Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The new climate change scandal
- Thread starter Guy Fawkes
- Start date
SULLY COULDNT SHOOT
Loyal2Family+Albion!
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!! 
The ignorance of NSC is abosolutely staggering. Global warming is not happening becuse we've had snow and cold?
The cold and snow is evidence that global warming IS happening. Global warming of the polar caps is melting the ice, leaking more freshatwer into the seas and diluting salt water. Salt water is naturally much warmer than freshwater which means the seas get much colder.... meaning that in certain climes global warming will actually result in Siberian countries and the UK is slap ban in the middle of this....its called the Gulf Stream effect
Read this...
If I hear another global warming joke, Ill . . . - Times Online
Sorry it's the Times but even Tory papers get it right sometimes
The ignorance of NSC is abosolutely staggering. Global warming is not happening becuse we've had snow and cold?
The cold and snow is evidence that global warming IS happening. Global warming of the polar caps is melting the ice, leaking more freshatwer into the seas and diluting salt water. Salt water is naturally much warmer than freshwater which means the seas get much colder.... meaning that in certain climes global warming will actually result in Siberian countries and the UK is slap ban in the middle of this....its called the Gulf Stream effect
Read this...
If I hear another global warming joke, Ill . . . - Times Online
Sorry it's the Times but even Tory papers get it right sometimes
SULLY COULDNT SHOOT
Loyal2Family+Albion!
Here is another. Don't get me wrong.... I'm not a scientist and don't know if it will happen but just stop thinking that global warming means hotter temperatures. It doesn't
BBC - Weather Centre - Climate Change - Gulf Stream
BBC - Weather Centre - Climate Change - Gulf Stream
I think the problem comes is whilst there is undeniably climate change and undeniably it's influenced in some degree by human activity there are always the shrill voices who want to over-egg the pudding. Consequently people have said "The Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035!" or "The Arctic will be ice-free in summer by 2020!" Then when these claims prove to be wildly innacurate people dismiss ALL climate-change theories and research as flawed.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,233
but its not just "one researcher", its a whole institution at the forefront of research and their data has been reused and cited by many of the others, while their raw data remains unpublished. Climate change or not, that is poor science, and if they want to put issue back on track they need to resolve these problems. unfortuantly that might mean the famous "hockey stick" grpah disappears, even if there are plenty of other good reasons to reduce emissions and cut back on rampant consumption.
This is one area where I've never quite understood the long-term effect. The Gulf Stream stops so we become as cold as the other places at our latitude. In the meantime the equatorial lands become baking deserts. In the northern hemisphere are we going to end up like the planet Mercury where one area is too hot and the other area is too cold and there's just a very narrow habitable band between the two?
Last edited:
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
You keep banging on about global warming myths
CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere have increased and are still increasing because we're burning fossil fuels, clearing rainforest and farming more livestock.
Increased atmospheric CO2 and CH4 levels are hypothesised to cause a 'greenhouse effect' resulting in an increase in mean global temperatures.
This hypothesis can be tested by measuring temperatures, which reveals that global mean temperatures are rising at levels higher than accounted for by natural global-warming (itself a result of natural cycles), resulting in the theory of global warming.
Natural global warming is happening at a slow, consistent and verifiable rate, has been recorded for at least the past 300 years and presumably extends back to the last major ice age. Human-caused global warming is additional to this.
The existence of human-caused global warming was controversial for many years, but as the body of evidence has grown nearly all scientists now agree that the process is real. Some people continue to deny it, in many cases because they don't like the measures governments are taking to slow or stop the process.
The effects and ultimate extent of global warming are less clear and range from mild changes to major changes resulting in catastrophe for human society. It is even hypothesised that it will eventually result in feedback systems that reverse the problem. It seems inevitable that sea levels will rise because of melting ice caps. Global weather patterns are also shifting, meaning that areas formally good for agriculture may not be in the future. And so on.
CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere have increased and are still increasing because we're burning fossil fuels, clearing rainforest and farming more livestock.
Increased atmospheric CO2 and CH4 levels are hypothesised to cause a 'greenhouse effect' resulting in an increase in mean global temperatures.
This hypothesis can be tested by measuring temperatures, which reveals that global mean temperatures are rising at levels higher than accounted for by natural global-warming (itself a result of natural cycles), resulting in the theory of global warming.
Natural global warming is happening at a slow, consistent and verifiable rate, has been recorded for at least the past 300 years and presumably extends back to the last major ice age. Human-caused global warming is additional to this.
