"Snow thing of the past" |
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Author | |||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 31 Jan 2013 at 10:47am |
||
Nothing, it's too short term for MMGW to be significantly worse. Good grief. We really do waste our time.
|
|||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
No lies, just you not bothering to ask those that know, the scientists. Instead you refer to climate change denier web sites, and as you admit, rarely read what the scientists say, because you get all you need from the telly.
|
|||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Vulcan... there is no controversy, and not just in terms of "the planet is warming", but no controversy in terms of "we are the cause of a significant percentage of the warming". So no need for you to post your response.
I've responded to that claim a thousand times on the forum. Is your selective memory a conspiracy theorists favourite tool? The oposite, entering a new ice age, right now: Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. But the warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Conversely, if we are still warming: Strictly speaking we are still in an ice age, because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist. But any warming that may or may not be taking place would be imperceptibly small, it would be on a geological time scale. Nothing like the rapid rise in temperature we have seen since the industrial revolution, that's in step with OUR EMISSIONS. And don't you dare criticise the hockey stick. |
|||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Vulcan has put his foot in it again.
|
|||
MarkH
Chief Pilot Joined: 03 Apr 2008 Location: UK Points: 1570 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Erm... Vulcan, let me try and sum up your question and get this straight.
"Let me re-state for the millionth time. I do *NOT* dispute WARMING is occurring." And yet in the same post - "If you average the 16 years data, why is it slightly negative" So you are asking why global warming and global cooling is occurring at the same time? CONGRATULATIONS!!! "Yes, I read your links" I would suggest you started reading your own. I can no longer refer to you as Vulcan, their is no logic in your responses. I can only conclude that you have recently mind-melded with a gerbil. Regards, Mark. |
|||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Tell you what I'll be back in 4 years (if this forum still exists then). Let's see what happens...
Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
You've gone and missed what I wrote on page 1 of this thread. I'll quote it YET AGAIN.
Did you read that? Yes, I read your links, too. If you average the 16 years data, why is it slightly negative if it is supposed to be warming on average? I hope the question is simple enough for you to: a) answer b) realize I'm not trying to avoid the point. There is no cherry picking of data. I see that no-one is arguing the basic data, but merely the representation of it. The data is in front of you, so answer the question please and stop side-tracking with false arguments about how I don't read replies. I'll put the question in large print, as you obviously have bad eye-sight: If you average the 16 years data, why is it slightly negative if it is supposed to be warming on average? Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
You bet, check out the infamous Heartland Institute, or the role Exon Mobil has played in regard to promoting the anti scientific deniers. And Koch industries. Aptly named. And not forgetting the right wing organisations, the politicians in the US for example, with big bucks to protect.
|
|||
hifly
Chief Pilot Joined: 04 Jan 2012 Location: Hastings UK Points: 1012 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
The bottom line to all of the above is the question of the motivation for supporters of each side of the broader climate change argument. The scientists who have brought climate change to our attention will get kudos, funding (perhaps) and the satisfaction that they could be saving the planet.
Now call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but with melting ice caps and glaciers I know which side of the fence I'm on. The irony is, if we drive our cars and heat our homes using fossil fuels then we are all complicit.
|
|||
Must Fly!
|
|||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I just had to post this...
But of course, Vulcan rarely reads what the scientists say, he prefers the Daily Fail. |
|||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Must be really difficult Paddy. It's bad enough for me with my back injury. Worries me that I may fall and aggravate my back. Good news is that the snow is now gone in the midlands, reasonably warm and sunny too.
|
|||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Mark, what can I say. Superb response, eloquent and succinct. Why is it that you and I can debunk this ridiculous 16 year warming claim, definitively, in a few minutes... but Vulcan can't. Stand by for Vulcan to ignore this as well. He probably won't even watch the videos. Once again, there will be no counter argument from Vulcan. He will simply ignore it, pretend it hasn't happened. The second sentence of my first post is becoming very apt, don't you think? It's a pain to keep repeating this stuff, but what we have done is perhaps prevent those who are undecided on the issue, from being influenced by Vulcan's propaganda. It makes me smile that he's obsessed with conspiracy, but simultaneously falls for the corporate sponsored, politically motivated, denialist garbage. Vulcan has fallen for it hook line and sinker. Worth posting this again... There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored c***. |
|||
patrico
P/UT Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Location: London Points: 101 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
while some people like the snow, spare a thought for me in a wheelchair I need snow chains. Last week and every year it snows, I am trapped indoors until the snow melts off my ramp (3-5 days)
|
|||
Many Thanks
Patrick |
|||
MarkH
Chief Pilot Joined: 03 Apr 2008 Location: UK Points: 1570 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
NO NEED.
