Climate change - Hoax ?

finchy

passout wrote:

Firstly I'm surprised by how much you guys trust academics/scientists and their findings, but I made that point earlier. But my main issue with global warming is the reaction to it. It is over emotional (think Al Gore and indeed any reference to children/grand-children or polar bears), politicised, ill conceived (carbon trading is a nonsense) and rushed in my opinion. Although I am willing to go along with it, if it means we can send Bruce Willis into space with a big mirror or something - that would be cool.

I believe that Al Gore said that the science is decided, which I think is a very, very big mistake. Surely further study can only be a good thing.

If they send Bruce Willis into space will they send up some evil European villains with him. Die Hard 5 could be the most ridiculous of the whole series if they set it in space.

I wouldn't necessarily believe one scientist, but the vast numbers make it very hard to ignore, plus the act that they're flying in the face of so many vested interests (as I mentioned on page 1 of this thread). As I have said elsewhere, I don't yet have the scientific education necessary to make my own judgements on this question - although I will have in a few years time - but I really can't see the whole thing being a conspiracy.

Seanos

Slapshot wrote:

Strong scientific principle is built by analysing ALL data not just that which fits the result you want. You don't react to something you don't fully understand and by no imaginable means can we fully understand the full effects of global climate change and mans influence on it because we simply don't yet understand the full effects the forces of nature have on the planet. This is where IPCC falls flat

Great. could you kindly point out where the IPCC have got it wrong. A detailed review of the studies they use would be good, or even a couple of peer reviewed papers that disprove the AGW hypothesis would be a start.

Porgy

passout wrote:

Firstly I'm surprised by how much you guys trust academics/scientists and their findings, but I made that point earlier.

It's not trust - people talk about it as if it's some sort of religion. It isn't. It's science. Read the eevidence. Engage with the evidence. TBH - I'd rather trust the scientists than the pseudo sceptics and deniers who are making basic misakes in science and not peer reviewing their theories.

But my main issue with global warming is the reaction to it. It is over emotional (think Al Gore and indeed any reference to children/grand-children or polar bears), politicised, ill conceived

well what do you expect from US politicians? Scientists just get on with sifting through the data and publishing their conclusion s in the best way they can.

- and yes i know about the leaked dodgy emails from east anglia - they involve about 3 or 4 people - hardly a conspiracy. And it does not tar every scientist no more than you can judge the quality of the Guardian, Independent or Times form the content of the Daily Mail or Express.

(carbon trading is a nonsense) and rushed in my opinion. Although I am willing to go along with it, if it means we can send Bruce Willis into space with a big mirror or something - that would be cool.

Moving to a carbon based economy is not nonsense - it's absolutely essential. Maybe the carbon trading proposals at the moment is nonsense but then so is our global economy at the moment - as long as their is will to improve and a structure within which to do so then we should be moving in the right direction.

But who knows? I tend to feel it's too late already - but then maybe it isn't.

Call me a doom-monger if you like but it's my perosnal opinion and at least I try to engage with the evidence and not just repeat psuedo science being promoted by certain right wing newspapers.

skinson

Nicensleazy asked a question, people are responding. If that makes you so incredibly angry, I suggest that you avoid forums in the future, just for the sake of your own health.

Hmm! Guilty conscience mate? I never mentioned anyone by name. And as far as being angry, you really couldn't be further from the truth. I sleep very easily in my bed, and so do my children and grandchildren! You on the other hand I suspect, spend an awful lot of time trying to find futile pieces of information to piece together an argument for MMGW. :roll:
Dave

Porgy

johnfinch wrote:

skinson wrote:

Oh I know I could go on a cycle forum and spout off about what I think I know? (certain gobsh1tes on here) and make the other plebeians see how clever I am, when really I've just read a little bit more on what is a dodgy subject than they have!

Nicensleazy asked a question, people are responding. If that makes you so incredibly angry, I suggest that you avoid forums in the future, just for the sake of your own health.

And as far as I can see, everyone who has replied saying that they think AGW is probably a reality has readily admitted to the limits of their own knowledge on the subject without even being asked.

Some people seem to want to shut the debate down - and I wonder at their motives for that.

