Global Warming... a hoax?

[Ord_Sgt]

For the last 130 years the temperature has risen no more thatn 0.8C.

In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 0.8°C (1.5°F) since 1880.

Enjoy the spin. Borish extrapolations to follow. Gordon Brown is a financial genius as well.

Its unravelling at an extrodanary rate, a bit like that other load of bollocks, Eugenics.

[Ord_Sgt]

If anyone thinks the IPCC was set up as some kind of impartial body to report on climate change in general, think again.

The genesis of the IPCC - note the slanted approach which assumed human causation from the get-go.

We've ended up with a 20-odd year old corpus of CAGW literature which was, in effect, ordered from the scientific community to prove a political imperative. This puts the funding and consequent selective publication of scientific papers into some kind of context I hope.

This has been known about for years, but we're only now seeing the MSM taking an interest because the curtain's been pulled back after climategate.

Complete nonsense, but costing us all a fortune. As I've pointed out previously, this amounts to a criminal diversion of resources from real environmental problems around the world.

This was something that you linked to;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0dUoPiTkG

From that link we have;

For example, Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential journal Nature.

So much for censorship.

We also get this;

Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt by a factor of about 25.

‘My educated guess is that there will be somewhat less ice in 2035 than there is now,’ he said.

‘But there is no way the glaciers will be close to disappearing. It doesn’t seem to me that exaggerating the problem’s seriousness is going to help solve it.’

So he recognises that there is a problem but is anoyed about it being exaggerated. So much for conspiracy and being afraid to speak out.

The IPCC:- I think it is doing a P1ss-poor job because it is a political entity. I agree with you that they are biased. That does not mean that we are not warming the planet, it just means that the IPCC is not doing science.

So what you are saying is NASA have no idea of what they are talking about? 0.8C is rubbish?

[Legallybald]

For the last 130 years the temperature has risen no more thatn 0.8C.

In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 0.8°C (1.5°F) since 1880.

Enjoy the spin. Borish extrapolations to follow. Gordon Brown is a financial genius as well.

Its unravelling at an extrodanary rate, a bit like that other load of balls, Eugenics.

That's assuming you believe the temperature data.

[Ord_Sgt]

For the last 130 years the temperature has risen no more thatn 0.8C.

In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 0.8°C (1.5°F) since 1880.

Enjoy the spin. Borish extrapolations to follow. Gordon Brown is a financial genius as well.

Its unravelling at an extrodanary rate, a bit like that other load of balls, Eugenics.

That's assuming you believe the temperature data.

But isn't that the basis of the argument by the we are doomed crowd?

If not then we are pissing in the wind.

[StickyEnd]

I would be happy if the scientists where just allowed to get on with their research. Political/special interest groups should just stay out of it IMO. This only aplies to the research BTW, it is obvious that more than just scientists are needed to decide/take action.

The IPCC may need to be disbanded, but I am not sure about that.

The problem with that, as has been shown today, is the scientists lie and cheat and make sh1t up. And when questioned break the law and delete data so independant evaluation of thier work is prevented. Then you wonder why there are so many sceptics!!

Not when they are submitting papers for peer-reviewed publication they don't (well actually, very rarely is probably more accurate). The IPCC exageration was discovered and reported by scientists who think that global warming is happening BTW.

The CRU broke the law deleting data and refusing FofI requests, damning stuff. Global warming amounts to 0.8C in 130 years, somehow I don't feel we need to be overly bothered about that.

I am not sure that the CRU broke the law. Nor am I sure about the actual degree C rise.

You would do well to read some of the news outlets.

CRU broke the law and NASA, no less, were the ones behind the 0.8C temperature rise, a mere google search will fill you in.

The NASA bit;

I did look and you are correct about the 0.8C. Did you notice the bit where they said that this was surface temp and atmospheric temp was larger? Did you notice how you could look at that chart between about 1960-present?

Have you looked at the human population graphs? In my lifetime our population has gone from about 3 Billion to almost 7. Citizens in industrial countries is about to go from about 1 Billion to about four, on the same time-line.

[Ord_Sgt]

I would be happy if the scientists where just allowed to get on with their research. Political/special interest groups should just stay out of it IMO. This only aplies to the research BTW, it is obvious that more than just scientists are needed to decide/take action.

