You can blame anything on Global Warming now....
28 October 2009, 09:45 AM
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just find it absurd that the word "fact" can be bandied about on here so much. If it was that obvious, there would be no debate. The fact is, that eminent scientists waaaay more knowledgable than anyone on this car site have expressed their concerns about climate change. And yet here we are, carefully selecting articles which "prove" one way or the other that the side of the argument we disagree with is "factually" wrong. It's ridiculous.
You know what i think? I think that if Governments weren't perceived to be involved in this at all, a lot more people would stop searching for evidence to debunk the theory. It's the intrinsic cynicism of government itself which has led so many people do dig out whatever statistics necessary to "prove" it is all a lie. That's a lot of energy to spend on something which we could all so easily sign up to and adjust our lifestyles to accommodate. But no, don't want to do that. Don't trust governments and the way they ram their green policies down my throat, don't want to be told i can't do this, can't do that just for a few polar bears. And hey, i like it being warmer!!
And so on we go. Humans, you've got to love them.
You know what i think? I think that if Governments weren't perceived to be involved in this at all, a lot more people would stop searching for evidence to debunk the theory. It's the intrinsic cynicism of government itself which has led so many people do dig out whatever statistics necessary to "prove" it is all a lie. That's a lot of energy to spend on something which we could all so easily sign up to and adjust our lifestyles to accommodate. But no, don't want to do that. Don't trust governments and the way they ram their green policies down my throat, don't want to be told i can't do this, can't do that just for a few polar bears. And hey, i like it being warmer!!
And so on we go. Humans, you've got to love them.
28 October 2009, 09:51 AM
#62
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Zed Ess Won Hay Tee
Posts: 21,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some light reading
Them dinos must have all be tanking around in V8 muscle cars
The CO2 level today, 387 PPM, can be compared to with a level of 8000 PPM (20X todays levels) 500 million years ago or CO2 levels of 2000 – 3000 PPM (5 to 6 times todays levels) during the Jurasic Period, when the Great Dinosaurs roamed the earth. Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere
Them dinos must have all be tanking around in V8 muscle cars
28 October 2009, 10:03 AM
#63
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the problem with using 1998 as the moment in time that global warming apparently stopped is flawed though. 1998 was an exceptionally hot year and a stastical outlier. The trend is still upwards (although slowing somewhat). Of course I'm no expert but it's probably not sensibly to dismiss an issue as potentially serious as this on the basis of a rogue data point.
So we should be asking why is the trend slowing instead of why has global warming stopped. That could be to do with solar activity, as already discussed on the thread, beyond that who knows????
So we should be asking why is the trend slowing instead of why has global warming stopped. That could be to do with solar activity, as already discussed on the thread, beyond that who knows????
If you wish to talk about trends, then the warming trend up to 1998 can be seen as an anomaly in the true picture, not that we are on a runaway warming. You can cut it both ways.
Seeing as we know the planet has warmed and cooled utterly wihtout human interference, then I would suggest that the warming was not indicative of how things will go.
Geezer
28 October 2009, 12:54 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Telboy, the whole theory of AGW is based on the IPCC hockey stick graph the IPCC, Al Gore and other alarmists so enjoy splashing across screens. Ever wonder how that graph came to be? I'll tell you. Dr Keith Briffa, examined some tree ring data from the Yamal peninsula in Russia. He examined only 12 trees from a dataset, which contained 36 trees, and selected just 1. Tree (YAD061 I think it was) displayed "different" ring growth pattern to the others. The IPCC hockey stick was born.
Trees are extremely bad "thermometers", tree ring proxy data is even worse. But, to base the whole theory of AGW as documented and presented by the IPCC, and the following social policy, soley on the data of 1 tree, dosn't raise any concerns with you?
I like being warm too, cold is not good. Have you checked the record lows in north America this winter? I don't like being conned by politicians, they do enough of that already. BTW, Copenhagen is all about getting an agreement on a UN based, un-elected, world Govn't and wealth redistribution to developiing nations. Haven't you read the documents?
Trees are extremely bad "thermometers", tree ring proxy data is even worse. But, to base the whole theory of AGW as documented and presented by the IPCC, and the following social policy, soley on the data of 1 tree, dosn't raise any concerns with you?
