Sorry Bonmot but you fail to convince me with your pseudo science. The fact is that if you look at average global temperatures since 1850 the trend is up! I am happy to listen to arguments that this is not man-made warming. But the warming TREND is undeniable. Just to look at the years since 1998 is pointless.

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://zfacts....2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

quote:

Originally posted by Bonmot:
I've enjoyed a bit of banter with Ronny but he's no earth shaker is he? Legs is I'm afraid working in this area, it's the only explanation for it. One does not need complex models to explain the trend, it's gone up then down since time immemorial, we appear to be on the maximum of a natural cycle. Having said that the misuse of data we have seen will continue and any trend down apart from a 'do not pass go' direct one will enthuse them again that doomsday is upon us. The sooner they get onto saving energy the better it will be for us all and we can all agree and sip pimms together in this most excellent weather period in English climate history.

Bonmot,
You know that famous image of the two faces looking at each other which if looked at another way is a vase?

The world temperature graph is like that. Some look at the graph and see a rising trend, fearful that the temperature will never come down they try to warn others and to do this they redraw the graph to highlight the problem.

So the graph begins to look more and more convincing as a face and less and less like the vase it really is.

But the thing is once, you look at the temperature graph and see the natural variation and the way you could stop it at many points and believe it was never coming down/going up again, then you begin to see the Vase and you wonder how anyone could mistake it for two faces.

What I'm saying is that Ronny's interpretation is understandable, whilst as you say Legjoints is probably getting paid a lot of money to convince everyone it is two faces knowing very well it is a vase that year on year gets less and less easy to confuse with two faces!

quote:

Originally posted by Bonmot:

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:

quote:

Originally posted by Bonmot:
1998 0.55
1999 0.31
2000 0.28
2001 0.40
2002 0.46
2003 0.46
2004 0.46
2005 0.48
2006 0.41
2007 0.43

0.1C? Are you taking the 0.28 and cf 0.43? Why not Insonomia's figure of 2008? I'm afraid when you start picking individual points you're lost.

Take an average of the first five years, from 1998 to 2002, and you get an average of 0.40. Take an average of the last 5 years, from 2003 to 2007, and you get an average of 0.45. So you have a difference of 0.05 between 2000 and 2005, those being the central years of each average. A warming of 0.05 degrees in 5 years equates of a warming of 0.1 degrees over the decade, inline with what the says.

Words fail me, science is doomed. A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing. Now I realise I have wasted my time trying to teach you statistics - you seem to think you know it all, Good luck with it all.

I didn't realize you were trying to teach me statistics. Strange how my link to the Met Office page that arrives at the same warming trend that I did has vanished in your quote of my post - was that the C4 moderators or was it you?

I think there is a great arrogance among many of the denialists who believe they know better than the people who work in the field of climate science. They're not idiots and nor are they liars. It's good that you and others question the consensus view, but there comes a point where that questioning is so ill-informed that it becomes ridiculous, and I think we've gone well past that point on this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Isonomia:

You know that famous image of the two faces looking at each other which if looked at another way is a vase?

The world temperature graph is like that. Some look at the graph and see a rising trend, fearful that the temperature will never come down they try to warn others and to do this they redraw the graph to highlight the problem.

Take a look at the graph on this page. You can see that for most of the last century the trend has been upwards, but it's bumpy. There are some brief periods where it levels off, such as around 1980, and then there was quite a dip after 1940. This is mostly because of natural climatic variations and, though in the case of the cooling after 1940 that is believed to be down to global dimming as a result of aerosol pollution.

It is important not to mistake these bumps for changes in the trend. If you were to zoom in on the graph around 1980 you could make the same arguments you're trying to make now, and you would be as wrong as you are now.

When you have had rising temperatures for such a long time, it takes more than a few years of plateau or even cooling to conclude that the direction of the underlying trend has changed. And you cannot simply look at the graph in isolation from the science. Last year the Met Office predicted a plateau before temperatures start to rise again after 2010. A recent German paper reached a similar conclusion.

Like I said recently global warming is a nice cushy industry with steady pay and jobs for the boys who would otherwise have to earn a living.

quote:

Originally posted by Humble_Horace:
Like I said recently global warming is a nice cushy industry with steady pay and jobs for the boys who would otherwise have to earn a living.

Remember Hitch Hikers guide to the Galaxy where the planet got all the Hairdressors, telephone sanitation engineers, etc. and put them on the first space ship escaping from the imminent distruction of the planet ... and the passengers on the first ship could never understand why the others never turned up.

Well Climbit science is clearly a modern form of that space ship. Designed to take all the dross and give them something to occupy their minds who otherwise would be interfering with the important things in life.

quote:

Originally posted by Isonomia:

My hunch is that this turning point will be followed by a significant downturn, but I could be wrong and it might rise again.

Imagine you're standing on a beach with a friend, watching the sea. You suggest to your friend that you ought to go because the tide's coming in and in an hour the beach you're on will be under water. But you friend is watching the waves rush up the beach and then slide back down the beach again. You're talking nonsense, he says. Look. The sea's retreating.

You try to explain the concept of the tide, but you're friend's having none of it. Even though a few waves have come up the beach and tickled his toes, and more so in the last minute or so, each time the sea retreats he sees that as proof that your tide theory is nonsense.

YOu tell him that if he stays put then in five minutes the water will be up to his ankles. And in five minutes it is, with the waves crashing against his shins, but then the wave slides back down the beach and momentarily he's just standing in a puddle. Waves come in and waves go out, he says. How does your fancy tidal theory explain that?

So do you stay on the beach trying to persuade your friend that the moon really does have an effect on the sea, or do you just leave him there and get off the beach before you get cut off?

quote:

Originally posted by Humble_Horace:
Like I said recently global warming is a nice cushy industry with steady pay and jobs for the boys who would otherwise have to earn a living.

As legjoints summed it up Humble, scientists/researchers would earn a hell of a lot more in industry than in academia. If you know any different, please let me know, I know plenty of post-grad researchers would love a pay rise.

Therefore, you're assertions above, is completely baseless. And as put earlier, getting rather tedious.

quote:

Originally posted by Isonomia:

quote:

Originally posted by Bonmot:
I've enjoyed a bit of banter with Ronny but he's no earth shaker is he? Legs is I'm afraid working in this area, it's the only explanation for it. One does not need complex models to explain the trend, it's gone up then down since time immemorial, we appear to be on the maximum of a natural cycle. Having said that the misuse of data we have seen will continue and any trend down apart from a 'do not pass go' direct one will enthuse them again that doomsday is upon us. The sooner they get onto saving energy the better it will be for us all and we can all agree and sip pimms together in this most excellent weather period in English climate history.

Bonmot,
You know that famous image of the two faces looking at each other which if looked at another way is a vase?

The world temperature graph is like that. Some look at the graph and see a rising trend, fearful that the temperature will never come down they try to warn others and to do this they redraw the graph to highlight the problem.

So the graph begins to look more and more convincing as a face and less and less like the vase it really is.

But the thing is once, you look at the temperature graph and see the natural variation and the way you could stop it at many points and believe it was never coming down/going up again, then you begin to see the Vase and you wonder how anyone could mistake it for two faces.

What I'm saying is that Ronny's interpretation is understandable, whilst as you say Legjoints is probably getting paid a lot of money to convince everyone it is two faces knowing very well it is a vase that year on year gets less and less easy to confuse with two faces!

The Great London Smog 1952

quote:

Since London was known for its fog, there was no great panic at the time. In the weeks that followed, the medical services compiled statistics and found that the fog had killed 4,000 people—most of whom were very young or elderly, or had pre-existing respiratory problems

Iso, have you read about the Great Smog of London 1952. Up until then, people didn't believe fogs can be lethal because London is known for its fogs. And as it says above, it wasn't until the statistics were compiled, that the true extent was known.

Now imagine if they had skeptics like you in those days. We'd be chocking in the London smog today because the London smog was something scientists invented to make lots of money.

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:

So do you stay on the beach trying to persuade your friend that the moon really does have an effect on the sea, or do you just leave him there and get off the beach before you get cut off?

No legjoints, a true skeptics would say it's an eco-fascist conspiracy until he drowns.

quote:

Originally posted by Isonomia:

as you say Legjoints is probably getting paid a lot of money to convince everyone it is two faces knowing very well it is a vase that year on year gets less and less easy to confuse with two faces!

So you think I'm getting paid for posting on here? Since the rules on this forum prevent from revealing who we are, I can't present you with evidence showing you how wrong you are, but then the evidence I've shown you on other things doesn't appear to have altered your views, so even if I showed you my passport, pay slips and bank statement you'd still claim you were right and that I was just being paid into a secret bank account by some secret shadowy government organization or something.

