link? if its from the bbc why didn't google news have it, i wonder?

many of the models describe a high probability of increased cold in northern europe. so his statements make sense if he was talking about a region.

I was just reading about that today.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press...ures-in-winter

if he is talking about the planet as a whole, the dissonance in measurements has to be explained first.

Because it isn't new news. He probably cut and pasted.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

He's talking global.

Huge guessing game, imo.

then you define the terms and subject of the debate, and I'll abide.

Sure I'm arrogant, but your side has it's own share of dismissive arrogance to explain, if arogance is going to be used as the point of judgement.

you make claims such as "There's a reason you completely ignored my reply to you supplying exactly what you asked for, reverted to another post of mine and replied with ad hom" - yet you dont ever clearly say to me what you want me to argue. For instance, I have no idea what you are saying I ignored, nor do I have any idea of what you think was ad hominem.

My counterargument is, you are being unclear deliberately, because you understand the weaknesses of your own arguments, and dirtying the water is a classic debate tactic when one doubts ones own position.

pick anything, make a clear debateable statement about it, and I'll debate it.

altho, I have to go soon, and probably wont be back till later.

I don't think you understand, still. I've made mention to how you try to debate and clearly your motif is that of logical fallacies.

"No, I just choose not to debate with someone that clearly uses both selective reasoning and logical fallacies. I presume you don't just sit and talk to walls all day expecting a response, do you?"

who cares - we'll all be worm food before climatic catastrophy happens. life isn't forever on this planet, we could wipe ourselves out with nukes, asteroid could crash into us - just a matter of when, musical chairs. doubt anybody here today will exist when the music stops.

there are millions starving and dying on this planet RIGHT NOW - and a tiny % of people care, if they did they'd do something.

Your kids and grand kids might care...

I read this entire thread from Choker to Mutt. I feel like I have lost around 12 iq points.

actually you do know that they used core samples from frozen icebergs to find out the tempurature from 1000, 20000, 100000 years ago right?

whatever you say :glugglug

Retards. Global warming doesnt mean its not going to be cold. Au contraire.

Not that long ago we were told the science was settled by some bloke with a Gulfstream; Things would only get hotter. All the models said this and not a single AGW believing scientist took issue with the high degree of certainty. It now turns out it hasn't got hotter, but now, has in places got colder, lots colder. But now this is proof of nothing or proof warming. If the models are so good and so settled how come they didn't spot it? Given that, exactly how is the science settled?

Maybe there is man made global warming, but the true believers can't just flip flop as needed stating with 100% certainty that an outcome they previously did not predict is now proof of AGW, and their theory is all better now and will henceforth get everything just right.

It feels as if the answer is always AGW, we just need to bash everything else till it fits.

NASA says its the warmest year on record. Interesting. Especially interesting that to do that they use data from ground stations all over the world. Well, not all over the world, they're a little thin on those stations at the top and bottom of the world, so there they use statistics to interpolate the data according to their models. Ruh roh. Ask yourself why do they NOT use satellite data, but prefer sparse hand adjusted data from a shrinking number of ground stations?

And by NASA you mean James Hansen at Goddard Institute for Space Studies - of the hockey stick fame and Gore BFF.

All is not lost though - there IS a theory out there that fits the weather a lot better than the CO2 AGW one - namely that it's the sun wot dun it, mixed in with a few other factors like the spinning top wobble of the planet on its axis and a bit of lunar. Low solar output coincides with low temps and harsh winters. They're still working on the exact how, but the correlation works. Weather forecasters like Piers Corbyn and Joe Bastardi now have a good track record of predicting the weather much further in advance than most other weather services - in the UK the MET office is now beyond useless, predicting only ever hotter winters and summers.

But for the AGWers its very, very important indeed that there's only one driver in the system and that its CO2. If we get the idea that because the weather can be influenced by the sun, then maybe the climate over a longer period of time can be influenced also, then the idea that it's all down to stinky, poisonous plant feeding CO2 goes out of the window.

