BBC warning - where's the warming? [Archive]

Klimax

11th October 2009, 01:57 AM

What happened to global warming? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm)

"This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998."

Chinks in the armor methinks.

With the recent destruction of "evidence" and collusion to publish bogus tree ring data, all is not well in warming woo woo land.

I am afraid,you got a problem. We are not yet there to declare anything.(But i expect that we should err on the caution-side.)

GW is not woo or AGW is.

Or do you have peer-reviewed evidence?

dropzone

11th October 2009, 10:42 PM

(21 hours later)

Nope. Didn't think so.

Klimax

11th October 2009, 11:30 PM

(21 hours later)

Nope. Didn't think so.

How suprising...

Paradox74

13th October 2009, 01:58 PM

I am afraid,you got a problem. We are not yet there to declare anything.(But i expect that we should err on the caution-side.)

GW is not woo or AGW is.

Or do you have peer-reviewed evidence?

I'm assuming that you mean that Global Warming or the "denial" of it is not woo (at least not yet).

geni

13th October 2009, 02:35 PM

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/10/climate_sceptics_celebrate_bbc.html

Klimax

14th October 2009, 02:27 AM

I'm assuming that you mean that Global Warming or the "denial" of it is not woo (at least not yet).

Correct. (I realised after-edit window,that it is badly worded)

mailman

26th October 2009, 03:38 AM

Or do you have peer-reviewed evidence?

And peer review would show you what exactly?

Or perhaps we could just do what the IPCC did and get some friends to peer review something, just so we can say its been peer reviewed?

Its funny though...we kick the **** out of the twoofers for believing in fairies YET, right here, global warming (tm) is your 9/11 conspiracy. Only difference is this time you are on the side of the "conspiracy".

Anyways, the reality is that at the end of the day you, me and everyone else here really are no different from the clowns who believe GW set up 9/11.

Mailman

Alferd_Packer

26th October 2009, 09:24 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

so, is the graph upside down?

Thunder

26th October 2009, 01:59 PM

What happened to global warming? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm)

"This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998."

Chinks in the armor methinks.

With the recent destruction of "evidence" and collusion to publish bogus tree ring data, all is not well in warming woo woo land.

Um...climate is cyclical. It doesn't go up or down in a straight line.

Jeez. Look at the ice core samples from the last 100,000 years. Its shows global average temperature being extremelly cyclical, but they do go up on average..or down on average.

Some people just have no patience.

Klimax

26th October 2009, 02:26 PM

And peer review would show you what exactly?

Or perhaps we could just do what the IPCC did and get some friends to peer review something, just so we can say its been peer reviewed?

Its funny though...we kick the **** out of the twoofers for believing in fairies YET, right here, global warming (tm) is your 9/11 conspiracy. Only difference is this time you are on the side of the "conspiracy".

Anyways, the reality is that at the end of the day you, me and everyone else here really are no different from the clowns who believe GW set up 9/11.

Mailman

What? So far you first to set up strawman from my few posts on entire debate about GW!

One advice,learn to read what I or others wrote,you have demonstrated same failure as TM.

I'll repeat: We have still not enough data,not good models or understanding of certain processes yet to say for sure. And since OP failed to present any peer reviewed articles to show why he regards GW as CT,who is bad here?

Please present evidece,data or reviewed models and PR articles. So far you are not better than truthers or birthers. (I hope I didn¨t fell into your troll-like trap and didn't respond with ad-hominem as you tried,if I did,apology and report-time!)

And I recomend following site: http://climateprediction.net/

McHrozni

29th October 2009, 07:42 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

so, is the graph upside down?

How come this graph doesn't show 1998 as the hottest on record?

McHrozni

McHrozni

29th October 2009, 07:44 AM

Um...climate is cyclical. It doesn't go up or down in a straight line.

Ironically, when we use 30 years of data to show climate is warming, we all too often conveniently forget this part about it being cyclical. Weird, huh?

McHrozni

drkitten

29th October 2009, 08:10 AM

Ironically, when we use 30 years of data to show climate is warming, we all too often conveniently forget this part about it being cyclical. Weird, huh?

Good thing we don't just use 30 years of data to show climate is warming. We use 30 years, we use 100 years, we use 500 years,.... we have lots of data sets that all show the same thing.

There's even a thread about this particular data point in Science (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=157616) right now. Basically, a bunch of statistics professors explicitly accused the OP of "cherry-picking." (`"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.')

From the actual article:

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time. [...]

Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped — thus, a cooling trend. But it's not that simple.

Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

So the mere claim that 1998 is the hottest year on record is at best controversial.

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

So they're not just looking at 30 year data. And what do they find?

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

More epic fail from the warming deniers.

mailman

2nd November 2009, 05:44 AM

I'll repeat: We have still not enough data,not good models or understanding of certain processes yet to say for sure.

Yes good point. Pitty the IPCC hasnt discovered this self truth.

And since OP failed to present any peer reviewed articles to show why he regards GW as CT,who is bad here?

As I said earlier, what would this prove?

Given some of the games that went on to get the hockey stick in to play for the IPCC, I dont think peer review is the be all and end all that you want it to mean.

I mean, did peer review pick up the flaws in Biffa's papers?

Mailman

Klimax

2nd November 2009, 01:09 PM

As I said earlier, what would this prove?

Given some of the games that went on to get the hockey stick in to play for the IPCC, I dont think peer review is the be all and end all that you want it to mean.

I mean, did peer review pick up the flaws in Biffa's papers?

Mailman

It would or might prove there is conspiracy.
As for peer review,it is important process. And then it is possible to publish reviewed counter article attacking holes in the first paper. Opinions and papers in insignificant journals are often of poor quoality or without any impact.

