Poll: global warming

[Whitti Steve]

Saigon: Are any people from Oxford/Cambs or any of the other institutions listed in the denial camp? - As you bring it up, I assume not, but are these 2 unis the fount of all knowledge in the world?

What evidence - where? - See Exile's post :mrgreen:

[SaigonSaddler]

Saigon - I'm really sorry that your mind is so closed on this subject that you cannot see any holes in what is a flawed hypothesis to start with.

In a nutshell:

1 - there is no correlation between CO2 and global warming (which, for the umpteenth time, I belive has occurred, quite naturally over the last 100-150 years.). CO2 tends to lag warming by up to 800 years.
2 - glacial shortening (which is not global) is not correlated with increased temperature - precipitation and regression to the mean are other important factors (see 1 above)
3 - there is a much closer correlation to climate from both solar and cosmic ray activity
4 - there is no significant measurable rise in sea level (note that various low-lying pacific islands were settled 2-3000 years ago, and these have been populated, without the residents drowning from rising seas, through two wamer periods than the current day (Roman era, Medieval Climate Optimum). Data suggests a rise of only 1.6mm per year but with what margin of error?
5 - Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' is full of lies from start to finish, so much so that it was legally challenged in the UK to stop it being taught as FACT in schools up and down the land. Thank heck for that.
6 - the 'hockey stick graph' which started the ball rolling and provided headline graphics throughout the world has been thoroughly debunked - when analysed it produced the same shape regardless of what was input, the perfect example of the result being chosen before the research
7 - the CRU in the UK, GISS and NOAA all use the same temperature base to support each other. This temperature base has been accumulated from global sources, yet for analysis, the temperatures were 'adjusted' to fit the result required for item 6 above. The scientists who did this (Jones et al at Hadley) claim to have lost the original data, have denied Freedom of Information requests for the data and conspired with each other to avoid inquiry.
8 - since satellite measurement became possible, there is no evidence whatsoever of any increase in temperature to correlate with rising CO2 in the atmosphere. When confronted with this problem, scientists who believe in anthropogenic global warming were made aware of a major problem with their hypothesis - there was no upper atmosphere hotspot as predicted by all (yes, all) their climate models. To compensate that they didn't reinvestigate to see where they might have gone wrong, they decided that the temperatures were flawed readings, and that wind speed would give them a better idea of temperature. It beggars belief.
9 - reporting in mainstream media shows significant lack of understanding of the subject, and a desire to hit the panic button every time - perfect examples, "warmest summers ever" (headlines ad infinitum) are climate change induced, but coldest winters ever are always weather.
10 - global temperature records are corrupted by station placement, urban heat island effect, discontinuity, unregulated measurement and are at best a very inaccurate way of measuring global temperature (refer 8 above). There's no homogenous data source to start with which is why 7 above happened.
11 - CO2 absorption response for heat is logarithmic - it only absorbs in two heat bands and at current atmospheric levels it is to all intents and purposes saturated and has no further part to play.

That's just off the top of my head.

Finally, thanks for your list of a few hundred names (looks like a minority of both academics and students at each university to me (e.g. only 18 teaching staff from my old Alma Mater, UCL, which would be smaller than the geology department when I left 22 years ago), but hey ho, the list looks really long so it must be impressive). I'll see you and raise you 30,000+ on the Oregon Petition (give or take the Mickey Mouses and Ronald Reagans that are always found online), or alternatively suggest you check Senator Inhofe in the USA for his growing list of disaffected research scientists. That may show you that the scientific community is not 'in agreement' on this. Please note that correct science is not about agreement though, it's about testing hypotheses and reviewing the results you get, then publishing in an open manner including what data you tortured to get what result you did.

I'm not saying the whole thing is a conspiracy, I'm saying there's a startling ignorance around which means people don't actually understand what's presented to them - the stories in the media are generally written by generalist reporters, not the science desk, for starters, and politicians such as Brown etc. rely on the reports being presented to them. When it comes in the form of a UNIPCC report, it's huge, so they look at the summary pages, written not by scientists but by politicians. That's why so many scientists have disowned their input, as results were ignored or distorted/exaggerated.

I'd leave a whole bunch of links for you to check but I'm sure, if you were remotely interested in doing the topic some justice yourself that you'd have found them by now. I don't need your pity, just your open mind. your response to my last post, all withering ad hominem attacks and sarcasm, shows me you closed it on this subject too soon.

Tell you what, I'm so sure of my point of view I bet you a token NZD100 (that's about GBP40 or so isn't it?) that the earth will continue to cool and will be cooler than today up till 2030. That's a 20 year bet which should be enough to show even a little incy wincy bit of warming in accordance with the climate models being used by the AGW brigade you believe so fervently in. If you take this up I'll put a little mention for you in my will should I drop dead in the interim. Personally, I think there's more chance of another ice age than there is of runaway warming. Probably it'll take more than my lifetime to arise but that's next.

