|
Post by sweezely on Dec 1, 2010 20:09:22 GMT -5
So the MET Office has announced that 2010 is on record to be one of the hottest years since records began. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11841368Yes, that's right. The year that started with the worst winter in 30 years, had the coldest August in 17 years and now has the earliest snowfall for 17 years is apparently one of the hottest on record. And as if to make their point more salient, they chose to announce their findings during a blizzard. The MET Office, ladies and gentlemen. You can't buy that sort of comedy gold.
|
|
|
Post by volumedistorted on Dec 2, 2010 6:17:37 GMT -5
So the MET Office has announced that 2010 is on record to be one of the hottest years since records began. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11841368Yes, that's right. The year that started with the worst winter in 30 years, had the coldest August in 17 years and now has the earliest snowfall for 17 years is apparently one of the hottest on record. And as if to make their point more salient, they chose to announce their findings during a blizzard. The MET Office, ladies and gentlemen. You can't buy that sort of comedy gold. Is suppose this is nothing to do with say, a publicly funded implementation of an expensive new IT system that has actually made it impossible for them to access any records prior to March 2010, by any chance Of course they have no previous: Dont worry there's absolutely no hurricane heading this way!
|
|
|
Post by lostinsound on Dec 3, 2010 0:56:46 GMT -5
So the MET Office has announced that 2010 is on record to be one of the hottest years since records began. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11841368Yes, that's right. The year that started with the worst winter in 30 years, had the coldest August in 17 years and now has the earliest snowfall for 17 years is apparently one of the hottest on record. And as if to make their point more salient, they chose to announce their findings during a blizzard. The MET Office, ladies and gentlemen. You can't buy that sort of comedy gold. Please tell me you're kidding. You're seriously trying to say that they're wrong based on the fact that it happens to be cold in one small area of the globe. They're talking about global temperatures. Or do you believe global warming isn't happening because it's cold outside right now? And these extreme variances in the weather you talk about are one of the effects of global warming.
|
|
|
Post by itisme on Dec 3, 2010 13:15:32 GMT -5
If you haven´t watched the film " The Day After Tomorrow", I can recommend it!
|
|
|
Post by sweezely on Dec 5, 2010 18:41:54 GMT -5
So the MET Office has announced that 2010 is on record to be one of the hottest years since records began. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11841368Yes, that's right. The year that started with the worst winter in 30 years, had the coldest August in 17 years and now has the earliest snowfall for 17 years is apparently one of the hottest on record. And as if to make their point more salient, they chose to announce their findings during a blizzard. The MET Office, ladies and gentlemen. You can't buy that sort of comedy gold. Please tell me you're kidding. You're seriously trying to say that they're wrong based on the fact that it happens to be cold in one small area of the globe. They're talking about global temperatures. Or do you believe global warming isn't happening because it's cold outside right now? And these extreme variances in the weather you talk about are one of the effects of global warming. Whoa. It was just a joke about bad timing and the general incompetence for the MET Office. I did write out a bit of a rant but in hindsight it's best just to keep quiet. Global warming is more sensitive a subject than abortion on the internet. Suffice it to say, what I said wouldn't do me any favours. Not now anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Yen on Dec 7, 2010 16:29:00 GMT -5
There is not one shred of scientific evidence to substantiate global warming. Even the scientist are busy back peddling now and rechristening it climate change. In order for something to change it needs to start by being static, then alter, then become something new. climate has neverr been static, it is always changing, always has, always will SAying Climate change is therefore like saying wet water. The actual factual evidence suggests that since 1901 the earth has warmed up by (wait for it.....) 1 degree.
Global Warming is a theory. Theory is a posh way of saying guess.
Global warming arrived, almost to the second, with the collapse of the berlin wall and the iron curtain.
The original hypothesis for global warming was based on an equation where they forgot to include clouds.
The dramatic footage of the polar ice caps melting happens every year.
It is estimated that global warming cost uk business 17.4 billion in 2010. If the UK switched off entirely, and everyone vacated the country tomorrow it would account for less than 1% of the worlds Carbon output.
Its a fascinating subjexct once you open your eyes to the thought that not everything we are told is necessarily true. If you read all of the scaremongering articles surrounding this they will always contain words such as, estimate, hypotesise, predict, theorise, anticipate, and expect.
All of these word also mean guess.
