quote:

Originally posted by tarw:
Man-made global warming as a scientific theory is now a busted flush. See here and here
No doubt it still has legs as a political project.

quote:

Originally posted by Democrat:
It is clear that, from the rage expressed against the Ch 4 programme "Global warming swindle", there has now evolved a kind of religious fervour surrounding the original IPCC global warming report.
The fact that the UN had a hand in it causes a lot of people problems, as this is one of the most political institutions on the plant. (and one of the most ineffective ones also if you care to check its history!).
In the global warming theory, there are "predictions" on sea level rise, melting ice, etc which are proposed to occur in the next 200 yrs.
From what I have seen of science, it does not make predictions as specific as those made by IPCC normally.
Also, can anyone remember 1939? or 1947?
There was ice one foot thick across the Thames!!
If some scientist in 1948 had predicted an ice age for 2001, it is likely that he would have had a good audience.
However, science is not supposed to act like some kind of fairground fortuneteller!!
Getting your hand read may excite you if you are told what you wish to believe, but science has evolved by clever people making discoveries based upon fact, not politics!
With UN involvement, there will always be the suspicion that someone is manipulating matters for political reasons.
Add to that the reason that the Ch 4 programme did not debunk the original IPCC report in the rabid manner that those IPCC proponents have chosen, through it seems, well orchestrated media outlets, and the unease becomes evident.
One is only left with a vague unease by the reaction to the Ch 4 programme that the IPCC position is attacking so fiercely because it has something to hide.
I do not know whether they have or not, but there seems to be a hint of hysteria and desperation in the way Ch 4 was attacked for presenting what,after all, is only an alternative position.
The opposition to Ch 4 smacked a little of the propoganda government puts out when it is desperate to "sell" a message that smells slightly!
In 200 years, the earth will no doubt have changed slightly, as it always does.
I would hazard a guess though, that the massive changes egged on by the global warming "we are all doomed" merchants will not have occurred!

quote:

posted by Raver Ron

quote:

You can't prove a 'theory', you can only disprove it.

quote:

Can any of you climate experts out there explain to a simpleton like me what difference a global average change of say 0.5%c over ten years makes when in many areas a 40%c swing is not unusual during a single year due to seasonal temps?

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:

quote:

posted by Raver Ron

quote:

You can't prove a 'theory', you can only disprove it.

LOL. Your logic is impeccable Ron, though it's not a very good defence, is it?

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:

quote:

Can any of you climate experts out there explain to a simpleton like me what difference a global average change of say 0.5%c over ten years makes when in many areas a 40%c swing is not unusual during a single year due to seasonal temps?

Its very simple. If you[itsme83] leave your telly on STAND BY(caps to make it seem more evil) instead of switching it off, then in roughly 100 yrs CO2 will[may] reach 1000 ppm; the last time CO2 was at this level, the best place for mammals to live was Antarctica!


NB.
I am not inferring that in 100 yrs the only place to survive is Antarctica. If you or anyone else claims I am making this inference, then OFCOM are going to hear about it!! And the BBC will back me up

PS
Kill all Badgers!!!
Errm, I mean cull

BTW have a nice day!

quote:

Originally posted by itsme83:
Can any of you climate experts out there explain to a simpleton like me what difference a global average change of say 0.5%c over ten years makes when in many areas a 40%c swing is not unusual during a single year due to seasonal temps?

quote:

Originally posted by Raver Ron:

quote:

Originally posted by tarw:
Man-made global warming as a scientific theory is now a busted flush. See here and here
No doubt it still has legs as a political project.

Good post. Expect both of them are just opinions. No scientific basis whatsoever. Not only that, grossly distorted the truth. Nice try, try again...

quote:

I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol...When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good...by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

quote:

Originally posted by tarw:

quote:

Originally posted by Raver Ron:

quote:

Originally posted by tarw:
Man-made global warming as a scientific theory is now a busted flush. See here and here
No doubt it still has legs as a political project.

Good post. Expect both of them are just opinions. No scientific basis whatsoever. Not only that, grossly distorted the truth. Nice try, try again...

<Sigh>

quote:

I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol...When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good...by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Try reading my links, W***ker

quote:

Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD) - Christopher Monckton

quote:

Yep, read 'em again. That's what skepticism is, just a bunch of opinions without fact.

quote:

Firstly, there's no credible evidence that MWP was warmer than today.

quote:

Secondly, the MWP only applied to Northern Europe. Not globally as the article suggest.

quote:

PS - no need for personal name calling

quote:

Yep, read 'em again. That's what skepticism is, just a bunch of opinions without fact.

quote:

Firstly, there's no credible evidence that MWP was warmer than today.

quote:

Secondly, the MWP only applied to Northern Europe. Not globally as the article suggest.

quote:

PS - no need for personal name calling

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
There's no 'credible' evidence to the contrary either!

quote:

The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today, however, has turned out to be incorrect .

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
The MWP (if it existed) included Greenland and most probably affected the entire Northern Hemisphere (NH) because of its forcings to the 'polar region' (similar to the synopsis of current times). However, the NH is only half of a 'global' synopsis and should be represented as such.

quote:

There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth -- Europe, for example

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
Quite frankly, a 'sceptic' can't understand why you make your 'claims' because they understand 'otherwise'. Your 'explanations' don't make 'sense' to them!

I think you need to 'talk'!

quote:

Originally posted by tarw:
The AGW theory was once promoted with a "hockey stick" graph suggesting that temperatures in the late 20th century were higher than ever before and rising faster than ever before. The "hockey stick" graph was shown to be the result of manipulating the raw data with a computer program that produced a rising trend when fed with pure random numbers.

quote:

Originally posted by tarw:
everyone except Jim Hansen at NASA accepts that global temperature has been flat since 1998 and there are signs of a downward trend setting in.

quote:

Originally posted by tarw:
The "consensus" does not exist, if it ever did.

quote:

"A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade."

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:

quote:

Originally posted by tarw:
The AGW theory was once promoted with a "hockey stick" graph suggesting that temperatures in the late 20th century were higher than ever before and rising faster than ever before. The "hockey stick" graph was shown to be the result of manipulating the raw data with a computer program that produced a rising trend when fed with pure random numbers.

New Scientist Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong