Guided Missile Posted 16 May, 2014 Share Posted 16 May, 2014 Read all about it in today's Times: Ben Webster Environment Editor Last updated at 12:01AM, May 16 2014 Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night. In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”. Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dis- senting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published. “The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,” he added. Professor Bengtsson’s paper challenged the finding of the UN’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double. It suggested that the climate might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out “to reduce the underlying uncertainty”. The five contributing scientists, from America and Sweden, submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters, one of the most highly regarded journals, at the end of last year but were told in February that it had been rejected. He added that it was “utterly unacceptable” to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate sceptics to advance their arguments. “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models. Therefore, if people are proposing to do major changes to the world’s economic system we must have much more solid information.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 16 May, 2014 Share Posted 16 May, 2014 Read all about it in today's Times: Its another semi retired out of touch 79 year old GM. His paper was rejected after peer review by a publication of the trendy lefty Institute of Physics. I know you think they're ad hominem attacks, but the reality is the only sceptics you come up with are past it or or have no relevant qualifications or meaningful experience in the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 16 May, 2014 Share Posted 16 May, 2014 I'll write to the Times immediately to complain. This is the "past it or or have no relevant qualifications or meaningful experience in the field" guy, right? PROFESSOR LENNART BENGTSSON JOINS GWPF ACADEMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL Date: 30/04/14 Global Warming Policy Foundation London, 1 May: The Global Warming Policy Foundation is pleased to announce that Professor Lennart Bengtsson, one of Sweden’s leading climate scientists, has joined the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council. Professor Lennart Bengtsson has a long and distinguished international career in meteorology and climate research. He participated actively in the development of ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting) where he was Head of Research 1975-1981 and Director 1982-1990. In 1991-2000 he was Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. Since 2000 he has been professor at the University of Reading and from 2008 the Director of the International Space Science Institute in Bern, Switzerland. Professor Bengtsson has received many awards including the German Environmental Reward, The Descartes Price by the EU and the IMI price from the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). He is member of many academies and societies and is honorary member of the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society and European Geophysical Union. His research work covers some 225 publications in the field of meteorology and climatology. In recent years he has been involved with climate and energy policy issues at the Swedish Academy of Sciences. The GWPF Academic Advisory Council is composed of scientists, economists and other experts who provide the GWPF with timely scientific, economic and policy advice. It reviews and evaluates new GWPF reports and papers, explores future research projects and makes recommendations on issues related to climate research and policy. The other members of the GWPF Academic Advisory Council are: Professor David Henderson (Chairman) Adrian Berry Sir Samuel Brittan Sir Ian Byatt Professor Robert Carter Professor Vincent Courtillot Professor Freeman Dyson Christian Gerondeau Dr Indur Goklany Professor William Happer Professor Terence Kealey Professor Anthony Kelly Professor Deepak Lal Professor Richard Lindzen Professor Ross McKitrick Professor Robert Mendelsohn Professor Sir Alan Peacock Professor Ian Plimer Professor Paul Reiter Dr Matt Ridley Sir Alan Rudge Professor Nir Shaviv Professor Philip Stott Professor Henrik Svensmark Professor Richard Tol Dr David Whitehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hokie Posted 16 May, 2014 Share Posted 16 May, 2014 Read all about it in today's Times: For anyone interested, here's the link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10835291/Scientists-accused-of-suppressing-research-because-of-climate-sceptic-argument.html Some quotes you missed, GM that provide a bit of nuance, to say the least. Bear in mind also, that this is from the Telegraph, not the Guardian, so its a bit of an "away fixture" for me: Professor Bengtsson said he accepted emissions would increase the global temperature but questioned the rate at which this would take place and suggested more work needed to be done to determine this. IOP Publishing, which publishes Environmental Research Letters, said the paper was rejected for publication because two independent reviewers found errors and that the work did not represent a “significant advancement in the field.” (Dr Nicola Gulley, editorial director) added: “As the referee's report states, ‘The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low.’ This means that the study did not meet ERL’s requirement for papers to significantly advance knowledge of the field. “Far from denying the validity of Bengtsson’s questions, the referees encouraged the authors to provide more innovative ways of undertaking the research to create a useful advance. “As the report reads, ‘A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate. “Far from hounding ‘dissenting’ views from the field, Environmental Research Letters positively encourages genuine scientific innovation that can shed light on complicated climate science.” I think I agree with GM and the Telegraph that political advocacy has no place in scientific review. However Bengtsson's quotes use words like he "believes" and "suspects" such boas occurred, and don't actually provide quotes from the peer review. Then again, B's had a tough few weeks. (Google the news if you will, that may be worthy of intelligent discussion here, or just general ****-taking.) The editor's rebuttal on the other hand does quote the reviewers. Any editor worth her salt would not allow political bias in a review to stand. Still, its a more exciting headline than scientist has low-impact paper rejected from top journal. It happens, and at least in my case, is never a problem with my research, rather its always due to the bias of the reviewers. Still, I don't call the newspapers to have a moan. (No, I just moan to anyone within earshot in the lab, at a conference, or down the pub, etc.) I further agree with the statement from the blog GM quoted that this is every bit as important as the East Anglia "climategate" scandal. Every...bit...as...important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 16 May, 2014 Share Posted 16 May, 2014 Here's a peer reviewed paper by Dr James Screen that managed to get through the strict peer reviewing on that joke of a "scientific" publication "Environmental Research Letters The six summers from 2007 to 2012 were all wetter than average over northern Europe. Although none of these individual events are unprecedented in historical records, the sequence of six consecutive wet summers is extraordinary. Composite analysis reveals that observed wet summer months in northern Europe tend to occur when the jet stream is displaced to the south of its climatological position, whereas dry summer months tend to occur when the jet stream is located further north. Highly similar mechanisms are shown to drive simulated precipitation anomalies in an atmospheric model. The model is used to explore the influence of Arctic sea ice on European summer climate, by prescribing different sea ice conditions, but holding other forcings constant. In the simulations, Arctic sea ice loss induces a southward shift of the summer jet stream over Europe and increased northern European precipitation. The simulated precipitation response is relatively small compared to year-to-year variability, but is statistically significant and closely resembles the spatial pattern of precipitation anomalies in recent summers. The results suggest a causal link between observed sea ice anomalies, large-scale atmospheric circulation and increased summer rainfall over northern Europe. Thus, diminished Arctic sea ice may have been a contributing driver of recent wet summers. He's the type of spotty youth they obviously like to publish, after he's spent some time playing modelling games on his laptop. Dr James Screen Dr Screen is a NERC (Natural Environment Research Council) Research Fellow and proleptic Lecturer in Mathematics, in the College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences. He currently leads a three-year project entitled “Arctic Climate Change and its Mid-latitude Impacts”, in collaboration with the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre and the US National Center for Atmospheric Research. The aim of this project is to improve our understanding of how the dramatic retreat of Arctic sea ice will impact weather and climate in the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes, and of the physical processes that govern these interactions. Dr Screen was awarded the IAMAS (International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences) Early Career Scientist Medal in 2013. "Dramatic retreat of Arctic Ice" Mate, go and get a proper job.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 16 May, 2014 Share Posted 16 May, 2014 "The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low." Never stopped them accepting papers in the past as the above pile of cr@p shows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 16 May, 2014 Share Posted 16 May, 2014 I'll write to the Times immediately to complain. This is the "past it or or have no relevant qualifications or meaningful experience in the field" guy, right? Yep he is. 79 and retired. Hes a voluntary research fellow at Reading. Thats a Press Release from Lawsons climate sceptic group who he joined then three weeks later resigned from after ridicule. He isnt director at the ISSI http://www.issibern.ch/aboutissi/staff.html and has been retired from Max Planck since 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 16 May, 2014 Share Posted 16 May, 2014 So, help me understand this. Your comment seems to indicate you believe the evidence