And I'm probably the prime gobsh1te according to skinson - he called me that before but the post got deleted by moderators.

Seanos

socrates wrote:

As Seanos has decided to ask my age and throw a lot dispute on my intellgence without knowing me all I can say is " how long have you been stupid" and do not call me an idiot you clown. Open your clothears to a rational argument by other people and get your arms from around that tree.

I 'threw a lot dispute on your intellgence' because there was no sign of intelligence in what you posted.

You clearly have no problem in displaying your double digit IQ in a public forum so why should I be worried about pointing it out?

Slapshot

Seanos wrote:

Slapshot wrote:

Strong scientific principle is built by analysing ALL data not just that which fits the result you want. You don't react to something you don't fully understand and by no imaginable means can we fully understand the full effects of global climate change and mans influence on it because we simply don't yet understand the full effects the forces of nature have on the planet. This is where IPCC falls flat

Great. could you kindly point out where the IPCC have got it wrong. A detailed review of the studies they use would be good, or even a couple of peer reviewed papers that disprove the AGW hypothesis would be a start.

Try spending a few hours going through www.co2skeptics.com might give you some answers.... then again if you refuse to accept there are other viewpoints.

Contradictory stuff is almost impossible to find because governments, universities and the IPCC led Climate Change mob quash it, Heretical viewpoints and all that. When you stop asking what if? you become a sheep! What I have I can't publish, official secrets and all that stuff.

Point I'm trying to make is simple, when you start maths at school you begin with 1+1=2 and you build your knowledge from there, you don't go headlong into day one at primary school with a couple of hours of Lebesgue Integration or the Simpson Rule.

IPCC, AGW and the rest have done exactly that, they have created Global Warming and through the media the hype of Global Warming without fully understanding the natural climatology of the planet.

Now we have the first comments about where we've gone wrong, The Ozone Hole. What's next

Porgy

Slapshot wrote:

Contradictory stuff is almost impossible to find because governments, universities and the IPCC led Climate Change mob quash it, Heretical viewpoints and all that. When you stop asking what if? you become a sheep! What I have I can't publish, official secrets and all that stuff.

You're joking. It's all over the place: The Mail, The Telegraph, The Spectator, on Radio 4...and many many more publications.

Ian Plimer's best selling book at the moment has not been quashed. It has been ridiculed for containing hundreds of errors, but it has not been quoshed.

There's a whole raft of climate sceptic books out there all outselling proper science books becasue people seem to want to pretend there's no problem - or avoid it for long enough and it might go away.

And there's the net.

I'm trying to read through it all at the moment. As no-one from the climate sceptic/ deniers club will put up an argument to support their belief I'm trying to work out what the climate sceptic argument(s) boils down to and then challenge those points one by one.

Slapshot wrote:

[Try spending a few hours going through www.co2skeptics.com might give you some answers.... then again if you refuse to accept there are other viewpoints.

No-one's refusing to accept other viewpoints ecept maybe some of the not very helpful denial statements that have been posted on here. Quite the opposite. We ask for you to explain your viewpoint so we cna understand it. So far we've been pointed in the direction of a couple of Mail articles and a sceptics' website.

If you want to bring up specific points to help the debate then go ahead. Otherwise you have to give us chance to read it through - and i'm sure we all have busy lives.

In the meantime read through and challenge the evidence that's been put up against you so far. All I've seen so far is name calling and hissy fits. Not very helpful.

cjw

jimmypoppa wrote:

This is what the last 350-years of data looks like



I started looking into this because I wanted to see how sophisticated an approach would be needed to detect any warming, and whether the simplistic approaches I use at work would help me make my mind up.

I was convinced that the scientific consensus makes sense.

Notice how the rate of warming is increasing (the gradient is getting steeper)

And that is the problem. You have taken a set of already modified data and analysed it simplistically - it does show an increase in temperature (although note on adjusted data as the various weather stations have been moved at certain times and some data is missing). The key difficulty though with the data is the urban island effect. And here once again we get to the irresposible behaviour of a core group of the climate scientists. In this case Wang and Jones;

Jones, P. D., P. Ya. Groisman, M. Coughlan, N. Plummer, W. C. Wang & T. R. Karl 1990. Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, Nature 347 169- 172.

