PDA

View Full Version : To those who don't believe AGW is real



Pages : [1] 2

sasguru
5th August 2008, 08:43
http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

I don't think the Royal Society may be considered a hot bed of pinko liberals, do you?

And also consider why you are taken in by the well organised propaganda of vested interests. Could it be because you is thick?

Diver
5th August 2008, 08:49
Simple innit.

Those who pollute most, do so in order to increase income/profits.

Legislation to reduce pollution/emissions also reduces income/profits and increases costs.

It's not rocket science, shirley :rolleyes:

sasguru
5th August 2008, 08:52
Simple innit.

Those who pollute most, do so in order to increase income/profits.

Legislation to reduce pollution/emissions also reduces income/profits and increases costs.

It's not rocket science, shirley :rolleyes:

Not much gets past you, eh?:wink

Diver
5th August 2008, 08:58
Not much gets past you, eh?:wink

Just sick of of the same old impropergander innit. :wink

Endless and boring scientific Mumbo Jumbo and petty squabbling amongst the worlds elite (& some well funded) so called experts.

DimPrawn
5th August 2008, 10:05
http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

I don't think the Royal Society may be considered a hot bed of pinko liberals, do you?

And also consider why you are taken in by the well organised propaganda of vested interests. Could it be because you is thick?

Executive summary:

Blah, blah, blah, blah, world is doomed, blah, cars, blah, more tax.

HTH

sasguru
5th August 2008, 10:09
Executive summary:

Blah, blah, blah, blah, world is doomed, blah, cars, blah, more tax.

HTH

Who's talking about tax? Not me and certainly not that document.
Start another thread if you want to discuss tax. This is a scientific thread.

DimPrawn
5th August 2008, 10:12
Yes the science is rock solid. It's all man made, no argument or evidence DARE question AGW. Even the fact that global temps are falling and will do for at least 10 years, it is all explained away.

Keep on believing sas, rid yourself of all Carbon and live in a cave.

sasguru
5th August 2008, 10:17
Yes the science is rock solid. It's all man made, no argument or evidence DARE question AGW. Even the fact that global temps are falling and will do for at least 10 years, it is all explained away.

Keep on believing sas, rid yourself of all Carbon and live in a cave.

Well if you think that the Royal Society have made a mistake do please enlighten us.
Otherwise stop posting the results of the random electrical impulses in your brain.

DimPrawn
5th August 2008, 10:20
Nope their 100% right. Who could argue? They are the greatest minds in the world.

I hope their paper leads to legislation making the questioning of AGW a criminal offence.

sasguru
5th August 2008, 10:23
Nope their 100% right. Who could argue? They are the greatest minds in the world.

I hope their paper leads to legislation making the questioning of AGW a criminal offence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

HTH

DimPrawn
5th August 2008, 10:27
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

HTH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

HTH

Mailman
5th August 2008, 10:29
and
Sir John Houghton FRS, former chair of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC).

No bias there then is there! :rollin:

Its already been shown that the IPCC themselves were less than honest with the compilation of their original report.

Mailman

TimberWolf
5th August 2008, 10:30
Nope their 100% right.

You can't really argue against climate change DP, it's always happened. They are on to sure-fire winner on predicting climate change no matter how carp the hypothesis, as sure as predicting doom will occur in or after a boom :)

sasguru
5th August 2008, 10:32
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

HTH

When?

sasguru
5th August 2008, 10:32
No bias there then is there! :rollin:

Its already been shown that the IPCC themselves were less than honest with the compilation of their original report.

Mailman

Evidence?

Mailman
5th August 2008, 10:39
http://sacredscoop.com/?p=1055

Then again, I guess its all a conspiracy by the oil companies innit? :rollin:

Also, do a search on the dodgy science around how the IPCC got to the point where they concluded it was mans fault the polar bears are drowning :spank:

Mailman

sasguru
5th August 2008, 10:44
http://sacredscoop.com/?p=1055

Then again, I guess its all a conspiracy by the oil companies innit? :rollin:

Also, do a search on the dodgy science around how the IPCC got to the point where they concluded it was mans fault the polar bears are drowning :spank:

Mailman


:laugh:laugh:laugh
So I should believe a web site titled Sacred Scoop:
"Christian Blog, Daily Devotions, World News"?

I refer you to my initial post and rest my case :laugh
You couldn't really make it up:rollin:

sasguru
5th August 2008, 11:11
http://sacredscoop.com/?p=1055

Then again, I guess its all a conspiracy by the oil companies innit? :rollin:

Also, do a search on the dodgy science around how the IPCC got to the point where they concluded it was mans fault the polar bears are drowning :spank:

Mailman

Oh BTW the "scientist" quoted in that "article" is this guy, Morner:
Note that he is an "associate professor" i.e. a professor not good enough to be offered tenure.

From his wiki entry:

"Mörner has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing, also known as water witching. [2] James Randi, the famous debunker of pseudo-science offered Mörner his $1,000,000 prize if he could successfully demonstrate water-witching which Mörner has advocated as scientific. As of early 2008 Mörner had not accepted The Amazing Randi's Challenge. Randi wrote in 1998

I've described here previously how a pompous-assed "dowsing expert" named Nils-Axel Mörner, associate professor of geology from Stockholm University, has consistently refused to be tested for the Pigasus Prize. [3] "

No wonder you anti-AGW cretins are becoming a laughing stock
:rollin::rollin::rollin:

Mailman
5th August 2008, 13:15
Careful :moon:guru, your religion is only one step away from starting its own inquisition! :rollin:

Mind you, that royal society document is a bit like HMRC publishing a report on how fair its tax recovery processes are :D

Mailman

sasguru
5th August 2008, 13:17
Mind you, that royal society document is a bit like HMRC publishing a report on how fair its tax recovery processes are :D

Mailman

Oh? How so?
I'm surprised you have the gall to post here after your last pathetic attempt:laugh

EternalOptimist
5th August 2008, 13:20
I got as far as point 8 before I fell about laughing. The idea that its difficult to measure sea level rises because the level of the land in southern England is moving has got to be a joke.






:rolleyes:

Mailman
5th August 2008, 13:23
Opps, more heresy :moon:guru :rollin:


http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm
But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

I guess this guy is a water witch as well? :rollin:

Mailman

Mailman
5th August 2008, 13:31
Oh? How so?
I'm surprised you have the gall to post here after your last pathetic attempt:laugh


and Sir John Houghton FRS, [former] chair of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Yeah, as I said...not like there is any bias in who wrote that report :rollin:

Mind you, you remind me of the scene in Baron Munchausen when the christians were going over the end of the world and the muslims were wondering what the hell was going on :rollin:

But thats ok :moon:guru, just dont question the dogma aye. Pity you didnt watch the Dorking fulla last night. You could have learnt something from his point of view of just showing the kids something different and hoping they could open their minds just enough to consider what he was saying :laugh

Mailman

sasguru
5th August 2008, 13:35
Opps, more heresy :moon:guru :rollin:



I guess this guy is a water witch as well? :rollin:

Mailman


"A June 2000 Business Week article referred to physicist Frederick Seitz as "the granddaddy of global-warming skeptics". Seitz was once a director and shareholder of a company that operated coal-fired power plants.

Dr. Seitz is a former President of the National Academy of Sciences, but the Academy disassociated itself from Seitz in 1998 when Seitz headed up a report designed to look like an NAS journal article saying that carbon dioxide poses no threat to climate. The report, which was supposedly signed by 15,000 scientists, advocated the abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol. The NAS went to unusual lengths to publically distance itself from Seitz' article. Seitz signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.

In 1998, Seitz wrote and circulated a letter, asking scientists to sign a petition asking the Government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. Seitz signed the letter and identifed himself as a former president of the National Academy of Sciences. He also directed attention to a report by Dr. Arthur Robinson, which concluded that carbon dioxide posed no threat to climate. The report was not peer-reviewed, but was formatted to look like an NAS journal article. The NAS later issued a statement disassociating itself from the petition and the article."


Next!

PS Note to anti-AGW brigade, having the cretin Mailman on your side is tanatamount to admitting you're wrong :laugh:laugh

EternalOptimist
5th August 2008, 13:40
I wonder if this is the same Royal Society that held out for years claiming that Continental Drift was a fallacy before discovering they had been measuring the wrong thing






:rolleyes:

sasguru
5th August 2008, 13:40
I got as far as point 8 before I fell about laughing. The idea that its difficult to measure sea level rises because the level of the land in southern England is moving has got to be a joke.






:rolleyes:

Where does it say that?

sasguru
5th August 2008, 13:43
I wonder if this is the same Royal Society that held out for years claiming that Continental Drift was a fallacy before discovering they had been measuring the wrong thing






:rolleyes:

The National Science Academies of almost every major country (including those that have a lot to lose) agree with the Royal Society.
But perhaps it would be better judgement to believe Mailman's sources, eh?
:rollin::rollin:

Diver
5th August 2008, 13:44
Simple innit.

Those who pollute most, do so in order to increase income/profits.

Legislation to reduce pollution/emissions also reduces income/profits and increases costs.

It's not rocket science, shirley :rolleyes:


There is only 1 valid question with 1 valid answer

Q. Who is paying for the published scientific "proof?"

A. The ones whose financial interest is served by publishing the "results?"

:eyes:cool:

sasguru
5th August 2008, 13:47
There is only 1 valid question with 1 valid answer

Q. Who is paying for the published scientific "proof?"

A. The ones whose financial interest is served by publishing the "results?"

:eyes:cool:

Certainly true for the oil companies. But most universities and science academies are nominally independent from their government.
Interestingly the US, Indian and Chinese Science academies have all signed up and published for AGW and therefore embarrrased their funders.

NickFitz
5th August 2008, 13:48
I got as far as point 8 before I fell about laughing. The idea that its difficult to measure sea level rises because the level of the land in southern England is moving has got to be a joke.


Where does it say that?

In the document you originally linked to - it's one of the idiotisms of the sceptics they set out to refute:


"Misleading arguments 8. There is little evidence of a rise in sea level due to global warming. There is no correlation between rises in climate temperature and sea levels. There has been no consistent trend this century, with sea level rising in some places but not in others. Even if sea level is rising it has nothing to do with global warming and is actually due to the fact that southern England is sinking due to the bending of the Earth’s crust."

It does sound like the spurious nonsense that the scientifically-illiterate bozos come up with :laugh

EDIT: Ah, was EO disagreeing with the science? The scientists don't say anywhere that it's "difficult to measure sea level rises" because of isostatic rebound, merely that this is one of the compensating factors that has to be considered. It's the sceptics' misleading argument which claims that it causes difficulty.

EternalOptimist
5th August 2008, 13:49
Where does it say that?

point 8 in your original linky


1 expected levels of rise have not happened
2 compensating factors reduced the rate of change
3 one compensating factor is that SW england land mass is falling


??
its got to be a joke


:rolleyes:

EternalOptimist
5th August 2008, 13:50
The National Science Academies of almost every major country (including those that have a lot to lose) agree with the Royal Society.
But perhaps it would be better judgement to believe Mailman's sources, eh?
:rollin::rollin:

ok its a fair swop


we'll take Mailman

youse can take the 'Great Randi'



:rolleyes:

NickFitz
5th August 2008, 13:54
point 8 in your original linky


1 expected levels of rise have not happened
2 compensating factors reduced the rate of change
3 one compensating factor is that SW england land mass is falling


??
its got to be a joke


Isostatic rebound is a well-known phenomenon. I learnt about it in O Level Geography in the Seventies.

sasguru
5th August 2008, 13:57
Isostatic rebound is a well-known phenomenon. I learnt about it in O Level Geography in the Seventies.

:laugh Equivalent to a degree for these cretins, then.

EternalOptimist
5th August 2008, 13:58
Isostatic rebound is a well-known phenomenon. I learnt about it in O Level Geography in the Seventies.

absolutely. but apparently you have to go past O level, take a right at A level, straight ahead at degree and up into orbit with the Royal Society before you can understand how that can impact on the volume of h2o in the oceans



:rolleyes:

sasguru
5th August 2008, 14:00
absolutely. but apparently you have to go past O level, take a right at A level, straight ahead at degree and up into orbit with the Royal Society before you can understand how that can impact on the volume of h2o in the oceans



:rolleyes:

Aren't you missing the point somewhat? :laugh

EternalOptimist
5th August 2008, 14:02
Aren't you missing the point somewhat? :laugh

I refer my right honorable friend to my previous annswer. Point 8 is a joke.






:rolleyes:

Diver
5th August 2008, 14:03
Aren't you missing the point somewhat? :laugh

Isn't the rate of Co2 absorption in the oceans governed by the amount of ferrous metals dissolved in the ocean?

It's that bleedin Titanic again :eek:

sasguru
5th August 2008, 14:03
I refer my right honorable friend to my previous annswer. Point 8 is a joke.






:rolleyes:

I refer my right honorable friend to NickFitz's annswer. Point 8 is a joke.
That is what he said.

Jeez, how slow can you get

sasguru
5th August 2008, 14:06
General call to all anti-AGWs! General call!

Have you got any intellectual heavyweights for the joust? Your current champs are being slapped around the ring. It's getting embarrasing.:laugh

NickFitz
5th August 2008, 14:09
absolutely. but apparently you have to go past O level, take a right at A level, straight ahead at degree and up into orbit with the Royal Society before you can understand how that can impact on the volume of h2o in the oceans


Not really. Sea level, in the UK, is defined by the Ordnance Survey as the vertical datum mean sea level at Newlyn in Cornwall. As the land in that area is sinking due to isostatic rebound, the datum has to be adjusted periodically to correct for this.

As both the water level and the level of the land are changing, crude measurements of the kind favoured by the sceptics are not a valid measure of change, or absence thereof.

Not that hard, is it? :rolleyes:

Diver
5th August 2008, 14:29
Sea level must have come up a fair bit with all this rain, I can tell yer :wink

sasguru
5th August 2008, 14:36
Sea level must have come up a fair bit with all this rain, I can tell yer :wink


Are you the best they could come up with? :wink

Diver
5th August 2008, 14:40
Are you the best they could come up with? :wink

I'm just comedy relief during the interval :D

sasguru
5th August 2008, 15:28
I declare this thread closed. The forces of ignorance and reactionism have been routed yet again by science and reason.:yay::music::banana:

Diver
5th August 2008, 15:30
I declare this thread closed. The forces of ignorance and reactionism have been routed yet again by science and reason.:yay::music::banana:

Ah! I hope losing doesn't hurt too much. Going off in a sulk would indicate otherwise however :D:wink

sasguru
5th August 2008, 15:35
Ah! I hope losing doesn't hurt too much. Going off in a sulk would indicate otherwise however :D:wink

I'll let you off. I am magnanimous in victory.:wink
Although NickFitz came in at the end for the coup de grace

Diver
5th August 2008, 15:37
I thought they measured changing land & sea levels from space now anyway :confused:

EternalOptimist
5th August 2008, 15:48
Not really. Sea level, in the UK, is defined by the Ordnance Survey as the vertical datum mean sea level at Newlyn in Cornwall. As the land in that area is sinking due to isostatic rebound, the datum has to be adjusted periodically to correct for this.

As both the water level and the level of the land are changing, crude measurements of the kind favoured by the sceptics are not a valid measure of change, or absence thereof.

Not that hard, is it? :rolleyes:

now I see that you are in on the joke. ok I'll play along.
If sea levels around the world rise four inches in a century, but england sinks a bit, you think that sea levels havn't really risen four inches ???. And its not sceptics saying any of this, its the OP linky.

maybe the the AGW committee need to be clearer, 'sea levels will rise by x cm relative to my uncles back garden in Somerset'




:rolleyes:

tay
5th August 2008, 15:48
I declare this thread closed. The forces of ignorance and reactionism have been routed yet again by science and reason.:yay::music::banana:

:spel religion
:spel socialism

SAS you are sounding less and less scientific and more religous as time goes on.

Just a neutral observation, carry on squabbling.

sasguru
5th August 2008, 15:51
:spel religion
:spel socialism

SAS you are sounding less and less scientific and more religous as time goes on.

Just a neutral observation, carry on squabbling.

I am religious about science and scientific about religion.:wink
HTH

tay
5th August 2008, 15:55
Sir John Houghton FRS, former chair of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC).

Hang on.... this guy was involved in the group whoch the report is 'judging' (in part) and he was one of the authors... if you are religous about science you know that is deeply flawed right?

That doesnt mean the report isnt right, but I am very disappointed in the royal society for doing this.

sasguru
5th August 2008, 16:01
Hang on.... this guy was involved in the group whoch the report is 'judging' (in part) and he was one of the authors... if you are religous about science you know that is deeply flawed right?

That doesnt mean the report isnt right, but I am very disappointed in the royal society for doing this.

Nonsense. What's wrong with defending your work from cretins?
There is no ethical problem with that whatsover.
Would you rather the Royal Society didn't back what they think is true?
That's what they exist for surely.

tay
5th August 2008, 16:40
Nonsense. What's wrong with defending your work from cretins?
There is no ethical problem with that whatsover.
Would you rather the Royal Society didn't back what they think is true?
That's what they exist for surely.

Then it is def not independent in this instance. If you accept it is not an independant report, then cool.

Of course there is nothing ethically wrong with it! I never said there was. But you know very well in science you dont critique your own work in this manner and expect to be taken seriously as independent.

This is poor form the RS, and a betryal of a basic scientific principle.

Diver
5th August 2008, 17:11
Then it is def not independent in this instance. If you accept it is not an independant report, then cool.

Of course there is nothing ethically wrong with it! I never said there was. But you know very well in science you don't critique your own work in this manner and expect to be taken seriously as independent.

This is poor form the RS, and a betryal of a basic scientific principle.

Damn it! :eek:

I agree with tay :emb

Now I have to :suicide:

Mailman
6th August 2008, 11:17
"A June 2000 Business Week article referred to physicist Frederick Seitz as "the granddaddy of global-warming skeptics". Seitz was once a director and shareholder of a company that operated coal-fired power plants.

You know :moon:guru, its rather ironic that on the one hand you point out what you consider bias (ie. former director/shareholder of a dirty unnamed power plant) YET you cant work out the obvious bias of the geezer who wrote the Royal Society Report supporting and defending an earlier report he wrote :rollin:

Mailman

sasguru
6th August 2008, 11:27
Then it is def not independent in this instance. If you accept it is not an independant report, then cool.

Of course there is nothing ethically wrong with it! I never said there was. But you know very well in science you dont critique your own work in this manner and expect to be taken seriously as independent.

This is poor form the RS, and a betryal of a basic scientific principle.

How is defending your work a betrayal of scientific principle?
It seems the Royal Society paper is a rebuttal of claims made against the earlier IPCC document and that the Royal Society backs the original paper. Stop citing the "scientific method" as if you know what it means.

sasguru
6th August 2008, 11:28
You know :moon:guru, its rather ironic that on the one hand you point out what you consider bias (ie. former director/shareholder of a dirty unnamed power plant) YET you cant work out the obvious bias of the geezer who wrote the Royal Society Report supporting and defending an earlier report he wrote :rollin:

Mailman

The fact that you can't disntiguish the qualitative difference between the 2 proves beyond all doubt that you are a buffoon of the first order.

Diver
6th August 2008, 11:42
The fact that you can't disntiguish the qualitative difference between the 2 proves beyond all doubt that you are a buffoon of the first order.

But that's like writing your own References!

Oh! sorry sas :D

ace00
6th August 2008, 11:50
Phew, it's all going off, and I missed it!
Bit busy yesterday, those tapes don't change themselves you know......well actually they do, now we've got a tape robot, but someone's still got to hit the "on" switch you know, keep the robot company, talk to it sometimes, ask it how's things, ho-hum........
Anyway, global warming report, bit old but not seen it before, will take a look when I have time / nothing better to do and deliver a stunning riposte.