PS - look up the aims of the Council Of Rome, see who's a member and then work out what the real conspiracy theorists think. I'm positively sane by comparison. :wink:

Wow! Where do I start with this one? How long have we been concocting this? :wink:

I'll take you up on the bet, and triple it - winnings to go to flood defence charity of my choice. How do we measure the warming though, as you seem to reject the current evidence? The ice caps melt because of what? I thought it was warmer water/air temperature that would do it. Anyway, it's interesting to come across someone who profoundly believes in no warming at all.

Anyway, you have given me 11 points to look through which I suppose I'd better had. Before that I'll come to your closing statement.

Non-supportive university staff. Assuming that they are equally passionate about their cause - is there such a list of eminent academics circulating in British universities? That would be a help to your position, I think you would agree, if someone actually agreed with it.

The 'Oregan petition' and disaffected scientists - I'll take a look at these. 30,000 who? Hopefully not the American public, surely you wouldn't attempt to trump the cream of UK academia with a list of 30,000 US citizens of various jobs and some of none!

The media is an animal without scientific control, and neither position can really say they 'own' it. I think it would bleat equally long and loud if a conspiracy was found. Maybe it will, if one is uncovered. It would certainly make Roswell look a bit insignificant.

Please post some links. Post the best links that you have as I dearly would like to find this information that everyone keeps alluding to - this contrary bank of evidence.

The earth is cooling? What?

[SaigonSaddler]

Saigon: Are any people from Oxford/Cambs or any of the other institutions listed in the denial camp? - As you bring it up, I assume not, but are these 2 unis the fount of all knowledge in the world?

What evidence - where? - See Exile's post :mrgreen:

Pretty good ones, yep. And, as above, any of the other institutions in that list?

Exile.....has a strange view on making sense of data. I don't know what he's reading, but he doesn't even think the earth is warming at all, rendering man's involvement meaningless. I will look at each of the points in turn, as these seem the foundation of his ideas here. If they have credence I will judge them fairly (promise), even though my passion in this field has been misconstrude as blind belief.

[ciscokid]

There are several very good arguments on this thread
This site is interesting.
http://www.divulgence.net/

[Exile]

Saigon: Are any people from Oxford/Cambs or any of the other institutions listed in the denial camp? - As you bring it up, I assume not, but are these 2 unis the fount of all knowledge in the world?

What evidence - where? - See Exile's post :mrgreen:

Pretty good ones, yep. And, as above, any of the other institutions in that list?

Exile.....has a strange view on making sense of data. I don't know what he's reading, but he doesn't even think the earth is warming at all, rendering man's involvement meaningless. I will look at each of the points in turn, as these seem the foundation of his ideas here. If they have credence I will judge them fairly (promise), even though my passion in this field has been misconstrude as blind belief.

Are you mad or do you not read my posts? I've consistently said (including the poll question right at the start!!) that the earth has been warming. It's a straightforward bounceback from the little ice age and is not anthropogenic at all. Climate is about the planet, and the solar system, not homo sapiens, whose effect is minimal, yet whose self-importance knows no bounds. Bring on King Knut. He'll put you right.

[Exile]

There are several very good arguments on this thread
This site is interesting.
http://www.divulgence.net/

Hadn't seen that one. Nice link.

[SaigonSaddler]

James Mountain "Jim" Inhofe (born November 17, 1934) is an American politician from Oklahoma. A member of the Republican Party, he currently serves as the senior Senator from Oklahoma. He is among the most vocal global warming skeptics in Congress.[1] Inhofe often cites the Bible as the source for his positions on various political issues

Case closed.

Oregon petition includes over 9,000 phDs. Sounds good, a lot in physics and engineering though. Seems more of a reaction to Kyoto 1997 and Al Gore's 'An inconvenient truth' with possible political bias. Considering the Bush Admin only recently accepted the climate change findings I would say it's maybe a protectionist rejection that's possibly a bit dated. I'm not rejecting it altogether though.

[SaigonSaddler]

Saigon: Are any people from Oxford/Cambs or any of the other institutions listed in the denial camp? - As you bring it up, I assume not, but are these 2 unis the fount of all knowledge in the world?

What evidence - where? - See Exile's post :mrgreen:

Pretty good ones, yep. And, as above, any of the other institutions in that list?

Exile.....has a strange view on making sense of data. I don't know what he's reading, but he doesn't even think the earth is warming at all, rendering man's involvement meaningless. I will look at each of the points in turn, as these seem the foundation of his ideas here. If they have credence I will judge them fairly (promise), even though my passion in this field has been misconstrude as blind belief.