'It does not explain the lack of warming the last 16 years.' Your argument is now hinging on conspiracy theories and tabloid science. Do you actually read anything anyone writes in response to your drivel? Martin explained this earlier, but as you have admitted already, you don't read any of it so their is probably no point in posting these links - Last 16 years video A nice little video to cut through some lies. Last '16 years' story shown to have used cherry picked data Here you go Vulcan, the explanation you where asking for, not that you will read/believe it. Rose debunked David Rose, the author of the 'article' is shown up for what he really is. He told 'porky pies' SHOCK. Fox News slammed for regurgitating the Daily Mail article Says it all really. "Never let facts get in the way of a good story". Phil Plait's response Well worth a read. "The difficulties in debunking blatant antireality are legion. You can make up any old nonsense and state it in a few seconds, but it takes much longer to show why it’s wrong and how things really are. This is coupled with how sticky bunk can be. Once uttered, it’s out there, bootstrapping its own reality, getting repeated by the usual suspects." "So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored c***. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in science journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science." Phil Plait Ph D. Astronomer and ex NASA. Nice one Phil Regards, Mark. |
|||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
"Correlation does not indicate causation". A common mistake. It does not explain the lack of warming the last 16 years, and to say the last 16 years is "too short" makes a mockery of the temperature records that only go back 100 years or so (16 years of 100 represents 16% of the data set - no mere rounding error). Do you remember I created a graph of the temperature records available from the Met Office? I plotted the data sets and various running averages. It was clear there was a slowdown in the warming trend towards the end of the 90s, then my decadal running average actually went negative in the 2000's up to 2007 IIRC. It was plotted against CO2 records. The second order CO2 rise was increasing (meaning the rate of change was increasing) at the same time as the running average temperature started to plateau then decrease slightly. How do you explain that? I seem to recall you wrote it off as "too short" or "weather". Well here we are some 3 or 4 years later, and the picture hasn't changed yet - still on a slight down slope. Explain please. I'm waiting. Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Oh... My... God! I don't believe you have latched on to that old cliché 1. Galileo was "primarily" up against the church, religious dogma. The church put him under house arrest, not what could be described as the scientific community of the day. 2. That was 400 years ago, science has moved on. The scientific method is more advanced. It would be ridiculous to assume otherwise. Don't forget, Galileo played a major role in the "scientific revolution" It was the turning point, the dawn of the scientific method in terms of astronomical observation, that we take for granted today. Quite understandable that the other philosophers and scientists of the time were likely to "get it wrong". They didn't call Galileo "the father of modern astronomical observation" for nothing. 3. Yes, it is possible for one man to be right and a huge consensus to be wrong, especially in Galileo's day, but today such an occurence is very rare. Especially, in regard to climate change, where there is such a big consensus... 13,950 pier reviewed papers. 24 disagree with MMGW.
No, people like you are laughed at because you ignore the responses of others and don't offer a counter argument. You then keep returning and trolling the forum with the same bogus claims. It's like a ground hog day for a troll. What we do know, is that our emissions are in step with temperature rise since the industrial revolution. And don't you dare say the hockey stick graph is discredited, it isn't. It was criticised by sceptics yes, but not discredited. In fact, as you have been told countless times, there is now an entire hockey team of graphs, based on different temperature data. But they all suggest the same warming. In short, the hockey stick graph has been repeated, and replicated by many other studies. But, as usual you will ignore this and come back in a couple of months and regurgitate. Now, unless you are prepared to debate properly, and offer proper counter arguments to our responses, please go and do something that would be more productive. |
|||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
My daughter has just made me a rather nice hot chocolate. When I read that above I splattered it all over my keyboard. You must be kidding!!! Chosen him on purpose indeed, no one on the forum is dumb enough to believe that. You got it wrong... again!
Utterly wrong, as usual. I have been reading what both the denialists and the experts have been saying regarding this, since way back before this became your new conspiracy theory. Since you were a little nipper. I listen to both sides and reject the opinion that doesn't make any sense, the opinion that lacks logic. Notice the bit in your quote I highlighted in red? There you go, that says it all. You have admitted that you don't listen to the pro side, that your knowledge of the pro side [the scientific argument] is based primarily on "what the press say". No wonder you get it so wrong, if you only study what journalists say, and don't bother to study the science.
|
|||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Well said Mark.
|
|||
Magic Man
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
, subliminally so...
|
|||
MarkH
Chief Pilot Joined: 03 Apr 2008 Location: UK Points: 1570 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Well, well. Vulcan finally falls back to type. I wrote this back in April but this seems more apt than ever now, especially the last bit.
You seem to ignore logic and scientific methodology in specific fields of research because it fails to support your own beliefs. You work backwards. You have a personal belief on a given topic, and then, if the evidence fails to support your point of view, you collect together little facts, usually taken out of context, to reinforce any picture you wish to build. Rather than digging deeply and putting each fact into it's proper perspective in order for a more consistent and reliable picture to emerge. Any evidence that disagrees with you is ignored, even going as far as falling back to the last bastion of the denialist, "It's all a conspiracy!" Sorry, just an observation. Now if I read this right, you say the powers that be are blaming global warming on human CO2 emissions so we use less oil, but they forgot it was a lie and are now going to accidentally shut down coal fired power stations by mistake. You used poor examples in this 'debate' on purpose to wake us all up to the fact that we are being brainwashed by a media that is working to a secret agenda put in place by the 'MMGW Gods', and you don't research their lies too much as a way to shield yourself from their misinformation techniques. Then you compare your trail blazing comprehension to that of Galileo? As you say Vulcan, I certainly do believe the 'jokes on us'. Regards, Mark. |
|||
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |