Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

LOL. Now even the co-authors of the latest IPCC missive handed-down-from-God as stone cold hard fact are refusing to put their names to it....

The IPCC is a joke with a political agenda

‘The message in the first draft was that through adaptation and clever development these were manageable risks, but it did require we get our act together.

‘This has completely disappeared from the draft now, which is all about the impacts of climate change and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. This is a missed opportunity.’

Just to settle the debate, I can now release a brand new set of graphs which indicate that the degree of global warming that is 97% likely to occur between now and 2050 is approximately 0.15^oC. Although the model has not yet been peer reviewed, the author, Guided Missile, has a degree in Chemistry and many years experience in environmental modelling.

I am sure we can all agree that the projected increase conforms well with the global data collected over the last 25 years and that the projected increase in temperature spells the end for the human race. Despite my confidence in the projections my research has shown, a grant of £100,000 a year would be needed to predict exact figures on the global death toll from the dangers that carbon emissions will cause.

The IPCC updates it's projected near term temperature change in the final draft of AR5:

Give them another year or two and they'll be bang on mine....

No wonder Phil Jones and gang tried to "hide the decline" The continued downward adjustments to this, and other projections, not only makes them look foolish, but will probably also reflect their future funding

[video=youtube_share;WMqc7PCJ-nc]

The year 2013 tied with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annually-averaged temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average and marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the annual temperature was above the long-term average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. To date, including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occured during the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013. The global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.16°C (0.28°F) per decade since 1970.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

Thankfully the hideously-poor-and-totally-without-influence Power lobby have internet warriors like GM and George to discredit one group of scientist's (constantly peer reviewed and updated) findings.

Thank goodness for that. We wouldn't want the struggling energy companies to lose out in this PR battle for hearts and minds. Those huge all powerful environmental cartels that run the world really get my goat, what with constantly publishing reviewable data and improving their projections n that....

...I wonder what kind of data would be available if we lived in a world where the most powerful organisations with the most political influence and financial clout were actually energy companies?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

The year 2013 tied with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annually-averaged temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average and marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the annual temperature was above the long-term average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. To date, including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occured during the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013. The global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.16°C (0.28°F) per decade since 1970.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

So what caused the warming up until 1970?

So what caused the warming up until 1970?

Seriously?

Okay...

...does this help?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/ks3/history/industrial_era/the_industrial_revolution/revision/3/

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

So what caused the warming up until 1970?

Industrialisation at a wild guess

Industrialisation at a wild guess

We've had a lot of wild guesses over the years. The most extensive long-term temperature measurements are from the UK but of course for a lot of this period we have been one of the most polluted countries. The clean-air act made an enormous improvement in air quality from the 1950s onwards.

Seriously?

 

Okay...

...does this help?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/ks3/history/industrial_era/the_industrial_revolution/revision/3/

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

That's just England. What about the global bit?

(I don't ask these question just to be awkward, rather to stimulate basic debate)

That's just England. What about the global bit?

 

(I don't ask these question just to be awkward, rather to stimulate basic debate)

No problem; although I hope most people realise that the industrial revolution, although starting in Telford, England, did actually spread out across the globe quite quickly!?

Sadly, England didn't keep their taming of live steam to themselves!

Any boy who has watched his westerns will know they had Railways in the new nation of the United States of America!

Both Europe and Japan began to industrialise shortly after Britain and in the years after 1870 (sometimes called the 'second' or 'second wave of' industrial revolution) most of what we have called the 'first world' or 'developed world' in the past was fully industrialised (i.e. new technologies in milling, mining, chemical production, paper and print, agriculture, transport, use of steel, etc etc combined with most power coming from Steam).

So, by 1880, you have your answer.

We still live in the Age of Steam, by the way, burning coal or radiating uranium or whatever - it is all about turning that turbine!

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

So the climate change are celebrating we told you so. We are doomed

(My interpretation of these headline reports)

I heard the local news in orkney this morning and a similar report has been issued within orkney. and Kitthawks/ artic terns etc have taken a sharpe decilne due to climatic change

and now the UN report

The impacts of global warming are likely to be "severe, pervasive and irreversible", a major report by the UN has warned.

Scientists and officials meeting in Japan say the document is the most comprehensive assessment to date of the impacts of climate change on the world.

Some impacts of climate change include a higher risk of flooding and changes to crop yields and water availability.