The IPCC may need to be disbanded, but I am not sure about that.

The problem with that, as has been shown today, is the scientists lie and cheat and make sh1t up. And when questioned break the law and delete data so independant evaluation of thier work is prevented. Then you wonder why there are so many sceptics!!

Not when they are submitting papers for peer-reviewed publication they don't (well actually, very rarely is probably more accurate). The IPCC exageration was discovered and reported by scientists who think that global warming is happening BTW.

The CRU broke the law deleting data and refusing FofI requests, damning stuff. Global warming amounts to 0.8C in 130 years, somehow I don't feel we need to be overly bothered about that.

I am not sure that the CRU broke the law. Nor am I sure about the actual degree C rise.

You would do well to read some of the news outlets.

CRU broke the law and NASA, no less, were the ones behind the 0.8C temperature rise, a mere google search will fill you in.

The NASA bit;

I did look and you are correct about the 0.8C. Did you notice the bit where they said that this was surface temp and atmospheric temp was larger? Did you notice how you could look at that chart between about 1960-present?

Have you looked at the human population graphs? In my lifetime our population has gone from about 3 Billion to almost 7. Citizens in industrial countries is about to go from about 1 Billion to about four, on the same time-line.

Ahh so population might just be the problem then..... I thought it was the evil west!!

[StickyEnd]

If anyone thinks the IPCC was set up as some kind of impartial body to report on climate change in general, think again.

The genesis of the IPCC - note the slanted approach which assumed human causation from the get-go.

We've ended up with a 20-odd year old corpus of CAGW literature which was, in effect, ordered from the scientific community to prove a political imperative. This puts the funding and consequent selective publication of scientific papers into some kind of context I hope.

This has been known about for years, but we're only now seeing the MSM taking an interest because the curtain's been pulled back after climategate.

Complete nonsense, but costing us all a fortune. As I've pointed out previously, this amounts to a criminal diversion of resources from real environmental problems around the world.

This was something that you linked to;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0dUoPiTkG

From that link we have;

For example, Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential journal Nature.

So much for censorship.

We also get this;

Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt by a factor of about 25.

‘My educated guess is that there will be somewhat less ice in 2035 than there is now,’ he said.

‘But there is no way the glaciers will be close to disappearing. It doesn’t seem to me that exaggerating the problem’s seriousness is going to help solve it.’

So he recognises that there is a problem but is anoyed about it being exaggerated. So much for conspiracy and being afraid to speak out.

The IPCC:- I think it is doing a P1ss-poor job because it is a political entity. I agree with you that they are biased. That does not mean that we are not warming the planet, it just means that the IPCC is not doing science.

So what you are saying is NASA have no idea of what they are talking about? 0.8C is rubbish?

No! FFS, that was about canards such as "alternative views don't get published" or "it is a conspiracy".

Those arguments are crap. Produce evidence and you do get published. Write propaganda and scientists (even the ones that accept global warming) will expose those lies.

[Ord_Sgt]

Those arguments are crap. Produce evidence and you do get published. Write propaganda and scientists (even the ones that accept global warming) will expose those lies.

Oooh temper temper, your argument has been found wanting now you are throwing a tissy fit.

Yep NASA are a bunch of amateurs. 0.8C is pretty definative when backed by them as far as I am concerned. CRU are a bunch of cheaters based on their recent history.

The global warming crowd are on the decline as their argument is baseless and nothing more than guesses.

[Legallybald]

No! FFS, that was about canards such as "alternative views don't get published" or "it is a conspiracy".

Those arguments are crap. Produce evidence and you do get published. Write propaganda and scientists (even the ones that accept global warming) will expose those lies.

Sticky, how long has the *cough* 2007 IPCC report been out? How long have these diligent scientists been clamouring to correct these egregious errors?

At no point have I said that "awkward" papers have been completely excluded. All that used to happen was that another paper rubbishing it would be rushed out. It's all out there mate, should you choose to look around.

[StickyEnd]

Those arguments are crap. Produce evidence and you do get published. Write propaganda and scientists (even the ones that accept global warming) will expose those lies.

Oooh temper temper, your argument has been found wanting now you are throwing a tissy fit.