Here's some of that there science for sasguru:

(Temperature Increase = F(C2) - F(C1) where F(c)=Ln (1+1.2c+0.005c^2 +0.0000014c^3) and c is the concentration in ppm).

sasguru
6th August 2008, 11:54
will take a look when I have time / nothing better to do and deliver a stunning riposte.

.

Given the quality of your previous postings on the topic I doubt it.
Given your previous form, I expect some random, irrelevant statement backed up with links that totally contradict your point :laugh:laugh

sasguru
6th August 2008, 11:54
Here's some of that there science for sasguru:

(Temperature Increase = F(C2) - F(C1) where F(c)=Ln (1+1.2c+0.005c^2 +0.0000014c^3) and c is the concentration in ppm).

Your point being?

Mailman
6th August 2008, 12:26
But that's like writing your own References!

Oh! sorry sas :D

Peow peow :moon:guru

:rollin:

Mailman

sasguru
6th August 2008, 12:31
Peow peow :moon:guru

:rollin:

Mailman

Shut it you asinine idiot:laugh
Come on you sceptics, you can do better than this moron.
I'm sure there must be some serious flaws in the AGW case - I haven't heard any credible ones yet :wink

ace00
6th August 2008, 13:26
Raw data can be analysed here:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Proxies.html
And here:
http://www.surfacestations.org/

Perhaps agw proponents would care to analyse the data and make a positive contribution to the argument?

Diver
6th August 2008, 14:11
Global warming has stopped

Fact (http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/global-warming-facts.htm)

TykeMerc
6th August 2008, 14:23
With the risk of sounding especially stupid what does the AGW acronym stand for?

sasguru
6th August 2008, 15:17
Raw data can be analysed here:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Proxies.html
And here:
http://www.surfacestations.org/

Perhaps agw proponents would care to analyse the data and make a positive contribution to the argument?

They have. See my first post. Unless you can point to something in your links that contradicts the Royal Society report.

sasguru
6th August 2008, 15:26
Global warming has stopped

Fact (http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/global-warming-facts.htm)

That site features Henry Svensmark and Martin Durkin whose work has already been discredited.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/

Next!

sasguru
6th August 2008, 15:28
Note to sceptics:

1. Try not to post links to sites that are run by cranks and/or blatant propaganda sites by the oil industry.
2. Try not to use simplistic arguments that can be refuted by anyone with O-level knowledge.
3. Try not to rehash old chestnuts that have been debunked ad nauseum.
4. Try not to post meaningless random links.

I suggest you go through the Royal Society paper and take each argument they say is misleading and explain why it might be true.

sasguru
6th August 2008, 15:34
So far the sceptics seem to have been exceptionally dim-witted. Are there any who can give me a reasonable argument?

oracleslave
6th August 2008, 15:37
So far the sceptics seem to have been exceptionally dim-witted. Are there any who can give me a reasonable argument?

:spel Are there any who can be bothered to give me a reasonable argument?

sasguru
6th August 2008, 15:38
:spel Are there any who can be bothered to give me a reasonable argument?

Clearly not :laugh

sasguru
6th August 2008, 15:42
Ok I hereby declare this thread closed. The forces of ignorance and unreason raised their heads yet again only to be decapitated by the light of science and reason.

I thenk you! :yay::banana::music:

Bob Dalek
6th August 2008, 16:01
Nonsense. What's wrong with defending your work from cretins?
There is no ethical problem with that whatsover.
Would you rather the Royal Society didn't back what they think is true?
That's what they exist for surely.

I think the Royal Society exists to promote its members - it's a high-class MENSA.

If they actually had any insight, they'd be parading through the streets shouting, "For f--k's sake, you morons, stop having so many f--king kids!!!", but that's too controversial and achievable, so they'll just keep waffling on about C02 and other piddle.

sasguru
6th August 2008, 16:07
I think the Royal Society exists to promote its members - it's a high-class MENSA.

If they actually had any insight, they'd be parading through the streets shouting, "For f--k's sake, you morons, stop having so many f--king kids!!!", but that's too controversial and achievable, so they'll just keep waffling on about C02 and other piddle.

Sorry no, sadly you don't seem to be the special one the sceptics are waiting for.

Bob Dalek
6th August 2008, 16:10
Sorry no, sadly you don't seem to be the special one the sceptics are waiting for.

Anyway, I thought it was now accepted that global warming was caused by volcanoes, immigrants and lads' mags?

sasguru
6th August 2008, 16:22
Anyway, I thought it was now accepted that global warming was caused by volcanoes, immigrants and lads' mags?

Well, certainly all 3 are prone to emitting hot air.

Bob Dalek
6th August 2008, 16:28
Well, certainly all 3 are prone to emitting hot air.

I can't be bothered to read through this thread, but what is your POV on Global Warming? Mine is: who knows? Scientists are trying to model the planet retrospectively, as well as currently. Sounds like a lost cause to me.

sasguru
6th August 2008, 16:31
I can't be bothered to read through this thread, but what is your POV on Global Warming? Mine is: who knows? Scientists are trying to model the planet retrospectively, as well as currently. Sounds like a lost cause to me.

Why?

Addanc
6th August 2008, 19:33
You can find most of the rebuttals here (http://www.climate-skeptic.com/). The Government is using AWG as a bogeyman to frighten people and justify revenue raising taxes, just like they are using terrorism to justify the erosion of liberty. I think sasguru is going to be puckering up and kissing :moon: over this subject.

NickFitz
6th August 2008, 19:50
You can find most of the rebuttals here (http://www.climate-skeptic.com/). The Government is using AWG as a bogeyman to frighten people and justify revenue raising taxes, just like they are using terrorism to justify the erosion of liberty. I think sasguru is going to be puckering up and kissing :moon: over this subject.

Not that loser again :rolleyes:

Some weirdo on the Internet quoting other people's blogs to justify assertions in his own blog is not science.

Addanc
6th August 2008, 20:05
Not that loser again :rolleyes:

Some weirdo on the Internet quoting other people's blogs to justify assertions in his own blog is not science.

How very New Liebour; time will show man made global warming to be an illusion.

NickFitz
6th August 2008, 20:31
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

That's interesting - Warren Meyer, who owns that domain, used to work at Exxon. Aren't they a big oil company or something? :rolleyes:

Bob Dalek
6th August 2008, 20:36
Bored. Bye.

Cowboy Bob
6th August 2008, 21:44
How very New Liebour; time will show man made global warming to be an illusion.

Yes and no. Man made - no. Man accelerated - probably.

(And yes I do actually have the qualifications and knowledge to back my statement up)

Diver
6th August 2008, 22:11
That's interesting - Warren Meyer, who owns that domain, used to work at Exxon. Aren't they a big oil company or something? :rolleyes:

I thought that was a guy called Valdez?

sasguru
7th August 2008, 08:01
You can find most of the rebuttals here (http://www.climate-skeptic.com/). The Government is using AWG as a bogeyman to frighten people and justify revenue raising taxes, just like they are using terrorism to justify the erosion of liberty. I think sasguru is going to be puckering up and kissing :moon: over this subject.

Oil interest web site.
Next!

sasguru
7th August 2008, 08:02
How very New Liebour; time will show man made global warming to be an illusion.

What a very idiotic statement.
Next!

sasguru
7th August 2008, 08:03
(And yes I do actually have the qualifications and knowledge to back my statement up)

Excellent. Perhaps you could tell us why.

oracleslave
7th August 2008, 08:04
<pulls up a chair>

Popcorn at the ready...

EternalOptimist
7th August 2008, 08:19
Excellent. Perhaps you could tell us why.

I think it was Aristotle who said that a five year old could destroy the most sophisticated philosophy in the world in just five words.
just by asking why ? five times in a row.



:rolleyes:

sasguru
7th August 2008, 08:27
I think it was Aristotle who said that a five year old could destroy the most sophisticated philosophy in the world in just five words.
just by asking why ? five times in a row.



:rolleyes:

Yes Aristotle was right. Can we get back on point? It's page 10 and I still haven't read any coherent, plausible, cogent criticism of The Royal Society (and most other national science academies) positions on AGW

EternalOptimist
7th August 2008, 08:32
I think I watched that episode of the Prisoner.

The computer caught fire...

Why it didn't just say "Syntax Error" I'll never know.

Sin tax ??:eek:

I hate that snot gobbler





:rolleyes:

ace00
7th August 2008, 08:44
Your point being?

(Temperature Increase = F(C2) - F(C1) where F(c)=Ln (1+1.2c+0.005c^2 +0.0000014c^3) and c is the concentration in ppm)

Is the formula used to calculate warming through increased CO2.
Turns out to be around 1.3 degree C per century using this equation with IPCC parameters.
I am willing to accept this although I think the numbers are a bit high-side of probability.
AGWsters then run the numbers through a feedback mechanism. Here I disagree. I think the atmosphere is a complex mechanism with +ve & -ve feedback mechanisms. I think the agw theory has the balance wrong in favor of the +ve.
That's the sum of my argument.

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 08:48
Yes Aristotle was right. Can we get back on point? It's page 10 and I still haven't read any coherent, plausible, cogent criticism of The Royal Society (and most other national science academies) positions on AGW


The IPCC 2001 report openly acknowledged uncertainties in modelling climate change in the future. It stated that “because of uncertainty in climate sensitivity, and uncertainty about the geographic and seasonal patterns of projected changes in temperatures, precipitation, and other climate variables and phenomena, the impacts of climate change cannot be uniquely determined for individual emissions scenarios”.


The IPCC 2001 report acknowledged that it was not possible to tell what impact climate change would have on some individual local weather events. It concluded: “There is insufficient information on how very small-scale extreme weather phenomena (eg thunderstorms, tornadoes, hailstorms, and lightning)
may change”.

In otherwords, we haven't got a ******* clue, but more government funding so we can sit around pontificating is more than welcome.