Humans may be able to adapt to some of these changes, but only within limits.

An example of an adaptation strategy would be the construction of sea walls and levees to protect against flooding. Another might be introducing more efficient irrigation for farmers in areas where water is scarce.

Have they included any evidence with their report this time?

Have they included any evidence with their report this time?

Na, they just make it all up for a laff.

Oh dear, oh dear......Looks like the usual suspects have been caught with their pants down again.

Any one want to point out the subtle difference between the original data (orange) and the erm...massaged data (blue) ?

From: Tom Wigley

To: Phil Jones Subject: 1940s

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 0600

Cc: Ben Santer

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

Just another way to erm "hide the decline:" eh?

Oh dear, oh dear......Looks like the usual suspects have been caught with their pants down again.

 

Any one want to point out the subtle difference between the original data (orange) and the erm...massaged data (blue) ?

 

 

From: Tom Wigley

To: Phil Jones Subject: 1940s

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 0600

Cc: Ben Santer

 

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

 

 

Just another way to erm "hide the decline:" eh?

I have no idea what this is for or about. Or what you are trying to imply or prove with this post. Seems a little odd given loads of new data was published today?

However; your post shows a chart with improved data from 2013,

over original data from 2011

(that basically looks like any other chart where more information has been gathered and better quality results are plotted).

The email is from 2009.

So, my question is simple; what was the point of your post?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

I have no idea what this is for or about. Or what you are trying to imply or prove with this post. Seems a little odd given loads of new data was published today?

 

However; your post shows a chart with improved data from 2013,

over original data from 2011

(that basically looks like any other chart where more information has been gathered and better quality results are plotted).

 

The email is from 2009.

 

So, my question is simple; what was the point of your post?

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Has the data changed in 2 years or has the interpretation? The important part is the comment 'It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip' which sounds suspiciously like massaging the figures to me.

Yawn. Jones and his IPCC cronies must be coming up to another round of funding...

Has the data changed in 2 years or has the interpretation? The important part is the comment 'It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip' which sounds suspiciously like massaging the figures to me.

The chart looks to me like any other where two years of refinement and further data gathering has improved the quality of results.

The quote is attributed to an email dated two years before the first set of results in the chart.

Which sounds suspiciously like cherry-picking bits of old and contrary data and pasting them together to discredit something or someone.

The chart looks to me like any other where two years of refinement and further data gathering has improved the quality of results.

 

The quote is attributed to an email dated two years before the first set of results in the chart.

 

Which sounds suspiciously like cherry-picking bits of old and contrary data and pasting them together to discredit something or someone.

Either way, the whole process discredits the conclusions and doesn't help the debate.

Yawn. Jones and his IPCC cronies must be coming up to another round of funding...

Yawn.

"The IPCC itself is a small organisation, run from Geneva with a full time staff of 12. All the scientists who are involved with it do so on a voluntary basis."

Either way, the whole process discredits the conclusions and doesn't help the debate.

That was St Georges point on posting that. To discredit.

Not to bring new information, or even an opinion, to the debate.

No. He was only muck raking; taking a (fairly innocuous in truth) graph and attaching THAT quote and email header (no context, not the entire email, not anything about the subsequent fallout) from, apparently, five years ago.

It worked; it's reinforced the idea that it is common practice for scientific researchers to alter figures to suit their desired conclusions!

Hey! If people wish to believe that's how science works then, sod it; some people are just not bright enough to understand some things and they will remain blissfully (or in most cases angrily, it seems) ignorant.

Hey! If people wish to believe that's how science works then, sod it; some people are just not bright enough to understand some things and they will remain blissfully (or in most cases angrily, it seems) ignorant.

Unfortunately it often is. Even JJ Thomson put a comment in his notebook to the effect 'good result, use this' when he was trying to find the mass/charge of an electron.

Its all part of the overall "information manipulation" scheme, fully endorsed by one of the alarmist bibles (peer reviewed of course)

"It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous."

When the raw data can't ague your case for you....manipulate it or make it up.

http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/24/ajae.aau001.abstract

Its all part of the overall "information manipulation" scheme, fully endorsed by one of the alarmist bibles (peer reviewed of course)

 

"It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous."

 

When the raw data can't ague your case for you....manipulate it or make it up.