I like being warm too, cold is not good. Have you checked the record lows in north America this winter? I don't like being conned by politicians, they do enough of that already. BTW, Copenhagen is all about getting an agreement on a UN based, un-elected, world Govn't and wealth redistribution to developiing nations. Haven't you read the documents?
Last edited by Klaatu; 28 October 2009 at 01:04 PM.
28 October 2009, 01:02 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Klaatu, you know as well as i do that there is significant evidence, or "facts" as we like to call them, on both sides of this debate. You're fooling yourself if you don't recognise that at least.
If you're in London tomorrow, enjoy the barbeque weather.
If you're in London tomorrow, enjoy the barbeque weather.
28 October 2009, 01:09 PM
#66
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the BBQ weather The Met has been predicting for...errrmmm.... a couple of years now, right? Gulf stream, keeps western Europe warm. The major oceans are cooling...AMO, PDO. Get some furs, you'll need them.
At least I read up on how the IPCC sources it's data. The data is flawed. 1 tree defines AGW (Which took another scientist 10 years to extract this publicly funded study and data)....anyone who follows that certainly is fooled. A fool is parted from his money easily.
At least I read up on how the IPCC sources it's data. The data is flawed. 1 tree defines AGW (Which took another scientist 10 years to extract this publicly funded study and data)....anyone who follows that certainly is fooled. A fool is parted from his money easily.
Last edited by Klaatu; 28 October 2009 at 01:14 PM.
28 October 2009, 01:44 PM
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
28 October 2009, 02:09 PM
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is is all about, and you being apparently reasonably smart appear to miss, it is alll about control, the control of energy.
I repeat, think about the data that the IPCC used to create the hockey stick graph. The tree ring proxy data from one tree = AGW. Does that seem a bit, errrm...odd, to you?
28 October 2009, 02:11 PM
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the BBQ weather The Met has been predicting for...errrmmm.... a couple of years now, right? Gulf stream, keeps western Europe warm. The major oceans are cooling...AMO, PDO. Get some furs, you'll need them.
At least I read up on how the IPCC sources it's data. The data is flawed. 1 tree defines AGW (Which took another scientist 10 years to extract this publicly funded study and data)....anyone who follows that certainly is fooled. A fool is parted from his money easily.
At least I read up on how the IPCC sources it's data. The data is flawed. 1 tree defines AGW (Which took another scientist 10 years to extract this publicly funded study and data)....anyone who follows that certainly is fooled. A fool is parted from his money easily.
28 October 2009, 02:12 PM
#71
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not disputing what it's become, Dave, i just think it's a shame that those factors have led to such strenuous efforts to prove the whole thing is a scam. Like talking about "one tree" or whatever it was. If it is man's fault, we'll have wasted an awful long time pointing fingers instead of actually doing something about it. That, above all, is what i find so tragic about it all.
28 October 2009, 02:23 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin, did you know about YAD061, do you know where it was. Did you know Briffa refused access to data, until the British Royal Society released the data for him, 10 years after the initail request (He blatantly refused access)? And do you know trees are very bad thermometers? Yes I do study things, I may present my finding in a way that is contary to Al Gores BS, but it is truth. I am not wanting others to believe me, as you constantly state. I encourange others to examine the data, as I constantly state.
Do you know the Hadley CRU "lost" the original data they used to create their findings?
28 October 2009, 02:28 PM
#73
Scooby Regular
28 October 2009, 02:31 PM
#74
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well certainly more so than the IPCC, Mann, Hansen, Briffa and Gore. One (YAD061) tree ring proxy data = AGW. C'mon, pull the other one.
Martin, did you know about YAD061, do you know where it was. Did you know Briffa refused access to data, until the British Royal Society released the data for him, 10 years after the initail request (He blatantly refused access)? And do you know trees are very bad thermometers? Yes I do study things, I may present my finding in a way that is contary to Al Gores BS, but it is truth. I am not wanting others to believe me, as you constantly state. I encourange others to examine the data, as I constantly state.
Do you know the Hadley CRU "lost" the original data they used to create their findings?
Martin, did you know about YAD061, do you know where it was. Did you know Briffa refused access to data, until the British Royal Society released the data for him, 10 years after the initail request (He blatantly refused access)? And do you know trees are very bad thermometers? Yes I do study things, I may present my finding in a way that is contary to Al Gores BS, but it is truth. I am not wanting others to believe me, as you constantly state. I encourange others to examine the data, as I constantly state.
