|
By:
Sunset Cristo 05 Feb 02:58
Moonlight what do you mean by recent data/old data? A saw a scientist being interviewed on TV who had been lionised by Dubya and the Republican Thatcherite Senators for his scepticism about MMGW. He was quite peeved that the Rightists were still quoting his paper at an international conference several years later, when he had completely changed his views based on the accumulation of data since he originally wrote it, and is now a MMGW believer. The people who are generating all this political heat for the IPCC are Thatcherite party hacks and oil company executives. They will say absolutely anything! In other parts of the world they are quite accustomed to killing anyone who gets in the way of money-making (eg Iraq, Niger Delta) They won't stick at nobbling a few scientists. It's all relative.If you look at hundreds of thousands of years based on ice cores then co2 has been higher than it is today. Temp has been higher than it is today.Long before the industrial revolution. I don't see the relevance of that. I don't actually have access to the ice cores anyway :D And over the last 8 years the temp has been level. Not acc to the Met Office website. I posted their rebuttal up on here a few weeks ago. The price you have to pay to understand and contribute to this debate is to spend several years studying theoretical physics and then get access to millions of £ of computer equipment. No-one on here has paid their dues. The most determined posters on this topic show no evidence of a science education at all, and frequently fail to understand the significance of all the stuff they relentlessly cut and paste. Did they have any interest in physics at all prior to this controversy breaking out? Scientists don't have higher ethical levels than any other occupational group, and are extremely susceptible to financial persuasion. They are wheeled on like gladiators in criminal trials. So I don't think you or I will get to the bottom of this. I am sure that Big Oil won't let a bunch of cheeky scientists put a dent in their income without taking fairly drastic steps to prevent it. |
|
By:
We have and will continue to have differing types of weather. Back in a day people excepted it and got on with it. Now if it gets a bit warm people cry 'global warming!', if it gets a bit nippy people cry 'climate change!' Its just weather.
|
|
By:
If I've walked into some political debate here, you can keep it. Just googled "global warming cover up" and it seems that there's all kinds of crap I hadn't heard about that's almost completely irrelevant to the discussion but is going to get people's backs up. As always with political matters, it makes the discussion futile.
|
|
By:
And over the last 8 years the temp has been level.
Moon Light: Not acc to the Met Office website. I posted their rebuttal up on here a few weeks ago. Head of the Met Office John Hirst was interviewed live on BBC News a couple of weeks back, and asked why his multi-million pound climate models had predicted a barbecue summer last year and a mild winter this year! He was then asked why the models hadn't predicted no rise in global temperatures over the last decade, his flustered reply "they did predict no rise". He actually said it 3 times when pushed on that point by interviewer Andrew Neil. The head of the Met office is a proven liar and it's on BBC footage. |
|
By:
As for the constant references to "Big Oil" if you really believe that you're simply desperate.
The vast majority of us realists have no connection to oil or any other motives. Rather, we will not stand by quietly when such an enormous fraud is being committed. We will not be lied to and taken for fools. |
|
By:
Does global warming not make the planet colder? Thats what I heard on some show on Discovery
|
|
By:
we will not stand by quietly when such an enormous fraud is being committed.
Global warming (man-made), is indeed a fraud. There's money to be made out of people's fear and careers to be built on junk science, so they won't give up the propaganda until they start going to jail for it. |
|
By:
Haha, yes it has been suggested before by warmists in desperation! I assume you are joking, but if you're not we have covered this farcical twist before.
|
|
By:
No, I'm quite serious. If someone who claims to be a scientist deliberately manipulates data to "prove" that natural changes in global temperature are manmade and frightens people by doing so, then they should be prosecuted for being a public nuisance.
|
|
By:
Do they not say that if the planet warms up then the icebergs melt cuasing the sea temperature to drop and therfor affecting the warm currents? This woul dthen block the warm currents getting to countries which woul dmake a lot more places colder ....
|
|
By:
Gallivanter, yes I agree, I was commenting on the post before yours, sorry for confusion.
Schalke, what you've heard with regard to melting ice warming oceans is more warmist nonsense, we've covered the gulf stream scare stories earlier in the thread. The fact is warmists want to promote their anti-capitalist agenda of taxing carbon dioxide emissions via scare mongering nonsense theories that are now being debunked daily, to their shame. The last thing a true warmist really wants is climate stability - they're actually peeved when climate warming doesn't occur! |
|
By:
then they should be prosecuted for being a public nuisance.
Show Galileo the instruments of torture! |
|
By:
As for the constant references to "Big Oil" if you really believe that you're simply desperate.