 

http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/24/ajae.aau001.abstract

Interesting. Do you have a link to the full report at all? I can only find this abstract. Have you read the full report at all?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

That was St Georges point on posting that. To discredit.

 

Not to bring new information, or even an opinion, to the debate.

 

No. He was only muck raking; taking a (fairly innocuous in truth) graph and attaching THAT quote and email header (no context, not the entire email, not anything about the subsequent fallout) from, apparently, five years ago.

 

It worked; it's reinforced the idea that it is common practice for scientific researchers to alter figures to suit their desired conclusions!

 

Hey! If people wish to believe that's how science works then, sod it; some people are just not bright enough to understand some things and they will remain blissfully (or in most cases angrily, it seems) ignorant.

I would suggest highlighting the 'Mann style' Reykjavik hockey stick and how it came about, is probably new information to the good the people of this forum...I mean without knowing the history, one would believe the 'Reykjavik hockey stick' was indeed fact...But now we are all aware it is in fact fiction.

Not sure how you can say there is no context to the email...It clearly states they want to remove the warm period during the 40's that really did take place. and now it's been removed, the graph now plots a trend that supports their Tax payer cash laden theories.

Yet another case of forcing the science to fit the theory

Interesting. Do you have a link to the full report at all? I can only find this abstract. Have you read the full report at all?

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

No, I'm not a subscriber

Interesting. Do you have a link to the full report at all? I can only find this abstract. Have you read the full report at all?

St George is fooled by the long sentences. There is no reference to climate science or climate scientists in this. Nor is it about peer reviewed science as reported in climate journals.

What it's saying is that while exaggerations and simplifications in the media and the green lobby may induce countries to get together to make treaties, there's little predictive evidence that it actually results in treaties that make meaningful change - or even in countries making much of an effort.

So St George is either dissembling when he refers to 'peer reviewed' 'alarmist bibles' - they're clearly not the subject of this paper - or, more likely, articles like this are simply beyond his grasp.

Talking of hockey sticks:

http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/10/24/the-indefensible-hockey-stick/

The problem is that there is so much stuff out there on the Internet that you can find any point of view and any evidence that you choose to like.

Talking of hockey sticks:

 

http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/10/24/the-indefensible-hockey-stick/

 

The problem is that there is so much stuff out there on the Internet that you can find any point of view and any evidence that you choose to like.

Yeah, like the link on there showing how humans are not effecting the climate its due to solar activity - their graph conveniently doesn't go further than 1998 so it doesn't show the fact that the last decade was the warmest ever recorded whilst solar activity at very low levels.

Moving on from temperatures for the moment (global warming, whether caused by anthropogenic forcings or not, is after all only one small piece of the overall environmental puzzle), here are some other 'hockey stick' graphs that may be of interest to some of you...

The undeniable fact is that mankind is responsible for massive environmental change/damage, and to continue on our current path is simply unsustainable.

Welcome to the Anthropocene...

[video=youtube;fvgG-pxlobk]

Moving on from temperatures for the moment (global warming, whether caused by anthropogenic forcings or not, is after all only one small piece of the overall environmental puzzle), here are some other 'hockey stick' graphs that may be of interest to some of you...

 

 

The undeniable fact is that mankind is responsible for massive environmental change/damage, and to continue on our current path is simply unsustainable.

Seems like the only answer is to drastically reduce the global population to pre-1750 levels, when, for instance, the population of the UK was 11M. Mind you, the average lifespan in the UK was 30 in 1750. We really have screwed up the planet, haven't we?

Another hockey stick graph:

The good old days, back in the era of low CO₂ emissions:

1750 – Education

• Most children in England and Wales did not go to school, very few could read and write.
  
• Only the sons of the wealthy or the clergy went to school in England. Their sisters were taught at home.
  
• There were only two universities in England, four in Scotland and one in Ireland. Only men could go to university.
  
• In Scotland all parishes had schools and most children could read and write.
  

1750 – Medicine and Health

• The link between hygiene and the spread of infection and disease was not understood yet.
  
• Few people could afford to pay for a doctor.
  
• Only men were allowed to be doctors.
  
• Only simple operations were possible, because there were no anaesthetics. Most patients died from shock or infection. If you had a problem that was severe you were almost certain to die. Even having a tooth pulled out could be fatal.
  
• The average life expectancy for a man was 31 and for a woman was 33.
  