leads to a reasonable conclusion that the earth is warming, and action is needed and you are just dickering over the best course of action, i.e. build walls? I have a lot more respect, scientifically, for the later. Of course the Earth's climate is fluctuating......It always has and always will and there's not a damned thing you or anyone else can do about it....If you took every single human being off this planet tomorrow, sea levels will still rise and fall....Just think about those poor saps that used to live where the English Channel is now.....They lived in mud huts with near zero carbon footprint and that didn't help them. A little devil in me wants to ask how you know there were no ice glaciers in Greenland 35 m years ago? Is your previously expressed skepticism in climate science selective? The Data comes from Geologist's....a real science, based on solid scientific principles, unlike the quazy circus that is the climate gravy train. As for me, I don't deny climate has changed over the history of the earth. Heck, dinosaurs once roamed Antarctica, and more recently, (drinkable) wine was made in Britain. However, I defer to the scientific consensus that indicates that the recent rapid warming a) is occurring, b) is being caused largely by human activity, c) will cause great and negative impact on economic and human endeavours, d) will accelerate with population and economic growth. You should probably go and take another look at the models that all the hysteria has been based on again.....They're wrong, all them...not one has been even remotely close....In proper science, a theory needs to be proved before it becomes a law. I also believe, that collective action is possible to mitigate the effects and that actions we take now will give greater benefit at a lower cost than actions we take 20-30 years from now. It's called ****ing in the wind......and 20-30 years is non existent in the grand scheme of things, a total irrelevance....The sun will fart at some time in the future and this planet will become a lifeless rock....THE END! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 16 May, 2014 Share Posted 16 May, 2014 I'll write to the Times immediately to complain. This is the "past it or or have no relevant qualifications or meaningful experience in the field" guy, right? I wonder how vocal those advisory council members are, because a lot of them a dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hokie Posted 16 May, 2014 Share Posted 16 May, 2014 The Data comes from Geologist's....a real science, based on solid scientific principles, unlike the quazy circus that is the climate gravy train. So, Geologist's (sic) are real scientists? What do you think of the Geological Society of America's position statement on climate change? http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm What do you think of their recommendations? You should probably go and take another look at the models that all the hysteria has been based on again.....They're wrong, all them...not one has been even remotely close.... Do you have citations for any of these things? I mean, besides a blog. I'd say from my understanding is that the "hysteria", as you call it, is based on observations of data (air and water temperatures, glacier melt, decrease in arctic sea ice) and qualitative scientific facts (CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and mankind is producing it in known quantities). The models describe the causal mechanism by which the correlated observations are interpreted, as well as attempting to extrapolate the science into predictions. What you may find surprising is that I agree the models are imperfect, and need further development. However to reject all findings of the models out of hand because of specific anomalies seems quite naive. Further to delay action until the models are "perfect", which will never happen, (every theory has anomalies) is economically more expensive. Out of curiosity, you work in the petroleum industry down there in New Orleans, George? Do you get your information from those that do? Just asking, since you make the claim that climate scientists are on the "gravy train." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 16 May, 2014 Share Posted 16 May, 2014 I would take the sceptics view seriously if they actually came up with some credible scientific explanation for the current changes in climate instead of just trying to discredit scientists or moan about paying tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 16 May, 2014 Share Posted 16 May, 2014 I would take the sceptics view seriously if they actually came up with some credible scientific explanation for the current changes in climate instead of just trying to discredit scientists or moan about paying tax. What changes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoPints Posted 16 May, 2014 Share Posted 16 May, 2014 Warm today wasn't it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 16 May, 2014 Share Posted 16 May, 2014 Warm today wasn't it! Bit chilly down by the water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 17 May, 2014 Share Posted 17 May, 2014 So, Geologist's (sic) are real scientists? What do you think of the Geological Society of America's position statement on climate change? http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm What do you think of their recommendations? I