The reality is I discuss climate change on here because it's something I'm concerned about. When the doctor tells you that you really ought to cut down on your smoking, or quit altogether, you would be foolish to ignore his advice.

Why is Global WARMING so cold?

It wont always be that way, one year the summer will go on and on getting hotter and hotter without end, and that will be the year everything dies on planet earth, all because of man made global warming.

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:

quote:

Originally posted by Isonomia:

as you say Legjoints is probably getting paid a lot of money to convince everyone it is two faces knowing very well it is a vase that year on year gets less and less easy to confuse with two faces!

So you think I'm getting paid for posting on here?

Legjoints, there's a lot of assumptions being made here. There's no evidence of any green conspiracy. Whereas there's plenty of evidence of a campaign of misinformation.

quote:

Exxon has admitted - for the first time - that the climate deniers it funds are causing problems for action on climate change.

This is a first for the company which has spent, since 1998, $23 million funding the climate denial industry.

And it's official - Exxon made this statement in this year's Corporate Citizenship Report, released in time for its shareholder meeting.

quote:

Originally posted by Raver Ron:

There's no evidence of any green conspiracy. Whereas there's plenty of evidence of a campaign of misinformation.

quote:

Exxon has admitted - for the first time - that the climate deniers it funds are causing problems for action on climate change.

This is a first for the company which has spent, since 1998, $23 million funding the climate denial industry.

And it's official - Exxon made this statement in this year's Corporate Citizenship Report, released in time for its shareholder meeting.

Yes, things are changing, slowly. It took a while for the dangers of smoking to be accepted by the general public thanks to the cigarette companies and their front organizations spreading confusion and doubt, and many of the people involved in the pro-smoking lobby are now involved in the "let's keep burning fossil fuels" lobby.

quote:

Originally posted by netnut:
Why is Global WARMING so cold?

It wont always be that way, one year the summer will go on and on getting hotter and hotter without end, and that will be the year everything dies on planet earth, all because of man made global warming.

No reputable climate scientist has suggested that climate change could wipe out all life on the planet. If this is something you've heard it's most likely a false characterization put about by the climate change denialists to discredit the science.

What may happen if we don't significantly curb our emissions is runaway climate change resulting in a very different climate, one far more hostile to human societies than at present. We may then see the collapse of our current civilization, with social progress reversing and societies reverting back to a medieval lifestyle. With a world less able to produce food, shortages of clean water, flooding and extreme weather conditions, we will see many losing their lives, particularly in the developing world (as it's now called). Those of us living in high latitude wealthy countries probably won't suffer as much, but since we have caused the problem there will be pressure on us to pay reparations to those sufering the worst effects of climate change. Will we pay up? Will our children pay up? If they don't what will be the consequences in a heavily armed world? Will those nations whose agriculture has been decimated by the effects of climate change just lie down and die, or will there be incresingly destructive and spreading conflicts over the planet's dwindling resources?

The threat of conflict that climate change posses is why Al Gore and the IPCC were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and it's why the US military regards climate change as a major threat to national security.

I think the time when we assumed the world our children will live in would be better than the world that we live in has already passed. With it has come a medieval suspicion of science, which all this denialism is an example of. People are reverting back to superstitious ways, seeing the science and technology that surround them as forms of magic or witchcraft that they will never comprehend and that are inherently evil. They start to create their own realities, believing what they want to believe, denying what all the evidence is telling them, or refusing to look at the evidence. Ignorance is bliss.

quote:

Originally posted by Isonomia:

quote:

Originally posted by Humble_Horace:
Like I said recently global warming is a nice cushy industry with steady pay and jobs for the boys who would otherwise have to earn a living.

Remember Hitch Hikers guide to the Galaxy where the planet got all the Hairdressors, telephone sanitation engineers, etc. and put them on the first space ship escaping from the imminent distruction of the planet ... and the passengers on the first ship could never understand why the others never turned up.

Well Climbit science is clearly a modern form of that space ship. Designed to take all the dross and give them something to occupy their minds who otherwise would be interfering with the important things in life.

So Climbit science is your little joke? The thing is, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was actually funny, and Douglas Adams understood and respected science. He didn't regard scientists as useless people. The useless people were hairdressers, TV producers, insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, management consultants and telephone sanitizers.

It's bad enough that you defile science. Please don't start trying to rewrite the classics of English literature.