• 65% of babies died at birth.
  
• 20% of mothers died in childbirth.
  

1750 – Transport

• Most people walked, but horses, mules, donkeys, horse drawn carriages and wagons were all forms of transport in 1750. In towns there were hackney carriages and sedan chairs that you could hire.
  
• Roads were the best way of getting around, but they were incredibly rough and lumpy. This made travelling by road very uncomfortable and slow.
  
• The first traffic jams were seen in narrow city streets.
  
• In 1750 it would take you 12 days to get from London to Edinburgh in a horse-drawn carriage.
  

1750 - Towns and Cities

• 13% of the population were living in towns.
  
• Slum housing increased as people came to towns looking for work.
  
• It was very crowded with families sharing houses or living in one room.
  
• There was often only one toilet for a whole row of houses.
  
• Houses had no running water.
  
• The water supply was often contaminated with sewage.
  
• Rubbish was not collected, it was left rotting in the street along with tons of horse manure.
  
• The dead were not disposed of properly, with open pits for the poor.
  
• Nearly half of all British wheat harvests went directly into gin production. The ‘Gin Craze’ was blamed for crime, poverty and the soaring death rate.
  
• Some streets were lit with oil lights.
  

Unsuprisingly, people weren't too concerned with climate change back then, although the weather wasn't that great:

[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=width: 40]1750[/TD]

[TD=width: 549] A very thundery year, with severe thunderstorms & hail causing flooding on the 11th & 24th July in this year.[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 40] 1751-1760

(10 years)[/TD]

[TD=width: 549] In England, the summers of this period were the wettest in a record that began in 1697. These 10 wet summers in a row produced an overall anomaly of 127% of the modern-era mean.

1751 in particular is regarded as a notably wet year, at least in the London/SE region. It included a wet March, a wet first two-thirds of May and some severe thunderstorms & flooding in November.

The 1752 summer (London/SE) was noted as 'cool & damp'.

More wet summers for London/SE in 1755, 1756 & 1758.[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Another hockey stick graph:

 

I'd be interested to see a version if that graph, GM, with the source of CO2 omitted overlayed. I'm fairly certain that electricity generation and transport sources would sit much lower than that of food production for the ever expanding population.

Brilliant.

For several months GM has used the tired argument that the 'graphs don't work'; cherry picking images and outdated data, in a concerted attempt to discredit suggestions man has an influence on his environment.

Then today, out of nowhere, he fully accepts it and goes on to paint a picture of pre industrial Britain where things were very different. Not sure what his point is...

...Other than displaying that he. Guided Missile, finally accepts that human activity has a massive effect on the planet. Hurrah, well done GM.

Although the way he counties to link casual data together in a way that suggests it is causal is still quite sad.

Glad someone is watching the Georgians series on the BBC though.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

I'd be interested to see a version if that graph, GM, with the source of CO2 omitted overlayed. I'm fairly certain that electricity generation and transport sources would sit much lower than that of food production for the ever expanding population.

The source of this data is from this publication by the CATO Institute.

I would suggest highlighting the 'Mann style' Reykjavik hockey stick and how it came about, is probably new information to the good the people of this forum...I mean without knowing the history, one would believe the 'Reykjavik hockey stick' was indeed fact...But now we are all aware it is in fact fiction.

 

Not sure how you can say there is no context to the email...It clearly states they want to remove the warm period during the 40's that really did take place. and now it's been removed, the graph now plots a trend that supports their Tax payer cash laden theories.

 

Yet another case of forcing the science to fit the theory

Please explain the dates.

Explain the dates George, or can't you? Or do dates not interest you?

What I do want to do point out (to others) that you continually post falsehoods and misdirection in this thread.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Good to see the followers of Malthusianism are out in strength today. Not many changes in the noisy and easily led rabble, since Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus wrote "An Essay on the Principle of Population", in 1798 at the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution. One major change apparent on this thread, is that we are able to feed more village idiots nowadays and they live longer.

No, I'm not a subscriber

Yep. I guessed as much.

Look George. I have tried not to be rude. But mate...

...even the abstract you posted didn't support your claim. You clearly didn't understand it and, whilst that is fair enough, we can't all be bright enough to follow these things, don't use something you don't understand.

Like the 'Mann' style of doing things that you refers to with that cobbled together graph/email.