Wang, W-C, Z. Zeng, T. R Karl, 1990. Urban Heat Islands in China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2377-2380.

The first paper has been the major evidence presented by Jones in all of the IPCC reports to dismiss the influence of urban change on the temperature measurements, and also has been used as an excuse for the failure to mention most of the unequivocal evidence that such urban effects exist. The paper was even dragged out again for the 2007 IPCC report.

The second paper, which shared authors Wang and Karl from the first paper, used the very same data from China which the first paper used to demonstrate the absence of urban influence — yet instead concluded that same data to be proof of the existence of urban influence.

In 2007, the following paper exposed the whole business:

Keenan, D.”The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyug Wang. Energy and Environment, 18, 985-995.

The author Keenan obtained the original Chinese data and found the claim that the data referred to a continuous series was unfounded. He accused Wang of fraud — and it is interesting to read that Tom Wigley (of the CRU emails) agrees with him.

So the data you have presented is in itself discredited due to the influence of urban islanding. It may be correct or incorrect, but due to the behaviour of these guys we can't be certain one way or the other.

Porgy

cjw wrote:

porgy wrote:

This is what the last 350-years of data looks like



I started looking into this because I wanted to see how sophisticated an approach would be needed to detect any warming, and whether the simplistic approaches I use at work would help me make my mind up.

I was convinced that the scientific consensus makes sense.

Notice how the rate of warming is increasing (the gradient is getting steeper)

I did not write that - I think it was Jimmypippa - definitely not me.

cjw

Sorry, all the indented quotes have got a little mixed up.

Edit: fixed it now.

Slapshot

Porgy wrote:

Slapshot wrote:

Contradictory stuff is almost impossible to find because governments, universities and the IPCC led Climate Change mob quash it, Heretical viewpoints and all that. When you stop asking what if? you become a sheep! What I have I can't publish, official secrets and all that stuff.

You're joking. It's all over the place: The Mail, The Telegraph, The Spectator, on Radio 4...and many many more publications.

Ian Plimer's best selling book at the moment has not been quashed. It has been ridiculed for containing hundreds of errors, but it has not been quoshed.

There's a whole raft of climate sceptic books out there all outselling proper science books becasue people seem to want to pretend there's no problem - or avoid it for long enough and it might go away.

And there's the net.

I'm trying to read through it all at the moment. As no-one from the climate sceptic/ deniers club will put up an argument to support their belief I'm trying to work out what the climate sceptic argument(s) boils down to and then challenge those points one by one.

There's a raft of stuff and the reason's it's largely not quashed is because it full of errors and other bollox, Pilmer would get a great job as a stand up comedian if he plied this stuff as material.

Good contradictory analysis never gets out, because for the most part the people creating the contradictory stuff work for the universities and government agencies that are promulgating the IPCC line as policy, we're back to the money stuff again, they stop the problem at source. Why do you think there's such a fuss over the University of East Anglia.

Skepticism:
I understand the Greenhouse Principles, I also understand the Carbon and Water Cycles, I know how the ThermoHaline Currents work and their impacts on Global temperatures, I know what been said about deforrestation and about the converse effect of the huge increase in Algal Blooms. Fundamentally I also understand the effcet of dumping billions of tonnes of fresh water into our seas, what would happen to the thermohaline curents and the net effect on Global existence (thermo haline combines Heat and Salinity).

So
Why do they never discuss natural co2 variations? Have they stopped?

Why if AGW and the IPCC mob are correct do they refuse to revise the modelling at the centre of climate change theory?

Why can they keep spinning the yarn about the execellence of these models when they are fundamentally wrong in the way they were created, data creates the model not the other way about?

Why are there eminent climatologists who cannot gain research posts because of their heretical views?

Why is it more difficult to get a job in Hadley Centre than to break into Buckingham Palace?

Why do IPCC never tell anyone the REAL end effects of Global Warming?

Why do they never talk about the fact that unless the Greenhouse Principle did exist the actual global temperature would be around -15°C?

