Prosecute Climate Change Advocates

[sneak'n]

Sneak'n,
Which comes back to one of my original points, that there is no clean data set, that has not been adjusted, that shows climate change of any significance, in a world where the climate does change all the time. This is even before we get to any discussion on weather it is man made, or if it is possibly a good thing (like keeping us from having an ice age).

brty

There are no very long term data sets that are consistent due to a range of factors including standards, methodologies, and technology. In the case of sea ice, the 30 year average referred to in my earlier post provides, for the first time for this data series, reliable, consistent and accurate information.
Trends are identifiable through the time series, and are typically self-evident.

 

[Julia]

Smelly Terror, when you're quoting a post to which you're replying, could you please click on the link which brings up the quote including the nic of the original poster, especially when you're arguing with that person.

Thanks.

 

[wayneL]

And just to reiterate 101 of climate change

Climate ain't weather

The reality that you never seem to have gone past this fact perhaps underpins your inability/unwillingness to come to terms with the big picture.

Logic 101:

A hoof ain't a horse, but no hoof, no horse.

Climate is made up of weather. Ignoring weather when discussing climate is rather stupid, though single weather events, or single anomalous seasons/years may not be statistically relevant, but they do add to the empirical record of what is called climate.

BTW - Warm mongers aren't averse to citing weather events as support for their canon. They do it all the time.

 

[SmellyTerror]

Smelly Terror, when you're quoting a post to which you're replying, could you please click on the link which brings up the quote including the nic of the original poster, especially when you're arguing with that person.

Thanks.

Sorry.

That was the last time. :

I could point out that the person I was answering wasn't doing it either...

Climate is made up of weather. Ignoring weather when discussing climate is rather stupid, though single weather events, or single anomalous seasons/years may not be statistically relevant, but they do add to the empirical record of what is called climate.

Global climate change, though, refers to the climate of the globe. It's cunningly hidden right there in the name. I've already explained to you that local conditions are exepcted to vary towards cold as well as hot. There's a long discussion about sea ice right there in the thread.

Adding up *all* the weather conditins *is* how they come up with the overall measurments of climate. How do you think they do it?

Do you just read enough to find a point you can contest? You're really not interested in the facts, are you? Just want to justify your prejudice.

Warm mongers aren't averse to citing weather events as support for their canon. They do it all the time.

Someone else does something idiotic, so it's ok if you do it too?

"Warm mongers", assuming they include anyone who believes that the people who know what they're talking about... know what they're talking about, consists of, at the very least, millions of people. There are going to be idiots in there. Which is why I'm quoting from the scientists who do NOT point to every local condition and hoot like chimps at an obelisk.

The media's representation of science is about as shallow and moronic as their coverage of finance. The fact that pollies and talking heads can't find their arses with both hands is hardly a revelation. And there are plenty of forum dwellers on both sides that don't have a clue.

Copying their idiocy does not win you points. Why do you keep doing it?

 

[Aussiejeff]

Meanwhile, on another planet far, far away (or so it may seem)...

Up to 20 million farm animals may die in Mongolia before spring as the fiercest winter in living memory grips the country, International Aid Agencies warned today.

Sky News reported that local experts have told the Red Cross half the entire country's livestock could be wiped out.

A Sky News team that traveled through remote regions in Central Mongolia found cattle, goats and sheep frozen to death across the plains, with some herds almost completely wiped out.

Outside her traditional home in Central Mongolia, grandmother Hotont Suon wept as she looked at the carcasses of her herd lying on their backs.

Their legs to the air, they had been frozen to death. In the pens, sheep must huddle together to escape the bitter cold.

"Our hay is all gone now. As our goats die we sell the hides and buy more fodder, but it only lasts a few days," Suon said.

The Mongolian Government has appealed for food, medicine and animal food to combat one of the country's worst natural disasters.

The poorer herding families are left with insufficient food supplies to last out the winter. Many have taken out high interest loans to pay for animal fodder which they can't meet.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...-freeze-to-death/story-e6frf7jx-1225827780294

What a horrible situation for these poor folk to be in. The forgotten people. What have we got to complain about?

To be brutally honest, when it comes to tin tacks these people might argue it's better to cope with possibly warmer temperatures with more lush growth in preference to freezing to death?

Sad.

 

[derty]

As a slight divergence to the current back and forth.

For those that claimed "It's the Sun stupid" and hailed the extended solar minimum as the arrival of the next Maunder Minimum, you may be interested to know that Solar Cycle 24 is well underway and firmly established.

By your predictions we should see some significant warming as the current cycle builds to a peak.
http://spaceweather.com/

 

[Calliope]

Meanwhile, on another planet far, far away (or so it may seem)...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...-freeze-to-death/story-e6frf7jx-1225827780294

What a horrible situation for these poor folk to be in. The forgotten people. What have we got to complain about?

To be brutally honest, when it comes to tin tacks these people might argue it's better to cope with possibly warmer temperatures with more lush growth in preference to freezing to death?

Sad.