This reminds me that in Science subforum is linked report on blined statisic analysis,which supports warming in the last hundered(?) years. (FTR.:I didn't so far read article or took look at data to see what statistic and/or physical analysis says)

MrErisian

3rd November 2009, 12:25 AM

SezMe

3rd November 2009, 01:20 AM

Travis

4th November 2009, 08:44 AM

cornsail

4th November 2009, 11:22 PM

Captain.Sassy

5th November 2009, 10:58 AM

I think the reason I'm skeptical about man made global warming is down to the fact that it seems to work something like this.

ENVIRONMENTALIST / POLITICIANS : The world is going to end in 60 days!

ME : Oh dear, how scary.

ENVIRONMENTALIST / POLITICIANS : Yeah - you'd better pay more taxes!

Nice analytical framework.

I applied it to a variety of other public policy issues:

SECURITY ANALYST / POLITICIANS : Terrorism!

ME : Oh dear, how scary.

SECURITY ANALYST / POLITICIANS : Yeah - you'd better pay more taxes!

DOCTORS / POLITICIANS : Vaccine-preventable disease!

ME : Oh dear, how scary.

DOCTORS / POLITICIANS : Yeah - you'd better pay more taxes!

PARK RANGERS / POLITICIANS : Forest fires!

ME : Oh dear, how scary.

PARK RANGERS / POLITICIANS : Yeah - you'd better pay more taxes!

FOOD SAFETY AGENTS / POLITICIANS : E. Coli in the veggies!

ME : Oh dear, how scary.

FOOD SAFETY AGENTS / POLITICIANS Yeah - you'd better pay more taxes!

BIG CONSTRUCTION / POLITICIANS : Crumbling bridges!

ME : Oh dear, how scary.

BIG CONSTRUCTION / POLITICIANS : Yeah - you'd better pay more taxes!

I have therefore concluded that, since addressing these public policy issues will often require using public resources (i.e. taxes) there is good reason to believe that the proposed public response is nothing more than a tax grab and the underlying issue likely does not exist.

http://fly4change.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/d834smokey-bear-only-you-posters.jpg

Nice try, but I'm not drinking the IngSoc kool aid.

cornsail

5th November 2009, 11:52 AM

I have therefore concluded that, since addressing these public policy issues will often require using public resources (i.e. taxes) there is good reason to believe that the proposed public response is nothing more than a tax grab and the underlying issue likely does not exist.

And don't forget, climate scientists get paid to do research. We might conclude also that it's not just a tax scam, but a scam to pay scientists money they don't deserve.

This reminds me of the other day when my doctor said I had cancer and it was just early enough to be operable. And guess what, he expected me to pay him a bunch of money for the operation! That really raised my suspicion alarms. He obviously makes more money by finding I have cancer and need some expensive treatment than that I'm fine. Plus, Kevin Trudeau and my Homeopothist were pretty skeptical of the doctor's diagnosis when I told them about it. I mean, there are so many different components to my health and body that are more significant than some little cancer tumor. If I don't breathe or my heart stops beating I could die within minutes. Yet the doctor ignores all that and puts all his emphasis on a single cancer tumor. That's just BONKERS!

Captain.Sassy

5th November 2009, 12:00 PM

Yet the doctor ignores all that and puts all HIS emphasis on a single cancer tumor. That's just BONKERS!

Typical patriarchal reductionist approach to health.

And don't forget, climate scientists get paid to do research. We might conclude also that it's not just a tax scam, but a scam to pay scientists money they don't deserve.

Yup. 110% on this one.

The only reason AGW schmientists are getting the big-science buck$ is that the solar physicists were asleep at the wheel. If they had a little more political acumen, the liberal media would be in a tizzy about the sun getting hotter and we'd be funding solar cooling research and giant space mirrors.

MrErisian

5th November 2009, 01:48 PM

I'm not skeptical

Wait, it's just a ploy to raise taxes? I thought it was a plot to destroy capitalism, kill puppies and make orphans cry. :rolleyes:

I sure hope that global warming doesn't set your global sized strawman ablaze.

Nice try, but I'm not drinking the IngSoc kool aid.

Ooops. I think I trod on a raw nerve with this one. Still getting used to what you can and can not be skeptical about on these forums.

I just don't really trust people like Al Gore, that's all. He is, after all, a politician.

drkitten

5th November 2009, 02:41 PM

Ooops. I think I trod on a raw nerve with this one.

Not in the slightest. You just made a really STOOPID argument and got called on it.

Still getting used to what you can and can not be skeptical about on these forums.

You can be skeptical about anything you like. But this --

I just don't really trust people like Al Gore, that's all. He is, after all, a politician.

-- isn't skepticism. It's a classic example of fallacious thinking.

cornsail

5th November 2009, 05:06 PM

It's a classic example of fallacious thinking.

Next you'll be saying it's fallacious that I believe in global warming due to never having really cared for the books of Michael Crichton.

MrErisian

5th November 2009, 06:16 PM

Not in the slightest. You just made a really STOOPID argument and got called on it.

Well - I dunno about that. Man made global warming gives politicians more power and money. That's why I'm skeptical about it.

I'd be out of my depth trying to argue about the science behind it. I think it might be 'stoopid' to try to argue it on those terms. It amazes me the number of people who do without knowing the slightest bit about it. They just parrot off some stuff they heard a guy like Al Gore saying. Speaking of which I did a bit of googling on his film by the way. According to a UK court of law his film contains 9 lies!