Why do they never tell you that the net effect won't be catastrophic raising of sea levels but a fairly rapid drop into an ice age?

Before you come back with all sorts of stuff to cut me down well remember we've had this crap forced down our necks for 20 years, I've heard most of it..... I'm still not convinced

passout

johnfinch wrote:

passout wrote:

Firstly I'm surprised by how much you guys trust academics/scientists and their findings, but I made that point earlier. But my main issue with global warming is the reaction to it. It is over emotional (think Al Gore and indeed any reference to children/grand-children or polar bears), politicised, ill conceived (carbon trading is a nonsense) and rushed in my opinion. Although I am willing to go along with it, if it means we can send Bruce Willis into space with a big mirror or something - that would be cool.

I believe that Al Gore said that the science is decided, which I think is a very, very big mistake. Surely further study can only be a good thing.

If they send Bruce Willis into space will they send up some evil European villains with him. Die Hard 5 could be the most ridiculous of the whole series if they set it in space.

I wouldn't necessarily believe one scientist, but the vast numbers make it very hard to ignore, plus the act that they're flying in the face of so many vested interests (as I mentioned on page 1 of this thread). As I have said elsewhere, I don't yet have the scientific education necessary to make my own judgements on this question - although I will have in a few years time - but I really can't see the whole thing being a conspiracy.

I certainly do not think that it is a conspiracy; I don't credit conspiracy theories more generally. I was thinking of academics as individuals really, thinking about their own careers and/or having a bias. One more thing - vast numbers? What are the numbers - how many have researched the subject and how many are for and against the hypothesis? Simplistic I know, but I'd like to see those figures. I agree with you on the Al Gore thing and especially Die Hard 5!

Slapshot

Try this:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 4616db87e6

And the 255 page report...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 2d71db52d9

That'll keep you going tonight Porgy

passout

Porgy wrote:

passout wrote:

Firstly I'm surprised by how much you guys trust academics/scientists and their findings, but I made that point earlier.

It's not trust - people talk about it as if it's some sort of religion. It isn't. It's science. Read the eevidence. Engage with the evidence. TBH - I'd rather trust the scientists than the pseudo sceptics and deniers who are making basic misakes in science and not peer reviewing their theories.

But my main issue with global warming is the reaction to it. It is over emotional (think Al Gore and indeed any reference to children/grand-children or polar bears), politicised, ill conceived

well what do you expect from US politicians? Scientists just get on with sifting through the data and publishing their conclusion s in the best way they can.

- and yes i know about the leaked dodgy emails from east anglia - they involve about 3 or 4 people - hardly a conspiracy. And it does not tar every scientist no more than you can judge the quality of the Guardian, Independent or Times form the content of the Daily Mail or Express.

(carbon trading is a nonsense) and rushed in my opinion. Although I am willing to go along with it, if it means we can send Bruce Willis into space with a big mirror or something - that would be cool.

Moving to a carbon based economy is not nonsense - it's absolutely essential. Maybe the carbon trading proposals at the moment is nonsense but then so is our global economy at the moment - as long as their is will to improve and a structure within which to do so then we should be moving in the right direction.

But who knows? I tend to feel it's too late already - but then maybe it isn't.

Call me a doom-monger if you like but it's my perosnal opinion and at least I try to engage with the evidence and not just repeat psuedo science being promoted by certain right wing newspapers.

Anthropology suggests that science is itself a belief system - very similar to religion in the way it is interpretated and regarded by the 'faithful'. When it comes to science I know that it can often be demonstrated in a way that religion can't, but if you are not a scientist and you can't trust the data (East Anglia story), then it is unwise to be anything other than skeptical. All good scientists should be skeptical anyway.

Porgy

Slapshot wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Slapshot wrote:

Contradictory stuff is almost impossible to find because governments, universities and the IPCC led Climate Change mob quash it, Heretical viewpoints and all that. When you stop asking what if? you become a sheep! What I have I can't publish, official secrets and all that stuff.

You're joking. It's all over the place: The Mail, The Telegraph, The Spectator, on Radio 4...and many many more publications.

Ian Plimer's best selling book at the moment has not been quashed. It has been ridiculed for containing hundreds of errors, but it has not been quoshed.

There's a whole raft of climate sceptic books out there all outselling proper science books becasue people seem to want to pretend there's no problem - or avoid it for long enough and it might go away.

And there's the net.

I'm trying to read through it all at the moment. As no-one from the climate sceptic/ deniers club will put up an argument to support their belief I'm trying to work out what the climate sceptic argument(s) boils down to and then challenge those points one by one.

There's a raft of stuff and the reason's it's largely not quashed is because it full of errors and other bollox, Pilmer would get a great job as a stand up comedian if he plied this stuff as material.

Good contradictory analysis never gets out, because for the most part the people creating the contradictory stuff work for the universities and government agencies that are promulgating the IPCC line as policy, we're back to the money stuff again, they stop the problem at source. Why do you think there's such a fuss over the University of East Anglia.

Skepticism:
I understand the Greenhouse Principles, I also understand the Carbon and Water Cycles, I know how the ThermoHaline Currents work and their impacts on Global temperatures, I know what been said about deforrestation and about the converse effect of the huge increase in Algal Blooms. Fundamentally I also understand the effcet of dumping billions of tonnes of fresh water into our seas, what would happen to the thermohaline curents and the net effect on Global existence (thermo haline combines Heat and Salinity).

So
Why do they never discuss natural co2 variations? Have they stopped?

Why if AGW and the IPCC mob are correct do they refuse to revise the modelling at the centre of climate change theory?

Why can they keep spinning the yarn about the execellence of these models when they are fundamentally wrong in the way they were created, data creates the model not the other way about?

Why are there eminent climatologists who cannot gain research posts because of their heretical views?

Why is it more difficult to get a job in Hadley Centre than to break into Buckingham Palace?

Why do IPCC never tell anyone the REAL end effects of Global Warming?

Why do they never talk about the fact that unless the Greenhouse Principle did exist the actual global temperature would be around -15°C?

Why do they never tell you that the net effect won't be catastrophic raising of sea levels but a fairly rapid drop into an ice age?

Before you come back with all sorts of stuff to cut me down well remember we've had this crap forced down our necks for 20 years, I've heard most of it..... I'm still not convinced

Alright - I'm new to the sceptic arguments so i'm having to check them all up - you've thrown a few new things my way that i need to check up...and i'm pleased that this is starting to shape up to be a valid debate. 8)

but first off I've got a few questions of my own - why do you believe that money incentives to falsify science in academia are more significant than money incentives offered by multi national energy companies?

Do you seriously believe that there is a conspiracy that includes the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Specatator, among other right wing and corporate publications, to suppress good information and to publish the obviously fake, and somehow this conspiracy extends all the way to the internet? Can you explain how that works please?

Was the US government involved in this conspiracy - in which case why were whistleblowers in the US claiming that they had lost their funding because their work supported the man made climate change hypothesis?

also - I seem to remember seeing natural CO2 variations baing discussed in almost every article on climate change i've ever read - can you explain please what is the significance to this debate please as I don;t believe anyone is denying natural variations?

passout

Slapshot wrote:

Try this:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 4616db87e6

And the 255 page report...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 2d71db52d9

That'll keep you going tonight Porgy

Interesting link - thanks.
This caught me eye...“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

Porgy

passout wrote:

Porgy wrote:

passout wrote:

Firstly I'm surprised by how much you guys trust academics/scientists and their findings, but I made that point earlier.

It's not trust - people talk about it as if it's some sort of religion. It isn't. It's science. Read the eevidence. Engage with the evidence. TBH - I'd rather trust the scientists than the pseudo sceptics and deniers who are making basic misakes in science and not peer reviewing their theories.

But my main issue with global warming is the reaction to it. It is over emotional (think Al Gore and indeed any reference to children/grand-children or polar bears), politicised, ill conceived

well what do you expect from US politicians? Scientists just get on with sifting through the data and publishing their conclusion s in the best way they can.

- and yes i know about the leaked dodgy emails from east anglia - they involve about 3 or 4 people - hardly a conspiracy. And it does not tar every scientist no more than you can judge the quality of the Guardian, Independent or Times form the content of the Daily Mail or Express.