The existence of human-caused global warming was controversial for many years, but as the body of evidence has grown nearly all scientists now agree that the process is real. Some people continue to deny it, in many cases because they don't like the measures governments are taking to slow or stop the process.
The effects and ultimate extent of global warming are less clear and range from mild changes to major changes resulting in catastrophe for human society. It is even hypothesised that it will eventually result in feedback systems that reverse the problem. It seems inevitable that sea levels will rise because of melting ice caps. Global weather patterns are also shifting, meaning that areas formally good for agriculture may not be in the future. And so on.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!
The ignorance of NSC is abosolutely staggering. Global warming is not happening becuse we've had snow and cold?
The cold and snow is evidence that global warming IS happening. Global warming of the polar caps is melting the ice, leaking more freshatwer into the seas and diluting salt water. Salt water is naturally much warmer than freshwater which means the seas get much colder.... meaning that in certain climes global warming will actually result in Siberian countries and the UK is slap ban in the middle of this....its called the Gulf Stream effect
Read this...
If I hear another global warming joke, Ill . . . - Times Online
Sorry it's the Times but even Tory papers get it right sometimes
A few weeks of cold winter does not prove climate change is happening. It proves we had a few weeks of cold winter. Climate change will always happen. It is logical for us to try to limit the pollution of our planet. I very much doubt that we are able to change the natural order one way of another, but we should make reasonable efforts
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
and read this:Daily Kos: State of the Nation
It may seem odd considering how cold it's been in the US recently, and it won't shut down the denial industry for a second, but annual climate data is now in and word is NASA GISS will place 2009 as tied for the second hottest year since modern temperature records have existed. For the southern hemisphere, 2009 was the hottest year ever:
"The United States may be experiencing one of the coldest winters in decades, but things continue to heat up in the Southern Hemisphere. Science has obtained exclusive data from NASA that indicates that 2009 was the hottest year on record south of the Equator. The find adds to multiple lines of evidence showing that the 2000s were the warmest decade in the modern instrumental record."
The data is particularly worrisome because it happens at a time when the sun is in a deep solar minimum, or coolest point, in its eleven-year cycle (Solar output only changes by an average of less than one-tenth of one percent over the period, but that small change can still add up when it's distributed over the entire earth's surface for a year or more). The inference being as the sun inevitably swings back toward the maximum, all time record hot years in the near future are sure to follow. A few climate scientists are even predicting that 2010 will be such a year.
Regardless of how 2010 turns out, climate change skeptics are now presented with a problem: The graphs above show how 2009 fits in with the rest of the modern record. The hollow square in the blow up on the right represents 2009. Recall that skeptics widely celebrated the small downtick between 2007 and 2008 as evidence of dramatic global cooling. Consistency would then demand that the 2008 - 2009 uptick, which happens to be slightly greater than the former, represents dramatic warming. That would be a poor interpretation, one year does not a trend make. The point is moot anyway since consistency is not exactly valued by the denial industry. But deception is their bread and butter.
Possum Comitatus has a great write up of one such shenanigan recently used by some loudmouthed Australian skeptics which should really be enjoyed in its entirety:
"[A] a lot of this pseudo-statistical arsehattery that gets passed off as evidence in any climate change debate (or any debate that contains numbers and lots of politics, sadly) tends to come from the loudest voices involved in that debate.... which also generally happen to be the most ignorant."
The gist of it involves a quantity used in stats called a moving average. All you need to understand here is that a simple moving average (SMA) tends to smooth out fluctuations on a graph, the average lags the actual data, and the longer the period of the moving average the more the data is smoothed out and the greater the lag. They're particularly popular among technical stock and futures traders.
Now, let's say you're a climate change denier, and you've been waving around a chart showing a moving average touting it as evidence for global cooling. Odds are you've cooked the average to get the best picture you can already. But now, all the sudden, new data comes in and when you put it into your chart it reverses the trend you've been embellishing. What to do? Why, lengthen the moving average of course! Make it a longer period until it smooths out and lags the new data so much that the chart jives with your cooling trend bias! Possum Comitatus makes a persuasive argument that that's exactly the kind of cooked graph one mealy mouthed denier named Andrew Bolt is trying to exploit.