Yep NASA are a bunch of amateurs. 0.8C is pretty definative when backed by them as far as I am concerned. CRU are a bunch of cheaters based on their recent history.

The global warming crowd are on the decline as their argument is baseless and nothing more than guesses.

Read it again please. I am not saying that NASA data is crap. I was saying that arguments with evidence that goes against global warming do get published.

[Ord_Sgt]

Those arguments are crap. Produce evidence and you do get published. Write propaganda and scientists (even the ones that accept global warming) will expose those lies.

Oooh temper temper, your argument has been found wanting now you are throwing a tissy fit.

Yep NASA are a bunch of amateurs. 0.8C is pretty definative when backed by them as far as I am concerned. CRU are a bunch of cheaters based on their recent history.

The global warming crowd are on the decline as their argument is baseless and nothing more than guesses.

Read it again please. I am not saying that NASA data is crap. I was saying that arguments with evidence that goes against global warming do get published.

So please explain to me this global warming thing when its no more than 0.8C over 130 years, really that to me is bollocks. Or are you on the current management team of the project I'm working on?

[StickyEnd]

No! FFS, that was about canards such as "alternative views don't get published" or "it is a conspiracy".

Those arguments are crap. Produce evidence and you do get published. Write propaganda and scientists (even the ones that accept global warming) will expose those lies.

Sticky, how long has the *cough* 2007 IPCC report been out? How long have these diligent scientists been clamouring to correct these egregious errors?

At no point have I said that "awkward" papers have been completely excluded. All that used to happen was that another paper rubbishing it would be rushed out. It's all out there mate, should you choose to look around.

I have already said that I do not consider the IPCC to be scientific but political. That does not change reality.

[StickyEnd]

Those arguments are crap. Produce evidence and you do get published. Write propaganda and scientists (even the ones that accept global warming) will expose those lies.

Oooh temper temper, your argument has been found wanting now you are throwing a tissy fit.

Yep NASA are a bunch of amateurs. 0.8C is pretty definative when backed by them as far as I am concerned. CRU are a bunch of cheaters based on their recent history.

The global warming crowd are on the decline as their argument is baseless and nothing more than guesses.

Read it again please. I am not saying that NASA data is crap. I was saying that arguments with evidence that goes against global warming do get published.

So please explain to me this global warming thing when its no more than 0.8C over 130 years, really that to me is balls. Or are you on the current management team of the project I'm working on?

How large was it over 60 years?

[Ord_Sgt]

Those arguments are crap. Produce evidence and you do get published. Write propaganda and scientists (even the ones that accept global warming) will expose those lies.

Oooh temper temper, your argument has been found wanting now you are throwing a tissy fit.

Yep NASA are a bunch of amateurs. 0.8C is pretty definative when backed by them as far as I am concerned. CRU are a bunch of cheaters based on their recent history.

The global warming crowd are on the decline as their argument is baseless and nothing more than guesses.

Read it again please. I am not saying that NASA data is crap. I was saying that arguments with evidence that goes against global warming do get published.

So please explain to me this global warming thing when its no more than 0.8C over 130 years, really that to me is balls. Or are you on the current management team of the project I'm working on?

How large was it over 60 years?

So is NASA full of rubbish?

[StickyEnd]

Those arguments are crap. Produce evidence and you do get published. Write propaganda and scientists (even the ones that accept global warming) will expose those lies.

Oooh temper temper, your argument has been found wanting now you are throwing a tissy fit.

Yep NASA are a bunch of amateurs. 0.8C is pretty definative when backed by them as far as I am concerned. CRU are a bunch of cheaters based on their recent history.

The global warming crowd are on the decline as their argument is baseless and nothing more than guesses.

Read it again please. I am not saying that NASA data is crap. I was saying that arguments with evidence that goes against global warming do get published.

So please explain to me this global warming thing when its no more than 0.8C over 130 years, really that to me is balls. Or are you on the current management team of the project I'm working on?

How large was it over 60 years?

So is NASA full of rubbish?

No. But NASA scientists where complaining a couple of years ago that their findings got altered by political people.

Now that 0.8 change over 160 years. How much over the last fifty years? The graphs that you like BTW.