(carbon trading is a nonsense) and rushed in my opinion. Although I am willing to go along with it, if it means we can send Bruce Willis into space with a big mirror or something - that would be cool.

Moving to a carbon based economy is not nonsense - it's absolutely essential. Maybe the carbon trading proposals at the moment is nonsense but then so is our global economy at the moment - as long as their is will to improve and a structure within which to do so then we should be moving in the right direction.

But who knows? I tend to feel it's too late already - but then maybe it isn't.

Call me a doom-monger if you like but it's my perosnal opinion and at least I try to engage with the evidence and not just repeat psuedo science being promoted by certain right wing newspapers.

Anthropology suggests that science is itself a belief system - very similar to religion in the way it is interpretated and regarded by the 'faithful'. When it comes to science I know that it can often be demonstrated in a way that religion can't, but if you are not a scientist and you can't trust the data (East Anglia story), then it is unwise to be anything other than skeptical. All good scientists should be skeptical anyway.

how is it very similar to science?

Science is based on scepticism and evidence while religion is just purely faith and fairy stories with no evidence and no basis in reality.

Tell me one instance of a useful invention produced by using relgious dogma and I may change my mind.

passout

Porgy wrote:

Slapshot wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Slapshot wrote:

Contradictory stuff is almost impossible to find because governments, universities and the IPCC led Climate Change mob quash it, Heretical viewpoints and all that. When you stop asking what if? you become a sheep! What I have I can't publish, official secrets and all that stuff.

You're joking. It's all over the place: The Mail, The Telegraph, The Spectator, on Radio 4...and many many more publications.

Ian Plimer's best selling book at the moment has not been quashed. It has been ridiculed for containing hundreds of errors, but it has not been quoshed.

There's a whole raft of climate sceptic books out there all outselling proper science books becasue people seem to want to pretend there's no problem - or avoid it for long enough and it might go away.

And there's the net.

I'm trying to read through it all at the moment. As no-one from the climate sceptic/ deniers club will put up an argument to support their belief I'm trying to work out what the climate sceptic argument(s) boils down to and then challenge those points one by one.

There's a raft of stuff and the reason's it's largely not quashed is because it full of errors and other bollox, Pilmer would get a great job as a stand up comedian if he plied this stuff as material.

Good contradictory analysis never gets out, because for the most part the people creating the contradictory stuff work for the universities and government agencies that are promulgating the IPCC line as policy, we're back to the money stuff again, they stop the problem at source. Why do you think there's such a fuss over the University of East Anglia.

Skepticism:
I understand the Greenhouse Principles, I also understand the Carbon and Water Cycles, I know how the ThermoHaline Currents work and their impacts on Global temperatures, I know what been said about deforrestation and about the converse effect of the huge increase in Algal Blooms. Fundamentally I also understand the effcet of dumping billions of tonnes of fresh water into our seas, what would happen to the thermohaline curents and the net effect on Global existence (thermo haline combines Heat and Salinity).

So
Why do they never discuss natural co2 variations? Have they stopped?

Why if AGW and the IPCC mob are correct do they refuse to revise the modelling at the centre of climate change theory?

Why can they keep spinning the yarn about the execellence of these models when they are fundamentally wrong in the way they were created, data creates the model not the other way about?

Why are there eminent climatologists who cannot gain research posts because of their heretical views?

Why is it more difficult to get a job in Hadley Centre than to break into Buckingham Palace?

Why do IPCC never tell anyone the REAL end effects of Global Warming?

Why do they never talk about the fact that unless the Greenhouse Principle did exist the actual global temperature would be around -15°C?

Why do they never tell you that the net effect won't be catastrophic raising of sea levels but a fairly rapid drop into an ice age?

Before you come back with all sorts of stuff to cut me down well remember we've had this crap forced down our necks for 20 years, I've heard most of it..... I'm still not convinced

Alright - I'm new to the sceptic arguments so i'm having to check them all up - you've thrown a few new things my way that i need to check up...and i'm pleased that this is starting to shape up to be a valid debate. 8)

but first off I've got a few questions of my own - why do you believe that money incentives to falsify science in academia are more significant than money incentives offered by multi national energy companies?