Whern it was pointed out to me that the facts surrounding global warming were spurious at best, I started to research it, and whilst I don't disagree that throughour own activities it is likely that we are speeding up the process, i was shocked to discover how many smoke and mirrors effects were being deployed to literally scare us into submission.
It was the threat of nuclear war foprm the eastern block in the 80's, now its environmental disaster, followed closely by muslim terrorists that are being used to keep us complacent.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Yen on Dec 7, 2010 16:30:11 GMT -5
If you haven´t watched the film " The Day After Tomorrow", I can recommend it! I wouldn't. its shit. and it's just a film. By the fellow who made independence day. its fiction, not a documentary.
|
|
|
Post by lostinsound on Dec 7, 2010 21:13:36 GMT -5
There is not one shred of scientific evidence to substantiate global warming. Skepticism is one thing, but this is completely asinine. And your definition of change is... wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Yen on Dec 8, 2010 3:07:54 GMT -5
There is not one shred of scientific evidence to substantiate global warming. Skepticism is one thing, but this is completely asinine. And your definition of change is... wrong. Present the evidence then, it should surely be easy to prove than refute? Throwig stroppy little insults doesn't win arguements! Al gores film an inconvenient truth contained 9 significant scientific errors and 25 less significant errors. It was deemed that showing the film in schools would breach the laws relating to political indoctrination. This is another fact that is neither sceptical, or asinine.
|
|
|
Post by lostinsound on Dec 9, 2010 0:24:44 GMT -5
I'm not going to get in a pissing contest over this because it will go nowhere. There are volumes of scientific evidence supporting global warming if you're willing to look. Real evidence. Present the evidence then, it should surely be easy to prove than refute? From this it looks like you don't really know how science works, much like the majority of global warming skeptics. This is a complicated issue that shouldn't be made black and white in order to attack it more easily. What you really should do is go back and look at the source of all the propaganda that tries to dismiss global warming. Look at where you got your information, and trace it all the way back to its source. Find that source and then tell me whose best interest you think those people have at heart. It's not yours or mine.
|
|
|
Post by sweezely on Dec 9, 2010 7:33:06 GMT -5
Well, then, I'll weigh in since I didn't realise an offhand joke would spark a war.
Global warming science isn't a science, and if it were any other field it would be mocked and ridiculed until the scientists who made it up were starving on the streets. Why? Because global warming science has yet to make one single falsifiable prediction. There is absolutely no way to disprove it. Currently, the only agreed prediction is "change". That's not science. Not a single model has made any prediction that has come through. Falsifiability is what separates real science with hyperbolic pseudoscience.
Even worse, there was actual proof that they were manipulating data for their own means. Read the leaked emails for yourself. They changed the shape of the graphs to better illustrate their point, even though it meant actually making up the data. One of the leaked emails shows comments in the code from the programmer admitting that the only way he could make the legendary "hockey stick" was by making up the last few points of data himself. There's clear evidence too that dissenting scientists and journal publishers were denied funding and at worst actually hounded into retirement. At one point, activists used a freedom of information request to try and get hold of the real data. In a childish tantrum, they deleted it. Go and read the emails.
Thirdly, there is a massive conflict of interest in the whole thing. Every single scientist working now in climate change science would be out of a job if it turned out to be wrong. The entire IPCC would have to be disbanded, and every other government agency and quango would cease to exist. Don't alarm bells ring when the current climate summit is being held in Cancun? Will it be Ibiza next year? No scientist will dare go against the status quo when it would mean the end of his job and career. Al Gore himself stood to earn billions off the Chicago Carbon Exchange if we moved to a carbon based economy. It turned out he lost millions because it collapsed. Now you don't hear so much from him.
So what do I think? I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think that it was a convenient political tool to get us into polluting less and moving away from fossil fuels. These are laudable goals. The problem is that the science was never really there. It was all speculation. Climate science is a baby in terms of other disciplines and it's so wishy-washy and incomplete that I don't take it seriously. Hell, the satellite data only goes back, what, twenty years? I think at some point most scientists thought it was real, but now it's like an out of control juggernaut that no one can stop. It built up too much media attention and political attention to simply go away, but will. Give it twenty years and no one will admit that they ever really believed it. The world will get colder. If there were any way I could be sure they'd pay out, I'd wager money on it turning out to be a giant cock-up. It will never truly go away. There will be a cooling bandwagon before the end, but it will be like the boy who cried wolf.