PS. And no mention that since the IPCC report in 2001, global temps have not risen, which makes the predictions for global temps made in 2001 laughably wrong.

HTH

sasguru
7th August 2008, 09:15
(Temperature Increase = F(C2) - F(C1) where F(c)=Ln (1+1.2c+0.005c^2 +0.0000014c^3) and c is the concentration in ppm)

Is the formula used to calculate warming through increased CO2.
Turns out to be around 1.3 degree C per century using this equation with IPCC parameters.
I am willing to accept this although I think the numbers are a bit high-side of probability.
AGWsters then run the numbers through a feedback mechanism. Here I disagree. I think the atmosphere is a complex mechanism with +ve & -ve feedback mechanisms. I think the agw theory has the balance wrong in favor of the +ve.
That's the sum of my argument.

Lots of assertions, no evidence for
(1) where you got that equation
(2) why you think AGWers exagerrate the +ve feedback. The "greenhouse effect" is a well understood piece of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

ace00
7th August 2008, 09:23
Lots of assertions, no evidence for
(1) where you got that equation
(2) why you think AGWers exagerrate the +ve feedback. The "greenhouse effect" is a well understood piece of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

1. Do some research.
2. You completely fail to understand the point.

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 09:25
1. Do some research.
2. You completely fail to understand the point.

sas cannot grasp the simple fact that the main assertion of the IPPCC report, which was based on 1990's data, that global temps will rise due to CO2 is plainly flawed, as the temps have not risen as predicted, ergo the whole report can be dismissed.

Now, can I have my 7 litre V8 back now please?

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 09:40
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1570421/Christopher-Booker-Planet-saving-madness.html


This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934.

The data never lies. The figures used by the IPCC 2001 report to base their predictions was wrong and has been since revised. The hottest years were in the 1930's and the global temperature has now been falling for many years, yet CO2 in the atmosphere is rising.

Global warming became climate change becomes bullshit.

The END

sasguru
7th August 2008, 09:42
sas cannot grasp the simple fact that the main assertion of the IPPCC report, which was based on 1990's data, that global temps will rise due to CO2 is plainly flawed, as the temps have not risen as predicted, ergo the whole report can be dismissed.

Now, can I have my 7 litre V8 back now please?

I explained variation in a previous thread but obviously you are incapable of grasping a simple O-level concept. The graph of rising global temperature is not a smooth line but jagged - there will be years where temperature is less than previous years but the overall trend is up and that isn't going to change.
There will be another record breaking year within the next 5 years as the efffects of La Nina subside.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 09:44
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1570421/Christopher-Booker-Planet-saving-madness.html



The data never lies. The figures used by the IPCC 2001 report to base their predictions was wrong and has been since revised. The hottest years were in the 1930's and the global temperature has now been falling for many years, yet CO2 in the atmosphere is rising.

Global warming became climate change becomes bulltulip.

The END

Ah that eminent scientist, Chris Booker of the Telegraph :laugh:laugh
NASA begs to disagree:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 09:45
There will be another record breaking year within the next 5 years as the efffects of La Nina subside.

Like the record breaking predictions in the IPCC report that never happened.

Oh, it was La Nina, oops, didn't mention that one in the predictions did they. Silly them. Obvious now isn't it.

Since you are obviously either a mystic or a time traveller, can I have the winning lottery numbers for next week?

Idiot.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 09:45
1. Do some research.
2. You completely fail to understand the point.

You made no point. Your post was certainly not logical, coherent or cogent.
Next!

sasguru
7th August 2008, 09:47
Idiot.

Defined as one who quotes Chris Booker of the Telegraph in a scientific argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker
Jazz critic FFS.
Next!

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 09:48
Ah that eminent scientist, Chris Booker of the Telegraph :laugh:laugh
NASA begs to disagree:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

This 2005 summation was first posted on-line Dec. 15, 2005, and discussed the 2005 meteorological year (December-November). Minor revisions were made on Jan. 12, 2006, so that it instead discussed the 2005 calendar year.

That data is based on the old, incorrect data. It was recently revised but the AGW fanatics seem to be still using the incorrect data.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 09:51
FFS Is this the best the sceptics can do? I've had so-called arguments backed up by:

- discredited cranks
- random thoughts
- basic misunderstandings
- The Telegraph.

:rollin::rollin::rollin:

Pathetic!

sasguru
7th August 2008, 09:52
This 2005 summation was first posted on-line Dec. 15, 2005, and discussed the 2005 meteorological year (December-November). Minor revisions were made on Jan. 12, 2006, so that it instead discussed the 2005 calendar year.

That data is based on the old, incorrect data. It was recently revised but the AGW fanatics seem to be still using the incorrect data.

So you're saying the minor variations year to year are more important than the long term trend? :laugh:laugh
Are you really such a cretin or are you being a troll?

Let me give you an example you understand. Look at UK house prices. Falling drastically now. What will they be in 25 years?
I'll wager much higher than at 2006 peak.
Reason for that is that there are certain things that cause the price to rise in the long run that can be temporarily cancelled by immediate short term effects.

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 09:53
FFS Is this the best the sceptics can do? I've had so-called arguments backed up by:

- discredited cranks
- random thoughts
- basic misunderstandings
- The Telegraph.

:rollin::rollin::rollin:

Pathetic!


No SAS. It's simple.

It's discredited by one simple fact. The conclusions of the IPCC 2001 report, that global temperatures would rise is wrong. Their models were wrong, their extrapolations were wrong and the data they based their models on was since revised (and hence was wrong).

Simple as that.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 09:59
No SAS. It's simple.

It's discredited by one simple fact. The conclusions of the IPCC 2001 report, that global temperatures would rise is wrong. Their models were wrong, their extrapolations were wrong and the data they based their models on was since revised (and hence was wrong).

Simple as that.

coz you say say so and will scthweam and scthweam till you're red in the face.
Nice argument. :rolleyes:

Anyone who concludes an argument with "Simple as that" on a complex issue is obviously a dunce.

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 10:03
coz you say say so and will scthweam and scthweam till you're red in the face.
Nice argument. :rolleyes:

Anyone who concludes an argument with "Simple as that" on a complex issue is obviously a dunce.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html


This is the revised graph. Note no massive hockey stick. Gone. As is the argument that the 90's were the warmest decade in history. Gone.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif

Now get over the fact that your have been "evangelising" a load of bollux.

PS. See my sig.

:cool:

tay
7th August 2008, 10:03
Some on SAS, DP has you boxed into a corner.. come out fighting lad... your forum cred is on the line!

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 10:09
Some on SAS, DP has you boxed into a corner.. come out fighting lad... your forum cred is on the line!

Poor old sas. He's a total convert to AGW, just when the rest of the world is waking up to the fact that the facts don't stack up anymore.

I feel sorry for him. I pity da fool.

tay
7th August 2008, 10:15
Poor old sas. He's a total convert to AGW, just when the rest of the world is waking up to the fact that the facts don't stack up anymore.

I feel sorry for him. I pity da fool.

Dont count him out yet, I reckon the old boy has some fight left in him yet!

Mailman
7th August 2008, 10:16
Shut it you asinine idiot:laugh
Come on you sceptics, you can do better than this moron.

Oh dear, you sure told me :moon:guru! :rollin:

Mailman

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 10:17
Dont count him out yet, I reckon the old boy has some fight left in him yet!

I won't hold my breath, he's not the sharpest tool in the toolshed, as has been proved here over many years.

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

Tolstoy

oracleslave
7th August 2008, 10:26
<heads off for popcorn refill and some coffee>

Mailman
7th August 2008, 10:28
Replace "Global Warming" with "the earth is flat" and I think we can see where :moon:guru is coming from! :D

Mailman

sasguru
7th August 2008, 10:29
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html


This is the revised graph. Note no massive hockey stick. Gone. As is the argument that the 90's were the warmest decade in history. Gone.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif

Now get over the fact that your have been "evangelising" a load of bollux.

PS. See my sig.

:cool:


Ah yes Coyote Blog - which uses as it's source ClimateSceptic (run by a former top cheese of Exxon). And where the guy states he is a shareholder of
ExxonMobil
:rollin::rollin:
From the NASA site, your graph shows an upward trend to me as do all of these:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

FFS you guys are beginning to look like the stupidest gullible saps with every post you make.
As for your sig: the odd genius is mistaken for a dunce. But the vast majority of people who sound like dunces are just that.
HTH

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 10:30
Ah yes Coyote Blog - which uses as it's source ClimateSceptic (run by a former top cheese of Exxon). And where the guy states he is a shareholder of
ExxonMobil
:rollin::rollin:
From the NASA site, your graph shows an upward trend to me as do all of these:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

FFS you guys are beginning to look like the stupidest gullible saps with every post you make.
As for your sig: the odd genius is mistaken for a dunce. But the vast majority of people who sound like dunces are just that.
HTH

Yeah you're right sas. Only messing with you. AGW is proven.

Can I pay for my Carbon Credits online or do I have to go into a Post Office and pay?

You can clearly see the last 10 years has gone up and up and up in temps:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

sasguru
7th August 2008, 10:31
Oh dear, you sure told me :moon:guru! :rollin:

Mailman

Ah I see it's village idiots day out again.:laugh

tay
7th August 2008, 10:33
<heads off for popcorn refill and some coffee>

I am kinda disappointed so far to be honest.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 10:33
Yeah you're right sas. Only messing with you. AGW is proven.

Can I pay for my Carbon Credits online or do I have to go into a Post Office and pay?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Doing it again. Last refuge of a scoundrel who has no argument.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 10:33
Keep digging sceptics. You're making my case more eloquently than I could myself.

:rollin::rollin:

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 10:35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Doing it again. Last refuge of a scoundrel who has no argument.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

Please explain the clear rise in temps over the last 10 years?

There aren't any are there.

:rollin:

I rest my case m'lud

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 10:39
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7376301.stm


The Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted.

A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming.

However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say. Other climate scientists have welcomed the research, saying it may help societies plan better for the future.

So no rise since 1998 and no rise now to around 2020. It's fooking laughable "science" now.