So maybe my 'stoopid' argument still managed to hit the right answer, these people are lying to you.

cornsail

6th November 2009, 12:01 AM

So maybe my 'stoopid' argument still managed to hit the right answer, these people are lying to you.

Indeed, discussing Al Gore is much more relevant than discussing the worldwide scientific consensus. The point is that Al Gore agrees with the scientists, therefore if he is a politician or has lied about anything then the scientists are wrong.

Travis

6th November 2009, 12:45 AM

Well - I dunno about that. Man made global warming gives politicians more power and money. That's why I'm skeptical about it.

I'd be out of my depth trying to argue about the science behind it. I think it might be 'stoopid' to try to argue it on those terms. It amazes me the number of people who do without knowing the slightest bit about it. They just parrot off some stuff they heard a guy like Al Gore saying. Speaking of which I did a bit of googling on his film by the way. According to a UK court of law his film contains 9 lies!

So maybe my 'stoopid' argument still managed to hit the right answer, these people are lying to you.

Personally, I couldn't care less what Al Gore says. I also don't care what loopy "save the Earth" environmental activists are doing when they aren't in drum circles, at rock concerts and whatever the hell it is that makes them all stink of patchouli. What I do care about is the science behind it. Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas and you would have to renounce your belief in several fields of science to deny that and we are putting a lot of it into our atmosphere. Thinking this will not, barring some catastrophic intervening event, eventually result in climate warming is just weird.

Okay, I should admit, there is a lot of rhetoric out there about Global Warming. A lot of noisy preaching and content lacking screeching. The facts tend to get lost in that storm but there are undeniable facts at the base of it all. Those are what matters.

MrErisian

7th November 2009, 02:44 PM

Quote in The Daily Mail UK today:

"The trouble with 'man-made climate change' is that it isn't based on settled science, despite what the alarmists and their allies at the BBC would have us believe.

There is a welter of countervailing evidence that, far from warming up to boiling point, the Earth is actually getting cooler and the ice caps thicker.
More than 300 eminent, reputable scientists and research fellows in America have signed a declaration that 'man-made global warming' is a myth and dispute the link between carbon emissions and so- called 'climate change'.
The founder of the Weather Channel says that Al Gore should be sued for fraud over his movie"

FULL ARTICLE. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1225577/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-When-twin-religions-global-warming-shopping-collide-.html)

What's this bloke going on about then? If it's such a slam dunk case - why can he print this in a respectable paper like the Daily Mail?

I'm not skeptical

Travis

7th November 2009, 04:23 PM

Well, first off, calling the Daily Mail "respectable" is.........well pushing it. As to what these 300 "scientists" are saying? Who knows? They might be like some guy working out of a basement somewhere who thinks he has found evidence of the giant tortoise egg shell from which the universe was hatched thus overturning all cosmology and biological evolution.

In other words they might be crackpots who think carbon dioxide doesn't produce a greenhouse effect or they might be some who continue to think that the raised levels of CO2 are from some, yet to be discovered, natural source.

Let me ask you: what do you think about it? What parts of it do you accept and which do you dispute? What parts are you not clear about?

cornsail

7th November 2009, 04:37 PM

Quote in The Daily Mail UK today:
What would make you think a tabloid newspaper is a good way to learn about science?

Have you considered looking at what the actual climate scientists think?

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation, proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf
http://www.grida.no/polar/news/2427.aspx
http://amap.no/acia/
http://www.euro-acad.eu/downloads/memoranda/lets_be_honest_-_festplenum_03.03.07_-_final2.pdf
http://www.interacademycouncil.net/CMS/Reports/11840/11842.aspx
http://www.caets.org/cms/7122/7735.aspx
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139
http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/Site/news/media_releases/2008/clim0708.aspx
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
http://www.agu.org/outreach/science_policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
http://www.eurogeologists.de/images/content/panels_of_experts/co2_geological_storage/CCS_position_paper.pdf
http://www.iugg.org/resolutions/perugia07.pdf

Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about climate change as “very reliable.” Another 31% say broadcast news is “somewhat reliable,” compared to 25% for cable news. (The remainder rate TV news as “not very” or “not at all” reliable.) Local newspapers are rated as very reliable by 3% and somewhat reliable by 33% of scientists. Even the national press (New York Times, Wall St. Journal etc) is rated as very reliable by only 11%, although another 56% say it is at least somewhat reliable.
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

cornsail

7th November 2009, 04:40 PM

As to what these 300 "scientists" are saying? Who knows? They might be like some guy working out of a basement somewhere who thinks he has found evidence of the giant tortoise egg shell from which the universe was hatched thus overturning all cosmology and biological evolution.

Well it's telling that he says '300 scientists' and not '300 climatologists'. And that he gives no source. Yadda yadda.

MrErisian

7th November 2009, 10:50 PM

Let me ask you: what do you think about it? What parts of it do you accept and which do you dispute? What parts are you not clear about?

Well, I'm not a scientist and I have no idea how our ecological system works. I just have a natural inclination to mistrust and dislike politicians. Particularly when they want me to do stuff.

I might of course be wrong, wouldn't be the first time, certainly won't be the last.

I think Environmentalists are annoying. They might be right but they manage to put me off with their smug, holier than thou attitude.

Travis

8th November 2009, 12:41 AM

Well, I'm not a scientist and I have no idea how our ecological system works. I just have a natural inclination to mistrust and dislike politicians. Particularly when they want me to do stuff.

There is a fine line between skepticism and cynicism.

I might of course be wrong, wouldn't be the first time, certainly won't be the last.

Which is a very healthy thing to realize and admit.

I think Environmentalists are annoying. They might be right but they manage to put me off with their smug, holier than thou attitude.

