This forum is in read-only mode for archive purposes, please use our new forum at https://community.justflight.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Just Chat > Just Chat - General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Colleague defends Climate Scientst
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Colleague defends Climate Scientst
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Colleague defends Climate Scientst
    Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 5:12pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8396035.stm

Quote "Despite the best efforts of the sceptics, there is no instance in these e-mails that anyone has found so far - and there are millions of people looking - that suggests the scientists manipulated their fundamental data," Professor Watson, from the university's School of Environmental Sciences, stated.

No - I completely agree with that. The FUNDAMENTAL data was not altered.

The results of READING that data, and subsequent reports of what the data meant, WERE manipulated.

As for the e-mails being taken "out of context" - rubbish.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt

Quote From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.


Read the link to put this in context:

Quote From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <[3]ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Stephen H Schneider" <[4]shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on Friday
wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force
cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
other skeptics' views.


[5]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
[6]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-cl
imate-change/


BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.


Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?


Narasimha


If the science can stand up to scrutiny, there is no problem, but the problem is that the science can not stand up to scrutiny.

From the link in the e-mail:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/

Quote

I think the BBC wanted to slip this one out quietly, but a Matt Drudge link put paid to that. The climate change correspondent of BBC News has admitted that global warming stopped in 1998 – and he reports that leading scientists believe that the earth’s cooling-off may last for decades.

“Whatever happened to global warming?” is the title of an article by Paul Hudson that represents a clear departure from the BBC’s fanatical espousal of climate change orthodoxy. The climate change campaigners will go nuts, particularly in the run-up to Copenhagen. So, I suspect, will devout believers inside the BBC. Hudson’s story was not placed very prominently by his colleagues – but a link right at the top of Drudge will have delivered at least a million page views, possibly many more.

Hudson’s piece is a U-turn – not because he has joined the ranks of sceptics who reject the theory of man-made global warming, but because at last he has written a story about the well-established fact that the earth’s temperature has not risen since 1998, and reports seriously the theories of climatologists (themselves not sceptics) who believe that we are in for 30 years of cooling caused by the falling temperatures of the oceans.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

Quote

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.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Nicely put: what *IS* going on??? Wink

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 5:26pm
[Insert big farting noise here] Big%20smile
 
We've been studying climate change for 25 years Pointy. The overall trend is known.
 
We've known about, and the trend predicted since way back in the 1800's. Interestingly, the predictions made then are now coming true. Wink
 
And yes, the emails were taken out of context. Shocked
 
 
 
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 5:32pm
Sorry lads, it's on again, the farce continues. Big%20smile
 
Avoid this topic, view at your peril. Big%20smile
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 5:35pm
Quote The overall trend is known.

Let me make this clear.

* FACT: We are heading towards the end of the "Little Ice Age"
* FACT: The planet is warming
* MYTH: WE ARE RESPONSIBLE

See the problem?

If they would stop saying that we are the cause and using it to find reasons why we should change our way of life, stop living, and give billions to corrupt 3rd world countries, in addition to emotionally blackmailing the populations of the world, trying to force evil technologies such as GM crops on us now in the name of feeding the world because they can't force it upon us any other way, and otherwise using it to make money, then I might start listening.

The middle eastern guy has the right idea - let's work on dealing with the EFFECTS of changes in climate, instead of attempting to stop nature itself.

...and I wish they would admit we are running out of oil.

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 5:40pm
Quote the farce continues.

You mean the one where a few scientists fiddle the figures?

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 5:49pm

Your first quote... 'we can't account for the lack of warming [In Bolder] at the moment.' First that's local, not global, and secondly so what, there discussion is about accounting for short term warming and nothing to do with the long terms warming trend. To take a scientists private email, and interpret it that way is wrong.

 

For your perusal and no doubt misinterpretaion...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8389706.stm

 

Why on Earth you regard short term fluctuations as important god only knows. Come on, you are smarter than that.

 

have a gander at this and be enlightened.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm

 

Press play.
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 6:00pm
Quote First that's local, not global

Weather stations are local, are they not?