Do you know the Hadley CRU "lost" the original data they used to create their findings?
That's what we have a scientific community for, and that community (on both sides of the debate) isn't using anywhere near the levels of certainty you seem happy to use. So forgive me for not going out and cutting down a rainforest in celebration at yet more of your 'facts'.
28 October 2009, 03:41 PM
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
The answer to all your 'questions' is of course no I do not know this stuff.
That's what we have a scientific community for, and that community (on both sides of the debate) isn't using anywhere near the levels of certainty you seem happy to use. So forgive me for not going out and cutting down a rainforest in celebration at yet more of your 'facts'.
That's what we have a scientific community for, and that community (on both sides of the debate) isn't using anywhere near the levels of certainty you seem happy to use. So forgive me for not going out and cutting down a rainforest in celebration at yet more of your 'facts'.
Or did you not go to school? ....
Dave
28 October 2009, 05:48 PM
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You *don't know it* because you never bother to read up on it. When you look at things like tree-ring data that actually goes back to biology lessons you had at school. It's very simple stuff. And here we have members of the so-called *scientific* community trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes and claiming one thing when the totality of data says another.
Or did you not go to school? ....
Dave
Or did you not go to school? ....
Dave
Why would the scientific community be trying to decieve me anyway?
I just wish for once ...just for once you would present a balanced view on this (or anything for that matter). Because you know what, this isn't a simple black and white issue?
Surely you can conceed that it is at least possible that AGW is a reality, at least then we could discuss the REAL issue, which how much of problem this is likely to be.
28 October 2009, 06:27 PM
#77
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's not true to say 'I never bother to read up on it', I said I'm not qualified to mark the scientists homework....are you?
Why would the scientific community be trying to decieve me anyway?
I just wish for once ...just for once you would present a balanced view on this (or anything for that matter). Because you know what, this isn't a simple black and white issue?
Surely you can conceed that it is at least possible that AGW is a reality, at least then we could discuss the REAL issue, which how much of problem this is likely to be.
Why would the scientific community be trying to decieve me anyway?
I just wish for once ...just for once you would present a balanced view on this (or anything for that matter). Because you know what, this isn't a simple black and white issue?
Surely you can conceed that it is at least possible that AGW is a reality, at least then we could discuss the REAL issue, which how much of problem this is likely to be.
As for a balanced view, how the h3ll do you live your daily life? My 'balanced view', after looking at shed-loads of evidence is that AGW is NOT a reality. Can't you make up your mind on the subject as I and many others have done?
If your opinion is to sit firmly on the fence because you can't make up your mind that's fine. But don't ask others to do the same when they HAVE made up theirs. Now *IF* some irrefutable proof should pop-up then I'll change my mind, on the balance of evidence. In the meantime, as I said, the balance is firmly against AGW> It's all a scam to tax the cr*p out of us and exert more control.
Look up the consequences of cutting back CO2 emissions by the figures being bandied about. Basically it means we'll all be living in mud-huts in a few years time.
Oh, and they're all 'carbon' emissions now because carbon is nasty smelly black stuff. Rather than what they really mean which is CO2 because that's a colourless, odourless gas that's essential for life and they can't make that out to be 'nasty and evil'.
Feel free to cut your *carbon* emissions if you like *just in case*.
Dave
28 October 2009, 08:02 PM
#78
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, on the subject of tree-rings anyone who has understood 'O' level biology can mark the scientists homework.
As for a balanced view, how the h3ll do you live your daily life? My 'balanced view', after looking at shed-loads of evidence is that AGW is NOT a reality. Can't you make up your mind on the subject as I and many others have done?
If your opinion is to sit firmly on the fence because you can't make up your mind that's fine. But don't ask others to do the same when they HAVE made up theirs. Now *IF* some irrefutable proof should pop-up then I'll change my mind, on the balance of evidence. In the meantime, as I said, the balance is firmly against AGW> It's all a scam to tax the cr*p out of us and exert more control.
Look up the consequences of cutting back CO2 emissions by the figures being bandied about. Basically it means we'll all be living in mud-huts in a few years time.
