Europe: In or Out

[The Rivet]

FFS this thread is about leaving problematic Europe! The lefties have done a great job of swinging it to climate change/global warning.

 

[BadFish]

FFS this thread is about leaving problematic Europe! The lefties have done a great job of swinging it to climate change/global warning.

No they haven't !Just as many, if not more 'righties' involved in the climate change discussion. One person gave his opinion that he would stay in the EU because of its climate change and environmental policy (seems reaonsably enough to me). Then the 'righties' started to debate the validity of climate change.

With your warped perception you should work for Fox news.

 

[larus]

I am a deeply cynical and sceptical soul but when the consensus of the world's scientific community tells us something I am inclined to believe it. Apparently the earth's climate is warming and we are partly responsible.

This figure of 97% of scientist.agreeing with global warming is BOGUS. This figure comes from a review of how many published scientific papers (I don't know the method of sampling) referred to climate change. So, if a paper was sceptical of climate change, it was included in the 97%.

Another thing you may want to question.
1. Why is Antarctic sea ice at the highest level ever recorded?
2. Why (based on the 2 satellite temperature datsets), has there been no reported warming for 18 odd years?
3. Why wasn't the medieval warm period shown in the famous 'Hockey Stick Graph' (clue - data manipulation)?
4. How can the missing heat get transferred to the deep oceans without warming the top layer of the ocean?
5. All climate model are software with assumptions programmed in. The assumptions are biased towards warming, so they are BOUND to show warming in their results. Doh!!! All climate model projections don't match reality and they are getting worse.
etc., etc..

 

[brighton fella]

This figure of 97% of scientist.agreeing with global warming is BOGUS. This figure comes from a review of how many published scientific papers (I don't know the method of sampling) referred to climate change. So, if a paper was sceptical of climate change, it was included in the 97%.

Another thing you may want to question.
1. Why is Antarctic sea ice at the highest level ever recorded?
2. Why (based on the 2 satellite temperature datsets), has there been no reported warming for 18 odd years?
3. Why wasn't the medieval warm period shown in the famous 'Hockey Stick Graph' (clue - data manipulation)?
4. How can the missing heat get transferred to the deep oceans without warming the top layer of the ocean?
5. All climate model are software with assumptions programmed in. The assumptions are biased towards warming, so they are BOUND to show warming in their results. Doh!!! All climate model projections don't match reality and they are getting worse.
etc., etc..

::...all have been asked before without any real answer to any of them.
i would love to know the answer to no3..

 

[BadFish]

This figure of 97% of scientist.agreeing with global warming is BOGUS. This figure comes from a review of how many published scientific papers (I don't know the method of sampling) referred to climate change. So, if a paper was sceptical of climate change, it was included in the 97%. .

This is interesting. Do you have a source for this as it is not my understanding at all.

 

[The Rivet]

No they haven't !Just as many, if not more 'righties' involved in the climate change discussion. One person gave his opinion that he would stay in the EU because of its climate change and environmental policy (seems reaonsably enough to me). Then the 'righties' started to debate the validity of climate change.

With your warped perception you should work for Fox news.

More like shark stories maybe?.................

 

[BadFish]

The result comes from those papers that expressed an position on anthropogenic climate change. 97% of papers that expressed a view on anthropogenic climate change siad that it was caused by humans.

It appears that there were a large number of papers that expressed no position on the human involvement in climate change (66%) but those that did had an overwhelming.

Only 0.3% of papers outright rejected human involvement

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...AA25CF5F0350CDE085E.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org

I don't pretend to understand all the science behind this stuff but I am going with the experts on this one. That is after all what they are there for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAqR9mLJrcE

 

[brighton fella]

The result comes from those papers that expressed an position on anthropogenic climate change. 97% of papers that expressed a view on anthropogenic climate change siad that it was caused by humans.

It appears that there were a large number of papers that expressed no position on the human involvement in climate change (66%) but those that did had an overwhelming.

Only 0.3% of papers outright rejected human involvement

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...AA25CF5F0350CDE085E.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org

I don't pretend to understand all the science behind this stuff but I am going with the experts on this one. That is after all what they are there for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAqR9mLJrcE

..nice one 97% share expertise in the field yet fail at answering any of the above questions,

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

This figure of 97% of scientist.agreeing with global warming is BOGUS. This figure comes from a review of how many published scientific papers (I don't know the method of sampling) referred to climate change. So, if a paper was sceptical of climate change, it was included in the 97%.

Another thing you may want to question.
1. Why is Antarctic sea ice at the highest level ever recorded?
2. Why (based on the 2 satellite temperature datsets), has there been no reported warming for 18 odd years?
3. Why wasn't the medieval warm period shown in the famous 'Hockey Stick Graph' (clue - data manipulation)?
4. How can the missing heat get transferred to the deep oceans without warming the top layer of the ocean?
5. All climate model are software with assumptions programmed in. The assumptions are biased towards warming, so they are BOUND to show warming in their results. Doh!!! All climate model projections don't match reality and they are getting worse.
etc., etc..

1. Primarily because of the hole in the ozone layer. But climate effects don't work uniformally over the world. Globally the earth is losing 35,000 sq km of sea ice per year

2. Because you're cherry-picking a start date - 1998 - that coincides with the strongest El Nino event on record (prior to 2015), and was therefore the warmest year on record in the troposphere (which reacts stroinglyu to El Nino events, so expect 2016 to beat it and perhaps end this line of attack by the sceptics). If, however, you look over the full satellie records since they started in 1979 you will see a clear upwards trend over the full dataset, not just the bit you are picking. You're also chery-picking one dataset and ignoring others, such as surface temperature where the rises are uneqivocal, with December 2015 the hottest month on record, 2015 the hottest year on record, smashing the second highest, 2014. These readings are more accurate and more applicabale than satellite readings that are looking at micowave levels in the troposphere, and considering we live at the surface, not up in the troposphere, they're more relevant, too.

3. is it still 2004?! There was famous controversy over the hockey stick graph, pushed by Republican senator Jim Inhofe and this became a famous line of attack. The controversial parts of Mann's analysis have been rexamined and found to hold true, even after various methodological approaches used. Meanwhile there have since been over two dozen new reconstructions of the earth's past climate performed on different datasets with different approaches and all support the original hockey stick curve; 14 of these included in the IPCC's latest policy documents on climate change. the 'medieval warm period' is based on tree ring data from central England, it was localised and not global, unlike the Mann et al study

4. I don't know, I'm not an oceanographer. there was a recent paper in Science showing that the waters of the Pacific warmed significantly from 2003-2012 in the region from 10m to 300m below the surface. Why not the top 10m? perhaps because that is interacting heavily with the atmosphere and is a good heat exchanger?

5. Models are models, they'll be changing continuously. No-one is ever going to claim their model is foolproof. This is a large and completely new field of science, looking at how increased temperatures interact with the oceans, the troposphere, the ice and weater patterns. We don't have hundreds of similar planets to run experiments on or keep as controls. But if you are building a model, of course warming is put in as an assumption, because the planet is warming. CO2 levels are now 405 ppm - up 3 from january alone - wow - and temperatures are rising lock-step with CO2 emissions, just as predicted. That part is really very simple, the models are just trying to predict what will happen.

none of this makes me happy, of course. Maybe denial is the way to go.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

luckily for me i have found myself in a position where i do not have to rely on money but when i did i never sunk as low as to be brought by someone.

so whats your motivation then?

 

[BadFish]

..nice one 97% share expertise in the field yet fail at answering any of the above questions,

I am sure they can answer them, but you would have to ask them. As I said i am happy to put my faith in the scientists and their consensus as i have so far seen no reason to doubt them or it. This is why i was interested in where the poster got his information regarding the 97% being a fallacy. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

I note that in fact a scientist has addressed those questions. Good old science doing its job again

 

[BadFish]

none of this makes me happy, of course. Maybe denial is the way to go.

Then you can do nothing guilt free Denial is definitely appealing except that it gets increasingly more difficult.

 

[pastafarian]

FFS this thread is about leaving problematic Europe! The lefties have done a great job of swinging it to climate change/global warning.