The current weather does not prove AGW right or wrong, but it does prove - since the models failed to predict it - that other factors are at play.

Earth has been around for what ? Over 4 billions years and WE as humans around for what ? 150 00 years and we have the balls to think that we change the way it reacts ? Modify the climates ?

You people are something hehehehehehehe

If it decides to warm up it WILL
Same goes for cooling down trust me...

Now STFU all of you and go back to work hahahahahaha

yes, now what?

Oh I meant to say that I actually did think that the samples showed a rise in tempurature starting 1900's. I thought this was settled.

:thumbsup
those iceberg core samples must have been taken from thermometers at airports built on icebergs eh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

If you do a google search for global warming my ass, and click images, google says a related search is baby penguin.

What else do you need to know? hehe

nonsense. you can't and won't circle me in a fight or any other circumstance. you can goad, as a child would, but you are not now nor will you ever be my puppet master.

you see things as you want to see them and ignore the billions only where it suits you.

the best part: you think you know my side.

Apparently most people don't know what global warming en tales. You clowns that are talking about the uk lol. The gulf stream has shifted so get used to shitty winters.

Here's really good science based deconstruction of the corruption of climate science, by Lord Christopher Moncton.

Everyone can learn a lot from his work. The most shocking thing is "WHY" they are doing this. It goes far beyond simple profits.

Excerpt:

REVEALED: THE ABJECT CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE

The gallant whistleblower now faces a police investigation at the instigation of the University authorities desperate to look after their own and to divert allegations of criminality elsewhere. His crime? He had revealed what many had long suspected:

* The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in ?research? grants from the Team?s activities.
* The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN?s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel?s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.
* The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN?s climate panel to report.
* They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
* They had emailed one another about using a ?trick? for the sake of concealing a ?decline? in temperatures in the paleoclimate.
* They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was ?a travesty?. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that ?global warming? science is settled.
* They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.
* They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.
* They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal?s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.
* They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.
* Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their ?research? was either honest or competent.


PDF here (43 pages):

CLIMATEGATE: CAUGHT GREEN-HANDED! Cold Facts About The Hot Topic Of Global Temperature Change After The ClimateGate Scandal

Yup people are right the term "Global warming" has done so much damage to theenvironmental cause, "Climate change" is waaay more accurate.

big fucking round of applause man

unfortunately, his arrogance precedes any *teaching* and the comment re: transparency is absolutely not true in my experience trying to chat with they guy elsewhere.

You hit a valid point here. The fact is that it's really not important to get into the sex life of the molecules to get a basic understanding of what's going on.

The issue is a controversy. There are scientist that agree and push the "man made global warming" hypothesis and there are scientists that don't agree. Those that don't agree are ignored and not given the air time and attention in the MSM like the ones pushing.

So the establishment with it's "scientific community" comprised only from a portion of the scientists, create a scare and panic over this. Then the smart ass politicians controlled by the financial interests, try to push global carbon tax to try and tax the whole world in the pretext of fighting the almighty nature. In the process make you feel guilty about it and take more of your money. Clever no?

Now it's save the planet from the capitalism. When individual capitalism (the cabal financial elite is taking 50% throughout gov by taxes) is replaces with state capitalism (communism) in which the state takes everything and gives you back 10% maybe to keep you working. In the process you loose all your freedoms and have no other choice but to submit to this tyrannical social order in order to survive. Now the cabal financial elite controls the state and therefore this system is much more beneficial to them but not for us.