Do you seriously believe that there is a conspiracy that includes the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Specatator, among other right wing and corporate publications, to suppress good information and to publish the obviously fake, and somehow this conspiracy extends all the way to the internet? Can you explain how that works please?

Was the US government involved in this conspiracy - in which case why were whistleblowers in the US claiming that they had lost their funding because their work supported the man made climate change hypothesis?

also - I seem to remember seeing natural CO2 variations baing discussed in almost every article on climate change i've ever read - can you explain please what is the significance to this debate please as I don;t believe anyone is denying natural variations?

NOT conspiracy - bandwagon / a self -referential media circus would be more accurate......

cjw

This seems so true. Floods in Cumbria were reported as climate change in action.

Meanwhile David Balmforth, a flooding expert at the Institution of Civil Engineers, said deluges on a similar scale will become more frequent as a result of climate change.

He said: "Climate change means that is only going to get worse. We cannot hope to defend ourselves from flooding on this scale.

Where as the snows last year we're simply 'weather'.

Asked about the Arctic ice cover, Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, told the Post the Arctic winter had been so severe, the ice has not only recovered but was actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than the same time last year.

"OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades," writes Lorne Gunter in the National Post.

Porgy

passout wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Slapshot wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Slapshot wrote:

Contradictory stuff is almost impossible to find because governments, universities and the IPCC led Climate Change mob quash it, Heretical viewpoints and all that. When you stop asking what if? you become a sheep! What I have I can't publish, official secrets and all that stuff.

You're joking. It's all over the place: The Mail, The Telegraph, The Spectator, on Radio 4...and many many more publications.

Ian Plimer's best selling book at the moment has not been quashed. It has been ridiculed for containing hundreds of errors, but it has not been quoshed.

There's a whole raft of climate sceptic books out there all outselling proper science books becasue people seem to want to pretend there's no problem - or avoid it for long enough and it might go away.

And there's the net.

I'm trying to read through it all at the moment. As no-one from the climate sceptic/ deniers club will put up an argument to support their belief I'm trying to work out what the climate sceptic argument(s) boils down to and then challenge those points one by one.

There's a raft of stuff and the reason's it's largely not quashed is because it full of errors and other bollox, Pilmer would get a great job as a stand up comedian if he plied this stuff as material.

Good contradictory analysis never gets out, because for the most part the people creating the contradictory stuff work for the universities and government agencies that are promulgating the IPCC line as policy, we're back to the money stuff again, they stop the problem at source. Why do you think there's such a fuss over the University of East Anglia.

Skepticism:
I understand the Greenhouse Principles, I also understand the Carbon and Water Cycles, I know how the ThermoHaline Currents work and their impacts on Global temperatures, I know what been said about deforrestation and about the converse effect of the huge increase in Algal Blooms. Fundamentally I also understand the effcet of dumping billions of tonnes of fresh water into our seas, what would happen to the thermohaline curents and the net effect on Global existence (thermo haline combines Heat and Salinity).

So
Why do they never discuss natural co2 variations? Have they stopped?

Why if AGW and the IPCC mob are correct do they refuse to revise the modelling at the centre of climate change theory?

Why can they keep spinning the yarn about the execellence of these models when they are fundamentally wrong in the way they were created, data creates the model not the other way about?

Why are there eminent climatologists who cannot gain research posts because of their heretical views?

Why is it more difficult to get a job in Hadley Centre than to break into Buckingham Palace?

Why do IPCC never tell anyone the REAL end effects of Global Warming?

Why do they never talk about the fact that unless the Greenhouse Principle did exist the actual global temperature would be around -15°C?

Why do they never tell you that the net effect won't be catastrophic raising of sea levels but a fairly rapid drop into an ice age?

Before you come back with all sorts of stuff to cut me down well remember we've had this crap forced down our necks for 20 years, I've heard most of it..... I'm still not convinced

Alright - I'm new to the sceptic arguments so i'm having to check them all up - you've thrown a few new things my way that i need to check up...and i'm pleased that this is starting to shape up to be a valid debate. 8)

but first off I've got a few questions of my own - why do you believe that money incentives to falsify science in academia are more significant than money incentives offered by multi national energy companies?

