|
Post by trollhunterx on Sept 5, 2010 23:57:40 GMT 1
Joe, Do you want to engage in mutual congratulatory comforting session or a debate on the science of AGW? 'Mutual congratulatory comforting session' sounds like the kind of phrase a master baiter would throw into a discussion about AGW. You can keep that kind of exchange...
|
|
|
Post by bluebiro on Sept 6, 2010 7:02:21 GMT 1
What a boring world it would be if everyone agreed on everything. And what an interesting world it would be if peoplewith different opinions could communicate with each other.
|
|
|
Post by bluebiro on Sept 6, 2010 7:11:37 GMT 1
never mind hiving us off into a segregated section where we will not frighten the horses or offend those of a fragile AGW disposition who perennially seem ready to dissolve into hysteria whenever sceptics raise the subject. I was thinking more of the people who get bored of "discussions" that resemble two schoolkids telling each other, "No, you are a retard."
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 6, 2010 8:57:34 GMT 1
Could we please remain on topic? Don't you find it disturbing that the IPCC's 4th report was riddled with mistakes and a lot of the "scientific evidence" was nothing of the sort. Rather, it was scare stories inserted by environmental activists. Do you condone this behaviour?
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 6, 2010 9:03:04 GMT 1
Ah, the IPCC state sponsored line. 1. Land surface air temp - corrupted by station drop out and UHI effect. 2. Complete tosh manipulated by that Gov dept, the met office (mostly). I'm a fisherman and have been (along with my father before me) recording sst for 40 years. Yes, there was a slight rise up till 2000, then a levelling off for 5 years, then a sharp decline. Last winter (Early Feb) saw sst at it's lowest ever. (in 40 years). 3.See above 4.Given 1,2 and 3 above - I don't believe the data. 5. Part of a trend, fluctuating over millenia 6. Utter tosh. There has been no (or next to no) sea level rise. I live beside the sea and use piers. To say they can even measure to the silly degree of accuracy they claim is proposterous. Air pressure, wind direction and tidal cycle interact to make this claim laughable. 7. Then the drought in Russia must be symptomatic of Global cooling??? 8. Big deal, they've been retreating since the last ice age. 9. There has been an insignificant and normal fluctuation in sea ice. Last winter, Arctic sea ice was back with a vengence. Stockholm was closed due to ice for god's sake. If you could follow my example and state your employment and affiliations, i'd be much obliged. Unless you've got something to hide. Isn't it scientific to consider all the evidence and show your methods? So you didn't actually read the link I gave that said (in the opening paragraph) "More than 300 scientists from 48 countries" So, hardly a stitch up by the Met Office. I'm surprised that you have been able to record sea temperatures on a global basis over the last 40 years - you must get around a lot. Why not try reading the actual paper before commenting? As for my affiliations, I was a civil servant for 20 years (MoD) and am about to be made redundant due to government cuts so, no specific climate change axe to grind.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 6, 2010 9:07:35 GMT 1
This is the sort of voodoo "science" LazarusHavelock is promoting, and not very well at that! Good grief - I am not Lazarus. You succesfuly hounded me off a different forum, perhaps you could now just address the points I raise rather than those I don't? Have you any comment on the ten indicators of a warming global climate as listed in my post?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 6, 2010 9:14:27 GMT 1
Don't you find it disturbing that the IPCC's 4th report was riddled with mistakes and a lot of the "scientific evidence" was nothing of the sort. Rather, it was scare stories inserted by environmental activists. Do you condone this behaviour? Could you be more specific, please?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 6, 2010 9:18:19 GMT 1
Abacus, Take your pick, there's lots to choose from.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 6, 2010 9:32:06 GMT 1
Havelock, I skim read the "report". You'll need to come up with better "evidence" than primary school propaganda from noaa using discredited data-sets.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 6, 2010 9:44:21 GMT 1
Havelock, I skim read the "report". You'll need to come up with better "evidence" than primary school propaganda from noaa using discredited data-sets. It's true that the link I gave is to the summary of the report - here is the full report in detail with all of the datasets used explained. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009.phpWhich datasets do you think have been discredited? You surely aren't going to express an opinion without looking at the actual material you're commenting on are you?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 6, 2010 9:52:00 GMT 1
Abacus, Take your pick, there's lots to choose from. rsmith, could we please take one point at a time to debate? It does not seem very productive to make generalisations.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 6, 2010 9:56:32 GMT 1
They've all been discredited. Station drop out, UHI etc. I need to repeat that argument as much as I need to RE-read the propaganda you linked to. Lets try something a bit more meaty. The AGW propagandists denied the MWP initially. When that position was discredited they asserted that it was a N Atlantic/European phenomenon. That position still stands as far as I can see. Could anyone explain how the planet's heat transfer systems (Ocean currents/ weather systems/ jet stream etc) shut down for hundreds of years causing this warm period to be confined to the N Atlantic/Europe?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 6, 2010 9:58:24 GMT 1
Abacus, How about the Maldives' imminent demise due to sea level rise?
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 6, 2010 11:42:45 GMT 1
rsmith M11 There's so much to discuss:Political motivation Falsified data Vested interests Contrary evidence To name but a few.
You seemed to have missed 'SCIENCE' That and actions based on the science is the only thing I'm interested in discussing. With that in mind, and if this Forum is going to be anything other than psudo-science and biased agendas, I intend to start threads on the SCIENCE that is reported on subjects including Climate Change. These threads will not be biased to support any particular views, if I come across any credible research that questions the seriousness of AGW I will include that. I will stick with the science and only the science. Any personal opinions I express will be based on the science. Can you say the same?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 6, 2010 11:55:40 GMT 1
I will question the dodgy science by any method I see fit. Having read your postings on the BBC, you seem only to question sceptisism. In the interests of openess and trust, could you introduce yourself fully as I and Marchessa have. You surely wouldn't want us sceptics to occupy the moral high ground so early in the piece.
|
|