The irony: not only has Bolt made a habit of shooting his mouth off about his inerrant self-awarded expertise -- despite having no formal scientific training in any field of science whatsoever -- for the past month he and his pals took a few words from some stolen emails wildly out of context and brandished them as evidence for a climate change conspiracy. The words that Bolt and company objected to the most as evidence for such a conspiracy happen to be "trick ... to hide the decline." I shit you not.
It may seem odd considering how cold it's been in the US recently, and it won't shut down the denial industry for a second, but annual climate data is now in and word is NASA GISS will place 2009 as tied for the second hottest year since modern temperature records have existed. For the southern hemisphere, 2009 was the hottest year ever:
"The United States may be experiencing one of the coldest winters in decades, but things continue to heat up in the Southern Hemisphere. Science has obtained exclusive data from NASA that indicates that 2009 was the hottest year on record south of the Equator. The find adds to multiple lines of evidence showing that the 2000s were the warmest decade in the modern instrumental record."
The data is particularly worrisome because it happens at a time when the sun is in a deep solar minimum, or coolest point, in its eleven-year cycle (Solar output only changes by an average of less than one-tenth of one percent over the period, but that small change can still add up when it's distributed over the entire earth's surface for a year or more). The inference being as the sun inevitably swings back toward the maximum, all time record hot years in the near future are sure to follow. A few climate scientists are even predicting that 2010 will be such a year.
Regardless of how 2010 turns out, climate change skeptics are now presented with a problem: The graphs above show how 2009 fits in with the rest of the modern record. The hollow square in the blow up on the right represents 2009. Recall that skeptics widely celebrated the small downtick between 2007 and 2008 as evidence of dramatic global cooling. Consistency would then demand that the 2008 - 2009 uptick, which happens to be slightly greater than the former, represents dramatic warming. That would be a poor interpretation, one year does not a trend make. The point is moot anyway since consistency is not exactly valued by the denial industry. But deception is their bread and butter.
Possum Comitatus has a great write up of one such shenanigan recently used by some loudmouthed Australian skeptics which should really be enjoyed in its entirety:
"[A] a lot of this pseudo-statistical arsehattery that gets passed off as evidence in any climate change debate (or any debate that contains numbers and lots of politics, sadly) tends to come from the loudest voices involved in that debate.... which also generally happen to be the most ignorant."
The gist of it involves a quantity used in stats called a moving average. All you need to understand here is that a simple moving average (SMA) tends to smooth out fluctuations on a graph, the average lags the actual data, and the longer the period of the moving average the more the data is smoothed out and the greater the lag. They're particularly popular among technical stock and futures traders.
Now, let's say you're a climate change denier, and you've been waving around a chart showing a moving average touting it as evidence for global cooling. Odds are you've cooked the average to get the best picture you can already. But now, all the sudden, new data comes in and when you put it into your chart it reverses the trend you've been embellishing. What to do? Why, lengthen the moving average of course! Make it a longer period until it smooths out and lags the new data so much that the chart jives with your cooling trend bias! Possum Comitatus makes a persuasive argument that that's exactly the kind of cooked graph one mealy mouthed denier named Andrew Bolt is trying to exploit.
The irony: not only has Bolt made a habit of shooting his mouth off about his inerrant self-awarded expertise -- despite having no formal scientific training in any field of science whatsoever -- for the past month he and his pals took a few words from some stolen emails wildly out of context and brandished them as evidence for a climate change conspiracy. The words that Bolt and company objected to the most as evidence for such a conspiracy happen to be "trick ... to hide the decline." I shit you not.
Last edited:
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,233
a good clear presentation of the case, but right here is the flaw. the measurements have turned out to be inconsistant (different sites used) and the models used for the predictions may be incorrect (they make a great many assumptions and are prone to being made to fit the data). In no other field of science would these two points have gone unchallenged for so long, but now you are a "denier" if you ask if this is correct or not. even within the climate change lobby the impact of the warming varies greatly, yet none question the baseline? thts doesnt make any sence.
Sorry, was that aimed at me? I think I've made about half a dozen posts on about two threads in about ten years. Hardly 'banging on'. And I'm not a 'climate change denier' who thinks it's all a myth, but I stand by the fact that SOME of what we've been told has been said 'for effect' and is pure scaremongering.
However I DO prefer the phrase 'climate change' to 'global warming' which I think is far too simplistic.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!
The ignorance of NSC is abosolutely staggering. Global warming is not happening becuse we've had snow and cold?
