Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paul

Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

Recommended Posts

I know its sarcasm but why are the AGW camp want to kill us , driving a stake through our hearts (beware of knocker) Posted Image

Edited by keithlucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I see the other side using ridicule already to try and debunk. Don't they ever read before commenting? It would be a change if they could comment on the content that includes the scientific content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, have you read Julia Slingo's comments following the cold winters? Forget this wet winter for a second & read up on what she said back then. Then tell me you could take anything she says seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The CO2 level has been 7,000 PPM without catastrophic warming, and earth fell into an ice age when CO2 was 4,000 PPM, or 10x the level it is today. Additionally, this chart raises the question, what triggers the warming that brings the earth out of ice age? CO2 doesn't suddenly bubble up from solid ice, CO2 only gets produced once the oceans warm and life begins to grow. Something other than CO2 must cause the warming coming out of ice ages.

 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comments section also has some good reads....

 

 

 

Based on the UN IPCC report from 2005, they predicted 50 million global warming refugees by 2010 and disappearing islands. So whatever happened to these global warming refugees? Well, the fraud of an IPCC conveniently removed that report from their website but they were too stupid enough to not know that it would still be available on google cache and be an inconvenient truth about their deception.

 

Or what of the poor Brits who would never see snow again as per the prediction by these alarmist "scientists" in 2001 that England would never see snow again?

 

If they keep getting their predictions and climate models wrong for the next two to five to ten years, why the hell would anyone with common sense take them seriously when they make predictions for 50 to 100 years down the line (very convenient as they won't be available to be held to account).

 

And the proof of their deception is that whenever they get their predictions wrong, they will make up for it by some pseudo science of an explanation AFTER THE FACT...NEVER BEFORE.

 

So whenever they get their warming predictions wrong, it's now hiding in the deep deep oceans.

 

Right.

 

So just keep paying attention when things don't go their way, they will always find an excuse about why they couldn't forecast that.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-disappearing-attempt/

 

 

 

UPDATE2: The goal posts are already being moved, now it is 2020 instead of 2010, see below.

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20090217054716/http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/fifty-million-climate-refugees-by-2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Green anti-capitalism is Snob anti-capitalism.  This is not mere name-calling.  It goes to the very heart of what ‘Green’  is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greenpeace Co-Founder Tells U.S. Senate Earth’s Geologic History ‘fundamentally contradicts’ CO2 Climate Fears: ‘We had both higher temps and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today’http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_id=e8d6a0c3-982e-2afa-f53d-131ea566818b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What "hiatus"? Great graphic by Tamino

 Yes those graphs sure do look BAD....

 

post-2989-0-66598100-1393402579_thumb.jp

 

Or does it......

 

post-2989-0-28922200-1393402573_thumb.jp

 

Which goes on.....

 

post-2989-0-29275300-1393402587_thumb.jp

 

Doesn't look quite so alarming with the pink line does it? The fact is the next few years will be interesting. If the temps continue to stall or even, heaven forbid, dip down they will have new theories of why temps are just not following that evil CO2.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Interesting point of origin for your pink line. Did you pluck it out of thin air or import it from WUWT? Funny how CO2 is 'evil'. We would be in a right pickle without it. Says it all about certain mindsets.

 

Yep I plucked it out of thin air. Well, I simply drew a line on the graph. With regard to CO2 being evil perhaps you could tell all the world governments that it's not a problem. If it wasn't evil I wouldn't have just paid £475 to tax my family car for a year because of its CO2 emissions. Not that their logic of taxing CO2 will make one blind bit of difference to "climate change". Now, must do some constructive work that pays the bills, some of us don't have time to make 10000 posts of gloom on an Internet forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, have you read Julia Slingo's comments following the cold winters? Forget this wet winter for a second & read up on what she said back then. Then tell me you could take anything she says seriously.

 

 

nope not read that perhaps you can provide a link. Always happy to read anything and make my own judgement.

I was more concerned when I commented about her that the actual statement from the group she was charing made the comment they did, attributable through her, along the lines that they felt GW had some part to play but had no proof or something along those lines.

As I have posted before, ever since the start of the GW/AGW debate I make my own mind up based on my understanding of meteorology and did enjoy the days when I was able to listen/watch 'experts' from both sides of the argument give equally convincing arguments to support their case.

Nothing is certain other than the earth has more bodies on it than ever before and for whatever reason, is, with minor wobbles, continuing to warm.

Edited by johnholmes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/14/met-office-arctic-sea-ice-loss-winter

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/12/english-winters-back-to-normal-julia-blames-global-warming/

 

http://www.itv.com/news/2013-04-10/met-office-investigating-arctic-link-in-record-low-temperatures/

 

 

Busy with work at the moment but will look to see if these comments were ever published on the met office website.  From the video....

