EARTH-CLIMATE WARS
#121
Les, how many times do you think you've mentioned the statistical anomaly of the last ten years, even though you consistently ignore that within that last ten year period we've had one, if not two of the hottest years on record?
I reckon it's about 15 times now, and i'm still wondering what futile reason you have for keep doing so. Are you waiting for a reply from one person in particular? If you are, can you tell us who it is so we can get you your response so you don't have to trot it out each and every fekkin thread about the climate? It's twice on this thread alone already.
I reckon it's about 15 times now, and i'm still wondering what futile reason you have for keep doing so. Are you waiting for a reply from one person in particular? If you are, can you tell us who it is so we can get you your response so you don't have to trot it out each and every fekkin thread about the climate? It's twice on this thread alone already.
This is directed at you by the way, my other posts were not, if they were I would have said so. Best not to make assumptions of course.
I mentioned what I did again because those who are shouting about global warming ignored it because it did not suit their pronouncements and I am perfectly entitled to do so anyway. For your interest I have already mentioned it previously in another thread.
The temperatures are measured in different ways and Nasa use satellites to do so. Their results are quoted to be within 0.03 of a degree. They say that there has been a small fall in atmospheric temperature over the last ten years. There has been a small increase in surface temperatures overall which is put down to solar warming rather than any greenhouse effect, but more due to local environmental changes since there have been no significant increases in unpopulated areas. The unusual rise in 1998 was due to volcanic eruptions and the effects of El Nino. That rise has now disappeared. The temperatures taken by balloons were found to be less accurate than originally thought due to the sun's effect on the balloons' temperatures.
I was surprised at your example of hotter summers proving global warming. Did not notice that here this summer thats for sure! Our daily temperatures have been averaging around 15-18 degrees C so far in "sunny" Devon. it is also worth mentioning that there have been no sunspots for a long time now. We are at a sunpot minimum as happens every eleven years or so but it is unusual to see none at all. It is said that sunspots can also affect the Earth's climate.
Les
#122
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it hasn't been "as soon as" you start spouting a statistically irrelevant and actually factually inaccurate load of tripe, it's the 15th or so time we've all had to endure it, so i'm mentioning in case you weren't aware yourself how tiresome it had become, long ago.
#123
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder why you have to start jumping up and down as though you had a hot poker up your jacksey as soon as a statement is made which does not agree with your ideas. I am certainly not going to apologise for stating my own views.
This is directed at you by the way, my other posts were not, if they were I would have said so. Best not to make assumptions of course.
I mentioned what I did again because those who are shouting about global warming ignored it because it did not suit their pronouncements and I am perfectly entitled to do so anyway. For your interest I have already mentioned it previously in another thread.
The temperatures are measured in different ways and Nasa use satellites to do so. Their results are quoted to be within 0.03 of a degree. They say that there has been a small fall in atmospheric temperature over the last ten years. There has been a small increase in surface temperatures overall which is put down to solar warming rather than any greenhouse effect, but more due to local environmental changes since there have been no significant increases in unpopulated areas. The unusual rise in 1998 was due to volcanic eruptions and the effects of El Nino. That rise has now disappeared. The temperatures taken by balloons were found to be less accurate than originally thought due to the sun's effect on the balloons' temperatures.
I was surprised at your example of hotter summers proving global warming. Did not notice that here this summer thats for sure! Our daily temperatures have been averaging around 15-18 degrees C so far in "sunny" Devon. it is also worth mentioning that there have been no sunspots for a long time now. We are at a sunpot minimum as happens every eleven years or so but it is unusual to see none at all. It is said that sunspots can also affect the Earth's climate.
Les
This is directed at you by the way, my other posts were not, if they were I would have said so. Best not to make assumptions of course.
I mentioned what I did again because those who are shouting about global warming ignored it because it did not suit their pronouncements and I am perfectly entitled to do so anyway. For your interest I have already mentioned it previously in another thread.
The temperatures are measured in different ways and Nasa use satellites to do so. Their results are quoted to be within 0.03 of a degree. They say that there has been a small fall in atmospheric temperature over the last ten years. There has been a small increase in surface temperatures overall which is put down to solar warming rather than any greenhouse effect, but more due to local environmental changes since there have been no significant increases in unpopulated areas. The unusual rise in 1998 was due to volcanic eruptions and the effects of El Nino. That rise has now disappeared. The temperatures taken by balloons were found to be less accurate than originally thought due to the sun's effect on the balloons' temperatures.