Indeed,
Lets get back to some important statistics

Seems the Jocks are not so massively pro EU as some inners would have you believe, and are also losing their love

May 2015
Remain in the EU 49%

Sept 2015
Remain in the EU 47%

Jan 2016
Remain in the EU 44%

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/poll-finds-drop-in-scots-in-favour-of-uk-staying-in-eu-1-4021239

 

[beorhthelm]

...
5. Models are models, they'll be changing continuously. No-one is ever going to claim their model is foolproof. This is a large and completely new field of science, looking at how increased temperatures interact with the oceans, the troposphere, the ice and weater patterns. We don't have hundreds of similar planets to run experiments on or keep as controls. But if you are building a model, of course warming is put in as an assumption, because the planet is warming. CO2 levels are now 405 ppm - up 3 from january alone - wow - and temperatures are rising lock-step with CO2 emissions, just as predicted. That part is really very simple, the models are just trying to predict what will happen.

have to point out that the temperature changes are not rising in lock step with CO2. while the trend line over time of decades is similar, there's considerable divergance on a finer scale. you an see this in the graphs you posted earlier. the models are flawed and predictions are not matching observations, but the theory is remaining unchanged. thats not good science.

 

[Gwylan]

Indeed,
Lets get back to some important statistics

Seems the Jocks are not so massively pro EU as some inners would have you believe, and are also losing their love

May 2015
Remain in the EU 49%

Sept 2015
Remain in the EU 47%

Jan 2016
Remain in the EU 44%

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/poll-finds-drop-in-scots-in-favour-of-uk-staying-in-eu-1-4021239

One of the reasons for this may be that some SNP supporters think that voting to leave would make it easier to force another independence vote.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-speed-up-route-to-independence-a6839966.html

Personally, can't see much in the theory myself but there may well be some Scots who want to rock the boat a bit

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

have to point out that the temperature changes are not rising in lock step with CO2. while the trend line over time of decades is similar, there's considerable divergance on a finer scale. you an see this in the graphs you posted earlier. the models are flawed and predictions are not matching observations, but the theory is remaining unchanged. thats not good science.

On a fine-fine scale? Sure, there's more that impacts our climate than just CO2 concentration. Here is the graph of CO2 v temperature, it appears to be a logarithmic relationship. I believe if you include the impacts of other radiative forcings then there is a better fit on the overall trend, as one would expect.



The models are only as good as the inputs we have, and as I state earlier, this is all new science with uncertainty to what will happen. We haven't had CO2 concentrations this high during the entirety of our species time on this planet, so its all unknown. But we are measuring higher tempoeratures, measuring melting of ice, measuring increased sea levels, and these things worry us and we make models to try and predict what will happen in the future. These models are based on lots of different hypotheses, there is no 'single' model. Not all hypotheses are proved, and then we search for the explanation and adapt our models accordingly. But the base theory, that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases will raise global temperatures, thats proved, thats unequivocal.

 

[looney]

This figure of 97% of scientist.agreeing with global warming is BOGUS. This figure comes from a review of how many published scientific papers (I don't know the method of sampling) referred to climate change. So, if a paper was sceptical of climate change, it was included in the 97%.

A bunch of global warming activists fed about 2,500 papers through word recognition software, including first year student essays. Now even if you do leap over that hurdle you still have the problem of "100% of homoeopaths think homeopathy works" or in other words they are either true believers who selected the discipline, selection bias and confirmation bias or they are believing seriously flawed models. Which climategate was really about, seriously unreliable proxy data.

 

[looney]

I am sure they can answer them, but you would have to ask them. As I said i am happy to put my faith in the scientists and their consensus as i have so far seen no reason to doubt them or it. This is why i was interested in where the poster got his information regarding the 97% being a fallacy. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

I note that in fact a scientist has addressed those questions. Good old science doing its job again

Science investigates by criticising conjectures. Attacking criticism is what religious people do they call it blasphemy,and those who spout it are heretics/deniers, like you...as usual.

 

[BadFish]

Science investigates by criticising conjectures. Attacking criticism is what religious people do they call it blasphemy,and those who spout it are heretics/deniers, like you...as usual.

Excellent trolling Trollmiester. You really do talk a load of tosh......... even for a troll.

 

[brighton fella]

so whats your motivation then?

nothing really apart from exposing some of the lies our government keep telling us.

a government who claims to care so much for the planet and environment yet it relentlessly bombs f*ck out of the planet and wages war with every c*nt.

anyone sane person should pop the relevant questions ...why if you care so much ? or is climate change just another made up thing to suit your warped agenda.?