Do you seriously believe that there is a conspiracy that includes the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Specatator, among other right wing and corporate publications, to suppress good information and to publish the obviously fake, and somehow this conspiracy extends all the way to the internet? Can you explain how that works please?

Was the US government involved in this conspiracy - in which case why were whistleblowers in the US claiming that they had lost their funding because their work supported the man made climate change hypothesis?

also - I seem to remember seeing natural CO2 variations baing discussed in almost every article on climate change i've ever read - can you explain please what is the significance to this debate please as I don;t believe anyone is denying natural variations?

NOT conspiracy - bandwagon / a self -referential media circus would be more accurate......

So what stops the Daily Mail publishing THE evidence that will blow open the whole "circus" then? Why dosn't BP or Shell produce the evidence they have that obviously shows that climate change scientists are all wrong?

Where is this evidence - I assume you've seen it since you're so sure that man made climate change hypothisis is so completely wrong.

I'd like to see that evidence too please.

teagar

Surely the whole debate on cimate change hinges on risk.

Risk is the likelihood of something happenning multiplied by the severity of the risk.

So the likelihood is disupted, but the most severe outcome is turning earth into a planet unhospitible for humans.

Surely the ins and outs of climate change are a bit irrelevant. If it is happening and nothing is done, than we're all fucked.

See tackling global warming as an insurance policy. We're doing it just in case it is actually leading to a serious gigantic humanitarian problem.

If deniers are wrong, it's the end of the planet as we know it, if climate believers are wrong, we're inconvenienced.

disgruntledgoat

Regardless of my views on the pace, providence and severity of climate change, what I really object to is the fact that some Government wonk is in the paper every week saying that London will look like Venice and everyone will die UNLESS you give me lots more in "green taxes" so he can "ummmm, well, y'know"

Either ringfence the money for specific, scoped objectives and then let's have a debate or sod off with your transparent attempt to claw back the enormous deficit you created.

Anonymous

skinson & Porgy - handbags away please.

Porgy

M.Cole wrote:

skinson & Porgy - handbags away please.

what have i done wrong apart from challenging some personal comments being put my way just because i hold a differing view on climate change?

Porgy

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Regardless of my views on the pace, providence and severity of climate change, what I really object to is the fact that some Government wonk is in the paper every week saying that London will look like Venice and everyone will die UNLESS you give me lots more in "green taxes" so he can "ummmm, well, y'know"

Either ringfence the money for specific, scoped objectives and then let's have a debate or sod off with your transparent attempt to claw back the enormous deficit you created.

But we all know politicians are useless - they are supposedly accountable to us though - so why not challenge them on their actions?

wirralguy

Mr Al Gore is making a very good living thanks to climate change man made or not ,prety good for a second rate failed us presidential hopefull there are far two many intrested groups involved the gain a true picture of whats going on or not going on

Porgy

wirralguy wrote:

Mr Al Gore is making a very good living thanks to climate change man made or not ,prety good for a second rate failed us presidential hopefull

I don;t think he was exactly poor before - i'm sure he could have invested in conventional energy and probably made an even better living.

"second rate failed us presidential hopeful" who received more votes than the guy who won.

there are far two many intrested groups involved the gain a true picture of whats going on or not going on

i agree with you there - BP, Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil, Rupert Murdoch, the US Republican Party, Total, Arbusto energy, etc etc.

wirralguy

Ok maby i was a bit mean to Mr gore but who can you trust on these matters

Porgy

wirralguy wrote:

Ok maby i was a bit mean to Mr gore but who can you trust on these matters

er...well if you're asking me it's not who it's what - it's the evidence...i'm trying to find something at the moment that will allow me to begin doubting the orthodox science.

And believe me - I am doing this with a completely open mind.

and thanks to the posters who are getting into the spririt of this - I ahve a few leads already which I will be coming back to - and maybe I'll be challenging the man made Climate Change espousers.