Do your research first! You CANNOT claim that an email from 2009 is asking someone to change data from 2011. Unless you are also suggesting time travel, that isn't possible.

My point is, as Whitey G also points out, there is so much information and misinformation out there you could cut n paste to support any opinion. You could have found some genuinely damning evidence from the CRU controversy of 2009. Loads of websites dedicated to it (and the fall out over the last five years). But instead you choose a graph and email that do not match and claim this disinformation is useful to members of this forum. It is not useful, merely emotive.

So, now I can be sure (from your confession you didn't read this paper) that you just cut n paste without comprehension; I can treat you and your work and attitude like any other Remedial Year 8 student. (Which is great, there is hope for you!)

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Good to see the followers of Malthusianism are out in strength today. Not many changes in the noisy and easily led rabble, since Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus wrote "An Essay on the Principle of Population", in 1798 at the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution. One major change apparent on this thread, is that we are able to feed more village idiots nowadays and they live longer.

Noisy and easily led rabble. You are a card GM.

I am intrigued though. This post continues to suggest you now wholeheartedly believe in mankind's ability to affect the environment he lives in?

Is this the case? Do you now accept - given the changes since the 18th century you yourself have highlighted - mankind can change his environment?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

 

Yet more proof. Yes, fellow humans, we really are causing our planet to warm.

 

Whatever right-wing nut-job deniers say. The science is conclusive.

 

Sorry dune...

 

You and your kind: 0.

Science: 1.

 

But I just bet y'all get in your cars and crank the engine tomorrow.

 

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

 

WE REALLY ARE KILLING OUR OWN HABITAT!

 

STOP IT!

The BBC are hardly unbiased so for me so the jury is still out; minor variations in the Sun could explain warming every bit as convincingly. However, my concern is that it does seem that reducing carbon emissions is a waste of time when China and India are going in the opposite directions. For every car driver in Europe and the US who decides to park the car and cycle there are 1000 people chucking their bicycle away and jumping in a car.

If the World really wants to STOP IT then perhaps it should look at population control. 3 billion when I was born 53 years ago and more than 7 billion now. South Asia is the main culprit and it is doing NOTHING to stem its population growth which will overtake China very soon. South Asia is also the source of the new middle classes who will be growing their carbon footprints like crazy over the next 20 years. 1.5 billion South Asians somewhat dwarfs little ole UK, Europe and USA combined.

Therefore save your energy for those guys as they are the ones that need waking up more than any of us.

Yep. I guessed as much.

 

Look George. I have tried not to be rude. But mate...

 

...even the abstract you posted didn't support your claim. You clearly didn't understand it and, whilst that is fair enough, we can't all be bright enough to follow these things, don't use something you don't understand.

 

Like the 'Mann' style of doing things that you refers to with that cobbled together graph/email.

 

Do your research first! You CANNOT claim that an email from 2009 is asking someone to change data from 2011. Unless you are also suggesting time travel, that isn't possible.

 

My point is, as Whitey G also points out, there is so much information and misinformation out there you could cut n paste to support any opinion. You could have found some genuinely damning evidence from the CRU controversy of 2009. Loads of websites dedicated to it (and the fall out over the last five years). But instead you choose a graph and email that do not match and claim this disinformation is useful to members of this forum. It is not useful, merely emotive.

 

So, now I can be sure (from your confession you didn't read this paper) that you just cut n paste without comprehension; I can treat you and your work and attitude like any other Remedial Year 8 student. (Which is great, there is hope for you!)

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Erm.....No. The 'Data' is from 1900 onwards.....The graph dated 2011 is just a snap shot reference point of how the data had been presented until that time....Surely some one as clever as you would realize that?

The graph from 2013 is how the data is currently presented after Wigley,Jones et al. have had their grubby little hands on it...As you can see from the email, the intention to iron out the earlier warm periods were around from 2009....The fact it took a few years for the Goddard Institute to re publish the graph is irrelevant. After all. there's a whole load of, shall we say 'inconvenient' Data stations out there that have needed a erm little work.

So are you actually claiming the graphs are purely fabricated? and Wigley, Jones et al have never been anywhere near the Reykjavik data? or simply that they had some kind of justification in ironing out the previous warm periods at Reykjavik and other locations?

Oh dear, oh dear......Looks like the usual suspects have been caught with their pants down again.