Are you mad or do you not read my posts? I've consistently said (including the poll question right at the start!!) that the earth has been warming. It's a straightforward bounceback from the little ice age and is not anthropogenic at all. Climate is about the planet, and the solar system, not homo sapiens, whose effect is minimal, yet whose self-importance knows no bounds. Bring on King Knut. He'll put you right.

Has been, not is. Different tense.

Is the earth warming now, and if so will it continue to warm for the next few centuries?

[Exile]

[Has been, not is. Different tense.

Is the earth warming now, and if so will it continue to warm for the next few centuries?

What timescale do you want for the 'has been warming'. I'll give "since 1970" and also note it's cooler now than 1998, but with an indeterminate trend, but warmer than it was in the little ice age, but cooler than it was in the medieval optimum. Earth climate isn't set in stone. Temperature changes is the point I'm making. Next few centuries? Your guess is as good as mine, but I think it'll cool, not that we'll be around to see it. We live in a geological era characterised by intermittent glaciation events, and one of those is now overdue.

You probably consider that to be a fudge answer but I'm just trying to say climate is naturally variable, and to bang on about mann-made global warming is irresponsible, irrelevant and detracts from much bigger problems.

[Whitti Steve]

Saigon: Are any people from Oxford/Cambs or any of the other institutions listed in the denial camp? - As you bring it up, I assume not, but are these 2 unis the fount of all knowledge in the world?

What evidence - where? - See Exile's post :mrgreen:

Pretty good ones, yep. And, as above, any of the other institutions in that list?

Exile.....has a strange view on making sense of data. I don't know what he's reading, but he doesn't even think the earth is warming at all, rendering man's involvement meaningless. I will look at each of the points in turn, as these seem the foundation of his ideas here. If they have credence I will judge them fairly (promise), even though my passion in this field has been misconstrude as blind belief.

Are you mad or do you not read my posts? I've consistently said (including the poll question right at the start!!) that the earth has been warming. It's a straightforward bounceback from the little ice age and is not anthropogenic at all. Climate is about the planet, and the solar system, not homo sapiens, whose effect is minimal, yet whose self-importance knows no bounds. Bring on King Knut. He'll put you right.

Has been, not is. Different tense.

Is the earth warming now, and if so will it continue to warm for the next few centuries?

No-one knows that... I am certain of my facts in this instance.

[SaigonSaddler]

There are several very good arguments on this thread
This site is interesting.
http://www.divulgence.net/

The earth's axis has shifted.......Not at any time in over 50 years, have I ever had sunlight shining in the windows on the north side of the house... which faces true north. I'm located on the 33rd latitude, a little more than 675 miles north of the Tropic of Cancer in the Dallas area. So when I noticed the Sun flooding in the north windows in the mornings and afternoons in 2007, it was hard to miss the blinding sunlight where it had never been before

A bit parachiol, and think he's on his own here.

[Exile]

There are several very good arguments on this thread
This site is interesting.
http://www.divulgence.net/

The earth's axis has shifted.......Not at any time in over 50 years, have I ever had sunlight shining in the windows on the north side of the house... which faces true north. I'm located on the 33rd latitude, a little more than 675 miles north of the Tropic of Cancer in the Dallas area. So when I noticed the Sun flooding in the north windows in the mornings and afternoons in 2007, it was hard to miss the blinding sunlight where it had never been before

A bit parachiol, and think he's on his own here.

Do you think the earth has a stable orbit with a stable axial tilt and rotation? :shock:

[SaigonSaddler]

[Has been, not is. Different tense.

Is the earth warming now, and if so will it continue to warm for the next few centuries?

What timescale do you want for the 'has been warming'. I'll give "since 1970" and also note it's cooler now than 1998, but with an indeterminate trend, but warmer than it was in the little ice age, but cooler than it was in the medieval optimum. Earth climate isn't set in stone. Temperature changes is the point I'm making. Next few centuries? Your guess is as good as mine, but I think it'll cool, not that we'll be around to see it. We live in a geological era characterised by intermittent glaciation events, and one of those is now overdue.

You probably consider that to be a fudge answer but I'm just trying to say climate is naturally variable, and to bang on about mann-made global warming is irresponsible, irrelevant and detracts from much bigger problems.

How about in comparison with the average temperature from 1961-1990?

Anyway, I guess you think not, overall. If you're unwilling to use this as a starting point then that bet is probably off, as we'll never agree as it's never going to be warmer than such and such a time. And if you reject all the evidence gathered for the Met office as pretty neutral data then we're not really ever going to agree.

You're thinking long-term millenia, I'm focussing on short-term areosol emission influences.

[SaigonSaddler]

There are several very good arguments on this thread
This site is interesting.
http://www.divulgence.net/

The earth's axis has shifted.......Not at any time in over 50 years, have I ever had sunlight shining in the windows on the north side of the house... which faces true north. I'm located on the 33rd latitude, a little more than 675 miles north of the Tropic of Cancer in the Dallas area. So when I noticed the Sun flooding in the north windows in the mornings and afternoons in 2007, it was hard to miss the blinding sunlight where it had never been before

A bit parachiol, and think he's on his own here.

Do you think the earth has a stable orbit with a stable axial tilt and rotation? :shock:

Of course not, as any look at the mid oceanic trench polarity will confirm. Just not now, and not based on his findings. It will though, but that isn't the cause of this climate change.

[Ned_Kelly]

Thank **** for this global warming thing....... without it we could end up with the coldest temperatures for 100 years and huge snow falls all over the country !
So glad i'm sat in my back garden in Bescot with my shorts and shades on in this minor heatwave !

:lol: :lol:

[Manchester Saddler]

Crikey, Saigon - you're beginning to sound like SJ

:wink:

I haven't the time to spend trawling the internet for evidence just to prove you wrong. I think, like SJ, you are seeing what you want to see and believing what you want to believe. There is a natural cycle and lots of conflicting evidence.

End of story.

I suppose, like SJ, you are going to come up with a bunch of evidence from those who support your argument.

The big problem is that this is now beyond science and is now in the domain of politicians - making it totally untrustworthy. Believe what you want to believe. I just think we should prepare for the inevitable.

I mean - where were humanity when the earth warmed up last time?

[SaigonSaddler]

Thank **** for this global warming thing....... without it we could end up with the coldest temperatures for 100 years and huge snow falls all over the country !
So glad i'm sat in my back garden in Bescot with my shorts and shades on in this minor heatwave !

:lol: :lol:

Might have to get used to it, especially if the gulf stream sparks out, as a result of a load of fresh water coming down from the north (due to warming). :mrgreen:

[SaigonSaddler]

Crikey, Saigon - you're beginning to sound like SJ

:wink:

I haven't the time to spend trawling the internet for evidence just to prove you wrong. I think, like SJ, you are seeing what you want to see and believing what you want to believe. There is a natural cycle and lots of conflicting evidence.

End of story.

I suppose, like SJ, you are going to come up with a bunch of evidence from those who support your argument.

The big problem is that this is now beyond science and is now in the domain of politicians - making it totally untrustworthy. Believe what you want to believe. I just think we should prepare for the inevitable.

I mean - where were humanity when the earth warmed up last time?

Yeah, but unlike sj, the vast majority of evidence, government institutions, relevant scientific bodies and university academics are in support of the view I happen to share. Why? Simply because the evidence points that way and no other reason.

This football website is pretty sceptical, but never forget that the mainstream opinion swings in one direction. Contrary evidence? Where? (Exile has supplied a list of 11 points, only some of which are directly relevant to the evidential debate - more on that later) but that's all he's got, possibly copied and pasted and collated from a website somewhere and put together in an orderly fashion.

There is talk of political bias and cover-up, of data that doesn't add up and is either wrong or fabricated. ALL of it?

And yet still the ice-caps melt, flooding increases and sea levels rise. Is this all a coincidence? And the hoo-har about a cold winter in this little island, well they've been pretty rare of late and we might get more snow. But snow doesn't necessarily mean colder, but wetter.

[sj]

Crikey, Saigon - you're beginning to sound like SJ

:wink:

I haven't the time to spend trawling the internet for evidence just to prove you wrong. I think, like SJ, you are seeing what you want to see and believing what you want to believe. There is a natural cycle and lots of conflicting evidence.

End of story.

I suppose, like SJ, you are going to come up with a bunch of evidence from those who support your argument.

The big problem is that this is now beyond science and is now in the domain of politicians - making it totally untrustworthy. Believe what you want to believe. I just think we should prepare for the inevitable.

I mean - where were humanity when the earth warmed up last time?

Yeah, but unlike sj, the vast majority of evidence, government institutions, relevant scientific bodies and university academics are in support of the view I happen to share. Why? Simply because the evidence points that way and no other reason.

This football website is pretty sceptical, but never forget that the mainstream opinion swings in one direction. Contrary evidence? Where? (Exile has supplied a list of 11 points, only some of which are directly relevant to the evidential debate - more on that later) but that's all he's got, possibly copied and pasted and collated from a website somewhere and put together in an orderly fashion.

There is talk of political bias and cover-up, of data that doesn't add up and is either wrong or fabricated. ALL of it?

And yet still the ice-caps melt, flooding increases and sea levels rise. Is this all a coincidence? And the hoo-har about a cold winter in this little island, well they've been pretty rare of late and we might get more snow. But snow doesn't necessarily mean colder, but wetter.

Manchester--- yes we are both trying to save the world in our own way.

And yes I am the outsider, the one in the minority, and I think my arguments are more powerful because of it. A bit like Exile's and PJD's positions on here. :wink:

[Ned_Kelly]

Thank **** for this global warming thing....... without it we could end up with the coldest temperatures for 100 years and huge snow falls all over the country !
So glad i'm sat in my back garden in Bescot with my shorts and shades on in this minor heatwave !

:lol: :lol:

Might have to get used to it, especially if the gulf stream sparks out, as a result of a load of fresh water coming down from the north (due to warming). :mrgreen:

The ocean has risen before.... look at the buildings etc around like off the coast of Italy and Corfu i think it was on a programme i saw just before christmas.
So the ocean will rise again and low lying coastal areas like Ipswich and Norwich will become the sea floor, the beach will move a few miles closer to Walsall !!!!!! and the bad bits were again ?

:mrgreen:

[Exile]

How about in comparison with the average temperature from 1961-1990?

Anyway, I guess you think not, overall. If you're unwilling to use this as a starting point then that bet is probably off, as we'll never agree as it's never going to be warmer than such and such a time. And if you reject all the evidence gathered for the Met office as pretty neutral data then we're not really ever going to agree.

You're thinking long-term millenia, I'm focussing on short-term areosol emission influences.

How about the temperature average for the year 2029 ending Dec 31 will be lower than that for 2009 just ended? Plain and simple.

You're thinking long-term millenia, I'm focussing on short-term areosol emission influences.

Really? Aerosol emissions are cloud seeders and are likely to result in increased cloud formation, and wetter and cooler conditions. On this we agree - important stuff. I'm waiting for the results of the cloud experimenters at CERN, due late this year, to see if there really is some truth behind their hypothesis of cosmic rays, cloud formation and climate. That'll be of interest, even if it isn't the whole story.

the vast majority of evidence [...] support of the view I happen to share. Why? Simply because the evidence points that way and no other reason.

Evidence please. It points all over the place as I've been at pains to point out, and even only some papers that make it into the UNIPCC report (peer reviewed by, yes, you guessed it, the authors of those papers)support your view.

And yet still the ice-caps melt, flooding increases and sea levels rise. Is this all a coincidence?

Evidence please. I've shown you Arctic Sea ice cover graphs which show no reduction. Antarctic Ice is at the thickest ever accurately recorded, flooding is weather and sea levels at best have risen only 1.6mm per year (plus or minus a bit more which makes the measurement meaningless due to statistical inaccuracy). Please note that Antarctic ice melts at the edges all the time, but, and here's the amazing bit, new ice is formed constantly in the continental interior. The Arctic ice sheet has rebounded since a 2003 low. I see you consistently refer to 'thinner ice' in your posts. how do you come to that conclusion? The only source of information I can find on the subject refers to just 29 measurements taken in 1999 by a US nuclear sub, in an area where prevailing wind and current at the time had moved much of the pack ice so that extrapolation of the data over the entire ice sheet cannot possibly tell the whole story. Using this flawed study Gore claimed 40% ice loss in 'Inconvenient Truth', yet research in 2002 indicated only 15% loss, and that has since been recovered. Funnily enough this wasn't reported in mainstream media and people still watch Gore's Mockumentary.

[Louise]

Well looking out of my window at the mini Ice Age I think Global Warming will take some believing.

[SaigonSaddler]

How about in comparison with the average temperature from 1961-1990?

Anyway, I guess you think not, overall. If you're unwilling to use this as a starting point then that bet is probably off, as we'll never agree as it's never going to be warmer than such and such a time. And if you reject all the evidence gathered for the Met office as pretty neutral data then we're not really ever going to agree.

You're thinking long-term millenia, I'm focussing on short-term areosol emission influences.

How about the temperature average for the year 2029 ending Dec 31 will be lower than that for 2009 just ended? Plain and simple.

You're thinking long-term millenia, I'm focussing on short-term areosol emission influences.

Really? Aerosol emissions are cloud seeders and are likely to result in increased cloud formation, and wetter and cooler conditions. On this we agree - important stuff. I'm waiting for the results of the cloud experimenters at CERN, due late this year, to see if there really is some truth behind their hypothesis of cosmic rays, cloud formation and climate. That'll be of interest, even if it isn't the whole story.

the vast majority of evidence [...] support of the view I happen to share. Why? Simply because the evidence points that way and no other reason.

Evidence please. It points all over the place as I've been at pains to point out, and even only some papers that make it into the UNIPCC report (peer reviewed by, yes, you guessed it, the authors of those papers)support your view.

And yet still the ice-caps melt, flooding increases and sea levels rise. Is this all a coincidence?