Quote Why on Earth you regard short term fluctuations as important god only knows. Come on, you are smarter than that.

Because the fact the scientists are s oadament that the planet will warm to boiling point (it will eventually) simply because we are burning fossil fuels.

It is utter rubbish to suggest it will. Furthermore, they can NOT explain why the planet is now cooling again. You say that they predicted it, but everything I've seen so far says they didn't.

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 6:02pm

* FACT: We are heading towards the end of the "Little Ice Age"

. I just love posting the same thing over and over gain, before Pointy is replaced with the alternate clone and we start all over again.

Quote Climate myths: We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age
 

Some climate sceptics argue that the warming we are now experiencing is simply due to the planet recovering from the Little Ice Age, a period of regionally cold conditions between roughly AD 1350 and 1850. But the key question is why it was colder during the Little Ice Age. And why didn't the climate remain that way, or even get colder still?

The Earth does not have some natural temperature to which it always returns. If it cools, then it must be receiving less heat from the Sun or radiating more into space, or both. If it warms, it must be receiving more heat or retaining more heat.

The term "Little Ice Age" is somewhat questionable, because there was no single, well-defined period of prolonged cold around the entire planet. After 1600, there are records of average winter temperatures in Europe and North America that were as much as 2°C lower than present (although the third coldest winter in England since 1659 was in 1963).

Comparisons of temperature indicators such as tree-ring records from around the northern hemisphere suggest there were several widespread cold intervals between 1580 and 1850.

Yet while there is some evidence of cold intervals in parts of the southern hemisphere during this time, they do not appear to coincide with those in the northern hemisphere. Such findings suggest the Little Ice Age may have been more of a regional phenomenon than a global one.

Heat transport

Solar radiation was probably lower at times during this period, especially during a dip in solar activity called the Maunder minimum around 1700, but models and temperature reconstructions suggest this would have reduced average global temperatures by 0.4ºC at most.

The larger falls in temperature in Europe and North American may have been due to changes in atmospheric circulation over the North Atlantic, or in the Gulf Stream, or both, reducing heat transport from the tropics (see Climate change sceptics lose vital argument).

The warming after the so-called Little Ice Age may reflect both an increase in solar activity and a redistribution of heat around the planet. In particular, the increase in global temperature in the first half of the 20th century may have been largely due to an increase in solar activity. The continued warming in recent decades, however, cannot be explained by increases in solar radiation alone (see Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans).

...and I wish they would admit we are running out of oil.
 
Big%20smile They do you plonker, I watched a program about peak oil a few months ago.
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 6:11pm
Originally posted by VulcanB2 VulcanB2 wrote:

Quote First that's local, not global

Weather stations are local, are they not?

Best regards,
Vulcan.
 
Thats nothing to do with it, a short term change in temperature over one small region, means zero.
 
Only average global temperatures since the industrial revolution are important. No causal factors exist to explain that.
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 6:14pm
Quote The term "Little Ice Age" is somewhat questionable, because there was no single, well-defined period of prolonged cold around the entire planet.

Who said there had to be? We know the Atlantic was ice to the equator during this period. Now we are arguing semantics.

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 6:22pm
Ice to the eqautor between roughly AD 1350 and 1850? Confused
 
The point is that the little ice age was a regional event, it wasn't an ice age according to the proper definition. The Little ice age is just a term coined by many, not a technical definition.
 
It was a regional event, nothing like the full scale ice age that would be required for us to be 'coming out of an ice age'. Big%20smile We deal in average world tempretures, not it's hot down Pointy's way. Wink
 
Do you see how lack of understanding, generates nonsense?
 
Your GW posts are full of it.
 
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 6:27pm
Here is a complete article dispelling the common myths, read it and learn. Smile
 
 
A little something just for you...
 
Quote

As for the idea that scientists change their tune to keep their paymasters happy, under the current US administration many scientists claim they have been pressurised to tone down findings relating to climate change (see US fudging of climate science details revealed).