I hear you. I went to a hippy college and came out of it hating anything that had anything even remotely to do with environmentalism. But I was also someone who respected science and for me the data doesn't lie. The AGW argument is very persuasive and makes perfect sense when you stop to consider the physics involved. The fact that we have paleontological evidence that shows that there have been prior events like this lends more credence to it, in my opinion.

cornsail

8th November 2009, 02:25 AM

To be honest I was initially skeptical of global warming at first too. The scientific consensus is a lot stronger than it's made out to be by the media and Al Gore's work is exaggerated from what I've heard. Plus there's tons of dishonest propaganda out there such as "The Great Global Warming Swindle". It just annoys me when people persist in their opinion no matter how much evidence they're presented with.

mailman

9th November 2009, 03:16 AM

Excuse me but when did "concensus" become settled science?

When did scientific curiosity suddenly stop and get replaced by "concensus" group think?

There is a real problem here, especially when the so called "scientists" who are banging on about the proof of man made global warming (tm) wont even release their data so we can see what exactly they based their studies on. BUT when those so called scientists do release their data (after a journal actually enforces its data archiving rules), what do we find? Yes thats right, we find rubbish and you can see why Biffa and co so studiously resisted the calls to release their data.

Oh and the next time someone bangs on about big oil being behind the "skeptics", perhaps they should just keep in mind the big dollars in eco whackery, I mean Al Gore is about to become the first carbon billionaire...no conflict of interest there is there? :D

BTW, how many global warming (tm) predictions have actually come true? Anyone got a list of predictions made by alarmists that have actually come about?

Anyways, Im off to throw some more coal on the fire...damn cold today, I just wish global warming (tm) would hurry up and get here so Blighty will transform in to a tropical paradise! :D

Mailman

cornsail

9th November 2009, 04:13 AM

When did scientific curiosity suddenly stop and get replaced by "concensus" group think?
This could be applied to pretty much anything: HIV = AIDS, smoking causes cancer, evolution, etc. Are you saying scientific assessment is worthless?

what do we find? Yes thats right, we find rubbish and you can see why Biffa and co so studiously resisted the calls to release their data.
There's your problem. Biffa is a waste management company, so it's only natural that you'd find rubbish. ;)

I mean Al Gore is about to become the first carbon billionaire...no conflict of interest there is there? :D
Good thing Al Gore isn't the one publishing the science.

mailman

16th November 2009, 01:53 AM

This could be applied to pretty much anything: HIV = AIDS, smoking causes cancer, evolution, etc. Are you saying scientific assessment is worthless?
No, but concensus lead science without any recourse to scientific curiosity is.

There's your problem. Biffa is a waste management company, so it's only natural that you'd find rubbish. ;)
I know, there are many who view CRU as being nothing more than a waste dump too :D

Good thing Al Gore isn't the one publishing the science.
BUT he is the one "politician" driving it the hardest.

Mailman

cornsail

16th November 2009, 12:03 PM

No, but concensus lead science without any recourse to scientific curiosity is.
Any evidence this is happening?

Good thing Al Gore isn't the one publishing the science. BUT he is the one "politician" driving it the hardest.
And?

mailman

25th November 2009, 02:35 AM

What do you think concensus means? By its very nature concensus excludes any process that would challenge the group think, because its what a section of people believes even though that belief (as in global warming (tm) may be wrong)!

Actually, I think this is all a moot point now because the emails released by CRU on the weekend very clearly show the games global warming (tm) jihadi's have been getting up to over the last few years (if not decades)!!!

So we can argue as much as we want about concensus lead science etc BUT when you have the real movers and shakers clearly stating themselves that they have purposely removed anyone that has dared to question their religion then we have a VERY real problem!

At least at CRU, science is dead!

Now what do you cultists believe? That everything coming out of CRU is just a missunderstanding? Maybe you are starting to question why the BBC tried to censor CRUGATE (yet has no problems with releasing sensitive information that actually affects national security)? Perhaps you are wondering how so called scientists could collude to keep data out of the hands of people who want to verify their findings (you know, sorta like what real scienists would want to do)?

All these questions, and only a couple weeks to go to Copenhagen. Crap time for CRUGATE to errupt done you think? :D

Mailman

mailman

25th November 2009, 02:50 AM

And?

And if you cant see the MASSIVE conflict of interest here then you are more blinkered than I thought.

You guys bang on about big oil being behind the anti-man made global warming (tm) movement YET not a single peep about the billions this guy will pocket from global warming.

You guys want me to believe that a geologist called Plimmer is a greater threat to humanty than Al gore...yet Plimmer most certainly WONT be making billions on the back of global warming (tm).

Its like the Palestinians calling themselves victims after spending the last 60 years trying to murder every last jew...well, I guess in that respect, global warming (tm) jihadi's are the new palestinians! :D

Mailman

ps. When I refer to YOU, I mean the royal you, as in global warming (tm) jihadi's in general.

Fishstick

25th November 2009, 03:26 AM

And if you cant see the MASSIVE conflict of interest here then you are more blinkered than I thought.

You guys bang on about big oil being behind the anti-man made global warming (tm) movement YET not a single peep about the billions this guy will pocket from global warming.

You guys want me to believe that a geologist called Plimmer is a greater threat to humanty than Al gore...yet Plimmer most certainly WONT be making billions on the back of global warming (tm).

Its like the Palestinians calling themselves victims after spending the last 60 years trying to murder every last jew...well, I guess in that respect, global warming (tm) jihadi's are the new palestinians! :D

Mailman

ps. When I refer to YOU, I mean the royal you, as in global warming (tm) jihadi's in general.

It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you use such loaded terms, just as a sidenote.

mailman

30th November 2009, 03:01 AM

I guess its just easier for you to dig your head in to the sand and just hope Crugate goes away?

Which means the real denialists here arent those who disagree with the notion that man is the sole cause of global warming (tm) but those who push the idea man is the sole cause of global warming (tm).

Although isnt it funny how quiet this thread has gone since crugate erupted :D

Whats wrong guys, had the wind taken out of your sails or perhaps like the moron monboit, you guys too have had an epiphany about how empty the global warming (tm) argument has always been from those pushing it the hardest (mann, jones et al).

Mailman

Redtail

30th November 2009, 04:24 AM

Although isnt it funny how quiet this thread has gone since crugate erupted :D

Whats wrong guys, had the wind taken out of your sails or perhaps like the moron monboit, you guys too have had an epiphany about how empty the global warming (tm) argument has always been from those pushing it the hardest (mann, jones et al).

Mailman

Isn't it funny you didn't look anywhere else except this thread?:D

MarkCorrigan

30th November 2009, 04:37 AM

What do you think concensus means? By its very nature concensus excludes any process that would challenge the group think, because its what a section of people believes even though that belief (as in global warming (tm) may be wrong)!

No it doesn't. Are you sure you should be using words you don't understand? Or spell correctly.

Evolution is a conSensus. Does that mean they don't do research? No.

mailman

30th November 2009, 04:37 AM

Isn't it funny you didn't look anywhere else except this thread?:D

Awe is that cause everyone ran from here to defend their religion elsewhere? :D

Mailman

mailman

30th November 2009, 04:43 AM

No it doesn't. Are you sure you should be using words you don't understand? Or spell correctly.

Evolution is a conSensus. Does that mean they don't do research? No.

Evolution is a theory that is open to rigorous scientific debate as part of the scientific method.

Unlike global warming (tm) where the data used by CRU et al has been repeatedly with held exactly so debate COULD NOT take place...or LOST (deliberately?). And thats without going in to the peer review process being hijacked or "dissenting" voices removed from scientific journals etc.

In that regard my dear friend, do you think its wise to engage in debates with adults when clearly your understanding wouldnt even challenge a 5 year old? :D

Mailman

MarkCorrigan

30th November 2009, 09:19 AM

Evolution is a theory that is open to rigorous scientific debate as part of the scientific method.

Unlike global warming (tm) where the data used by CRU et al has been repeatedly with held exactly so debate COULD NOT take place...or LOST (deliberately?). And thats without going in to the peer review process being hijacked or "dissenting" voices removed from scientific journals etc.

In that regard my dear friend, do you think its wise to engage in debates with adults when clearly your understanding wouldnt even challenge a 5 year old? :D

Mailman

Please show me why your insistance of a scientific consipiracy to keep anti GW journals out of peer review is any more valid than the same insistance of people like Salvador Cordova and Michael Behe.

cornsail

30th November 2009, 12:03 PM

What do you think concensus means?

In this context I would say general agreement with high confidence.

By its very nature concensus excludes any process that would challenge the group think, because its what a section of people believes even though that belief (as in global warming (tm) may be wrong)!

You argument applies to all branches of science. Not at all convincing.

So we can argue as much as we want about concensus lead science etc BUT when you have the real movers and shakers clearly stating themselves that they have purposely removed anyone that has dared to question their religion then we have a VERY real problem!

Good thing that hasn't happened then.

Perhaps you are wondering how so called scientists could collude to keep data out of the hands of people who want to verify their findings (you know, sorta like what real scienists would want to do)?

I know the CRU scientists denied some requests for data by some non-scientists. If there was no confidentiality conflicts, then I disagree with their action, although I'm confused as to what you think it proves.

Good thing Al Gore isn't the one publishing the science.
BUT he is the one "politician" driving it the hardest.
And? And if you cant see the MASSIVE conflict of interest here then you are more blinkered than I thought.
Al Gore isn't producing climate science.
Therefore climate science is unaffected by any conflict of interest in Al Gore's political agenda.
This is pretty basic logic.

Redtail

30th November 2009, 07:55 PM

Awe is that cause everyone ran from here to defend their religion elsewhere? :D

Mailman

Well there are several threads here discussing CRU. Why did you not look for any of them?

MrErisian

12th December 2009, 11:07 PM

Al Gore isn't producing climate science.
Therefore climate science is unaffected by any conflict of interest in Al Gore's political agenda.
This is pretty basic logic.

No, these scientists who have been caught in a lie are...

One of many EMAILGATE articles... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html)

Oh dear eh? Perhaps my cynicism & skepticism wasn't as misplaced as earlier posters thought...

funk de fino

13th December 2009, 03:11 AM

No, these scientists who have been caught in a lie are...

One of many EMAILGATE articles... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html)

Oh dear eh? Perhaps my cynicism & skepticism wasn't as misplaced as earlier posters thought...

It would have helped if you had not linked to the Daily Mail.

Peephole

13th December 2009, 12:23 PM

It would have helped if you had not linked to the Daily Mail.
And if the allegations about those stolen e-mails hadn't been debunked already.

Lenbrazil

16th December 2009, 04:43 AM

And if the allegations about those stolen e-mails hadn't been debunked already.

Can anyone post links to any such debunkings, a PAL* on another forum keeps citing them.