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:

No reputable climate scientist has suggested that climate change could wipe out all life on the planet. If this is something you've heard it's most likely a false characterization put about by the climate change denialists to discredit the science.

What may happen if we don't significantly curb our emissions is runaway climate change resulting in a very different climate, one far more hostile to human societies than at present. We may then see the collapse of our current civilization, with social progress reversing and societies reverting back to a medieval lifestyle. With a world less able to produce food, shortages of clean water, flooding and extreme weather conditions, we will see many losing their lives, particularly in the developing world (as it's now called). Those of us living in high latitude wealthy countries probably won't suffer as much, but since we have caused the problem there will be pressure on us to pay reparations to those sufering the worst effects of climate change. Will we pay up? Will our children pay up? If they don't what will be the consequences in a heavily armed world? Will those nations whose agriculture has been decimated by the effects of climate change just lie down and die, or will there be incresingly destructive and spreading conflicts over the planet's dwindling resources?

Well written piece legjoints. Climate science is very ambiguous by nature. Nobody knows how it will turn out. We can only speculate. We may welcome nice warmer climate here but climate change could wreak disaster elsewhere. Upset economies and ruin livelihoods. Which in turns mean it could lead to conflicts and war.

Those playing the climate change denial game here are playing a very dangerous game. And only serves the purpose of those denial organizations funded by likes of Exxon to protect their trillion dollar fossil fuel industry.

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:

quote:

Originally posted by Isonomia:

quote:

Originally posted by Humble_Horace:
Like I said recently global warming is a nice cushy industry with steady pay and jobs for the boys who would otherwise have to earn a living.

Remember Hitch Hikers guide to the Galaxy where the planet got all the Hairdressors, telephone sanitation engineers, etc. and put them on the first space ship escaping from the imminent distruction of the planet ... and the passengers on the first ship could never understand why the others never turned up.

Well Climbit science is clearly a modern form of that space ship. Designed to take all the dross and give them something to occupy their minds who otherwise would be interfering with the important things in life.

So Climbit science is your little joke? The thing is, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was actually funny, and Douglas Adams understood and respected science. He didn't regard scientists as useless people. The useless people were hairdressers, TV producers, insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, management consultants and telephone sanitizers.

It's bad enough that you defile science. Please don't start trying to rewrite the classics of English literature.

Legjoints you know nothing about science so please stop trying to pretend you have the first clue. Because if you knew anything about science you would know that science is on the side of those who are sceptical about global warming and if you were a scientist you would inherently be a sceptic.

"The useless people were hairdressers, TV producers, insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, management consultants and telephone sanitizers" ... and climbit scientists.

Basically all the people who are parasites on the rest of society and what group better symbolises the parasites in society than those who stoke the fear of an almighty crisis to keep themselves in a job.

quote:

Originally posted by Isonomia:
science is on the side of those who are sceptical about global warming and if you were a scientist you would inherently be a sceptic.

How's that?

By taking ten years worth of data starting from 1998, a peak global mean caused by factors such as the El Nino and claim global warming has stopped?

Or by claiming the current climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun but with no evidence of significant increase solar activity?

Or perhaps by claiming climate has always changed in the past but offering no explanation of the mechanism behind the current trend?

Or beating the dead horse of volcanic activity when volcanic emissions only accounts for less than 10% of greenhouse emissions?

Or by accusing the world scientific community of conspiracy?

quote:

Originally posted by Isonomia:

what group better symbolises the parasites in society than those who stoke the fear of an almighty crisis to keep themselves in a job.

Like those doctors who stoked the fear of a link between smoking cigarettes (an innocent pleasure we all enjoy) and a nasty old disease like cancer, just to keep themselves in work? And then they gave governments an excuse to slap huge taxes on our innocent cigarettes, and now these anti-smoking fascists even frown on us smoking in our own homes in front of our children. They tell us we're harming their poor little lungs. It's all a big conspiracy, isn't it? All just a ploy to get money off us. There's nothing wrong with cigarettes really, is there?

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:

quote:

Originally posted by Isonomia:

what group better symbolises the parasites in society than those who stoke the fear of an almighty crisis to keep themselves in a job.

Like those doctors who stoked the fear of a link between MMT and autismjust to keep themselves in work?

Yes Legjoints you are just like them, and the doctors who feared salmonella in eggs and the consultants who propagated the myth of the millenium bug. All parasites feeding off the hysteria of a little bit of research and a lot of hype and all of them should be put on a spaceship and