:rollin:

Mailman
7th August 2008, 10:39
Hang on Dimmo, isnt the guy who wrote that a former exec of [insert name of any oil company here and then quote wikipedia as evidence]? :rollin:

Mailman

sasguru
7th August 2008, 10:40
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

Please explain the clear rise in temps over the last 10 years?

There aren't any are there.

:rollin:


Look at the scale on the y-axis and x-axis compared with the other graphs on that page. That gives you your answer. Did you do O-level maths at school? Do you understand local time variation? Clearly not.

Really, I like your posts - you keep posting and your silly arguments make my points much better than I could myself:laugh

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 10:42
Hang on Dimmo, isnt the guy who wrote that a former exec of [insert name of any oil company here and then quote wikipedia as evidence]? :rollin:

Mailman

Yes, one of the "sceptics" once had a beer in the same pub as someone who bought a tin of engine oil a week earlier.

:rollin:

Gotta love sas desparately trying to cling onto a belief like a religious zealot, when clearly it's the science of hokum pokum.

Temps won't rise till 2020. The meek shall inherit the Earth. Plague on those who drive a V8.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 10:44
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7376301.stm



So no rise since 1998 and no rise now to around 2020. It's fooking laughable "science" now.

:rollin:

From your link:

"One message from our study is that in the short term, you can see changes in the global mean temperature that you might not expect given the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," said Noel Keenlyside from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University.

His group's projection diverges from other computer models only for about 15-20 years; after that, the curves come back together and temperatures rise.

Think of my housing prices analogy, it seems to be the only thing you understand.
Oh and please stop now. You're going to become a laughing stock if you're not already.
:rollin::rollin::rollin:

tay
7th August 2008, 10:45
Is it hotter on average now than it was in 1998?

Yes or No answers please.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 10:47
Is it hotter on average now than it was in 1998?

Yes or No answers please.

Irrelevant as the last posts explain. If you don't understand don't post.

EternalOptimist
7th August 2008, 10:47
Is it hotter on average now than it was in 1998?

Yes or No answers please.



why ?

sasguru




:rolleyes:

Mailman
7th August 2008, 10:48
Is it hotter on average now than it was in 1998?

Yes or No answers please.

Tay,

You are an oil executive!

I claim my $5! :laugh

Mailman

TimberWolf
7th August 2008, 10:48
The meek shall inherit the Earth. [/B]

Off-topic, but isn't a literal translation of this 'the meek shall inherit dirt'?

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 10:49
Is it hotter on average now than it was in 1998?

Yes or No answers please.

No, it is about the same. And the latest prediction is no change until at least 2020.

But CO2 output has been rising all along? So why are we being taxed on CO2 output when it doesn't change the climate?

Anyone?

sasguru
7th August 2008, 10:52
No, it is about the same. And the latest prediction is no change until at least 2020.

But CO2 output has been rising all along? So why are we being taxed on CO2 output when it doesn't change the climate?

Anyone?

Why don't you read the link you posted for your answer?

:rollin::rollin:

Gotta go to a meeting now. You village idiots gibber amongst yourselves.
I'll be back later to wipe the graffiti off.

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 10:55
Why don't you read the link you posted for your answer?

:rollin::rollin:

Gotta go to a meeting now. You village idiots gibber amongst yourselves.
I'll be back later to wipe the graffiti off.

Run along. You've only got till 2020 and then after that the world will have melted.

:laugh

shaunbhoy
7th August 2008, 11:09
http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

I don't think the Royal Society may be considered a hot bed of pinko liberals, do you?

And also consider why you are taken in by the well organised propaganda of vested interests. Could it be because you is thick?


The first paragraph says more than enough. If they were simply stating facts from an impartial position then they would not set the scene by poo-pooing alternative stances. They are like all the "experts". Stating the facts that they think will best ensure continued funding.

Next!!

:eyes

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 11:12
It's the Gravy Train... <toot toot>

Just like the imminent ice age was, back in the dear dead days of the 1970s.

Yes, but the government couldn't make any money out of that one, so those scientists were doomed to starve.

shaunbhoy
7th August 2008, 11:49
They could have put a tax on ice.



Nah. There can be no such thing as an Ice Tax (A Nice Tax?)

IGMC

ace00
7th August 2008, 11:49
From your link:

"One message from our study is that in the short term, you can see changes in the global mean temperature that you might not expect given the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," said Noel Keenlyside from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University.

His group's projection diverges from other computer models only for about 15-20 years; after that, the curves come back together and temperatures rise.




There are so many logical dichotomies in this position it is laughable. I don't even know where to start.
I think the worm has truly turned on Global Warming. I really can't go on with this argument, though it was fun. In a sad, sad way.

Let me just polish my (crystal) balls and give you prediction:
"Succesive IPCC reports will water-down the effects of climate change until they come to a conclusion that the climates change and it will probably (likely, very likely 66.66662% :happy) get warmer by 1.3 degrees by 2120 (+/- .5 degree)"
Carbon taxes will remain in place indefinitely. :mad:

NickFitz
7th August 2008, 12:29
(Temperature Increase = F(C2) - F(C1) where F(c)=Ln (1+1.2c+0.005c^2 +0.0000014c^3) and c is the concentration in ppm)

Is the formula used to calculate warming through increased CO2.
Turns out to be around 1.3 degree C per century using this equation with IPCC parameters.
I am willing to accept this although I think the numbers are a bit high-side of probability.
AGWsters then run the numbers through a feedback mechanism. Here I disagree. I think the atmosphere is a complex mechanism with +ve & -ve feedback mechanisms. I think the agw theory has the balance wrong in favor of the +ve.
That's the sum of my argument.

"I disagreee" and "I think" are assertions, not arguments.

NickFitz
7th August 2008, 12:32
sas cannot grasp the simple fact that the main assertion of the IPPCC report, which was based on 1990's data, that global temps will rise due to CO2 is plainly flawed, as the temps have not risen as predicted, ergo the whole report can be dismissed.

Now, can I have my 7 litre V8 back now please?

As the housing market should have taught you, a variable can remain static or even decrease in the short term while still maintaining a long term upwards trend.

NickFitz
7th August 2008, 12:36
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html


Interesting - that domain is owned by Warren Meyer, the same chap who owns climate-skeptic.com - as I mentioned earlier, he used to work for Exxon.

NickFitz
7th August 2008, 12:38
Ah yes Coyote Blog - which uses as it's source ClimateSceptic

Ah, so he quotes what he says in one blog on another blog?

Clearly a reliable source :laugh

shaunbhoy
7th August 2008, 12:39
Ah, so he quotes what he says in one blog on another blog?

Clearly a reliable source :laugh

If ever a person's avatar reflected their intellect, eh Nick?
:laugh

NickFitz
7th August 2008, 12:40
Hang on Dimmo, isnt the guy who wrote that a former exec of [insert name of any oil company here and then quote wikipedia as evidence]? :rollin:

Mailman

Not Wikipedia, but the guy's current company's own profile of him:

http://www.recreationmanagers.com/our_recreation_management_team.htm

NickFitz
7th August 2008, 12:47
If ever a person's avatar reflected their intellect, eh Nick?
:laugh

Ooh, argumentum ad hominem! Well done! :yay:

What were you doing on the day of the course in basic logic - playing frisbee?

See, I can do it too! It's easy, but unfortunately it's not a valid form of argument...

tay
7th August 2008, 12:49
As the housing market should have taught you, a variable can remain static or even decrease in the short term while still maintaining a long term upwards trend.

What is long term in global temp frame of reference then?

TimberWolf
7th August 2008, 12:52
What is long term in global temp frame of reference then?

What's your favourite time-scale? Each side seem to have theirs.

tay
7th August 2008, 12:57
I was asking for Nicks.

shaunbhoy
7th August 2008, 12:57
What were you doing on the day of the course in basic logic - playing frisbee?



Where the fook does "logic" come into "My hypothetical computer projections are better than yours", birdbrain? That is all that various groups of "scientists" are currently doing.
Try thinking for yourself for a change. Get someone to read you "The Emperor's Clothes" as a bedtime story before they sedate you tonight also.
It might kick start something for you.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 13:00
So to summarise the discussion so far:

Not one of the sceptics has refuted the basic argument:

Most scientists believe there is a connection between increased CO2 emissions and the long term global rise in temperature

I hereby declare this thread closed. Once again the forces of cretinism and vacuity have been slaughtered by the light sabre of reason and intellect.

I thenk you! :music::banana::yay::wave:

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 13:04
So to summarise the discussion so far:

Not one of the sceptics has refuted the basic argument:

Most scientists believe there is a connection between increased CO2 emissions and the long term global rise in temperature



Oh, it's just clicked. The penny has dropped. I see it now.

The CO2 produced by man in the last 100 years hasn't made and short or medium term change, only long term. So me driving a V8 will* change the climate in 10,000 years time. Well, that is a worry isn't it?

* may do, might happen, who knows.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 13:07
Oh, it's just clicked. The penny has dropped. I see it now.

The CO2 produced by man in the last 100 years hasn't made and short or medium term change, only long term. So me driving a V8 will* change the climate in 10,000 years time. Well, that is a worry isn't it?

* may do, might happen, who knows.

Do you have children? It will affect them. That's what I mean by long term.

tay
7th August 2008, 13:07
Still wanting a definition of 'long term' in climate context. I assume if all these scientists got together and agreed, they must have defined longterm? When does this longterm start? When does it end?

tay
7th August 2008, 13:08
Do you have children? It will affect them. That's what I mean by long term.

ahh excellent... so you mean 0-100 years is long term?

sasguru
7th August 2008, 13:10
Where the fook does "logic" come ...

Well may you ask. In your case never.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 13:11
ahh excellent... so you mean 0-100 years is long term?

Have a look at the NASA graphs - the upward trend shows many jagged localised points, but we are talking generations not evolutionary periods.