This is why they moved/moving production to China, take all the measures to destroy current US system and bring a totalitarian instead. It's a one way trip because people are too brainwashed, ignorant, don't care or simply lazy to do anything about it.

okay, I have a little extra time tonight.

do we want to talk professor Latif?

or climategate?

or something else - put any topic on the table and we can discuss it.

professor Latif is an interesting case. at first I didn't recognize the name because most of the furor regarding his prediction happened over a year ago, and he isn't commonly mentioned these days. but after a few minutes of google I recognized the guy. I'll try to summarise his story.

he's an expert on very long oscillations, called "multidecadal ocsillations or currents", because they take multiple decades to complete. you have these things in the deep ocean and in the upper atmosphere.

his prediction was that the deep ocean multidecadal current was speeding up, which means that the ocean is turning over faster, sucking heat down into the deep ocean. he's not sure why it seems to be speeding up, but theorizes the extra heat is making the giant convection loop of the ocean run faster. but because it runs faster, it could suck heat out of the atmosphere, causing a 20 to 30 year long period of cooler temperatures as the ocean absorbs heat faster.

sounds good right - the ocean sucks up the extra heat.

but, he adds, and this is the part that is left out of the media, after that 20-30 years the current stabilizes in his models and suddenly the atmosphere gets even hotter even faster.

so, according to his theory, global warming is not stopped, unlike what the anti-global-warming media implies - it's just that we can expect a period when it doesn't proceed as fast.

thing is, as far as I can tell, nobody else seems to strongly agree with his theory. he might be right, but nobody is publishing papers with new information supporting the idea.

now for the editorial.

this information about professor Latif's theory is presented by the murdoch media empire and it's followers, and all the astroturfers and think tanks, in a carefully cherry picked and edited form. They IMPLY that Latif has said that global warming isn't happening, when he's not saying that at all. then they have people post and repost partial information like this, to try to game the public debate, and to intentionally or ignorantly muddy the water with false information.

this is typical blackarts rhetoric, the intentional spreading of partial and complete lies and distorted information.

Much ado about nothing:

http://d.imagehost.org/0826/easterbrook_fig5.png

Most of the past 10,000 years has been warmer than it is now. Why all the panic?

CO2 is not a pollutant. We should be spending our time and energy battling real pollutants.

the level of ignorance displayed in this thread is astonishing - you global warming deniers are spoon fed graphs and ideas cooked up in the minds and offices of some very evil and greedy corporate hacks - then unleashed on you poor uneducated suckers through smear syndicates like Fox News.

Wake the fuck up and deprogram you bought and paid for clowns.

looked into it a little more - turns out Latif hasn't published anything on this theory yet, which in the science community means he's not very sure of this theory, AND it means no other climate scientists can legitimately comment on his theory without breaking peer review ethics and protocol.

in science culture, a theory that hasn't been published, based on measurements that haven't been released, can't be discussed officially in the peer-reviewed science journals.

this is related to the one science ethics offense that was decided against the stolen climategate emails - in their private discussions they were sharing measurements taken by a scientist outside their circle, who hadn't given permission for his measurements to be passed around.

by the ethical standards of the science community, that's a violation of the original measuring scientist's right to keep his measurements until he has published. it's kinda like the intellectual property rules of science culture.

I have also read that was one of the reasons, good or bad, that they passively resisted giving up their data to the FOI requests - if it was released, it would destroy the data's usability for publication in the science journals. because science journals dont want to publish data that isn't exclusive, and they will turn down articles that use non-exclusive data, supposedly.

this is one of the aspects of science culture that needs to be talked about. the data needs to be more transparent, and available faster.

anyway, thats why nobody (but the deniers) talks about Latif these days - he hasn't published this theory anywhere in the science journals, so they aren't "allowed" to talk about this theory, until he does publish.

Are you US American ?

Bill8;


PLEASE DON'T TALK ABOUT ETHICAL STANDARDS!

Standards? WTF



No further comment ......

Sadly, just not true.

the reason the deniers side has caught hold and moved forward is because a small number of smart kids were smart enough to pick their way through all of the shit from Hansen, CRU and all the rest - and find significant problems with the maths.

Top of the heap of smart kids and the one with the tenacity to actually force the true believers to hand over their data was Steve Macintyre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre. so far, his maths stands up.

But if you have specific issues with his linear regression analysis, then fire away.

Now ask yourself why despite being mentioned hundreds of times in the climategate emails and being the source of the denied FOI requests, not one single "inquiry" talked to him, let alone called him as a witness. I would say that reason is because he is one of the few people in the world who could actually ask the really embarrassing numbers based questions the warmists would struggle answer.