Desperate for what? Cheap petrol? I don't own a car. Of course you are right. Dubya and Dick Cheney aren't oil executives. There was no war in Iraq, just a democratisation process which inevitably brought fairer oil prices in its wake. All the hangings and machine-gunnings in the Niger Delta were necessary to maintain public order, nothing to do with oil spills forcing people into destitution. Shell were right to donate the helicopter gunships and speedboats used to shoot up the villages. The petrol in your car was brought by the stork. Those scientists are rogues! Off with their heads! |
|
By:
Trevh I'm one of the 10% that don't keep regular hours.The problem I have with that link you gave is the graphs.The temp from 1980 -1998 didn't go up and down in a 11 year cycle like it should have done if It was down to solar radiance.Not sure how accurate those temp graphs are?
|
|
By:
Moonlight said
I don't see the relevance of that. I don't actually have access to the ice cores anyway . The data is available on line and the relevance is that if CO2 was higher and temp was higher in the past then there is nothing special about CO2 and temp now and that the so called temp rise is not man made because the industrial revolution is only about 160 years old. |
|
By:
Moonlight said
The price you have to pay to understand and contribute to this debate is to spend several years studying theoretical physics and then get access to millions of £ of computer equipment. No-one on here has paid their dues. The most determined posters on this topic show no evidence of a science education at all, and frequently fail to understand the significance of all the stuff they relentlessly cut and paste. So you say. You seem to view scientists as the new great high priests who cannot be questioned. This what the Church used to do. Only the high priests could interpret the Bible and read it because it was in Latin.Doesn't matter how good your computer model is because it's garbage in garbage out.I have a basic understanding of the theory of relativity as many people do, but you think only theoretical physicists can understand climate chance. Well prove it then? |
|
By:
Moonlight asked
Did they have any interest in physics at all prior to this controversy breaking out? Yes I have been interested in physics for many years. I have become more interested in climate though over recent years. |
|
By:
Not necessarily SC. Global warming is believed to be multi-causal. There are natural cycles and many factors involved. What is being argued, as I understand it, is that the temperature rises are against human interests and are being exacerbated (not solely caused) by CO2 build-up.
The human race has resided in Europe and Asia for 40,000 years approx, acc to Dr Alice Roberts in her TV documentary series last year on human origins. Prior to that we were confined to Africa. So the conditions hundreds of thousands of years ago, when CO2 was naturally higher, may not have been favourable for human settlement of these islands. |
|
By:
Moonlight said
Show Galileo the instruments of torture Moonlight you need to read that post again it say's prosecuted . Not persecuted. |
|
By:
As always with these controversial subjects both sides accuse each other of have an ulterior motive and an agenda.This is why it's hard to get to the real facts past the misinformation. Who do you believe because both sides ignore evidence and interpret evidence according to there own bias.I'm on the fence and it will take a lot more research before I come to any real conclusion.
|
|
By:
Trevh I'm one of the 10% that don't keep regular hours.The problem I have with that link you gave is the graphs.The temp from 1980 -1998 didn't go up and down in a 11 year cycle like it should have done if It was down to solar radiance.Not sure how accurate those temp graphs are?
If the solar cycle is resposible for 0.1-0.2% change, and the change is more than that, it's not going to show as clearly in years where there is very little other change. I don't see why you'd have a problem with this, it's VERY easy maths Your view of the situation is overly simplistic. We can isolate the solar changes and allow for them, why can you not accept that they are not going to be the driving force at all times. Weather systems are incredibly complicated and also chaotic, there's no reason why, in a bistable ecosystem that you'd be able to isolate one factor at all times. |
|
By:
It also seems your whole assessment of evidence relies on the fact that it snowed recently, you're going to need a far bigger data set than that.
|
|
By:
*as clearly as in years...
|
|
By:
So you say. You seem to view scientists as the new great high priests who cannot be questioned.
I really don't think anyone who carefully read what I have posted above would believe that those were my views. I have a basic understanding of the theory of relativity as many people do, but you think only theoretical physicists can understand climate chance. Well prove it then? What an odd Q. I don't understand what it is you are suggesting I should prove. |
|
By:
Lori said
It also seems your whole assessment of evidence relies on the fact that it snowed recently, you're going to need a far bigger data set than that. No I'm not saying that at all. You have totally misunderstood what I am saying and dismissing my previous posts.The UK having a bad winter is not really relevant, but what gets my goat is when we have a hot summer and they say it's because of global warming and then we have a bad winter and they say It means nothing. They want it both ways. |
|
By:
Lori said
Your view of the situation is overly simplistic. We can isolate the solar changes and allow for them, why can you not accept that they are not going to be the driving force at all times. Weather systems are incredibly complicated and also chaotic, there's no reason why, in a bistable ecosystem that you'd be able to isolate one factor at all times. Yes I think you are probably right about this. |
|
By:
As for the constant references to "Big Oil" if you really believe that you're simply desperate.