NickFitz
7th August 2008, 13:14
Where the fook does "logic" come into "My hypothetical computer projections are better than yours", birdbrain? That is all that various groups of "scientists" are currently doing.
Try thinking for yourself for a change. Get someone to read you "The Emperor's Clothes" as a bedtime story before they sedate you tonight also.
It might kick start something for you.

:tired

tay
7th August 2008, 13:15
I did look at the NASA graphs, but given the way the earths climate has changed slowly over millenia (both up and down), I am unsure how the time period that NASA have been collecting data could in any meaningful way be described as long term.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 13:15
:tired

Wouldn't take him seriously. He's one of the founder members of the village idiots club, albeit more amusing than the bulk of them. :grin

sasguru
7th August 2008, 13:20
I did look at the NASA graphs, but given the way the earths climate has changed slowly over millenia (both up and down), I am unsure how the time period that NASA have been collecting data could in any meaningful way be described as long term.

How do you know "the earths climate has changed slowly over millenia (both up and down)"? I guess data must have been collected to establish that. So how can you talk about the limited period NASA (or anyone else) has been collecting data?
Logic isn't your strong suit is it? :laugh

TimberWolf
7th August 2008, 13:29
Lots of nice climate related graphs here by physicist John Baez, who some of you may know from the internet/newsgroups:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/

He also has a video out, to you only $12.99 FFS
http://www.amazon.com/John-Baez-Zooming-Out-Time/dp/B000VSMUGI/ref=sr_1_5/102-7773207-6916907?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1193251715/thelongnowfounda

Bob Dalek
7th August 2008, 13:29
How do you know "the earths climate has changed slowly over millenia (both up and down)"? I guess data must have been collected to establish that. So how can you talk about the limited period NASA (or anyone else) has been collecting data?
Logic isn't your strong suit is it? :laugh

It has changed, in fact, surprisingly quickly, long - and short-term. Basic stuff, that.

TimberWolf
7th August 2008, 13:32
The end of the last iceage was rather less than millennia according to some reports.

Depends what you call an ice age. I thought we were still in one.

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 13:33
Famous "hockey stick" used in IPCC report showing predicted doom due to CO2.

http://met.no/filestore/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg

Basis of IPCC report. 1990's were hottest decade on record. Temperatures rise with CO2 output.

Actual data since IPCC report:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

No change in global temp.

If the world ain't getting hotter, WTF are we even looking at CO2 emissions?

Answer: There is money to be made taxing CO2 producers.

Plain facts laid out for simpletons. Sas are you listening?

sasguru
7th August 2008, 13:33
Lots of nice climate related graphs here by physicist John Baez, who some of you may know from the internet/newsgroups:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/

He also has a video out, to you only $12.99 FFS
http://www.amazon.com/John-Baez-Zooming-Out-Time/dp/B000VSMUGI/ref=sr_1_5/102-7773207-6916907?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1193251715/thelongnowfounda

Yes I like John Baez. He's a proper scientist.

Diver
7th August 2008, 13:36
It has changed, in fact, surprisingly quickly, long - and short-term. Basic stuff, that.

The greatest effect of global warming, has been on Polar Bears because of the Temperature rises that they are having to endure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIwn-BdAOlU




.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 13:36
Famous "hockey stick" used in IPCC report showing predicted doom due to CO2.

http://met.no/filestore/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg

Basis of IPCC report. 1990's were hottest decade on record. Temperatures rise with CO2 output.

Actual data since IPCC report:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

No change in global temp.

If the world ain't getting hotter, WTF are we even looking at CO2 emissions?

Answer: There is money to be made taxing CO2 producers.

Plain facts laid out for simpletons. Sas are you listening?

You said that before and I explained why. Do you think repetition makes your case stronger? Surely you can't be that cretinous? Look at John Baez's graphs for more confirmation in TWs link for more clarity.

tay
7th August 2008, 13:37
How do you know "the earths climate has changed slowly over millenia (both up and down)"? I guess data must have been collected to establish that. So how can you talk about the limited period NASA (or anyone else) has been collecting data?
Logic isn't your strong suit is it? :laugh

Calm down.

I though it was quite well known that the earths climate has been changing in various ways for a long time. I am disappointed with your response, people from both sides of the debate acknowledge that the earths climate is changing (and has always been changing), the difference usually occurs based on the rate and cause of change.
You are starting to sound very defensive.

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 13:37
Yes I like John Baez. He's a proper scientist.

Yes, he works for the government, so he's legit.

We have seen no change in temps for last 10 years. Why?

Please explain how global warming can stop for 10 years if it is manmade and man is still producing ever more CO2?

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 13:38
You said that before and I explained why. Do you think repetition makes your case stronger? Surely you can't be that cretinous? Look at John Baez's graphs for more confirmation in TWs link for more clarity.


No you haven't. Please explain no change in global temp for last 10 years and how latest model predict no more changes until at least 2020 and how this can occur whilst man is producing ever more CO2?

tay
7th August 2008, 13:38
The greatest effect of global warming, has been on Polar Bears because of the Temperature rises that they are having to endure

For the love of god wont someone thnk of the bears!!! I feel the need for a bear tax. Its only fair.

snaw
7th August 2008, 13:40
For the love of god wont someone thnk of the bears!!! I feel the need for a bear tax. Its only fair.

Sheep and bears. eh! They do say variety is the spice of life.

Bob Dalek
7th August 2008, 13:40
Depends what you call an ice age. I thought we were still in one.

We are. Polar caps + ice on them = ice age.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 13:41
Yes, he works for the government, so he's legit.

We have seen no change in temps for last 10 years. Why?

Please explain how global warming can stop for 10 years if it is manmade and man is still producing ever more CO2?

Let me ask you a question. Do you think UK house prices have stopped rising in the long term?

Jeez its like a special needs class

Diver
7th August 2008, 13:43
For the love of god wont someone thnk of the bears!!! I feel the need for a bear tax. Its only fair.

Did you click on the Link :rollin:

TimberWolf
7th August 2008, 13:44
Yes I like John Baez. He's a proper scientist.

I'd like to know what Baez thinks of Lubos Motl's recent Heartland foundation research paper (posted here before). I think they were old sparring partners on sci.physics.research. Well sparring might be rather a generous word for the Lubos camp :)

tay
7th August 2008, 13:45
Did you click on the Link :rollin:

Of course not! What a stupid question.

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 13:45
Let me ask you a question. Do you think UK house prices have stopped rising in the long term?

Jeez its like a special needs class

No, you have gone from science to religion. Now there is no proof of AGW, but we must now act on faith that in the long term man will alter the climate.

Do you believe Jesus will return and save us?

Are you Chico?

Cos you are starting to sound like hime.

shaunbhoy
7th August 2008, 13:53
Jeez its like a special needs class

Yes, well that would explain why you and FickFitz are right in your element. Try and answer some of the contradictions implicit in some of your contentions and stop ducking the issue. You are beginning to sound like Hazel Blears, only with less facial hair.
You consistently attempt to maintain that man-made CO2 is a major driver of GW yet when asked to explain just why there has been no discernible rise in global temperature over the last 10 years when these emissions have scaled new heights, you put up a variety of puerile smokescreens. Answer the question man, if it is not too difficult for you to process. Phone a friend FFS, just stop spinning!!
:eyes

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 13:56
Yes, well that would explain why you and FickFitz are right in your element. Try and answer some of the contradictions implicit in some of your contentions and stop ducking the issue. You are beginning to sound like Hazel Blears, only with less facial hair.
You consistently attempt to maintain that man-made CO2 is a major driver of GW yet when asked to explain just why there has been no discernible rise in global temperature over the last 10 years when these emissions have scaled new heights, you put up a variety of puerile smokescreens. Answer the question man, if it is not too difficult for you to process. Phone a friend FFS, just stop spinning!!
:eyes


WHS.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 13:57
No, you have gone from science to religion. Now there is no proof of AGW, but we must now act on faith that in the long term man will alter the climate.

Do you believe Jesus will return and save us?

Are you Chico?

Cos you are starting to sound like hime.

Huh? I'm beginning to think you really are a thicko now.

In any complex system long term trends can be masked by local peturbations. Basic engineering theory. You expect house prices to keep rising in the long term because there are deep underlying reasons for that trend even though there are local peturbations e.g. credit crunch or recession that temporarily mask the trend. By looking at just a 10 year period in global temp (even if your data are correct which is a moot point) you are equivalent to a Martian who lands in England in 2007 and concludes that UK prices always fall.

Every single graph in this thread (including those presented by some sceptics) shows a long term upward trend in temperature. Even the more intelligent sceptics accept that.

It's called separating the signal from the noise. That requires a modicum of intelligence unfortunately.

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 14:05
Every single graph in this thread (including those presented by some sceptics) shows a long term upward trend in temperature. Even the more intelligent sceptics accept that.

I'm not wasting my time with this now.

You clearly don't even grasp the basis of AGW, which was a recent upswing in temps (not long term background natural climate change) due to rapid release of CO2 over the last 50 years.

However, the last 10 years has proven there is not large upswing, it was just noise in a complex system.

On that basis, I'm out.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 14:07
On that basis, I'm out.

:spel off to lick my wounds having been well and truly put back in my gimp box.

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 14:07
:spel off to lick my wounds having been well and truly put back in my gimp box.

You little devil.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 14:08
You little devil.

:wink

shaunbhoy
7th August 2008, 14:10
Every single graph in this thread (including those presented by some sceptics) shows a long term upward trend in temperature. Even the more intelligent sceptics accept that.