I have a degree in physics. My girlfriend is studying for a phD in neuroscience. I have plenty of experience of how horrifying the world of science is. It's worse than high school.
|
|
|
Post by volumedistorted on Dec 9, 2010 8:18:29 GMT -5
On a lighter note: Anyone notice that the Lib Dems (Not the conservatives!) considered flying home, for a day and then back, an MP just for one vote on the Tuition fees. And where was he coming back from? A climate summit in Cancun . The Lib Dems obviously don't give any credence to this global warming thing either. I'll tell you what ... lets have Madonna flying in bands from around the world for a ten minute appearance in London to promote carbon efficiency shall we? Or do we have to wait until her new album is out and being mass produced, cheaply in a country that has not signed up to any carbon treaty first? Or better still Al Gore flying round the world in a private jet to 'inform' people of what's going on! Hey kettle, I'm pot, you're getting a bit too hot aren't you?
|
|
|
Post by lostinsound on Dec 9, 2010 11:52:32 GMT -5
One of the leaked emails shows comments in the code from the programmer admitting that the only way he could make the legendary "hockey stick" was by making up the last few points of data himself. Did that data show up anywhere in a published paper having to do with climate change? Did it in any way affect any of the many published works that show global warming is happening? Maybe what that person did was just a small part of a very long process of data analysis where the final results are perfectly credible. Maybe their program was wrong and not doing the calculation correctly? If you know so much about science you'd know that there are many credible explanations for it. If you comb through massive amounts of email exchanges between scientists in any field I can almost guarantee you you'll be able to find a sentence here and there that you could take out of context and use it to question their scientific integrity. You're taking one tiny part of a very long, very involved process and trying to make broad sweeping judgments. Trying to use a few out of context sentences from private emails to say that the entire field is crap is ludicrous. And all the people involved with that were cleared of any wrong doing, and none of the evidence for global warming was discredited. None of it. People seem to forget that. It's a bunch of people who don't know a lot about the subject doing a lot of shouting.
|
|
|
Post by sweezely on Dec 9, 2010 12:40:12 GMT -5
Do you know a lot about it? Do you have any scientific training? Why do you have to be an expert to denounce it but not to support it?
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Yen on Dec 9, 2010 14:56:47 GMT -5
Here you go, Fred is a scientist. He writes stuff like this. I had not read this until just, found it by a quick google. it came from this website :- www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htmThere are hundreds of websites like this. Hundsreds of scientific arguements. Hundreds of published documents supporting this. All refuted as idiotic fools by the pro global warming community. For my part, I don't care if you believe in it or not. I think being more aware of our actions and the future impact can't be a bad thing. I think it important to havfe an open mind in all things though, and question what you are told. www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htmA Review Of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' By S. Fred Singer, (Atmospheric Physicist) March 19, 2007 Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has met its match: a devastating documentary recently shown on British television, which has now been viewed by millions of people on the Internet. Despite its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists, including me. An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, is mostly an emotional presentation from a single politician. The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly: 1. There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite. The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is “unusual” using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is "unusual" by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous “hockey–stick” temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited. 2. If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot control the inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive: • Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or elaborate cap–and–trade schemes • Uneconomic “alternative” energy, such as ethanol and the impractical “hydrogen economy” • Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors • Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere Ironically, even if CO2 were responsible for the observed warming trend, all these schemes would be ineffective—unless we could persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent! 3. Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall. The much–feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on short–term temperature changes, as the rate of sea–level increases has been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, many economists argue that the opposite is more likely—that warming produces a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of living. Why do we assume that the present climate is the optimum? Surely, the chance of this must be vanishingly small, and the economic history of past climate warmings bear this out. But the main message of The Great Global Warming Swindle is much broader. Why should we devote our scarce resources to what is essentially a non–problem, and ignore the real problems the world faces: hunger, disease, denial of human rights—not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars? And are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters; pandemics that can wipe out most of the human race, or even the impact of an asteroid, such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs? Yet politicians and the elites throughout much of the world prefer to squander our limited resources to fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real problems. Just consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Great Britain tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100, with a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously! I imagine that in the not–too–distant future all the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool—as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998. Future generations will look back on the current madness and wonder what it was all about. They will have movies like An Inconvenient Truth and documentaries like The Great Global Warming Swindle to remind them.
|
|