 

Any one want to point out the subtle difference between the original data (orange) and the erm...massaged data (blue) ?

 

 

From: Tom Wigley

To: Phil Jones Subject: 1940s

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 0600

Cc: Ben Santer

 

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

 

 

Just another way to erm "hide the decline:" eh?

I am not making any claims.. ...just asking you to back yours up.

Simply put; you used poor science to prove your point. By using a later graph (there are graphs available where the data is from 2007 compared to 2011) and only a snippet of the email, you are falling foul of the exact same errors (intentional or not) that you are chastising the members of the CRU for (Namely hiding raw data and cherry picking other bits).

It didn't take someone 'as clever as me' too long to find those graphs and the full email online. Millions of pages in fact. Oh, and looking through that information, one soon 'realizes' that most of the info out there exonerates those accused of having 'grubby little hands'.

(By the way, it is considered the norm to take the most recent date when referencing the 'date of data' not the start date, but hey if you wish to refer to the date of data in any instance as "the earliest date, onwards" then fine, just don't expect to be taken seriously or to be of use).

I asked if you could explain the descreprancy in the dates. Alas you can't and...

...Actually, I am bored of this. There is no point discussing this with conspiracy theorists and paranoia buffs.

FFS, this not my area of interest or expertise - I came to this thread to learn a little bit more myself.

Certainly not to listen to the same old crap being retrod by the same people week in week out.

Look; if you are happy to keep banging on about one event five years ago to support your crippled theory, then fine:

You are in a tiny and shrinking minority and really (really!) can and will be easily ignored.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

minor variations in the Sun could explain warming every bit as convincingly.

No, they can't...

it does seem that reducing carbon emissions is a waste of time when China and India are going in the opposite directions.

No, they aren't...

http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2012/01/18/china-sets-new-greenhouse-gas-emission-reduction-goals.html

http://ipcs.org/article/india-the-world/carbon-footprint-reduction-3027.html

I do have to agree with your point about population control though. There is hardly a single environmental issue affecting mankind today that could not be solved simply by having fewer people on the planet.

Seriously? Are there still people that dispute climate change? I thought those people were a myth; creatures from tales told to scare the rational people with brains in this world.

Whilst we're at it - the moon landing never happened! If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys? Obama is a lizard man from outer space! Et cetera.

No, they can't...

 

 

 

 

No, they aren't...

 

http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2012/01/18/china-sets-new-greenhouse-gas-emission-reduction-goals.html

 

http://ipcs.org/article/india-the-world/carbon-footprint-reduction-3027.html

 

I do have to agree with your point about population control though. There is hardly a single environmental issue affecting mankind today that could not be solved simply by having fewer people on the planet.

That's the wrong 'solar activity' that you've shown, it's a common misapprehension. Total solar irradiance is not important, it's high-energy solar output that matters.

No, they can't...

 

 

 

 

No, they aren't...

 

http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2012/01/18/china-sets-new-greenhouse-gas-emission-reduction-goals.html

 

http://ipcs.org/article/india-the-world/carbon-footprint-reduction-3027.html

 

I do have to agree with your point about population control though. There is hardly a single environmental issue affecting mankind today that could not be solved simply by having fewer people on the planet.

Sorry Bexy - I wish you were right (I really do) but China and India are still going in the opposite direction. Your links only show they both have plans to do something about it but their growing middle classes (hundreds of millions) will want what we have in the West and that will drive carbon footprint per head. Their efforts will amount to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic

I would guess that China may make some head way but India has no chance. What is worse is India's population is totally out of control (£1.5billion in 15 years time) and that does not count the millions who emigrate and repeat the cycle abroad

I am totally sold on reducing pollution but still maintain that we are deluding ourselves somewhat about the size of our impact on temperature and that the Sun's variations will always have significantly more impact than we ever will.

My view is action is needed whatever but the global warming lobby are well meaning but have their eye of the ball because population control is too much of a hot potato. They remind me a little of the AIDS lobby back in the 80's. For political reasons (to deflect from high risk groups) they decided to reduce the threat to those high risk groups and the general populous by terrifying absolutely everyone by saying we were all equally at significant risk which was and still is an outright lie.

My view is that a 100 year population reduction plan is the way to go and we should all be focusing on this as the primary objective. As a by product, it achieves a reduction in global warming, reduces risk of war over resources and gives the other creatures on this planet a chance.