I was surprised at your example of hotter summers proving global warming. Did not notice that here this summer thats for sure! Our daily temperatures have been averaging around 15-18 degrees C so far in "sunny" Devon. it is also worth mentioning that there have been no sunspots for a long time now. We are at a sunpot minimum as happens every eleven years or so but it is unusual to see none at all. It is said that sunspots can also affect the Earth's climate.
Les
#125
Pretty poor response Telboy, try removing the poker!
Les
Last edited by Leslie; 17 September 2008 at 02:17 PM.
#126
According to the programme last week, the satellite data used to calculate the 10 year fall in global temperature was wrong, due to the satellite's orbit reducing in height over the period. When it was recalculated to compensate for this - it showed the Earth had indeed been warming over those 10 years.
#127
BUT, climate IS changing, and all other things being equal, unless the Earth has suddenly entered some new volatile era all by itself, the only variable i see is the six billion people pumping crap out into the atmosphere that weren't doing it before. With the greatest respect, i'm honestly staggered that anyone halfway intelligent can deny that man is having some sort of impact.
#128
If there was not a natural greenhouse effect from the greenhouse gases which are present in the atmosphere, the Earth would be pretty cold, they say an average of -19 degrees instead of the average +15 at the moment. We would be well and truly in an ice age!
The most effective greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by far is water vapour. It is said to produce up to 70% of the greenhouse effect. Are they concentrating on the wrong gas then? Shouldn't they be taxing us all on making tea/coffee and cooking at home? Of course it is very easy to use CO2 as the big excuse. Methane is a bit more difficult!
The fact that global atmospheric temperatures have not increased in the last decade gives the lie to it all.
Les
The most effective greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by far is water vapour. It is said to produce up to 70% of the greenhouse effect. Are they concentrating on the wrong gas then? Shouldn't they be taxing us all on making tea/coffee and cooking at home? Of course it is very easy to use CO2 as the big excuse. Methane is a bit more difficult!
The fact that global atmospheric temperatures have not increased in the last decade gives the lie to it all.
Les
#129
#130
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#131
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#132
Clearly you cannot be bothered to find out how CO2 actually behaves and would rather believe Al Gore and the IPCC, which is a rather sad situation to be in, but not unexpected. There are many gullible fools around.
#133
#134
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the programme last week, the satellite data used to calculate the 10 year fall in global temperature was wrong, due to the satellite's orbit reducing in height over the period. When it was recalculated to compensate for this - it showed the Earth had indeed been warming over those 10 years.
#135
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well we had the final episode of "the pseudo-Big Yin show" earlier, and true to form it was a pile of biased, un-scientific, BBC sponsored propaganda!!
Within seconds he was spouting "global warming is happening and it is all man's fault", and it continued despite many examples as to why it perhaps may not be.
Clever little ice-cores showed that the temperature of the Earth rose by as much as FIVE DEGREES in just over a year many moons ago. Funny that, i don't recall there being planes and trains and automobiles in those days - still, it was probably man's fault then n'all
Oh, and the polar sea-ice is melting much faster that the climate models have predicted - thus we are all doomed. It never occurred to him that maybe, just maybe, the models were incorrect in the first place????
Al Gore would be proud of him
mb
Within seconds he was spouting "global warming is happening and it is all man's fault", and it continued despite many examples as to why it perhaps may not be.
Clever little ice-cores showed that the temperature of the Earth rose by as much as FIVE DEGREES in just over a year many moons ago. Funny that, i don't recall there being planes and trains and automobiles in those days - still, it was probably man's fault then n'all
Oh, and the polar sea-ice is melting much faster that the climate models have predicted - thus we are all doomed. It never occurred to him that maybe, just maybe, the models were incorrect in the first place????
Al Gore would be proud of him
mb
#137
It is so obvious that you let your personal animosity towards me rule your thinking to such an extent that you are unable to produce a reasoned response to my posts. It is a shame to see someone who is presumably intelligent having to scrape the barrel to even be able to insult me!
It is your personal gods, ie scientists, even if they are not in the pay of the government, who have produced the information about the lack of global warming. Since you appear to be beset with your own personal dogma over global warming, that can be the only reason that you seem to be in denial of the full picture.
Still not necessary to descend to personal insults though.