And as for it being about the UK - no it's cold in lots of places and has been all year - Mongolians are having yet another terrible winter with their livestock freezing to death, despite being cold adapted. Fish in south american rivers died of cold over the summer, and there's been unprecedented snow in bits of the southern hemisphere during their summer. google your own links to these stories, they aren't hard to confirm.

Antarctic ice continues to be inconveniently high http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....antarctic.png

We may well be wrong in our thought that AGW isn't happening, but its not because we're spoonfed dolts, it's because we can follow the maths and something doesn't add up. Rubbish the sums if you can, but don't treat us idiots, because we are not.

Keep it going.

Back to 75 degrees here.

if you want to summarize or present one or more of McIntyre's arguments, I'd be happy to take a look.

the wiki doesn't seem to present much in the way of his actual arguments.

it's a shame that McIntyre doesn't get a climate degree and get himself published.

your side has been slow to train and fund it's own climatologists, and I hope you will act together to amend that shortfall.

personally, i suspect you don't because you are afraid of what your climatologists will discover, but, still, you should take the risk, don't you think, considering how strongly you feel about it.

links pulled.

You're confusing short term weather with long term climate changes.

Yep I could say that because it was 65 degress yesterday in Tennessee which is about 18 degress above normal that proves global warming. All the deniers have no clue to how complex climate is and think any SIMPLE answer must be the correct one. Just like thousands of years ago an eclipse was god being angry so that means sacrifice a virgin. So much easier than actually trying to learn about how shit works.

global warming, we went to the moon, lol , what will they think of next :1orglaugh

You should know that global warming is only in the summertime :)

I'm not guessing at this stuff, but you are coming back with arguments based on what you think not what you've found out. Wiki is shit, everyone knows that, but you read half of one page, then quit. Didn't follow any links, didn't check anything from another source. Isn't that wiki 101?

You state he's not published, but he is more than a few times. The top one is the one that gave sceptics a toe hold.

"Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series" in the journal Energy and Environment

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...r07/jgr07.html

And coming next year in the International Journal of Climatology

McKitrick, Ross R. and Nicolas Nierenberg (2009). Correlations between Surface Temperature Trends and Socioeconomic Activity: Toward a Causal Interpretation.

As for needing a climate degree, he's topline scholarship Oxbridge mathematician, followed by a WORKING career using maths. So no dunce by any means.

Follow a few links and read some papers and you'll see how much of climate science relies on statistics mangling existing data and not actual fresh data gathering.

But to summarise one of his central arguments - Dodgy statistical methods have been used on temperature data sets to make the past look cooler, the present look hotter and the angle between the stick and the blade of the hockey stick steeper.

AGW requires, for full disaster effect, that the current temperatures to be unprecedented and that rise is steep and correlated to industrialisation. It's probable neither is true. All we know right now, is that historical data is always adjusted DOWN, recent data is always adjusted UP.

I'm pretty sure most people don't even realise the data is even adjusted - I didn't till I got hooked and started following this seriously about 3 years ago - you read a bunch of thermometers, write down the number, then average the lot? What's tricky about that? Well, what if a town or an airport grows around the temp station or it just gets moved? Counter intuitively in these cases NASA GISS tends to adjust for these warming influences by adjusting temps UP. (moving stations should be neutral on average, but cooling stations tend to get dropped completely from the datasets)

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

Try this link, if nothing else, it shows that the science is far from settled and that genuine consensus has not yet been reached. The maths is often hard to follow, but the politics and human nature aren't - there's a lot of arse covering backtracking, obfuscation, delaying tactics and weasel wording going on from the side that should have the slam dunk answers on hand and no hesitation in using them to debunk the "anti-science" idiots. There IS another side to this argument and no amount of name calling or link pulling will make it go away.

And as ever, I come back to this; record cold events all over the planet this year - but its the hottest year ever. not just a bit hot, but HOTTEST. Something seems a little off here...