Moon Light 05 Feb 22:41 Desperate for what? Cheap petrol? I don't own a car. Desperate to accuse realists who dare stand up to the MMGW scam, of doing so only because they have selfish interests in oil and burning fossil fuels. You're not the first and you won't be the last warmist to utter such nonsense. Some warmists have accused me of being a selfish 'denier' because I enjoy driving. I ask them why they don't accuse people who enjoy consuming electricity in their homes of being selfish 'deniers' too? For me this whole issue has absolutely nothing to do with selfishness, but everything to do with integrity. As part of a growing majority of climate realists, I will not simply stand by and watch carbon dioxide fraud and everything it entails committed on a global scale. The carbon trading industry is already riddled with confirmed fraudulent activity, and if left unchecked would have become the largest traded non-commodity in history. Anyone who is tangled up in this deceit would be wise to bale out now before the inevitable big collapse. |
|
By:
Moonlight said
What an odd Q. I don't understand what it is you are suggesting I should prove May be I have misunderstood you.Will you please explain a bit better what point were actually trying to make? I asked you to prove that only theoretical physicists could understand climate change. If that is not what you were asserting then what were you asserting in that post. |
|
By:
The UK having a bad winter is not really relevant, but what gets my goat is when we have a hot summer and they say it's because of global warming and then we have a bad winter and they say It means nothing. They want it both ways.
I guess this goes back to my post about me not realising this was a political subject. I have no interest or knowledge of the "they" of whom you speak. I do have a little knowledge about sunspots and I do know that water churn is massively important in all this. I don't have any proof of that latter claim and expect you to ignore it. That's fine. I also know that the Earth is incredibly resiliant and that humans only account for about 3% of CO2 output on the planet. given that our distance from the sun varies by a lot more than 3% it seems unlikely that CO2 is a particularly important cause. Again though, it's also likely a factor (and a difficult to isolate one). Finally I know that the Earth is subject to regular big and largely unexplainable swings in temperature, and was before humans even got here. While all kinds of manmade stuff could be a kind of "tipping point", it's probably more important to find out what pushed it close to the tipping point in the first place. |
|
By:
Trevh this is supposed to be a general betting forum so getting back on topic for a minute . It seems to me that if you really believe that the temp is going to drop in the next few years because of low Sun activity then there should be some money to be made by betting that temp will fall over the next few years. Do betfair have a market on this and if not why not?Any one know where the best place is to bet on this?Al Gore should be offering a good price.
|
|
By:
http://www.longbets.org/
is what you need. |
|
By:
Lori said
I guess this goes back to my post about me not realising this was a political subject. Is there any subject that isn't political? |
|
By:
I think there would be difficulty agreeing on the settlement of the bet.
|
|
By:
Is there any subject that isn't political?
Not acc to the Govt's TV ads. |
|
By:
I don't think what people believe is particularly important in a discussion where there is, somewhere, a definitive answer.
Wrapping it all up in an "us vs them" mentality is merely a way of both sides avoiding doing the hard work required to actually find the truth of the situation. |
|
By:
Lori said
Finally I know that the Earth is subject to regular big and largely unexplainable swings in temperature, and was before humans even got here. While all kinds of manmade stuff could be a kind of "tipping point", it's probably more important to find out what pushed it close to the tipping point in the first place. I agree with this.What the meteorologists say is different this time is the speed of the temp change. They say this is unprecedented . |
|
By:
Moonlight said
I think there would be difficulty agreeing on the settlement of the bet. LOL.Ye know can agree on anything else.Who would the bookies go with? The MET office? |
|
By:
Finally I know that the Earth is subject to regular big and largely unexplainable swings in temperature, and was before humans even got here. While all kinds of manmade stuff could be a kind of "tipping point", it's probably more important to find out what pushed it close to the tipping point in the first place.
Scientifically yes. There are other important factors which aren't understood fully, like deforestation. In terms of policy action, that's probably more intractable than CO2 consumption. Timescale is important in this. There have been huge variations in atmospheric composition across geologic timescales of millions of years. That doesn't mean that human action isn't influencing events now in a deleterious way. Trevh, if you think I'm a "warmist", it's clear that you haven't been reading what I have said. You just pick out a bit here and there and have a snipe, much like you do at the scientists. It is that process, and your bombastic certainty coupled with no real knowledge that I have taken issue with. I think you are conning the ignorant petrolheads on here in a damaging way. I don't know whether MMGW theory is true or not, as would have been obvious to anyone who had read my posts. |
|
By:
Cheers for that Lori. Interesting site.
|
|
By:
Sunset Cristo 06 Feb 00:28
Trevh I'm one of the 10% that don't keep regular hours.The problem I have with that link you gave is the graphs.The temp from 1980 -1998 didn't go up and down in a 11 year cycle like it should have done if It was down to solar radiance.Not sure how accurate those temp graphs are? The greater solar forcing is not irradiance but eruptivity, which shows a 4 - 8 year lag to climate, and with the downward discontinuity of October 2005, here we are in 2010 with impact on weather as expected. I did try to explain that earlier. Did you see the Ap Index at an all time low Dec 2009? The solar Gleissberg Cycle predictions of global cooling, published in the late 70s and 80s if not earlier, gave clear notice in advance that a downturn in solar activity (irradiance and eruptivity) was ahead and that the full impact would be felt around 2012 and run for two to three decades overall. This has been shown to be correct - the solar downturn arrived as expected and the onset of severe weather will be likely to be felt around 2012. At the moment there is a solar minimum El Nino, which strengthened through the autumn and early winter but won't last for ever. |