Les
#138
Well, if it isn't global warming there is a new twist:
Nature's budget 'has run out' - Yahoo! News UK
Steve
Nature's budget 'has run out' - Yahoo! News UK
Steve
#139
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if it isn't global warming there is a new twist:
Nature's budget 'has run out' - Yahoo! News UK
Steve
Nature's budget 'has run out' - Yahoo! News UK
Steve
The answer to this is population control. The planet simply cannot sustain 6+ billion humans. Cut down the population, you reduce our consumption, and our waste products.
Right then, who's up for a nice little war?
#140
Well, if it isn't global warming there is a new twist:
Nature's budget 'has run out' - Yahoo! News UK
Steve
Nature's budget 'has run out' - Yahoo! News UK
Steve
Les
#141
It may have to resort to Chinese '1 family 1 child' type policy unless something changes in the medium-term (next 20-30 years).
Steve
#142
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This and the next generation are in for a really bumpy ride if the science is right. I don't think we can bury our heads in the sand, pretend our activities are consequence free, and hope for the best. We owe the next generation more than that.
#146
[QUOTE=Martin2005;8150459]It's certainly going to be much easier to change our behaviour than reduce population. I do not buy the arguement that the Earth cannot sustain 6 billion people, because right now it demonstrably does. The question should be can the Earth continue to sustain 6+ billion people if we do nothing to change the way we live, I suspect not btw.QUOTE]
Not sure how 6 billion on the planet today means the planet can sustain that many? Even more worrying, the population is forecast to reach 9 billion by 2045 at current birth rates. Rainforests being demolished, fish stocks depleted etc means we're doomed
I've said for some time that the global warming is as nothing to the over-population of the planet. i.e. we are an out of control organism in a closed system. Think bacteria in a petri dish - they cheerfully increase in numbers until their food runs out - and the population crashes.
Problem is it's soooo impalatable to suggest that people shouldn't have the right to procreate that no government will get round to it until it's way too late. Ho hum.
Gordo
Not sure how 6 billion on the planet today means the planet can sustain that many? Even more worrying, the population is forecast to reach 9 billion by 2045 at current birth rates. Rainforests being demolished, fish stocks depleted etc means we're doomed
I've said for some time that the global warming is as nothing to the over-population of the planet. i.e. we are an out of control organism in a closed system. Think bacteria in a petri dish - they cheerfully increase in numbers until their food runs out - and the population crashes.
Problem is it's soooo impalatable to suggest that people shouldn't have the right to procreate that no government will get round to it until it's way too late. Ho hum.
Gordo
#148
You just can't do it can you. You would actually make life easier for yourself if you realised that you are not so important that everyone is forced to agree with what you say, and that if they don't, then you don't have the right to use insulting or obscene language to try to browbeat them. Neither is it wise to post slanderous comments about their background-especially when you have no proof!
Incidentally, whatever picture you posted does not show.
Les
Incidentally, whatever picture you posted does not show.
Les
Last edited by Leslie; 24 September 2008 at 12:16 PM.
#149
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Class record holder at Pembrey Llandow Goodwood MIRA Hethel Blyton Curborough Lydden and Snetterton
Posts: 8,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Second story on here Financial crisis: Lehman misses out on carbon credit scam - Telegraph
Quite a good summary, worth quoting
BBC series stitches up sceptics in counter-attack over climate change
As informed questioning of the global warming orthodoxy rises on all sides, the BBC's three-part series Climate Wars, ending tonight, bears all the marks of a carefully planned counter-attack.
BBC science producers were apoplectic at the attention given last year to Martin Durkin's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, featuring a galaxy of the world's more sceptical climate scientists. This is their riposte.
Last week, against a range of far-flung locations from Greenland to California, the presenter, Dr Iain Stewart, tackled three of the main arguments of Durkin's film.
In each case the technique was the same. After caricaturing the sceptics' point, with soundbite clips that did not allow them to develop their scientific argument, he then asserted that they had somehow been discredited.
For example, doubts had been raised over the reliability of satellite temperature records which do not show the same degree of warming as surface readings. Dr Roy Spencer, who designed Nasa's satellite system for measuring temperatures, was allowed to admit that a flaw had been found in the system.
But his interview ended before he could explain that, when the flaw was discovered in 1998, it was immediately corrected (although it made little difference to the results).
