Climategate--The Final Chapter
01-29-2012, 07:27 AM
#131
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: electron wrangler
Posts: 372
Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
Originally Posted by jungle
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
Flogging the Scientists - YouTube
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
If the warm north eastern ocean current that keeps European winter temperatures relatively moderate, the thermohaline circulation, shuts down because of the introduction of huge amounts of fresh water from melting glaciers, the UK could well be under an ice sheet as the result of global warming.
Scientists have so far identified only one viable mechanism to induce large, global, abrupt climate changes: a swift reorganization of the ocean currents circulating around the earth. These currents, collectively known as the Ocean Conveyor, distribute vast quantities of heat around our planet, and thus play a fundamental role in governing Earth’s climate...
This oceanic heat pump is an important mechanism for reducing equator-to-pole temperature differences...Abrupt regional cooling may occur even as the earth, on average, continues to warm...
This oceanic heat pump is an important mechanism for reducing equator-to-pole temperature differences...Abrupt regional cooling may occur even as the earth, on average, continues to warm...
As I've said, the "How it all Ends" videos offer an excellent primer on the issue. It's good for giving the layman an insight into the problem. If you're serious about getting answers to your questions, start here:
The Mechanics of Global Climate Change:
How It All Ends: Mechanics of GCC (pt 1 of 3) - YouTube
Scare Tactics:
How It All Ends: Scare Tactics (Pt 1 of 6) - YouTube
Risk Management:
How It All Ends: Risk Management (pt 1 of 7) - YouTube
01-29-2012, 07:35 AM
#132
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
So now you just want to deny all of the data?
This is not conjecture, it comes from the largest and most respected climate research institute.
Don't tell us you are now a denier, it would be just a bit too ironic.
This is not conjecture, it comes from the largest and most respected climate research institute.
Don't tell us you are now a denier, it would be just a bit too ironic.
01-30-2012, 11:31 AM
#133
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: electron wrangler
Posts: 372
Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
Originally Posted by jungle
So now you just want to deny all of the data?
This is not conjecture, it comes from the largest and most respected climate research institute.
This is not conjecture, it comes from the largest and most respected climate research institute.
Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.
This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.
Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him...
This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.
Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him...
01-30-2012, 12:23 PM
#134
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
Nice try, but Phil Jones of the famed East Anglia climate center said the same thing in 2010, he knew the scam was done after the climategate leaks.
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Climate scientist Phil Jones: No global warming since 1995
Posted by Dan Karipides
Published: February 14, 2010 - 11:17 AM The scientist at the center of the climategate scandal made a rather important admission during an interview with the BBC.
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.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming.
The author of the MailOnline article about the interview, Jonathan Petre calls this news a "Climategate U-turn". One might go so far as to call it a pivot.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Yes, there has been warming, the problem is that it cannot by any stretch of scientific truth be called "statistically significant" . The MET will tell you the same thing. All peer reviewed, all public statements by the climate experts.
I am sure our gentle readers will notice the MET statement, generated as pap for public consumption, says absolutely nothing about the actual data on warming, the degree of warming, or the causation. In fact it says nothing at all.
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Climate scientist Phil Jones: No global warming since 1995
Posted by Dan Karipides
Published: February 14, 2010 - 11:17 AM The scientist at the center of the climategate scandal made a rather important admission during an interview with the BBC.
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.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming.
The author of the MailOnline article about the interview, Jonathan Petre calls this news a "Climategate U-turn". One might go so far as to call it a pivot.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Yes, there has been warming, the problem is that it cannot by any stretch of scientific truth be called "statistically significant" . The MET will tell you the same thing. All peer reviewed, all public statements by the climate experts.
I am sure our gentle readers will notice the MET statement, generated as pap for public consumption, says absolutely nothing about the actual data on warming, the degree of warming, or the causation. In fact it says nothing at all.
Last edited by jungle; 01-30-2012 at 12:38 PM.