The cold and snow is evidence that global warming IS happening. Global warming of the polar caps is melting the ice, leaking more freshatwer into the seas and diluting salt water. Salt water is naturally much warmer than freshwater which means the seas get much colder.... meaning that in certain climes global warming will actually result in Siberian countries and the UK is slap ban in the middle of this....its called the Gulf Stream effect
Read this...
If I hear another global warming joke, Ill . . . - Times Online
Sorry it's the Times but even Tory papers get it right sometimes
Absolute nonsence how can it being much colder be evidence of gloabl warming? What an absurd statement that is if you think about it. So every bit of unusual weather can now be attributed to the global warming effect, if it's hot it is due to global wamring, if it is cold it is due to global warming
It is just freak weather, as were the three very wet summers we have just had in a row.
The Gulf Stream doesn't effect North America which is having an incredibly cold winter, nor does it effect China too which is also and it also doesn't have much effect on central Europe, Poland/Germany etc. which is also too.
It is just freak weather which has been going on for thousands/millions of years at various times, as was the hot summer in 1976 or the very cold winter in 1963.
SULLY COULDNT SHOOT
Loyal2Family+Albion!
Absolute nonsence how can it being much colder be evidence of gloabl warming? What an absurd statement that is if you think about it. So every bit of unusual weather can now be attributed to the global warming effect, if it's hot it is due to global wamring, if it is cold it is due to global warming
It is just freak weather, as were the three very wet summers we have just had in a row.
The Gulf Stream doesn't effect North America which is having an incredibly cold winter, nor does it effect China too which is also and it also doesn't have much effect on central Europe, Poland/Germany etc. which is also too.
It is just freak weather which has been going on for thousands/millions of years at various times, as was the hot summer in 1976 or the very cold winter in 1963.
Evidence...?
Dont think Gulf Stream goes anywhere near America so that would rip away one plank of your argument. But then again I'm not arguing for gulf stream, I'm arguing against ill-informed opinions not backed up by anything....
SULLY COULDNT SHOOT
Loyal2Family+Albion!
Don't know... don't know enough... possibly... possibly not
Yes. 100% agree and that's probably the most sensible thing I've ever read on here with regard to 'global warming'. Not very sexy though is it? You can see why people prefer to paint pictures of apocalyptic doom.
What do you mean eveidence, all of the areas I have listed are having very harsh winters you just have to look it up on the net or even watch the news.
It is your argument that states that it is the diluting of the gulf stream caused by global warming that is causing ouy harsh winter. But my argument is that all of these areas (where this effect of the gulf stream is irrelevant) are also experiencing incredibly harsh winters too, supposedly in a period of "unprecendented global warming"
User removed 4
New member
perhaps we might have a more effective police force if they concentrated on the job instead of behaving like glorified social workers seeking to prove how right on and scornful of express/mail readers they are.Gay, trans-gender, Muslim asylum seekers, if you please
pork pie
New member
No, it is not a bad thing at all. It would just be better if there was some honesty from the politicians.
It must be true to a certain extent. Let's face it, they are so desperate to reduce this country's reliance on fossil fuels (which are also running out fast) that we are even going back into nuclear power.
User removed 4
New member
I work within the industry , you would be amazed at the amount of people who (like me) are in it simply for what they can get out of it.The difference is , i am upfront about it.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
No it wasn't, actually to Guy Fawkes who started this thread and I've seen similar comments from him in at least three other threads in the past month. Global warming deniers (it is global warming - see the graphs posted above) are seizing on snow and using it to drum up support against global warming and presumably unpopular tax rises.
Of course there is scaremongering. The Daily Express, amongst others, sees to that - and the irony of the first post in this thread is testament to that. There is also inevitably scaremongering from conservation and humanitarian organisations - I would suggest less so from climate change scientists themselves.
I am a conservation biologist specialising in the furry apes depicted in my avatar. I have been part of numerous conferences and workshops where we attempted to predict orangutan population trends over the short and long terms under a variety of scenarios. Inevitably our worse-case scenarios would be picked up and trumpeted in the media - Orangutans could be extinct in the wild by 2005! and of course its bollocks. We have less now than we did in 2000, and the situation is not fantastic - but extinction was never likely.
Sometimes it may be justified - and that is when nothing is happening and no-one is listening. In those cases, the person making the claim may well know that they are exaggerating, but feel they have nothing to lose. On many occasions, they were right to do so. One of the best examples is whales, which were widely reported to be facing extinction in the 1970's according to scientists of the time. Exaggerated claims that resulted in major changes to the way commercial whaling was carried out.