Yes, Aussiejeff this is a very sad story and certainly depressed me greatly. They are such a hardy and independent race and don't deserve this.

The story trivialises the debate on these pages about a few degrees temperate change in decades ahead. What's happening in Mongolia is here and now to people with a tiny carbon footprint.

 

[moXJO]

Meanwhile, on another planet far, far away (or so it may seem)...







What a horrible situation for these poor folk to be in. The forgotten people. What have we got to complain about?

To be brutally honest, when it comes to tin tacks these people might argue it's better to cope with possibly warmer temperatures with more lush growth in preference to freezing to death?

Sad.

Yep which disaster scenario will unfold, global warming or the next ice age. I don't like the cold so here's to global warming. Personally I miss swine flu and meteorites, Y2K was pretty good too.

As we reported last week, the Armagh observatory, which has been measuring sun cycles for over 200 years. predicts that global temperatures will drop by two degrees over the next 20 years as solar activity grinds to a halt and the planet drastically cools down, potentially heralding the onset of a new ice age.

“Based on the past Armagh measurements, this suggests that over the next two decades, global temperatures may fall by about 2 degrees C ”” that is, to a level lower than any we have seen in the last 100 years….”Temperatures have already fallen by about 0.5 degrees C over the past 12 months and, if this is only the start of it, it would be a serious concern,” concludes David Watt

http://www.prisonplanet.com/scientist-predicts-ice-age-within-10-years.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

 

[wayneL]

Global climate change, though, refers to the climate of the globe. It's cunningly hidden right there in the name. I've already explained to you that local conditions are exepcted to vary towards cold as well as hot. There's a long discussion about sea ice right there in the thread.

Adding up *all* the weather conditins *is* how they come up with the overall measurments of climate. How do you think they do it?

But we keep being told that weather is not climate, as if there is no link. It's a furphy designed to deflect the observations that contradict the ludicrous assertions of warm mongers.

you just read enough to find a point you can contest? You're really not interested in the facts, are you? Just want to justify your prejudice.

Incorrect. When I see a ludicrous double standard, I feel I must point it out in the interests of developing better debate.

Someone else does something idiotic, so it's ok if you do it too?

I must point out that that is something I haven't done in this thread. I merely point out the hypocrisy and duplicity of the warm mongers argument; that what warm mongers accuse rational sceptics of, is often they're own tactic. They criticise what they are most guilty of themselves.

"Warm mongers", assuming they include anyone who believes that the people who know what they're talking about... know what they're talking about, consists of, at the very least, millions of people. There are going to be idiots in there. Which is why I'm quoting from the scientists who do NOT point to every local condition and hoot like chimps at an obelisk.

Warm Mongers are those who adhere to the hypothesis of co2 based, catastrophic global warming, preach is as fact, or as settled science, in the face of evidence to the contrary, to the exclusion of all other hypotheses.

Warm Mongers are anti-scientific because they either spurn or corrupt the scientific process. We are seeing this is rampant via climategate and subsequent revelations.

The media's representation of science is about as shallow and moronic as their coverage of finance. The fact that pollies and talking heads can't find their arses with both hands is hardly a revelation. And there are plenty of forum dwellers on both sides that don't have a clue.

Copying their idiocy does not win you points. Why do you keep doing it?

I do not rely on the main stream media for my information any more than I rely on it for my financial information. In fact, the MSM (apart from the odd blogger) is almost universally pro AGM. I've lost count of the number of argumentative fallacies, mistruths and misrepresentations you have employed to prop up your emotional investiture in AGW. So really you are hoist by your own petard there.

If you have some deep emotional need to insult me directly, at least have the intellectual integrity to do so on the basis of fact, rather than the above.

As far as point scoring, as I said to sneak'n, if keeping some sort of pathetic score and deluding yourself that you are winning them by continuously playing the man, is important to your scarcely existent self-esteem, then I am happy for you to claim points.

I am only interested in the truth, plus having a bit of a laugh arguing with some delusional zealot unable to break free from a raging confirmation bias on the Internet.

 

[derty]

As we reported last week, the Armagh observatory, which has been measuring sun cycles for over 200 years. predicts that global temperatures will drop by two degrees over the next 20 years as solar activity grinds to a halt and the planet drastically cools down, potentially heralding the onset of a new ice age.

“Based on the past Armagh measurements, this suggests that over the next two decades, global temperatures may fall by about 2 degrees C ”” that is, to a level lower than any we have seen in the last 100 years….”Temperatures have already fallen by about 0.5 degrees C over the past 12 months and, if this is only the start of it, it would be a serious concern,” concludes David Watt

http://www.prisonplanet.com/scientist-predicts-ice-age-within-10-years.html

That article was written in August 2008 whilst the solar minimum was occurring. The commencement of cycle 24 surely invalidates the bulk of that articles conclusions. Though, it will be interesting to see if William Livingstone is correct in predicting that "the sunspots will all but vanish in 2015".