Evidence please. I've shown you Arctic Sea ice cover graphs which show no reduction. Antarctic Ice is at the thickest ever accurately recorded, flooding is weather and sea levels at best have risen only 1.6mm per year (plus or minus a bit more which makes the measurement meaningless due to statistical inaccuracy). Please note that Antarctic ice melts at the edges all the time, but, and here's the amazing bit, new ice is formed constantly in the continental interior. The Arctic ice sheet has rebounded since a 2003 low. I see you consistently refer to 'thinner ice' in your posts. how do you come to that conclusion? The only source of information I can find on the subject refers to just 29 measurements taken in 1999 by a US nuclear sub, in an area where prevailing wind and current at the time had moved much of the pack ice so that extrapolation of the data over the entire ice sheet cannot possibly tell the whole story. Using this flawed study Gore claimed 40% ice loss in 'Inconvenient Truth', yet research in 2002 indicated only 15% loss, and that has since been recovered. Funnily enough this wasn't reported in mainstream media and people still watch Gore's Mockumentary.

:lol:

I guess my link to the MET office really stirred up a denial hornet's nest. Must have hit a nerve centre with that one.

You are actually becoming amusing with this Exy, I must congratulate your humour. The Northwest passage opening up, ships zooming across the north pole and massive break-ups of ice in antarctica not enough for you?

This thread is a demonstration of the internet's ability to throw up some really bizarre statements. A veritable blizzard of misleading information. Cripes! :lol:

[Manchester Saddler]

Crikey, Saigon - you're beginning to sound like SJ

:wink:

I haven't the time to spend trawling the internet for evidence just to prove you wrong. I think, like SJ, you are seeing what you want to see and believing what you want to believe. There is a natural cycle and lots of conflicting evidence.

End of story.

I suppose, like SJ, you are going to come up with a bunch of evidence from those who support your argument.

The big problem is that this is now beyond science and is now in the domain of politicians - making it totally untrustworthy. Believe what you want to believe. I just think we should prepare for the inevitable.

I mean - where were humanity when the earth warmed up last time?

Yeah, but unlike sj, the vast majority of evidence, government institutions, relevant scientific bodies and university academics are in support of the view I happen to share. Why? Simply because the evidence points that way and no other reason.

This football website is pretty sceptical, but never forget that the mainstream opinion swings in one direction. Contrary evidence? Where? (Exile has supplied a list of 11 points, only some of which are directly relevant to the evidential debate - more on that later) but that's all he's got, possibly copied and pasted and collated from a website somewhere and put together in an orderly fashion.

There is talk of political bias and cover-up, of data that doesn't add up and is either wrong or fabricated. ALL of it?

And yet still the ice-caps melt, flooding increases and sea levels rise. Is this all a coincidence? And the hoo-har about a cold winter in this little island, well they've been pretty rare of late and we might get more snow. But snow doesn't necessarily mean colder, but wetter.

Manchester--- yes we are both trying to save the world in our own way.

And yes I am the outsider, the one in the minority, and I think my arguments are more powerful because of it. A bit like Exile's and PJD's positions on here. :wink:

I want to save the world too - but I choose to look at the evidence from all sides in order to find flaws in each rather than leaping onto a bandwagon and ignoring anybody who says "yes - but what if ..."

For global warming - I've seen evidence for both camps and I have chosen to believe that global warming is a exaggerated with evidence against it suppressed. That doesn't mean to say that if somebody could actually prove global warming is made worse by humans that I wouldn't believe it. I have an open mind on the matter, whereas Saigon is stubbornly ignoring anything that contradicts his beliefs.

Same for you really, SJ. The "evidence" you supply for your conspiracy theories is written by like-minded people with their own agenda and you are so close to it that you simply cannot see the wood for the trees. You see conspiracy in everything - and you blame everything on the same ideals without thinking of the consequences. You dismiss anybody else's arguments with yet more paranoid nonsense from those you choose to believe and seek a Utopia based on that nonsense. You simply do not believe anything that contradicts your beliefs. A bit like Saigon on global warming.

Now I actually share a lot of your views and I know where you are coming from. Likewise, I share a lot of Saigon's views. But the problem is, the two of you are too stubborn and so imprisoned by certain things that you no longer see the light of day.

Let's get the allotment three back on track chaps - and stand up to our nemesis - Cully

:D :mrgreen: :wink:

[Exile]

I guess my link to the MET office really stirred up a denial hornet's nest. Must have hit a nerve centre with that one.

You are actually becoming amusing with this Exy, I must congratulate your humour. The Northwest passage opening up, ships zooming across the north pole and massive break-ups of ice in antarctica not enough for you?

This thread is a demonstration of the internet's ability to throw up some really bizarre statements. A veritable blizzard of misleading information. Cripes!

Nice one. The blizzard of misinformation is the one that's snowed you in with it's inaccurate portrayal of climate. I must have struck to the heart of the problem in your belief given that you've not been able to attack a single one of my points. Instead you resort to personal attacks and diversion once more. I do detect a hint of desperation. You'll come over to my side yet, as I blind you with science and you're left looking in vain at the BBC and greenpeace sites (with an unhealthy dose of wikilies for bad measure). :D

PS - I looked closely at your list of people from the Met petition. Some amusing ones in there.