Yes yes, but not everyone contends that the upward trend is entirely or even largely dependant upon man-made CO2. Many sceptics were reluctant to believe that even before the temperature trends of the last decade added considerable weight to their argument. That connection is pivotal in the tax-raising mindset yet it has seriously flawed foundations. You appear to have swallowed this link hook, line, and sinker. I suppose you prefer things to be simple, that way you don't have to risk perforating the miniscule and, frankly, flimsy envelope that your powers of reasoning are constrained within. Do yourself a favour and leave this debate to the big boys. :wave:

sasguru
7th August 2008, 14:12
Yes yes, but not everyone contends that the upward trend is entirely or even largely dependant upon man-made CO2. Many sceptics were reluctant to believe that even before the temperature trends of the last decade added considerable weight to their argument. That connection is pivotal in the tax-raising mindset yet it has seriously flawed foundations. You appear to have swallowed this link hook, line, and sinker. I suppose you prefer things to be simple, that way you don't have to risk perforating the miniscule and, frankly, flimsy envelope that your powers of reasoning are constrained within. Do yourself a favour and leave this debate to the big boys. :wave:

You were doing quite well till you fell into your usual trap of blithering like an idiot.

shaunbhoy
7th August 2008, 14:14
You were doing quite well till you fell into your usual trap of blithering like an idiot.

You mean till the logic went over your head?
Did you last as far as the second "yes"?
:wink

TimberWolf
7th August 2008, 14:15
Anyway wind, solar, nuclear is way cooler technology than burning oil which we will continue to do anyway. Don't like paying the cool new technology taxes? Well don't run a car and wear a jumper. These taxes are mostly optional (unless you is old).

sasguru
7th August 2008, 14:15
But there are definite signs of an argument developing. Do carry on

NickFitz
7th August 2008, 14:15
I suppose you prefer things to be simple, that way you don't have to risk perforating the miniscule and, frankly, flimsy envelope that your powers of reasoning are constrained within. Do yourself a favour and leave this debate to the big boys. :wave:

Again with the ad hominem attacks in place of any reasonable argument. Sad really... I blame declining educational standards :eyes

shaunbhoy
7th August 2008, 14:16
Sad really... I blame declining educational standards :eyes

Well you would, having suffered so dreadfully at their hands.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 14:16
Again with the ad hominem attacks in place of any reasonable argument. Sad really... I blame declining educational standards :eyes

:spel vacuous stupidity and a low IQ.:grin

shaunbhoy
7th August 2008, 14:18
Ah, a rose amongst the thorns. You two dimwits still auditioning for the stage version of Dumb and Dumber?
:laugh

voodooflux
7th August 2008, 14:18
Anyway wind, solar, nuclear is way cooler technology
Damn right - I want one of these (http://www.expansys.com/d.aspx?i=162001&partner=uknews) :nerd

sasguru
7th August 2008, 14:19
So to summarise:

The dimwit sceptics having produced no argument worthy of the slightest consideration have retired to lick their wounds, leaving behind the joker in the pack.

Bob Dalek
7th August 2008, 14:26
This whole, silly fracas could be made moot, if only we'd all turn our fridges up a notch or two, to help cool our planet. Those of us with a few bob should also invest in a decent, high wattage air conditioning system, too. We have but one world to live on; let's all work together to save our home.

shaunbhoy
7th August 2008, 14:26
So to summarise:

The dimwit sceptics having produced no argument worthy of the slightest consideration have retired to lick their wounds, leaving behind the joker in the pack.

:laugh:laugh

sg,
you could get hold of the wrong end of the stick if it only had one end. In short, we are all still waiting for you to stop contradicting yourself and dilly-dallying around and explain some of the holes in your wafer-thin arguments.
If this analysis has only been seriously measured for a few short decades( and that must be true as less than 40 years ago, many of your "experts" were confidently predicting the next imminent Ice Age!!) then an entire decade is a sizeable chunk of the measuring period to simply discard simply because it blows your main tenet into the weeds.
Now come on!!

sasguru
7th August 2008, 14:41
:laugh:laugh

sg,
you could get hold of the wrong end of the stick if it only had one end. In short, we are all still waiting for you to stop contradicting yourself and dilly-dallying around and explain some of the holes in your wafer-thin arguments.
If this analysis has only been seriously measured for a few short decades( and that must be true as less than 40 years ago, many of your "experts" were confidently predicting the next imminent Ice Age!!) then an entire decade is a sizeable chunk of the measuring period to simply discard simply because it blows your main tenet into the weeds.
Now come on!!

I doubt this would help as it's well above your cognitive ability, but I post it here nevertheless.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/

Diver
7th August 2008, 14:43
I doubt this would help as it's well above your cognitive ability, but I post it here nevertheless.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/

Ah! the coup de gras :yay:

sasguru
7th August 2008, 14:48
Ah! the coup de gras :yay:

Indeed.

And in case the corpse is still twitching:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf

sasguru
7th August 2008, 14:50
And just for Dim (by name and nature) - a contrary view:

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/a-spot-check-of-global-warming/

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 14:52
Indeed.

And in case the corpse is still twitching:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf

Where's the hockey stick, rapid rise, Day After Tommorrow, on the edge of global collapse, too late to save the planet jump gone?

Oh, here it is. :moon:

sasguru
7th August 2008, 14:53
Where's the hockey stick, rapid rise, Day After Tommorrow, on the edge of global collapse, too late to save the planet jump gone?

Oh, here it is. :moon:

I was expecting a scientific rebuttal but all I got was a fart.

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 14:55
And just for Dim (by name and nature) - a contrary view:

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/a-spot-check-of-global-warming/


I’m not suggesting that the global warming isn’t real, or that the uncertainties justify inaction — we take out insurance all the time against risks that are uncertain. I’d like to see a carbon tax. But I’d also like to see fewer dogmatists claiming that the scientific debate is over.

So keep the tax and let's see what happens?

You are the world greatest living comedian sas.

:laugh

Diver
7th August 2008, 14:55
I was expecting a scientific rebuttal but all I got was a fart.

Shall I get a mop for the bloodshed & tears you've caused :D

sasguru
7th August 2008, 14:57
So keep the tax and let's see what happens?

You are the world greatest living comedian sas.

:laugh

Well it should tell you something that this guy, an intelligent sceptic, thinks there's enough in it that something must be done about carbon emissions, eh?

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 14:58
Well it should tell you something that this guy, an intelligent sceptic, thinks there's enough in it that something must be done about carbon emissions, eh?

Another deluded tree hugging hand-wringing liberal trying to unload his middle class guilt at owning a car more like.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 15:00
Another deluded tree hugging hand-wringing liberal trying to unload his middle class guilt at owning a car more like.

Hurrah, it's cliche time! I wondered when you'd concede defeat.:laugh :laugh

sasguru
7th August 2008, 15:09
I hereby declare this thread closed. The sceptics tried to put up a bit of a fight but had no ammo to start with. It was a turkey shoot by the forces of intelligence and reason. A veritable Somme for the hard-of-thinking. A charnel house of epic proportions.

I thenk you!:yay::music::banana::spank:

Old Greg
7th August 2008, 15:23
Well, I don't care if it's closed, and can't be @rsed to read the whole thing - same old, same old....

Thing is SAS, while it's kind of fun to let the morons (I see Mailman was straight in there) and contrarians make themselves look silly, they'll still cling to anything they can to justify the way they want to live their lives. There'll always be some scientists with different models, and the press will champion them, as the press is owned by capitalist interests and capitalists want to maximise profit, which means burning every bit of fossil fuel they can get their hands on.

I despair for the world that my little one will inherit.

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 15:32
Well, I don't care if it's closed, and can't be @rsed to read the whole thing - same old, same old....

Thing is SAS, while it's kind of fun to let the morons (I see Mailman was straight in there) and contrarians make themselves look silly, they'll still cling to anything they can to justify the way they want to live their lives. There'll always be some scientists with different models, and the press will champion them, as the press is owned by capitalist interests and capitalists want to maximise profit, which means burning every bit of fossil fuel they can get their hands on.

I despair for the world that my little one will inherit.

Oh Dear. It's them capitalists! They is Dr Evil and is destroying the world with CO2, disguised as exhaust emissions!!!

I would be worried as well if it wasn't for the fact the climate hasn't changed at all and there's more correlation between global temps and people wearing taller hats.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 15:34
Oh Dear. It's them capitalists! They is Dr Evil and is destroying the world with CO2, disguised as exhaust emissions!!!

I would be worried as well if it wasn't for the fact the climate hasn't changed at all and there's more correlation between global temps and people wearing taller hats.

Quit posting. Everyone knows you're just blowing hot air now.

DimPrawn
7th August 2008, 15:35
Quit posting. Everyone knows you're just blowing hot air now.

Yes, to criticise the appalling (and discredited) science behind AGW is to be akin to Adolf Hitler.

sasguru
7th August 2008, 15:37
Yes, to criticise the appalling (and discredited) science behind AGW is to be akin to Adolf Hitler.

:laugh:laugh

I rest my case.

Old Greg
7th August 2008, 15:43
:laugh:laugh

I rest my case.

Ah, now I see your point. Give them enough rope...

Old Greg
7th August 2008, 15:45
Oh Dear. It's them capitalists! They is Dr Evil and is destroying the world with CO2, disguised as exhaust emissions!!!

Remember the straw man...

AtW
7th August 2008, 16:57
I am real.

Diver
7th August 2008, 17:17
I am real.

:cool::wave::smokin

Addanc
7th August 2008, 19:58
What a very idiotic statement.
Next!

Another one from the New Liebour school of debate; can put forward any decent argument so just resorts to abuse. I bet your really Blinky Balls just Trolling; now look you got me throwing abuse about.

oracleslave
7th August 2008, 20:01
Another one from the New Liebour school of debate; can put forward any decent argument so just resorts to abuse. I bet your really Blinky Balls just Trolling; now look you got me throwing abuse about.

:spel Can't

:spel You're

I think you might struggle to throw a fit never mind abuse.

HTH

Addanc
7th August 2008, 20:10
Interesting - that domain is owned by Warren Meyer, the same chap who owns climate-skeptic.com - as I mentioned earlier, he used to work for Exxon.

I wouldn't give a shite if he was Rockefeller; is the science presented good or bad? If the science is bad, identify which items offend and describe why.

Addanc
7th August 2008, 20:12
:spel Can't

:spel You're

I think you might struggle to throw a fit never mind abuse.

HTH

If you have nothing to contribute to the debate sling your hook to another thread .

