Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
Manmade Climate Change - the deeper agendas
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 29, 30, 31 ... 33, 34, 35  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - general
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CochiseOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Total posts: 1783
Location: Gwynedd, Wales
Age: 59
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 03-01-2014 08:55    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also I have a cold and I'm feeling grumpy('sceptic')
Back to top
View user's profile 
ramonmercadoOffline
Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003
Total posts: 21071
Location: Dublin
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 03-01-2014 12:15    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cochise wrote:
Also I have a cold and I'm feeling grumpy('sceptic')


Try a hot whisky or better still an Irish Coffee.
Back to top
View user's profile 
JonfairwayOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Total posts: 1262
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 07-01-2014 13:07    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The only thing that's 'pish' here is the above post. From start to finish. Only someone who hasn't actually reviewed any of the current science on the subject could possibly write so much nonsense.

The very idea that climate scientists work entirely from computer models without checking the, 'historical and geological record', is ridiculous. Embarrassingly so.


but the whole universe is only 3500 years old ?

so the last global ice age 20,0000 to 60,000 years ago never happened

so historically its hard to tell.... really isnt it ?
Back to top
View user's profile 
kamalktkOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 05 Feb 2011
Total posts: 973
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 07-01-2014 15:24    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cochise wrote:
Two points for the AGW enthusiasts to consider:

1) If the 'science' is so good, why do the 'scientists' need to hide the figures? Give us the raw data and we can all analyse it. That's the scientific method. It is precisely because they won't release those figures that they get accused of massaging them.

2) If the contribution of trees to the CO2 cycle is so important why the flaming heck are we STILL allowing vast tracts of forest to be destroyed?

1) 17 different sets of raw data in one location. I googled "raw temperature data download".
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
or
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
or
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

2) There are more trees now that 100 years ago. (The source bemoans the fact that there is less old growth forest).
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 07-01-2014 15:32    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seems a bit unfair to blame climate science for the felling of various forests around the World. They're being cut down for the same reasons that fossil fuels are still big business. Greed, stupidity and short term profit.
Back to top
View user's profile 
tonyblair11
My shoes hurt
Location: tastyintestines
Age: 34
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 07-01-2014 19:43    Post subject: Reply with quote

If only we could build houses out of opinions. Razz
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 07-01-2014 20:04    Post subject: Reply with quote

tonyblair11 wrote:
If only we could build houses out of opinions. Razz

How's the polar vortex down your way?
Back to top
View user's profile 
kamalktkOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 05 Feb 2011
Total posts: 973
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 07-01-2014 21:29    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:
tonyblair11 wrote:
If only we could build houses out of opinions. Razz

How's the polar vortex down your way?

How about this one?
The polar vortex is a conspiracy to make Americans believe there is no global warming, so they will continue to drive emission belching giant suvs.

Wink
Back to top
View user's profile 
CochiseOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Total posts: 1783
Location: Gwynedd, Wales
Age: 59
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 08-01-2014 10:07    Post subject: Reply with quote

One example of a counter opinion. Warning - Probably funded by dark money or aliens attempting to destabilise our society.

http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/skillful-so-far-thirty-year-climate.html

I'm not blaming the deforestation on the climate people specifically, more that those intent on carrying on do it under a smokescreen of supporting AGW, while the same thing is being used to distract those people who used to try and defend the forests.

A conifer forest on a northern hill is not a substitute for the same acreage of rainforest, either in terms of CO2 reduction or in terms of sheer biodiversity.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 08-01-2014 12:05    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cochise wrote:
One example of a counter opinion. Warning - Probably funded by dark money or aliens attempting to destabilise our society.

http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/skillful-so-far-thirty-year-climate.html

...

Or, the magic weather pixies.

The problem is that the World is not cooling or about to start cooling, as stated by the above linked site. In fact warming is going into overdrive. That means more extreme weather, Globally, as trapped heat is converted into other forms of energy.