 

 

tending to setup cold dry easterly winters......

 

 

Loading the dice more towards colder dryer winters....

 

I can't find the one link that looked pretty credible but basically she seems to say what fits for the current/recent time. Anyone can do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/14/met-office-arctic-sea-ice-loss-winter

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/12/english-winters-back-to-normal-julia-blames-global-warming/

 

http://www.itv.com/news/2013-04-10/met-office-investigating-arctic-link-in-record-low-temperatures/

 

 

Busy with work at the moment but will look to see if these comments were ever published on the met office website.  From the video....

 

 

 

I can't find the one link that looked pretty credible but basically she seems to say what fits for the current/recent time. Anyone can do that.

 

the three quotes are meaningless at the moment so perhaps when you have time you can put some 'flesh on the bones' so to speak. As is the last comment from you, 'seems to say what fits...'

Your dismissal of someone with her credentials is a touch breath taking, I presume you have at least the equivalent to be so scathing about her meteorological knowledge?

 

I am not really interested in personalities more in the actual papers published which we can then read and make our own mind up about them. 

 

Had time to read all 3 links you posted-thanks

 

As I have always said, listen to one scientist say one thing and another equally eminent one say another. Both seem plausible as does the variation in outputs from Exeter, be it Julia Sligo or anyone else. They/we simply do not know. Quite why they do not say we do not know is beyond me. Regardless of the pressure politicians put on scientists, especially those paid for from our taxes, it really is time Exeter started to be totally honest and say this or that may be having some effect. However, until we are able to do in depth research into it, and this is not done in a few months, probably 5 -10 years more like, we are unable to give you a yes or no. Explain the probabilities of one thing or another, for all it’s bad publicity, the last IPCC output, I read about 2/3 of it, did give these in places.

I keep saying it but the truth is no one knows and no one scientist or one centre can give a definite answer. 

Edited by johnholmes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Your dismissal of someone with her credentials is a touch breath taking, I presume you have at least the equivalent to be so scathing about her meteorological knowledge?

 

I wasn't referring to her meteorological knowledge, nor is it relevant to what the post was about. The fact is she said one thing in 2010 to explain colder dryer winters & has now completely changed her mind.

 

Read some of the comments on those articles, like a lot of people say is there ANYTHING these people won't try & pin on global warming/climate change?!

 

 

 

I keep saying it but the truth is no one knows and no one scientist or one centre can give a definite answer

 Couldn't agree more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Read some of the comments on those articles, like a lot of people say is there ANYTHING these people won't try & pin on global warming/climate change?!

 

 

 

 

but is she not entitled to her view just as we are.

I don't feel she is trying to pin global warming on us, the report she chaired actually stated they feel GW has a part to play but they cannot be sure. To me that is being as honest as they/she can be, or do you not see it that way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is entitled to a POV, it's a free country. However someone in authority who was talking to MP's should not be banding theories around like confetti John. However that may well be a result of pressure from said MP's, who knows?

 

Others can read the links, watch the videos etc etc & make their own minds up but please don't put words in my mouth & claim I was referring to her meteorological knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is entitled to a POV, it's a free country. However someone in authority who was talking to MP's should not be banding theories around like confetti John. However that may well be a result of pressure from said MP's, who knows?

 

Others can read the links, watch the videos etc etc & make their own minds up but please don't put words in my mouth & claim I was referring to her meteorological knowledge.

 

 

best we agree to disagree on things I think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://iceagenow.info/2014/02/agw-golden-boy-michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy/

 

Why does the climate change debate cause such intransigence. All Mann had to do was share his megadata which formed the famed hockey stick.!!!

The only reason I can think off is that he doesn't have faith in it's ability to stand on own it's feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/confessions-of-a-greenpeace-droput-to-the-u-s-senate-on-climate-change/Everyone with an interest in climate should read this statement from former greenpeace Patrick Moore.Crucially: 

 

The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910- 1940 to “human influence.†They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th centuryâ€. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influenceâ€, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

independent.co.uk/miliband-wants-to-burnMight provide some actual warming? 

 

The long-fingered witchfinder-general began the inquisition quietly. This was one of those weeks in which the Labour whips had thrown the switch in their office to Wall of Noise: Off. There was no mistaking the menace in the young inquisitor’s questions, however. Monsignor Miliband brushed aside the defence by the heretic of his spending on flood defences as “phoneyâ€. He demanded to know “the truth†about climate change. The defendant, who had been calling himself the Prime Minister, tried to change the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...