01-31-2012, 06:43 AM
#135
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: electron wrangler
Posts: 372
Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
Originally Posted by jungle
Nice try, but Phil Jones of the famed East Anglia climate center said the same thing in 2010, he knew the scam was done after the climategate leaks.
confident that the climate has warmed" and "there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
http://mediamatters.org/research/201002150015
Originally Posted by jungle
I am sure our gentle readers will notice the MET statement, generated as pap for public consumption, says absolutely nothing about the actual data on warming, the degree of warming, or the causation. In fact it says nothing at all.
You act like you're interested but you're not even looking at the links I provide.
You are a crank.
Met Office: Climate shows "continued variability, but an underlying trend of warming in the previously steady long-term averages." The Met Office states: "In 1998 the world experienced the warmest year since records began. In the decade since, however, this high point has not been surpassed. Some have seized on this as evidence that global warming has stopped, or even that we have entered a period of 'global cooling'. This is far from the truth and climate scientists have, in fact, recognised that a temporary slowdown in warming is possible even under increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions." [Met Office, accessed 9/22/09]
Last edited by N2264J; 01-31-2012 at 07:03 AM.
01-31-2012, 06:53 AM
#136
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by N2264J
What Jones actually said was since 1995, the warming trend "is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level." Then he went on to say "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed" and "there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
http://mediamatters.org/research/201002150015
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ha...tml#post764975
http://mediamatters.org/research/201002150015
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ha...tml#post764975
What Mr. Jones is really saying is yes 15 years ago our computer models predicted melting sidewalks in 2012. Those models were obviously wrong. However we have new models that show melting sidewalks in 2025.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 01-31-2012 at 07:35 AM.
01-31-2012, 09:07 AM
#137
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 361
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
Well that certainly is a rousing endorsement of man made global warming. We know who inherited Churchill's rhetorical prowress. Makes me want to go out and buy one of those coal powered volts. Did George Soros have anything else to say over there at media matters.
What Mr. Jones is really saying is yes 15 years ago our computer models predicted melting sidewalks in 2012. Those models were obviously wrong. However we have new models that show melting sidewalks in 2025.
What Mr. Jones is really saying is yes 15 years ago our computer models predicted melting sidewalks in 2012. Those models were obviously wrong. However we have new models that show melting sidewalks in 2025.
02-01-2012, 10:38 AM
#138
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
Originally Posted by N2264J
What Jones actually said was blah blah blah
02-02-2012, 03:36 AM
#139
Libertarian Resistance
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
highbrow debate
A couple of interesting pieces in the WSJ in the last week. This was from a group of scientists who essentially said not to sweat about climate change:
Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com
This was the rebuttal from the other side:
Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate — Letters to the Editor - WSJ.com
Both are well-written and, in my opinion, both make some good points. I did have one issue with the rebuttal from the alarmist side. They criticized the original authors for not being experts in climate science, then they go on to say this in the final paragraph:
In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.
So, only paragraphs after criticizing physicists and meteorologists for their non-expertise in climate science, here are climate scientists giving us advice on energy technology and economics. This makes them seem stupid and hypocritical, and tends to undermine any good points they might have made.
WW
Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com
This was the rebuttal from the other side:
Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate — Letters to the Editor - WSJ.com
Both are well-written and, in my opinion, both make some good points. I did have one issue with the rebuttal from the alarmist side. They criticized the original authors for not being experts in climate science, then they go on to say this in the final paragraph:
In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.
So, only paragraphs after criticizing physicists and meteorologists for their non-expertise in climate science, here are climate scientists giving us advice on energy technology and economics. This makes them seem stupid and hypocritical, and tends to undermine any good points they might have made.
WW
02-02-2012, 08:07 AM
#140
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: electron wrangler
Posts: 372
Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
Originally Posted by Winged Wheeler
So, only paragraphs after criticizing physicists and meteorologists for their non-expertise in climate science, here are climate scientists giving us advice on energy technology and economics. This makes them seem stupid and hypocritical, and tends to undermine any good points they might have made.
- Roger N. Jones, Ph.D., Professor, Professorial Research Fellow, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Australia
- Gary Yohe, Ph.D., Professor, Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan University, CT
2) It doesn't take a PhD in Economics to see that our manufacturing base has been decimated and those jobs aren't coming back. So why not manufacture the green technology the world wants to buy and then sell it to them at a profit?
.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