More about, 'Climate Sense' blogger (and oil consultant) Dr Norman Page here: http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/277/
Back to top
View user's profile 
CochiseOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Total posts: 1783
Location: Gwynedd, Wales
Age: 59
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 09-01-2014 07:50    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:
Cochise wrote:
One example of a counter opinion. Warning - Probably funded by dark money or aliens attempting to destabilise our society.

http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/skillful-so-far-thirty-year-climate.html

...

Or, the magic weather pixies.

The problem is that the World is not cooling or about to start cooling, as stated by the above linked site. In fact warming is going into overdrive. That means more extreme weather, Globally, as trapped heat is converted into other forms of energy.

More about, 'Climate Sense' blogger (and oil consultant) Dr Norman Page here: http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/277/


But even the Met Office say its stopped warming since 1997:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

Of course the met office is funded by oil money collected in the form of taxation on petrol...
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 09-01-2014 08:25    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cochise wrote:
...

But even the Met Office say its stopped warming since 1997:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

Of course the met office is funded by oil money collected in the form of taxation on petrol...

Not quite. That's the Mail saying that The Met Office said that Global Warming had stopped.
Quote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong

Why the Mail on Sunday was wrong to claim global warming has stopped

Newspaper's claim that 'world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago' is simply wrong, says Met Office

theguardian.com, Dana Nuccitelli for Skeptical Science, part of the Guardian Environment Network. 16 October 2012

The British newspaper the Mail on Sunday and its writer David Rose are notorious for publishing misleading (at best) climate-related articles, as we have discussed previously here, for example. They have recently struck again, claiming that according to a "quietly released" Met Office report, global warming stopped 16 years ago (a myth which Skeptical Science debunks here and here). This assertion is entirely fabricated, as the Met Office explained by publishing David Rose's inquiry and the Met Office's responses.
Quote:
"Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here."

Rose's factually challenged article was predictably reproduced uncritically by the usual climate denial blogs and referenced by Fox News, perhaps in an attempt to distract from this year's record-breaking Arctic sea ice minimum. However, virtually every point made in the article was factually incorrect, as Rose would have known if he were a Skeptical Science reader, because we recently pre-bunked his piece.

Rose Tries to Lead the Witness Down the Up Escalator

Rose attempted to elicit a statement from the Met Office by asking a question which would be described in court as "leading the witness":

Quote:
"First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997."

The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator can be used to test this question. The trend in the HadCRUT4 global surface temperature dataset since 1997 is 0.084 ± 0.152°C per decade (although we have not yet updated the HadCRUT4 data, the GISS and NCDC datasts show a similar warming trend since 1997). While the trend is not statistically significant, the central value is positive, meaning the average surface temperature has most likely warmed over this period.

The Met Office also explained that Rose is essentially trying to go down the up escalator (Figure 1) by focusing on short-term noise while ignoring the long-term trend.
Quote:
"Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual."

...

Rose and Curry Ignore 90+% of Global Warming

Perhaps most importantly, focusing on surface air temperatures misses more than 90% of the overall warming of the planet (Figure 2).

Figure 2:
http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/Pursuivant/GW_Components_00_zps0e63cb00.jpg

...

More at link.

Skeptical Science goes into the whole story in more detail on its own website:
Quote:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/resolving-met-office-confusion.html

Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming

Skeptical Science.com. by dana1981. 10 January 2013

Recently, the British Met Office issued a prediction for global surface temperature changes over the next five years (Figure 1).

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/Pursuivant/MetOffice2012DecadalPrediction_zpsec460189.png

Figure 1: Observed (black, from Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC) and predicted global average annual surface temperature difference relative to 1971-2000. Previous predictions starting from June 1960, 1965, ..., 2005 are shown as white curves, with red shading representing their probable range, such that the observations are expected to lie within the shading 90% of the time. The most recent forecast (thick blue curve with thin blue curves showing range) starts from November 2012. All data are rolling annual mean values. The gap between the black and blue curves arises because the last observed value represents the period November 2011 to October 2012 whereas the first forecast period is November 2012 to October 2013.