Likewise, there is a growing case for a correlation between global temperatures and solar activity. Dr Stewart accused Durkin's programme of cutting off a graph which illustrated this at a point when the data failed to support the thesis. Then he did exactly the same himself, not extending his own graph to 2008 in a way that would reinforce the thesis.
Most hilarious of all, however, was a long sequence in which Stewart defended the notorious "hockey stick" graph, which purports to show that temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level on record.
The BBC had a huge blow-up of this "iconic" graph carted triumphantly round London, from Big Ben to Buckingham Palace, as if it were proof that the warming alarmists are right.
There was no hint that the "hockey stick" is among the most completely discredited artefacts in the history of science, not least thanks to the devastating critique by Steve McIntyre, which showed that the graph's creators had an algorithm in their programme which could produce a hockey-stick shape whatever data were fed into it.
There was scarcely a frame of this clever exercise which did not distort or obscure some vital fact. Yet the "impartial" BBC is sending out this farrago of convenient untruths to schools, ensuring that the "march of the lie" continues.
As informed questioning of the global warming orthodoxy rises on all sides, the BBC's three-part series Climate Wars, ending tonight, bears all the marks of a carefully planned counter-attack.
BBC science producers were apoplectic at the attention given last year to Martin Durkin's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, featuring a galaxy of the world's more sceptical climate scientists. This is their riposte.
Last week, against a range of far-flung locations from Greenland to California, the presenter, Dr Iain Stewart, tackled three of the main arguments of Durkin's film.
In each case the technique was the same. After caricaturing the sceptics' point, with soundbite clips that did not allow them to develop their scientific argument, he then asserted that they had somehow been discredited.
For example, doubts had been raised over the reliability of satellite temperature records which do not show the same degree of warming as surface readings. Dr Roy Spencer, who designed Nasa's satellite system for measuring temperatures, was allowed to admit that a flaw had been found in the system.
But his interview ended before he could explain that, when the flaw was discovered in 1998, it was immediately corrected (although it made little difference to the results).
Likewise, there is a growing case for a correlation between global temperatures and solar activity. Dr Stewart accused Durkin's programme of cutting off a graph which illustrated this at a point when the data failed to support the thesis. Then he did exactly the same himself, not extending his own graph to 2008 in a way that would reinforce the thesis.
Most hilarious of all, however, was a long sequence in which Stewart defended the notorious "hockey stick" graph, which purports to show that temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level on record.
The BBC had a huge blow-up of this "iconic" graph carted triumphantly round London, from Big Ben to Buckingham Palace, as if it were proof that the warming alarmists are right.
There was no hint that the "hockey stick" is among the most completely discredited artefacts in the history of science, not least thanks to the devastating critique by Steve McIntyre, which showed that the graph's creators had an algorithm in their programme which could produce a hockey-stick shape whatever data were fed into it.
There was scarcely a frame of this clever exercise which did not distort or obscure some vital fact. Yet the "impartial" BBC is sending out this farrago of convenient untruths to schools, ensuring that the "march of the lie" continues.
#150
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BBC bias is gradually being exposed!!!
BBC investigated after peer says climate change programme was biased 'one-sided polemic'
...and we are paying for the likes of Stewart to peddle these lies!!!
mb
Originally Posted by Tamara Cohen
The BBC is being investigated by television watchdogs after a leading climate change sceptic claimed his views were deliberately misrepresented.
Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, says he was made to look like a ‘potty peer’ on a TV programme that ‘was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming’.
Earth: The Climate Wars, which was broadcast on BBC 2, was billed as a definitive guide to the history of global warming, including arguments for and against.
During the series, Dr Iain Stewart, a geologist, interviewed leading climate change sceptics, including Lord Monckton. But the peer complained to Ofcom that the broadcast had been unfairly edited.
‘I very much hope Ofcom will do something about this,’ he said yesterday. ...(continued)...
Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, says he was made to look like a ‘potty peer’ on a TV programme that ‘was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming’.
Earth: The Climate Wars, which was broadcast on BBC 2, was billed as a definitive guide to the history of global warming, including arguments for and against.
During the series, Dr Iain Stewart, a geologist, interviewed leading climate change sceptics, including Lord Monckton. But the peer complained to Ofcom that the broadcast had been unfairly edited.
‘I very much hope Ofcom will do something about this,’ he said yesterday. ...(continued)...
mb
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post