[SaigonSaddler]

I guess my link to the MET office really stirred up a denial hornet's nest. Must have hit a nerve centre with that one.

You are actually becoming amusing with this Exy, I must congratulate your humour. The Northwest passage opening up, ships zooming across the north pole and massive break-ups of ice in antarctica not enough for you?

This thread is a demonstration of the internet's ability to throw up some really bizarre statements. A veritable blizzard of misleading information. Cripes!

Nice one. The blizzard of misinformation is the one that's snowed you in with it's inaccurate portrayal of climate. I must have struck to the heart of the problem in your belief given that you've not been able to attack a single one of my points. Instead you resort to personal attacks and diversion once more. I do detect a hint of desperation. You'll come over to my side yet, as I blind you with science and you're left looking in vain at the BBC and greenpeace sites (with an unhealthy dose of wikilies for bad measure). :D

PS - I looked closely at your list of people from the Met petition. Some amusing ones in there.

No desperation, more exasperation if I'm honest, and you're points will be addressed, every one, but will give each one full consideration before posting responses.

I am, quite frankly, amazed that the weight of opinion on here leans against, especially from people I know are intellectually inclined - and that includes everyone on here that's posted today. I suppose it is a reflection of exhaustion of various media circuses and the explosion of website fancies and conspiracy blogs.

Quite as to how I'm biased in this area I really can't say - as I only ever view evidence put forward critically and draw on knowledge I have, or research further into the field. Many of you state that you 'do not know' or are put off by my style, which is absolutely fair enough. I am not actually attempting to convince anyone, and if the entire website thought of me as some misguided lunatic, then I wouldn't care at all and happily join sj in this pigeonhole.

Quite how it's possible dismiss the MET office, academia and ALL the evidence that keeps coming forward from various independent sources with such careless abandon takes some ambition though. :?

[SaigonSaddler]

2 glacial shortening (which is not global) is not correlated with increased temperature - precipitation and regression to the mean are other important factors (see 1 above)

Back to 1 later.....

Glacial shortening is not global? Maybe a couple of glaciers are remaining steady or indeed growing, but the giant majority are in full scale retreat and this is only increasing. Precipitation is important. Regression to the mean? Nice soundbite.

Ice is thinning all over the place. How come we don't hear about anything but ice sheets in full retreat? Don't give me the cover-up hogwash. That is complete conjecture and the order of the day, not only on here but other casual sites no doubt.

5 - Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' is full of lies from start to finish, so much so that it was legally challenged in the UK to stop it being taught as FACT in schools up and down the land. Thank heck for that.

And? You're basing your belief system on this? Blame Gore. What this has to do with what is actually happening on the ground is spurious. Example of bias? Oh yeah, so why then assume everything anyone says is rubbish?

9 - reporting in mainstream media shows significant lack of understanding of the subject, and a desire to hit the panic button every time - perfect examples, "warmest summers ever" (headlines ad infinitum) are climate change induced, but coldest winters ever are always weather.

Same as. The media reports changes in climate - flooding, melting, warming, dramatic climate change. Not the fault of media to actually report what's going on. I assume people contact them with other info too, but of course they're going with the unusual. The media isn't the cause, it just reflects what's happening.

10 - global temperature records are corrupted by station placement, urban heat island effect, discontinuity, unregulated measurement and are at best a very inaccurate way of measuring global temperature (refer 8 above). There's no homogenous data source to start with which is why 7 above happened.

And the whole data set is ruined as a result? Complete nonsense. There is a huge amount of perfectly useful data coming in every single day. You will ignore the truth if you continue to reject it because of some perceived government hegemony.

4 - there is no significant measurable rise in sea level (note that various low-lying pacific islands were settled 2-3000 years ago, and these have been populated, without the residents drowning from rising seas, through two wamer periods than the current day (Roman era, Medieval Climate Optimum). Data suggests a rise of only 1.6mm per year but with what margin of error?

That's cos the ice-caps didn't melt, they haven't melted for an awfully long time. Until now that is. Wonder why? Anyway, why all the talk of drowning coastal areas if it's not happening and will continue to happen? Bit of a waste of money by governments isn't it? Maybe they actually believe the evidence they are given instead of assuming it's codswallop from the off.

6 left, the ones that are actually relevant to some extent. Keep taking the tablets. :wink:

[Magic Man Fan]

TENNIS

[SaigonSaddler]

Crikey, Saigon - you're beginning to sound like SJ

:wink:

I haven't the time to spend trawling the internet for evidence just to prove you wrong. I think, like SJ, you are seeing what you want to see and believing what you want to believe. There is a natural cycle and lots of conflicting evidence.