This latest prediction anticipates a bit less global surface warming than the prediction from last year, as the Met Office explained:
Quote:
"The latest decadal prediction suggests that global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be a little lower than predicted from the previous prediction issued in December 2011.

However, both versions are consistent in predicting that we will continue to see near-record levels of global temperatures in the next few years."
Quote:
"...changes in ocean surface temperatures in some parts of the world over the past year are understood to have made a key contribution to the difference between the 2011 and 2012 forecasts, but other factors will also have played a role."

In other words, the Met Office anticipates that natural factors which have dampened the global surface warming over the past decade (a preponderance of La Niña events and low solar activity, for example), may continue to have an overall dampening effect over the next 5 years.
Media Confusion About Continued Global Warming

Unfortunately, the Met Office prediction has resulted in quite a few confused articles in the mainstream media. For example, the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Canada's National Post, the Times, and the Indian Express all incorrectly reported that the Met Office is admitting that global warming has "stalled", or some similar variant. These headlines are in direct contradiction to the Met Office forecast, which specifically stated:
Quote:
"The forecast of continued global warming is largely driven by increasing levels of greenhouse gases."

The confusion arises from the fact that the thick blue line in Figure 1 (the central Met Office prediction) does not rise very far above the previous highest global surface temperatures in 2010, 2005, and 1998. However, by no means does this indicate that global warming has "stalled".

Underlying Human-Caused Surface Warming Continues

...

More at link.

& etc.
Back to top
View user's profile 
CochiseOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Total posts: 1783
Location: Gwynedd, Wales
Age: 59
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 10-01-2014 08:20    Post subject: Reply with quote

So in fact what they say is that the world is not getting warmer. The rest is a series of excuses, or , to use the modern word, 'spin' to explain why the data does not match the model. And a forecast that it will get warmer, honest, even though it isn't at the moment.

How many years of it not getting warmer are they going to have to find excuses for before _everyone_ (outside the committed believers) realises they have no credibility?

I'm not really wanting to have a loud argument about this. Most of the evidence people quote - including the evidence above - re global warming stalling can equally be read as evidence that the models - philosophical or computer - on which the theory is based simply do not take into account all, or even most, of the factors involved. Hence the predictions fail, resulting in an ever-lengthening list of 'explanations' instead of revisiting the theory

Yer man from the Antarctic was on Beeb 4 last night revealing they have only 40 years of data regarding sea ice extent. Given that the climate cycles we know about - and there are many - can have intervals of anything from 10 years to millennia can you imagine how utterly useless 40 years of data is for predicting the future?

But you and I will never agree on this because we are approaching it from different angles - I was simply trying to point out the hypocrisy of accusing 'my' side of being funded by dark money when the provenance of money for the believers is also corrupted, derived from oil revenues and people expecting to line their pockets from green policies introduced as a result of the theory.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 10-01-2014 08:42    Post subject: Reply with quote

No. They're saying that the World is getting warmer. Much warmer.

And the denier campaign is funded by dark money. Often using the same agencies that muddied the water on tobacco for many years.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/what_climate_denial_has_learnt_from_tobacco_denial.html

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545

It's not, 'hypocrisy', it's strictly business, only instead of people's hearts and lungs, this time it's the planet.
Back to top
View user's profile 
CochiseOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Total posts: 1783
Location: Gwynedd, Wales
Age: 59
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 11-01-2014 09:57    Post subject: Reply with quote

How many people in the current government have relatives profiting from wind farms and the like?

It does tremendous harm to the credibility of any argument to maintain all one side are saints and all the other side are sinners - it makes it look religious.

As an aside, my scepticism on this matter was started when I was in Russia - Russia would benefit considerably from global warming since huge areas would become more inhabitable, and the extraction of natural resources from those areas would be a whole lot easier. But the Russian climate people believe it is going to get colder, not warmer, at least for the next 50 years.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - general All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 29, 30, 31 ... 33, 34, 35  Next
Page 30 of 35

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group