 

[wayneL]

I do not rely on the main stream media for my information

Although a quick scan of recent stories reveal that the worm is turning. As the IPCC continues to lose credibility, journalists begin to become more willing to step outside of the AGW mantra.

 

[moXJO]

That article was written in August 2008 whilst the solar minimum was occurring. The commencement of cycle 24 surely invalidates the bulk of that articles conclusions. Though, it will be interesting to see if William Livingstone is correct in predicting that "the sunspots will all but vanish in 2015".

Ppphhheeww.... no need to get the thermal underwear out yet then. How exactly do they predict sunspot activity (and if it will vanish) anyway?

 

[derty]

Ppphhheeww.... no need to get the thermal underwear out yet then. How exactly do they predict sunspot activity (and if it will vanish) anyway?

They have been measuring the characteristics of the sunspots from between 1990 and 2005 and have noticed that the dark bits of the sunspots are getting warmer and the strength of the magnetic perturbations that produce the sunspots are becoming weaker. This measured warming of sunspots and weakening of the magnetic field are independent of the sunspot cycle. When they join the dots sunspots will not be able to form in 2015.

abstract:

We have observed spectroscopic changes in temperature sensitive molecular lines, in the magnetic splitting of an Fe I line, and in the continuum brightness of over 1000 sunspot umbrae from 1990-2005. All three measurements show consistent trends in which the darkest parts of the sunspot umbra have become warmer (45K per year) and their magnetic field strengths have decreased (77 Gauss per year), independently of the normal 11-year sunspot cycle. A linear extrapolation of these trends suggests that few sunspots will be visible after 2015.

paper: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/livingston-penn_sunspots2.pdf

 

[moXJO]

They have been measuring the characteristics of the sunspots from between 1990 and 2005 and have noticed that the dark bits of the sunspots are getting warmer and the strength of the magnetic perturbations that produce the sunspots are becoming weaker. This measured warming of sunspots and weakening of the magnetic field are independent of the sunspot cycle. When they join the dots sunspots will not be able to form in 2015.

abstract:
paper: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/livingston-penn_sunspots2.pdf

Thanks for the info derty.

 

[sneak'n]

As far as point scoring, as I said to sneak'n, if keeping some sort of pathetic score and deluding yourself that you are winning them by continuously playing the man, is important to your scarcely existent self-esteem, then I am happy for you to claim points.

I could challenge you to find a single instance in this thread where I have played the man, as you put it. The "point" you conceded in this specific instance was that the example you tendered was in fact the opposite of your contention. It was a gracious concession.
Whereas, I have challenged you to provide a justification for several of your claims and your response is to find another reason not to.
I have also challenged you to present your take on the science, and you replied that it would take too long, initially, and then proclaimed contentment with your position.

I am only interested in the truth, plus having a bit of a laugh arguing with some delusional zealot unable to break free from a raging confirmation bias on the Internet

Provide evidence please?

On topic, this thread remains devoid of any reasoned science that would give the initiator any pleasure.

 

[GumbyLearner]

Logic 101:

A hoof ain't a horse, but no hoof, no horse.

Yes Wayne I agree. It becomes even more ridiculous when these same Screwtape scientific shapeshifters think it's practical for a grazier/stockman/farmer to trade-in the horse because of it's smelly emissions for a over-priced Prius with no brakes.

Because the horse's emissions are more dangerous to "life".

Anyway here's a vid of a horse named Hoof Hearted.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

From.... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/daily-mail-the-jones-u-turn/

Full Article here

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

...Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.....​

Seems to be rather a strong case for legal intervention....Considering if the ludicrous copenhagen treaty had actually been signed by Rudd and other world leaders - we would be well and truly toast.

The excuse that Jones relies on is: "lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics". Utter rubbish - the amount of planning, funding, media and political bias to drive the whole planet to accept AGW has been undertaken with absolute precision. Why? To achieve the key goal - Signing of an international treaty to create a world government.

 

[ghotib]

Original interview here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm#

As Watts Up With That says, the Daily Mail headline is quite something. Something like "grossly misleading" or "grotesquely distorted". The account of the interview is pretty crook too.

Ghoti

 

[MACCA350]

Anyone watch the a-pac channel?
They've been showing "Lord Monckton & Tim Lambert debate Climate Change in Sydney" hosted by Alan Jones all weekend.

First time I've seen a pro anthropogenic global warming scientist accept a televised debate.

I am disappointed it hasn't been shown on the major channels in prime time.

cheers

 

[wayneL]

Original interview here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm#

As Watts Up With That says, the Daily Mail headline is quite something. Something like "grossly misleading" or "grotesquely distorted". The account of the interview is pretty crook too.

Ghoti

I agree that the Daily Mail reportage stinks. But it seems to be par for the course with climate change. We have been subject to the other side of the coin (apocalyptic scaremongering based on junk science and sensationalism) for many years now.

Credible sceptics have been no less misrepresented in the past.

Jones' explanations do not answer anything, rather, they prompt more questions. They do not seem honest. A competent barrister (which is who should be conducting cross-examination in a court of law) would have torn this to shreds.