* Paranoid arrogant loontypo

Peephole

16th December 2009, 10:04 AM

Here's a bunch of relevant stuff, there's probably more out there:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/cru-hack-more-context/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9319400

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRU-update
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRUupdate

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/ipcc-statement-on-stolen-emails/
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/open_letter_to_congress_from_u.s._scientists_4dec0 9/
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/setting-the-record-straight-nature-aaas-ams-ucs/

http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/hacked-hadley-emails-hottest-decade-on-record-and-the-oceans-planet-keep-warming/
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/21/hacked-emails-ncar-kevin-trenberth/
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/22/isaac-newton-letters-carbon-fixated-cru-hacked-emails/
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/28/climategate-michael-mann-hockey-stick-copenhagen-diagnosis/
http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/02/climategate-nature-editorial-e-mails-scientific-case-global-warming-is-real-harassment-denialists-inflict/

MrErisian

18th December 2009, 08:43 AM

Peephole

18th December 2009, 10:11 AM

Thanks for more meaningless blabber.

Lurker

18th December 2009, 11:58 AM

I always find it humorous that global warming skeptics always say something along the lines of "we've been cooling over the last decade" or "we've been cooling since 1998". They cherry pick their reference point as 1998 because that was an unusually hot year and years after that are cool by comparison.

Of course they won't tell or don't know that if you include pre-1998 data it is clear that the general trend still sees temps moving upward and 1998 is a bit of an outlier.

Go to any conservative forum or global warming denier and you will see them use 1998 as some sort of reference point in their arguments. Then call them on it!

Peephole

18th December 2009, 01:45 PM

And not every data set even considers 1998 the warmest year on record. NASA's GISS analysis has 2005:

http://i50.tinypic.com/30kpquu.gif

Slayhamlet

18th December 2009, 04:49 PM

Having read a good chunk of those links I'm in awe at some people's ability to look the other way on this one.

To quote Carl 'Cosmic' Sagan:

"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system. The history of our study of our solar system shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."

Carl would be very dissapointed in you.

Dogmatism provides shelter for bulls**t. Be wary of it.

I somehow doubt that he would, but I can't claim to know for sure. Nor can anyone, and think it's rather nasty of you to presume to speak for a dead man. But I guess that's just what ideologues do.

I also find it odd that you equate what Sagan calls an "uncomfortable idea" with the outright rejection of AGW science. In other words, all the world's climate scientists are conspiring to cook data about climate trends for apparently no damn good reason. This is your "uncomfortable idea", a preposterous CT. On the contrary, I think Sagan would have recognized anthropogenic global warming itself as just the sort of uncomfortable idea he was talking about. It is mostly in the realm of politics, after all, that AGW science has been outright suppressed. Dogmatism indeed.

Upchurch

19th December 2009, 06:53 AM

I somehow doubt that he would, but I can't claim to know for sure. Nor can anyone, and think it's rather nasty of you to presume to speak for a dead man. But I guess that's just what ideologues do.

I also find it odd that you equate what Sagan calls an "uncomfortable idea" with the outright rejection of AGW science. In other words, all the world's climate scientists are conspiring to cook data about climate trends for apparently no damn good reason. This is your "uncomfortable idea", a preposterous CT. On the contrary, I think Sagan would have recognized anthropogenic global warming itself as just the sort of uncomfortable idea he was talking about. It is mostly in the realm of politics, after all, that AGW science has been outright suppressed. Dogmatism indeed.
What he said.

cornsail

19th December 2009, 09:42 PM

Having read a good chunk of those links I'm in awe at some people's ability to look the other way on this one.

I'm in awe that you link to a tabloid famous for incessant Princess Diana CTs as if it were a credible source of information.

MrErisian

19th December 2009, 11:41 PM

I'm in awe that you link to a tabloid famous for incessant Princess Diana CTs as if it were a credible source of information.

Did I link to The Daily Express? I don't think I did. Better luck next time.

I somehow doubt that he would, but I can't claim to know for sure.

Obviously not, no. Nor can I. I think only an idiot would. Still, thanks for clearing that up.

Nor can anyone, and [I] think it's rather nasty of you to presume to speak for a dead man. But I guess that's just what ideologues do.

Yes. Thanks for calling me "nasty". In terms of debate, we're really cooking here*.

A swift definition of an "ideologue" is appropriate here. It describes someone who advocates an ideology. An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that direct someone's goals, and actions. Which ideology am I advocating? What, prey tell, are my aims and ideas behind my actions and goals? I'm skeptical of these people who're pushing Man Made Global Warming. Those people are the ideologues. They are the ones pushing a clear ideology designed to deal with the problems they believe are caused by people.

Your logic has been sacrificed in favour of rhetoric.

I also find it odd that you equate what Sagan calls an "uncomfortable idea" with the outright rejection of AGW science.

That's not what I'm saying though is it? What I'm saying is that the FACT these scientists are advocating manipulation of data and supression of information is at odds with true science.

In other words, all the world's climate scientists are conspiring to cook data about climate trends for apparently no damn good reason. This is your "uncomfortable idea", a preposterous CT.

No. In YOUR words. Not mine. Sorry dude, you can't pull that one on a forum. Anyone who wants to know what I'm saying can read MY posts, not yours. That's called a STRAW MAN argument. You've constructed an argument of your own that you find easy to knock down. Stick to the source material in future. Use direct quotes.

[On the contrary, I think Sagan would have recognized anthropogenic global warming itself as just the sort of uncomfortable idea he was talking about. It is mostly in the realm of politics, after all, that AGW science has been outright suppressed. Dogmatism indeed.

Yup. Carl Sagan was concerned about AGW. But, as I said, I think he'd be dissapointed in the lack of scientific rigour on display by its advocates**.