End of story.

I suppose, like SJ, you are going to come up with a bunch of evidence from those who support your argument.

The big problem is that this is now beyond science and is now in the domain of politicians - making it totally untrustworthy. Believe what you want to believe. I just think we should prepare for the inevitable.

I mean - where were humanity when the earth warmed up last time?

Yeah, but unlike sj, the vast majority of evidence, government institutions, relevant scientific bodies and university academics are in support of the view I happen to share. Why? Simply because the evidence points that way and no other reason.

This football website is pretty sceptical, but never forget that the mainstream opinion swings in one direction. Contrary evidence? Where? (Exile has supplied a list of 11 points, only some of which are directly relevant to the evidential debate - more on that later) but that's all he's got, possibly copied and pasted and collated from a website somewhere and put together in an orderly fashion.

There is talk of political bias and cover-up, of data that doesn't add up and is either wrong or fabricated. ALL of it?

And yet still the ice-caps melt, flooding increases and sea levels rise. Is this all a coincidence? And the hoo-har about a cold winter in this little island, well they've been pretty rare of late and we might get more snow. But snow doesn't necessarily mean colder, but wetter.

Manchester--- yes we are both trying to save the world in our own way.

And yes I am the outsider, the one in the minority, and I think my arguments are more powerful because of it. A bit like Exile's and PJD's positions on here. :wink:

I want to save the world too - but I choose to look at the evidence from all sides in order to find flaws in each rather than leaping onto a bandwagon and ignoring anybody who says "yes - but what if ..."

For global warming - I've seen evidence for both camps and I have chosen to believe that global warming is a exaggerated with evidence against it suppressed. That doesn't mean to say that if somebody could actually prove global warming is made worse by humans that I wouldn't believe it. I have an open mind on the matter, whereas Saigon is stubbornly ignoring anything that contradicts his beliefs.

Same for you really, SJ. The "evidence" you supply for your conspiracy theories is written by like-minded people with their own agenda and you are so close to it that you simply cannot see the wood for the trees. You see conspiracy in everything - and you blame everything on the same ideals without thinking of the consequences. You dismiss anybody else's arguments with yet more paranoid nonsense from those you choose to believe and seek a Utopia based on that nonsense. You simply do not believe anything that contradicts your beliefs. A bit like Saigon on global warming.

Now I actually share a lot of your views and I know where you are coming from. Likewise, I share a lot of Saigon's views. But the problem is, the two of you are too stubborn and so imprisoned by certain things that you no longer see the light of day.

Let's get the allotment three back on track chaps - and stand up to our nemesis - Cully

:D :mrgreen: :wink:

I take comfort in my state of isolation (on here) that the weight of the scientific community is in agreement with me, or more accurately, I am in agreement with them!

If any supportable and realistic data were to come to light - Exile has provided some - 5 of which are either irrelevant to the data itself and only go on what/how is reported, but the glacial balance misnomer I reject. Completely. There is a ton and half of evidence to point to massive glacial retreat so that one just doesn't add up at all. 6 points remain and I will look at them in all neutrality.

I know my facts but treat new information fairly.

[Exile]

Saigon - it's not careless abandon, it's analysis that leads me to my conclusions. What's new facts to you I've known for some time, so I appreciate it'll take time for you to digest.

Keep taking the tablets

No need for that - why the cheap jibes all the time? Do they support your position or demean you?

Here's the crux of the matter for me...

1 - The AGW model favoured by the UNIPCC says that carbon dioxide contributes hugely to global warming and that man made emissions are "highly likely" to be the cause. If this is the cse, then how could it be that the planet has been warmer in humankind's past, such as Minoan optimum (2000BC ish without checking), Roman optimum (BC-AD turn without checking), Medieval optimum (800-1100AD) without CO2 levels as present?

2 - If CO2 has been rising since the industrial revolution and has such an effect on climate, why would it be that the temperature record for this period shows no direct correlation with CO2 emissions?

3 - All IPCC climate change models predicted a temperature hotspot in the upper atmosphere. Measurements have shown that this does not exist.

On each one of those three counts the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis fails. It has failed on all three.

I think that the more people that look into climate change the better, as they'll eventually see the truth as I do - mankind isn't responsible. Unfortunately for most, their sources of information are the broadsheets, the BBC and their friends. That's a problem. Already the BBC has said 'the consensus says it's man made so we don't need to report the other side of the argument any more'. That's not journalism, that's publishing press releases! If the IPCC model is wrong, do you think you'll hear about it from the BBC? I don't. Same goes for most newspapers, although I do sense a small change in the tide there. When that's the level of investigative journalism and reporting I find it a relief that the internet includes science bloggers and websites to provide information that counters the status quo in journalism.