Indeed, those campaigning for action to prevent further warming have had to battle against huge vested interests, including the fossil-fuel industry and its many political allies. Many of the individuals and organisations challenging the idea of global warming have received funding from companies such as ExxonMobil.

That in itself does not necessarily mean that the sceptics are wrong, of course. Nor does the fact that most scientists believe in climate change necessarily make it true. What counts is the evidence. And the evidence - that the world is getting warmer, that the warming is largely due to human emissions, and that the downsides of further warming will outweigh the positive effects - is very strong and getting stronger.

Quote How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 6:40pm
Your favorite, the Hockey stick garbage...
 
Quote

The hockey graph was first published in a 1999 paper (pdf) by Michael Mann and colleagues, which was an extension of a 1998 study in Nature. The graph was highlighted in the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Since 2001, there have been repeated claims that the reconstruction is at best seriously flawed and at worst a fraud, no more than an artefact of the statistical methods used to create it (see The great hockey stick debate).

Details of the claims and counterclaims involve lengthy and arcane statistical arguments, so let's skip straight to the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science (pdf). The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick.

"Array of evidence"

The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark.
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 6:46pm
Quote Why on Earth you regard short term fluctuations as important god only knows. Come on, you are smarter than that.
 
Because the fact the scientists are s oadament that the planet will warm to boiling point (it will eventually) simply because we are burning fossil fuels.

It is utter rubbish to suggest it will. Furthermore, they can NOT explain why the planet is now cooling again. You say that they predicted it, but everything I've seen so far says they didn't.
 
Why are you not getting this Pointy?
 
No one has said the planet will reach boiling point, and even if they had, thats no reason to regard short term, regional climate changes as significant. The planet warms and cools all the time dependent on factors like ocean currents and solar output. Those  short term fluctuations lean nothing... look at the graph I posted.
 
 they can NOT explain why the planet is now cooling again.
 
The current short term fluctuation is as a result of ocean currents. Predicted to occur and they are occurring. As I've said numerous times, the scientists expected this and they expected the response from individuals like you.
 
 
 You say that they predicted it, but everything I've seen so far says they didn't
 
It was on the BBC news, I even posted the link at the time. Sleepy
 
 

 
Back to Top
737Chris View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2009
Location: The Abyss
Points: 2247 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 737Chris Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 7:03pm

Generic forum signature
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Dec 2009 at 9:12am
What astonishes me is Vulcan's preocupation with the 'little ice age' and 'regional' warming. A bit strange when the concept is called GLOBAL warming. Wink
 
Vulcan needs to understand that a handful of personal emails does not wipe out 25 years of serious scientific study, it doesn't, and never could.
 
Vulcan also needs to grasp, that since the industrial revolution, the temperature has gone up, down, up, down... in line with natural temperature variation like ocean currents and solar activity. But the overall trend is a steady rise. Therefore, it's easy for anyone, no matter how intelligent, to understand how short term fluctuations are irrelevant.
 
But the real killer to the GW CT, is that thousands of individuals all colluding in a monumental conspiracy is an absolute obsurdity. Whether it's in regard to 9/11 or global warming. It has never, and could never happen. To believe such a thing possible renders an individual impossible to take seriously, and such an individuals mind will never change.
 
In short a conspiracy involving thousands of individuals for the past 25 years of climate change science... is literally an impossibility.
 
Quote

So why are scientists "fixing" the temperature data?

Some of the contents of the hacked email material, such as the "Harry_read_me.txt" file, might appear shocking, with its talk of manipulation and "tricks". But raw data almost always has to be "fixed".

For example, suppose you and your neighbour keep a record of the temperature where you live, and decide to combine your records to create an "official" record for your locality. When you compare records, however, you're surprised to find they are very different.

There are many reasons why this might be so. One or other thermometer might be faulty. Perhaps you placed your thermometer in an inherently warmer place, or where it was sometimes in direct sunshine, or took measurements at a different time of day, and so on. To combine the two records in any meaningful way, you'll need to adjust the raw data to account for any such factors.