As regards the other posts, thanks for chipping in and pointing out I'm in a minority on this forum as regards this issue. I'm in a majority in terms of the British public. Great. What does that prove? In both instances it proves nothing. The truth doesn't require you to believe in it.

Be nice if a few more Man Made Global Warming advocates understood that.

*Here we see something called irony.

**Obviously I can't know this for certain. ;)

cornsail

20th December 2009, 03:57 AM

Did I link to The Daily Express? I don't think I did. Better luck next time.

Oh, I'm sorry. I get my British tabloids mixed up sometimes.

That's not what I'm saying though is it? What I'm saying is that the FACT these scientists are advocating manipulation of data and supression of information is at odds with true science.

Manipulation of data is always done in science. And they may have had a bad attitude regarding FOI requests, but it's irrelevant in the larger picture. Less than 5% of their data was not made available. Data from sources such as NOAA, NASA and GISS shows the same trend as CRU, independently. The daily mail is making things up when they call it "crucial".

Edx

20th December 2009, 11:36 AM

And if you cant see the MASSIVE conflict of interest here then you are more blinkered than I thought.

You guys bang on about big oil being behind the anti-man made global warming (tm) movement YET not a single peep about the billions this guy will pocket from global warming.

You guys want me to believe that a geologist called Plimmer is a greater threat to humanty than Al gore...yet Plimmer most certainly WONT be making billions on the back of global warming (tm).

Its like the Palestinians calling themselves victims after spending the last 60 years trying to murder every last jew...well, I guess in that respect, global warming (tm) jihadi's are the new palestinians! :D

Mailman

ps. When I refer to YOU, I mean the royal you, as in global warming (tm) jihadi's in general.

And how much has Richard Dawkins made from evolution with all his books and TV shows?

I guess this means Evolution is in trouble.

Gytha Ogg

21st December 2009, 05:43 AM

I'm still laughing at the fact that anyone would present the Daily 'Immigrants are giving you CANCER' Mail, infamous for its anti-vaxx stance in the wake of the Wakefield 'research', as a reputable source for anything. The Mail is notoriously anti-science, anti-Labour and anti-BBC, and views AGW as a leftie plot to do... something bad, not sure what, but I think it involves your wheelie bins and PC gorn mad loonie left Winterval yoghurt weaving..... something.

Shows you how far the deniers have to scrape for 'evidence'. Sad, really.

mailman, is it really necessary to use such inflammatory language as 'jihadis' and the like? Kind of makes you come off as a hysterical denier crank, which I'm sure you didn't intend.

mailman

21st December 2009, 06:10 AM

And how much has Richard Dawkins made from evolution with all his books and TV shows?

I guess this means Evolution is in trouble.

No, it means debate around evolution is alive and well. Pity the same cant be said for global warming (tm).

Mailman

mailman

21st December 2009, 06:13 AM

The Mail is notoriously anti-science, anti-Labour and anti-BBC, and views AGW as a leftie plot to do... something bad, not sure what, but I think it involves your wheelie bins and PC gorn mad loonie left Winterval yoghurt weaving..... something.

And yet the Daily Mail isnt the one trying to distort the science (or lack thereof) behind global warming (tm) are they?

Unlike our friends over at realcliate, who are deeply enmeshed in the climategate scandal.

Also being anti labour and anti-BBC isnt a bad thing in itself...so Im wondering, what are you seeing that others are missing?

Mailman

mailman

22nd December 2009, 02:33 AM

mailman, is it really necessary to use such inflammatory language as 'jihadis' and the like? Kind of makes you come off as a hysterical denier crank, which I'm sure you didn't intend.

Tell you what..seeing as you global warming chicken littles are such a bunch of cream puffs lets make a deal. You guys stop calling those who disagree with the idea that man is the cause of global warming deniers and Ill stop calling those of you who believe the sky is falling lots of nasty little names that makes you run to yo momma crying.

Deal?

BTW, when did a climate change denier change from someone not believing the MWP existed to someone who doubted man being the sole cause of climate change? I must have missed that memo?

;)

Mailman

Peephole

22nd December 2009, 03:42 PM

No, it means debate around evolution is alive and well. Pity the same cant be said for global warming (tm).

Mailman
Well, I guess we shouldn't be surprised mailman turns out to be a creationism supporter.

BenBurch

22nd December 2009, 04:22 PM

Well, I guess we shouldn't be surprised mailman turns out to be a creationism supporter.

If he turns out to be anti-vax we have a perfect score.

mailman

23rd December 2009, 03:32 AM

Well, I guess we shouldn't be surprised mailman turns out to be a creationism supporter.

Ah there we go, nothing like an ad hom is there :D

For the record I dont believe in creationism, nor have I ever.

But I do place the belief in mann made global warming (tm) and creationism on the same level. Anyway, isnt there one of those universal laws that once you throw something like this out there you have lost the argument? Or does that only apply to calling someone a nazi these days? :D

BTW, hows that global warming working out for you guys so far?

Mailman

Upchurch

23rd December 2009, 06:09 AM

But I do place the belief in mann made global warming (tm) and creationism on the same level.
Except, you know, the majority of scientists accept AGW and reject creationism.

Aside from that, and assuming you squint and look at it sideways, it is a near perfect analogy.

mailman

23rd December 2009, 07:14 AM

Except, you know, the majority of scientists accept AGW and reject creationism.

Im sure that at one point the majority of "scientists" also thought the world was at the centre of the universe :rolleyes:

Aside from that, and assuming you squint and look at it sideways, it is a near perfect analogy.

What this does give is a near perfect example of the need for global warming jihadis (tm) to malign anyone who dares question their religion.