NickFitz
7th August 2008, 20:14
I wouldn't give a tulipe if he was Rockefeller; is the science presented good or bad? If the science is bad, identify which items offend and describe why.

Start here (http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/31483-those-who-dont-believe-agw-real-post602766.html).

BTW, there isn't any actual science on the various blogs that bloke hides behind.

sasguru
8th August 2008, 08:27
Another one from the New Liebour school of debate; can put forward any decent argument so just resorts to abuse. I bet your really Blinky Balls just Trolling; now look you got me throwing abuse about.


One too many last night? :laugh
If you really are interested , there are plenty of links on this thread to enlighten you. Like you said try to look at the science and judge it on its merits.

tay
8th August 2008, 08:50
One too many last night? :laugh
If you really are interested , there are plenty of links on this thread to enlighten you. Like you said try to look at the science and judge it on its merits.

:spel Religion

sasguru
8th August 2008, 08:57
:spel Religion

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

shaunbhoy
8th August 2008, 10:29
One too many last night? :laugh
If you really are interested , there are plenty of links on this thread to enlighten you. Like you said try to look at the science and judge it on its merits.

Still awaiting an explanation on why global temperatures have not risen for the decade in which carbon emissions have been at their peak. Unsurprisingly you are still hiding behind the old "long term trends" excuse when in actual fact this latest period of alleged enhanced man-made warming has only been occurring for a few decades, so one can hardly discard a 10-year period and expect to be taken seriously. I will point out again that I am not in favour of wantonly burning fossil fuels, nor do I disagree that the climate is quite possibly changing, but what I do have reservations about is the contention that man is having a hugely disproportionate effect on this when the main argument that incriminates man, that of carbon emissions, has palpably not pushed the temperature up one jota in the last 10 years when these offending emissions have gone off the scale if one believes some of the zealots.,
Come on man, explain this huge anomaly or put a sock in it.

DimPrawn
8th August 2008, 10:32
Still awaiting an explanation on why global temperatures have not risen for the decade in which carbon emissions have been at their peak. Unsurprisingly you are still hiding behind the old "long term trends" excuse when in actual fact this latest period of alleged enhanced man-made warming has only been occurring for a few decades, so one can hardly discard a 10-year period and expect to be taken seriously. I will point out again that I am not in favour of wantonly burning fossil fuels, nor do I disagree that the climate is quite possibly changing, but what I do have reservations about is the contention that man is having a hugely disproportionate effect on this when the main argument that incriminates man, that of carbon emissions, has palpably not pushed the temperature up one jota in the last 10 years when these offending emissions have gone off the scale if one believes some of the zealots.,
Come on man, explain this huge anomaly or put a sock in it.


SB the science is too complex to explain. Just go on faith and cough up on the Carbon taxes. Amem, praise the Lord.

sasguru
8th August 2008, 10:42
Still awaiting an explanation on why global temperatures have not risen for the decade in which carbon emissions have been at their peak. Unsurprisingly you are still hiding behind the old "long term trends" excuse when in actual fact this latest period of alleged enhanced man-made warming has only been occurring for a few decades, so one can hardly discard a 10-year period and expect to be taken seriously. I will point out again that I am not in favour of wantonly burning fossil fuels, nor do I disagree that the climate is quite possibly changing, but what I do have reservations about is the contention that man is having a hugely disproportionate effect on this when the main argument that incriminates man, that of carbon emissions, has palpably not pushed the temperature up one jota in the last 10 years when these offending emissions have gone off the scale if one believes some of the zealots.,
Come on man, explain this huge anomaly or put a sock in it.

I know DimBynature repeated that claim ad nauseaum. Doesn't mean it's true. It's his "debating" style: if you have no facts to support your argument just keep screaming the same bollux over and over. A bit like Hitler.

The facts show otherwise.

Essentially the data matches the IPCC forecast. Read the links here:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/31483-those-who-dont-believe-agw-real-22.html

sasguru
8th August 2008, 10:58
For those with some statistical training (which I think is essential to understand this argument) here is another link:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/

DimPrawn
8th August 2008, 11:08
For those with some statistical training (which I think is essential to understand this argument) here is another link:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/

Ah, now I understand. By generating random data and noise we can show that it is just noise that the last 10 years show no increase in warming.

It's amazing what you can prove with some random data to fit the argument you want to prove.

I'm guessing with the right random noise we can have no effect forever. Sorted.

sasguru
8th August 2008, 11:10
Ah, now I understand. By generating random data and noise we can show that it is just noise that the last 10 years show no increase in warming.

It's amazing what you can prove with some random data to fit the argument you want to prove.

I'm guessing with the right random noise we can have no effect forever. Sorted.

No you don't. I think that's the problem.

DimPrawn
8th August 2008, 11:13
No you don't. I think that's the problem.

You're right, I can't understand how we can go from "The world is going to end next year if you don't ban fossil fuels, we must all act now or die" to, "There will be no measurable effect for a million years, but we must still ban fossil fuels now."

I'll shut up and pay up like the rest of you guys.

shaunbhoy
8th August 2008, 11:18
The facts show otherwise.

Essentially the data matches the IPCC forecast. Read the links here:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/31483-those-who-dont-believe-agw-real-22.html

The problem I have is with claims such as "This becomes immediately clear when looking at the following graph", after which a graph is displayed which looks like a retard's doodling is that it does not actually answer my questions. 40 years ago we had endless experts telling us that we were heading for an Ice Age. It never materialised. A few short decades later we have more experts telling us that we are suffering from a greenhouse effect due to ozone depletion and that temperatures are set to soar. Yet in reality temperatures have not soared, but have continued with pretty much the same gentle rise that we might expect as we slowly emerge from a period of "Ice Age" Essentially, many of these scientists blame these changes on human behaviour, and when the consequences of that behaviour provide evidence that it is not in fact a primary driver of the problem, it is simply written off as a short-term blip. So Global Warming then gets changed to Climate Change yet still the experts continue with their pleas for additional funding, and the Governments endorse these requests by piling extra taxes on the public and doing their best to make them feel guilty about their fossil-burning profligacy whilst obstinately refusing to ringfence this extra revenue for alternative power sources. Why don't the Government simply say to the Public "If you want summers like this for the rest of your days then just carry on guzzling Oil etc." That might just achieve something.

ThomasSoerensen
8th August 2008, 11:18
Would the proper time span not be from the planets formation?

Since then, I believe the general trend is cooling.

sasguru
8th August 2008, 11:20
You're right, I can't understand how we can go from "The world is going to end next year if you don't ban fossil fuels, we must all act now or die" to, "There will be no measurable effect for a million years, but we must still ban fossil fuels now."

I'll shut up and pay up like the rest of you guys.

You seem very prone to:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

DimPrawn
8th August 2008, 11:21
You seem very prone to:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

And you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam

sasguru
8th August 2008, 11:27
The problem I have is with claims such as "This becomes immediately clear when looking at the following graph", after which a graph is displayed which looks like a retard's doodling is that it does not actually answer my questions. 40 years ago we had endless experts telling us that we were heading for an Ice Age. It never materialised. A few short decades later we have more experts telling us that we are suffering from a greenhouse effect due to ozone depletion and that temperatures are set to soar. Yet in reality temperatures have not soared, but have continued with pretty much the same gentle rise that we might expect as we slowly emerge from a period of "Ice Age" Essentially, many of these scientists blame these changes on human behaviour, and when the consequences of that behaviour provide evidence that it is not in fact a primary driver of the problem, it is simply written off as a short-term blip. So Global Warming then gets changed to Climate Change yet still the experts continue with their pleas for additional funding, and the Governments endorse these requests by piling extra taxes on the public and doing their best to make them feel guilty about their fossil-burning profligacy whilst obstinately refusing to ringfence this extra revenue for alternative power sources. Why don't the Government simply say to the Public "If you want summers like this for the rest of your days then just carry on guzzling Oil etc." That might just achieve something.

Nice rant. Bit like a child's.
I'll just pick one sentence out of that drool.

You guys need to decide what your argument is. Here you seem to say temperature is not rising in any meaningful way. The multitude of graphs posted on this thread show it is.
Not that anyone over 35 needs data to know that we hardly ever have snow anymore and our summers are generally much hotter than when we were kids - and please don't say 1976 - we've already gone over random variation before.
But you clodheads don't seem to get it :laugh I think the problem is that you're just thick as pig-tulip.

sasguru
8th August 2008, 11:28
And you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam

Pot kettle etc.

You're the one repeating a stupid argument like some retard :laugh

shaunbhoy
8th August 2008, 11:29
our summers are generally much hotter than when we were kids

:laugh:laugh:laugh:laugh

DimPrawn
8th August 2008, 11:30
Imagine if the American government agency responsible for temperature records had announced a fortnight ago that it had overestimated annual temperatures since the year 2000.

Imagine if, at the time of correcting this error, the hottest year on record was mysteriously altered from 1998 to 1934.

Imagine further that if you considered the 10 hottest years on record after these corrections, the hottest decade changed from the 1990s to the 1930s.

So you are talking bollox again. Hottest years were in the 1930's. But the AGW religous zealots start the graph from 1940.

:laugh

DodgyAgent
8th August 2008, 11:34
Pot kettle etc.

You're the one repeating a stupid argument like some retard :laugh

Are you the government's stooge for this website? You've clearly lost the argument as you have now resorted to defending the governments position on GW by insulting dissenters.

sasguru
8th August 2008, 11:34
This should be simple enough even for dumb and dumber:

http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~taharley/centralengav_temperat.htm

DimPrawn
8th August 2008, 11:36
This should be simple enough even for dumb and dumber:

http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~taharley/centralengav_temperat.htm

But taking into account random noise, I can make the UK hotter or colder? How would you like it sir?

:laugh

sasguru
8th August 2008, 11:37
Are you the government's stooge for this website? You've clearly lost the argument as you have now resorted to defending the governments position on GW by insulting dissenters.

No its just statement of fact. Someone who resorts to screaming the same discredited argument time after time without addressing the evidence presented against is a retard by my definition.