Not doing so would be pretty dumb. Where possible, scientists should always look at their data in the context of other, comparable data. Such scrutiny can often reveal problems in the way one or other set of data was acquired, meaning it needs adjusting or discarding. Some apparent problems with the predictions of climate models, for example, have actually turned out to be due to problems with real-world data caused by the failure to correct for factors such as the gradual changes in orbits of satellites.

I would urge Vulcan, and anyone with doubts, to visit the following links.
 
 
 
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Dec 2009 at 9:29am
Have you noticed he's now disappeared. Big%20smile Untill a few weeks have passed and then he'll be back, ignoring all above, and spouting the same nonsense.
Back to Top
FSaddict View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 1067 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FSaddict Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Dec 2009 at 10:43am
Couldn't you just sticky the main arguments against his rubbbish? Then just add to it when he finds something new?
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Dec 2009 at 11:19am
Trouble is, if we do that then why not the other CT's. WiFi, Microwaves, mobile phones and it all gets silly.
 
I have no desire to change the mind of Vulcan, that is an impossibility. You'll notice that I never start Global Warming topics. However, when Vulcan does, I find it very difficult not to respond. Simply because there are numerous individuals out there, and many on this forum, that are undecided on climate change. And I simply object to such nonsense and the possibility thet it might sway them in the direction of the Skeptics.
 
If somebody wants to believe the skeptics then fine it's their choice, but they should do so because the arguments are plausible, not anti scientific and ludicrous.
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Dec 2009 at 5:39pm
Quote And I simply object to such nonsense and the possibility thet it might sway them in the direction of the Skeptics.

SHOW ME SOME REAL SCIENCE AND I WILL CHANGE MY MIND IF APPROPRIATE.

I keep asking to see the data. It is well known the data is not public, and as e-mails from the CRU show, they will even actively try and avoid publishing it.

The Met Office has said it will (TRY) and *GET DATA PUBLISHED* for the last 160 years, but this is not enough. They say that it proves man is responsible, BUT IT DOES NOT.

Furthermore, they will NOT publish data from SATELLITES - ONLY GROUND-BASED STATIONS.

If that isn't bad enough, IT WILL ONLY PUBLISH GROUND BASE DTEMPERATURES, NOT TEMPERATURES FOR THE OVERALL ATMOSPHERE above about 30 ft AGL.

160 years, even if the data *DOES* show warming, is insufficient to prove we ARE responsible. A correlation from a limited data set does not prove cause.

The industrial revolution started 150 years ago - how convenient the data they are going to release is only over that period.

Martin - you say that the last 11 years *OF COOLING* mean nothing. Who said??? Where is your evidence that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the events of any 11 year period, is insignificant?

I say it is highly significant. I have posted links, etc.. that over and over again show that the computer models show we should be warming, but we are clearly cooling, and e-mails from the CRU that demonstrate that they can NOT account for the cooling.

Regardless of the reasons why they can not account for the coooling, it should be clear that we do *NOT* understand the climate anything like we should do, and that the models are very clearly flawed.

I'm getting very concerned that my fellow humans will be duped by sleight of hand by the politicians and scientists who see climate change as a cash cow.

I'm a rational guy. I will not react to the slightest hint of something WITHOUT SOLID PROOF.

With respect to climate change, WE DO **NOT** have solid proof THAT MAN IS RESPONSIBLE.

You seem blind to this.

Did you know that if you have been indoctrinated, you can not see that it has occurred? You will be unaware of it.

From here I see mass hysteria, and frankly it is quite scary.

Seeing as they like to use Arctic ice as a measure of warming (FLAWED!), it is very important to understand that as the mass of ice reduces, THE RATE OF MELTING INCREASES, EVEN FOR THE SAME SET OF CONDITIONS that caused previous melting.

As we know, ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES are not the only thing that can cause melting.

Trouble is, people do not understand the significance of this.

We are leaving the little ice age. The planet WILL eventually end up ice-free. Why the hell is this a problem? Yes, low-lying areas will flood - GET OVER IT!

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down