's well understood why it shows higher temps than HADCRUT3, but all indices show... rising temperatures!
IPCC handsup - uh? Yes, the report isn't 100% perfect - it was written by people! but the conclusions are still sound...

I'd rather not wait till the planet melts for all the deniers' apologies for holding up the process in the name of 'rigorousness' or 'fact-checking' when they either don't understand the science, don't want to accept the data, or do want to accept unsubstantiated drool from McIntyre, Watts or whichever of their cronies are providing the latest unsound, incoherent argument, while they show nothing as to why increased GHGs do not warm the planet. We've been waiting decades for a sound irrefutable argument but none has come, just nitpicking or a follow of the latest incorrect bandwagon (eg solar), and the ignoring of the people who do know the most about the subject - the climate scientists!

And for those who don't believe the temps, or the mechanism, how about this, nearly 10 years old research, but clearly shows the actual effect of GHGs on the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation emitted from Earth:
first shown in: http://www.nature.co...s/410355a0.html {diagram in the full text version}
confirmed in (among others):
http://ams.allenpres...1175/JCLI4204.1
http://www.eumetsat....1_harries_v.pdf
Basically, they show that between 1970 and 1996/2003, the amount of radiation escaping from the top of the atmosphere drops, specifically in the wavebands predicted for GHG gases, therefore confirming that the GHGs are warming the planet.
sss

Edited by sunny starry skies, 25 January 2010 - 14:52 .

[Seselwa]

sunny starry skies, on 25 January 2010 - 13:56 , said:

climategate - nothing there substantive to trouble the science.
Himalaya farce - ditto, though should prod IPCC to be even more scrupulous about every shred of data
the hockey stick - sound enough to me http://www.realclima...e-hockey-stick/, and actually it's not that important... http://www.realclima...ick-were-wrong/
Had CRU - you're repeating yourself here, or are you suggesting there's something wrong with the dataset?
GISS - watts wrong with that? It's well understood why it shows higher temps than HADCRUT3, but all indices show... rising temperatures!
IPCC handsup - uh? Yes, the report isn't 100% perfect - it was written by people! but the conclusions are still sound...

I'd rather not wait till the planet melts for all the deniers' apologies for holding up the process in the name of 'rigorousness' or 'fact-checking' when they either don't understand the science, don't want to accept the data, or do want to accept unsubstantiated drool from McIntyre, Watts or whichever of their cronies are providing the latest unsound, incoherent argument, while they show nothing as to why increased GHGs do not warm the planet. We've been waiting decades for a sound irrefutable argument but none has come, just nitpicking or a follow of the latest incorrect bandwagon (eg solar), and the ignoring of the people who do know the most about the subject - the climate scientists!

And for those who don't believe the temps, or the mechanism, how about this, nearly 10 years old research, but clearly shows the actual effect of GHGs on the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation emitted from Earth:
first shown in: http://www.nature.co...s/410355a0.html {diagram in the full text version}
confirmed in (among others):
http://ams.allenpres...75%2FJCLI4204.1
http://www.eumetsat....1_harries_v.pdf
Basically, they show that between 1970 and 1996/2003, the amount of radiation escaping from the top of the atmosphere drops, specifically in the wavebands predicted for GHG gases, therefore confirming that the GHGs are warming the planet.
sss

I think you'll soon find out that, the real cronies are the ones working for the IPCC.

What you and the rest of the AGW gang need to do is, step outside of your computers and statistics and get in touch with the real world.

Peace and love.

Higrade.

[laserguy]

Higrade, on 25 January 2010 - 16:01 , said:

I think you'll soon find out that, the real cronies are the ones working for the IPCC.

What you and the rest of the AGW gang need to do is, step outside of your computers and statistics and get in touch with the real world.

The 'warmists'/ 'climate changists' are operating within an impenetrable,delusional CO2-filled bubble which I've grown weary of trying to pop. See y'all.

[Solar Cycles]

BLAST FROM THE PAST, on 25 January 2010 - 12:35 , said:

Potty
Its because it is a headbanging thread that will never get resolved until we

a] plunge into colder temps
or
b] see the planet melt before us.

Whether believers like it or not, the climategate, the Himalaya farce, the hockey stick, Had CRU, GISS, IPCC handsup...who is really telling the truth? We won't get the truth until one or other points happens.

BFTP

My sentiments exactly Fred, now is the time to sit back, and let the warmists stew in their own juices.

[sunny starry skies]

Higrade, on 25 January 2010 - 16:01 , said:

I think you'll soon find out that, the real cronies are the ones working for the IPCC.

What you and the rest of the AGW gang need to do is, step outside of your computers and statistics and get in touch with the real world.

Peace and love.

Higrade.

based on what, exactly?

AGW is based on a great number of sound observations in all manner of different observational fields, temperature change being only one; it is also based on a sound and straightforward physical theory that you can prove yourself in your kitchen (2 bottles of air, one with CO2 added, shine sunlight on them, see which one is warmer...), and which of course is soundly proven in the lab. AGW proponents do get outside to the real world - they are the scientists who measure the glaciers receding, tropospheric temp rises, sea ice thinning/retreat, stratospheric temperature drops etc etc. Others observe the consequences, changing seasons, acidity changes in oceans, snowpack reduction and water shortages, and so on. Quite where in the 'real world' are all these disparate observations, and the host of others beyond them, wrong?

Actually, I think you might need to check out the 'real world', as the observations fit AGW, and no 'skeptic' has successfully put forward an hypothesis that fits the observations without GHGs. I'm still waiting, as, I'm sure, are the editorial boards of Nature and Science. You can cry 'foul' all you like, but sooner or later you need to support your cries with evidence. Meanwhile the world warms...
sss

[Solar Cycles]

sunny starry skies, on 25 January 2010 - 17:15 , said:

based on what, exactly?

AGW is based on a great number of sound observations in all manner of different observational fields, temperature change being only one; it is also based on a sound and straightforward physical theory that you can prove yourself in your kitchen (2 bottles of air, one with CO2 added, shine sunlight on them, see which one is warmer...), and which of course is soundly proven in the lab. AGW proponents do get outside to the real world - they are the scientists who measure the glaciers receding, tropospheric temp rises, sea ice thinning/retreat, stratospheric temperature drops etc etc. Others observe the consequences, changing seasons, acidity changes in oceans, snowpack reduction and water shortages, and so on. Quite where in the 'real world' are all these disparate observations, and the host of others beyond them, wrong?

Actually, I think you might need to check out the 'real world', as the observations fit AGW, and no 'skeptic' has successfully put forward an hypothesis that fits the observations without GHGs. I'm still waiting, as, I'm sure, are the editorial boards of Nature and Science. You can cry 'foul' all you like, but sooner or later you need to support your cries with evidence. Meanwhile the world warms...
sss

But none off these show that AGW was responsible for the warming SSS! We know we have warmed, but we can only best guess as to what caused this!