Oh, and they're all 'carbon' emissions now because carbon is nasty smelly black stuff. Rather than what they really mean which is CO2 because that's a colourless, odourless gas that's essential for life and they can't make that out to be 'nasty and evil'.
Feel free to cut your *carbon* emissions if you like *just in case*.
Dave
As for a balanced view, how the h3ll do you live your daily life? My 'balanced view', after looking at shed-loads of evidence is that AGW is NOT a reality. Can't you make up your mind on the subject as I and many others have done?
If your opinion is to sit firmly on the fence because you can't make up your mind that's fine. But don't ask others to do the same when they HAVE made up theirs. Now *IF* some irrefutable proof should pop-up then I'll change my mind, on the balance of evidence. In the meantime, as I said, the balance is firmly against AGW> It's all a scam to tax the cr*p out of us and exert more control.
Look up the consequences of cutting back CO2 emissions by the figures being bandied about. Basically it means we'll all be living in mud-huts in a few years time.
Oh, and they're all 'carbon' emissions now because carbon is nasty smelly black stuff. Rather than what they really mean which is CO2 because that's a colourless, odourless gas that's essential for life and they can't make that out to be 'nasty and evil'.
Feel free to cut your *carbon* emissions if you like *just in case*.
Dave
I'm not sitting on the fence, that's a ridiculous thing to say. There isn't a fence to sit on, it kind of amuses me that having an open mind is considered such a weakness in Davesworld.
Last edited by Martin2005; 28 October 2009 at 08:15 PM.
28 October 2009, 08:13 PM
#79
Scooby Regular
I'm not disputing what it's become, Dave, i just think it's a shame that those factors have led to such strenuous efforts to prove the whole thing is a scam. Like talking about "one tree" or whatever it was. If it is man's fault, we'll have wasted an awful long time pointing fingers instead of actually doing something about it. That, above all, is what i find so tragic about it all.
28 October 2009, 08:38 PM
#80
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave you are just not being honest here with me or yourself. You've somehow to managed construct an impregnable shield of right wing dogma, self interest and conspiracy theories, there's no way the other side of the argument is getting in. I have not once read a post from you on this subject (or any other for that matter) that was anything other than absolutist.
I'm not sitting on the fence, that's a ridiculous thing to say. There isn't a fence to sit on, it kind of amuses me that having an open mind is considered such a weakness in Davesworld.
I'm not sitting on the fence, that's a ridiculous thing to say. There isn't a fence to sit on, it kind of amuses me that having an open mind is considered such a weakness in Davesworld.
Dave
28 October 2009, 09:09 PM
#81
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm. Strange but I put up a point, supported by facts, as do others. But then you accuse me (us) of right-wing dogma. You make those accusations as well as making points that are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Please respect those of us who have read around the subject and come to a conclusion. As I have said though, come up with some earth-shattering *facts* that disprove my argument and I'll change my mind.
Dave
Dave
You know full well that anybody can post up 'facts' on this subject and I just will not get involved in a meaningless google-a-thon, there's no point. You should also consider not claiming opinion pieces as facts, there's plenty of looney left opinions dressed up as facts out there, which you've cleverly avoided posting up.
Now the bottom line for me is I hope you're right. But I just can't get away from believing that there are consequences for actions. How severe those consequences are is the issue for me. But I've lived long enough to know there's no such thing as a free lunch.
29 October 2009, 09:56 AM
#82
Guest
Posts: n/a
“The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.
……
Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.
…….
We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects.
…….
These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’” .
And you say it's all bout the *science* and they can't agree on that yet .... wake up and smell the coffee!
Dave
29 October 2009, 02:29 PM
#83
Scooby Regular
That's what we have a scientific community for, and that community (on both sides of the debate) isn't using anywhere near the levels of certainty you seem happy to use. So forgive me for not going out and cutting down a rainforest in celebration at yet more of your 'facts'.
All I've seen so far are an assortment of alleged scientists* and politicians shouting that it's all the fault of car drivers - but strangely not the aircraft or haulage industries - and that the working & middle classes are going to have to pay for it all
Obvioulsy, big business & the politicians (once they have moved out of public office & into private consultancy) will make a hefty profit from the so called resolutions
Meanwhile, thanks to independent arbitrary media organisations such as the BBC & News Corp, who take such an obviously neutral stance on such things, anybody who does dare to make a point on behalf of the other side of this alleged 'debate' is either stifled, or denounced as a heretic
* I say alleged, because no reputable scientist or researcher I've ever encountered would restrict and impede access to their research and data quite so actively and vigourously as these so-called climatologists do
30 October 2009, 10:32 AM
#85
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's remarkable the number of people who will just accept the Govn't authority on this, even without considering the propaganda, the bad science, bad data and bad practices.