BTW, did you get this tactic from realclimate? :D

Mailman

tsig

23rd December 2009, 10:42 AM

Im sure that at one point the majority of "scientists" also thought the world was at the centre of the universe :rolleyes:

What this does give is a near perfect example of the need for global warming jihadis (tm) to malign anyone who dares question their religion.

BTW, did you get this tactic from realclimate? :D

Mailman

When the world was thought to be the center of the universe there were no scientists. Only theologians.

sonofgloin

23rd December 2009, 05:51 PM

Is there a reason this is under Conspiracy Theories?

Portland absolutely, the whole global warming scenario is a slight of hand to erode governorship from individual states and institute central control of the world’s economies to the few. The agreements and protocols that our nations have been signatories to over the past 40 years have taken control of the nations productivity away from the citizens and delivered it to the power brokers and administrators centralized in the U.N.,the World Bank, and the I.M.F.

Through the first all encompassing manifesto on trade and the re distribution of wealth in the world (the Lima Protocol) we have seen manufacturing stripped from first world nations and delivered to the second and third world, supposedly to share the prosperity that modernity has brought us, Yet we see no quantifiable raising of living standards in those countries except for the 5% who encompass the new ruling classes. The "donor" nations who aided the corporations who set up off shore manufacturing facilities by dropping the tariffs of the previously home produced but now imported products have paid for this folly with higher unemployment, substance abuse, generational social dysfunction, a shrinking tax base, etc etc etc.

So first they screwed us with the trade agreements and now the second front has opened up with this global warming crap that carries with it legislation that like the trade agreements over ride the individuals nations laws and make that nation liable to a higher authority with the capability of delivering sanctions and caveats that will undermine the prosperity/ strength of that nation.
It's the world government scenario in play from lefties such as the Fabians whom are still lurking in the highest cliques of administration. They are a serious generational socialist movement that has effected global change before as exampled by the drive by Britain to decolonization in a handful of decades.

sonofgloin

23rd December 2009, 06:02 PM

Yup. Carl Sagan was concerned about AGW. But, as I said, I think he'd be dissapointed in the lack of scientific rigour on display by its advocates**.

I was bemused to hear quite a few of the tens of thousand beaurocrats that carbon foot printed it to Copenhagen last week complain that they were freezing their tits off. Bit snowy up north I hear....selective warming perhaps.

Peephole

23rd December 2009, 07:31 PM

For the record I dont believe in creationism, nor have I ever.
I said you support creationism, since you support the "debate" surrounding evolution.
BTW, hows that global warming working out for you guys so far?
Unfortunately the evidence for global warming keeps on piling up.

mailman

24th December 2009, 04:09 AM

When the world was thought to be the center of the universe there were no scientists. Only theologians.

Oh the irony of that statement! :D

Mailman

mailman

24th December 2009, 04:19 AM

I said you support creationism, since you support the "debate" surrounding evolution.

Unfortunately the evidence for global warming keeps on piling up.

The only thing piling up is evidence of the poor science that characterises global warming (tm).

You guys can bury your heads in the snow as much as you want but the more data that is released by MET et al, the bigger the holes are that are appearing in your beloved religion (Darwin anyone?).

Anyway, I just wish Global Warming (tm) would hurry up and get here. Im getting sick of having to grit my driveway because of ice and snow! :D

Regards

Mailman

Peephole

24th December 2009, 10:07 AM

Well, can't cure stupid I guess.

BenBurch

24th December 2009, 04:38 PM

Oh the irony of that statement! :D

Mailman

You are obviously ignorant of history.

BenBurch

24th December 2009, 04:40 PM

Well, can't cure stupid I guess.

No. Ignorance you can do something about, but stupid goes right to the bone.

Edx

25th December 2009, 03:28 AM

No, it means debate around evolution is alive and well. Pity the same cant be said for global warming (tm).

Mailman

There is no debate in evolution, the only people who say that are Creationists.

And you wonder why people call you a Creationist supporter. :rolleyes:

INRM

25th December 2009, 11:47 AM

I should note that, to the best of my knowledge, this article predates the climate-gate scandal

MrErisian

29th December 2009, 07:49 PM

Oh, I'm sorry. I get my British tabloids mixed up sometimes.

Facts are pretty important as regards this debate and your ignorance of them is telling.

Manipulation of data is always done in science. And they may have had a bad attitude regarding FOI requests, but it's irrelevant in the larger picture.
The daily mail is making things up when they call it "crucial".

Given your track record for misunderstanding reality based upon your own personal fantasy I'm not prepared to accept that claim. Scientific discoveries tend to come from data which has been overlooked by people like yourself. You're displaying classic symptoms of woo. You've got your thesis planned out before you look at the data. Furthermore, to you, the data isn't crucial.

As I said, better luck next time.

I'm still laughing at the fact that anyone would present the Daily 'Immigrants are giving you CANCER' Mail, infamous for its anti-vaxx stance in the wake of the Wakefield 'research', as a reputable source for anything.

Do you read The Daily Mail? You seem to know an awful lot about it. I suspect you do not as you seem to have simply swallowed someone else's opinions of it. I appreciate you are being 'wacky' with your satirical comments about immigrants giving people cancer but do try not to let this 'hilarious' take on things blur the line between fantasy and reality. The story I link to is one of many which relates to a wider issue here.

The point is that you are clearly not looking at the facts and information. This is a common problem AGM advocates have.

Am I to take from the above comments and the one I've pasted below that you are ignorant of this wider issue?

Shows you how far the deniers have to scrape for 'evidence'. Sad, really.

Is it really necessary to use such inflammatory language? Kind of makes you come off as a hysterical crank, which I'm sure you didn't intend.