Reminds me of the 1950's electric shock experiment.
And yet the climate is defying all IPCC, modelled, prdictions.
Reminds me of the 1950's electric shock experiment.
And yet the climate is defying all IPCC, modelled, prdictions.
30 October 2009, 12:06 PM
#87
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tree ring data from one tree (YAD061) = AGW. That's why it has been so difficult getting access to the data, the data is wrong, Dr K.Briffa (Thanks to the lucrative grants he gets) withheld the data, for 10 years. Think about it. You can do that, right?
How would you measure global average temperature? Come on, you are a smart person. Don't say satellite as that was not used in the AGW myth supported by the IPCC. The satellite data contradicts landbased measurements (Because most devices which were not "warming" are not used anymore, and most "rural" sites have been decommissioned, ie, more urban devices used while "rural" devices are removed = I'll leave you to guess that) and GCM predictions (Strange that).
How would you measure global average temperature? Come on, you are a smart person. Don't say satellite as that was not used in the AGW myth supported by the IPCC. The satellite data contradicts landbased measurements (Because most devices which were not "warming" are not used anymore, and most "rural" sites have been decommissioned, ie, more urban devices used while "rural" devices are removed = I'll leave you to guess that) and GCM predictions (Strange that).
Last edited by Klaatu; 30 October 2009 at 12:07 PM.
30 October 2009, 12:20 PM
#88
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don't waste your breath as I've tried this tack. All Martin et al come back with is, 'but you're not as qualified as the 'scientific experts' so what do you know'...... 
Even when one of the *founders* of the AGW theory admit they can't know the answer ... see ... Data @ NASA GISS: GISTEMP -- Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature
But everything that myself and yourself post if just 'scare mongering, right wing conspiracy theory ...' ... and we have to do the right thing (that is, pay shed loads more taxes to government and big business) 'just in case' we're wrong and AGW really is true ....
Dave
Even when one of the *founders* of the AGW theory admit they can't know the answer ... see ... Data @ NASA GISS: GISTEMP -- Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature
But everything that myself and yourself post if just 'scare mongering, right wing conspiracy theory ...' ... and we have to do the right thing (that is, pay shed loads more taxes to government and big business) 'just in case' we're wrong and AGW really is true ....
Dave
30 October 2009, 12:42 PM
#89
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't waste your breath as I've tried this tack. All Martin et al come back with is, 'but you're not as qualified as the 'scientific experts' so what do you know'......
Even when one of the *founders* of the AGW theory admit they can't know the answer ... see ... Data @ NASA GISS: GISTEMP -- Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature
But everything that myself and yourself post if just 'scare mongering, right wing conspiracy theory ...' ... and we have to do the right thing (that is, pay shed loads more taxes to government and big business) 'just in case' we're wrong and AGW really is true ....
Dave
Even when one of the *founders* of the AGW theory admit they can't know the answer ... see ... Data @ NASA GISS: GISTEMP -- Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature
But everything that myself and yourself post if just 'scare mongering, right wing conspiracy theory ...' ... and we have to do the right thing (that is, pay shed loads more taxes to government and big business) 'just in case' we're wrong and AGW really is true ....
Dave
GISTEMP is a flawed program which uses only 136 thermometer inputs, or rather, flawed data. NOAA is more accurate as it is satellite based.
But what would I know, I am just a moron taxpayer.
30 October 2009, 02:15 PM
#90
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is remarkable. I still, and have been for many years, laugh when some "AGW scientist" talks about global average temps (Pre satellite that is).
GISTEMP is a flawed program which uses only 136 thermometer inputs, or rather, flawed data. NOAA is more accurate as it is satellite based.
But what would I know, I am just a moron taxpayer.
GISTEMP is a flawed program which uses only 136 thermometer inputs, or rather, flawed data. NOAA is more accurate as it is satellite based.
But what would I know, I am just a moron taxpayer.