think they should stick to what they know...Geology........Still, can't say i blame some of them for jumping on the gravy train. The slush funds available totally dwarfs anything they could get their hands on elsewhere. Do you have citations for any of these things? I mean, besides a blog. I'd say from my understanding is that the "hysteria", as you call it, is based on observations of data (air and water temperatures, glacier melt, decrease in arctic sea ice) and qualitative scientific facts (CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and mankind is producing it in known quantities). The models describe the causal mechanism by which the correlated observations are interpreted, as well as attempting to extrapolate the science into predictions. What you may find surprising is that I agree the models are imperfect, and need further development. However to reject all findings of the models out of hand because of specific anomalies seems quite naive. Further to delay action until the models are "perfect", which will never happen, (every theory has anomalies) is economically more expensive. So we agree the models are wrong...That's the first time in 7-8 years on here that anyone supporting the AGW theory has accepted that....I'm usually met with howls of ignorant derision when that point has been raised in the past, yup, almost hysterical at times....'The models couldn't possibly be wrong the Guardian said so!' The problem is, the models only even get close to right field because of a lot of historical anomalies are being ironed out and adjusted to force the data to fit the theory....Once you start putting back the manipulated data like 1940's Reykjavík warm period and many others and then add in the missing external influences, the models don't even hit the right planet. Not one Model predicted the 15 year "pause in warming" we're currently in, not one.....If they cant get the very basic near term projections right how can they be trusted for 100+ year projections?......Because Hanson, Wigley, Mann and Jones say so? The AGW theory may have appeared sound on the surface, but it's not even close to being proved and the more the climate does what it historically does the more off the wall the AGW theory becomes, at least RE the catastrophic predictions we've been hearing over the last decade or two. Out of curiosity, you work in the petroleum industry down there in New Orleans, George? Do you get your information from those that do? Just asking, since you make the claim that climate scientists are on the "gravy train." Na...But it's true the Oil and Gas industry is a huge part of the overall regional economy, more so Homa and Cajun country than New Orleans it's self. But we'd all feel it down here if production was to cease permanently.....Obama's six-month Rig moratorium was devastating for the region....But Oil and Gas production wont be going anywhere soon.....The resources will dry up before anything is affected from politics....The US simply needs it's Oil. Ironically Louisiana being a 'Solar energy State' has a bigger direct economical effect for me....There is so much public money sloshing about for Green energy it'll make your eyes water.....I'm no different to those Geologist's....Following the dollar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 17 May, 2014 Share Posted 17 May, 2014 (edited) The AGW theory may have appeared sound on the surface, but it's not even close to being proved Just out of interest, what would you consider proof? We could have the hottest year ever on record, record high concentrations of CO2, more extreme weather - you will still just ignore the scientific consensus and say it's natural variations. How can it ever be conclusively proved in your eyes - what has to happen? Edited 17 May, 2014 by aintforever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hokie Posted 19 May, 2014 Share Posted 19 May, 2014 I think they should stick to what they know...Geology........Still, can't say i blame some of them for jumping on the gravy train. The slush funds available totally dwarfs anything they could get their hands on elsewhere. That's not my observation. The few geologists I've known do far better financially in the petroleum industry than academia. They do a great job reminding me of that fact when we meet, thank you very much! For what its worth, you likely see barriers between geology and climate science that are not in fact true. My reading of affiliations suggests climate science is quite multidisciplinary and thier methods can be generally evaluated by many fields. (This is similar to Creation Science arguments that evolutionary biology is corrupt, when they fail to realize they are in a fight with biology, geology, physics, history.) So we agree the models are wrong...That's the first time in 7-8 years on here that anyone supporting the AGW theory has accepted that....I'm usually met with howls of ignorant derision when that point has been raised in the past, yup, almost hysterical at times....'The models couldn't possibly be wrong the Guardian said so!' The problem is, the models only even get close to right field because of a lot of historical anomalies are being ironed out and adjusted to force the data to fit the theory....Once you start putting back the manipulated data like 1940's Reykjavík warm period and many others and then add in the missing external influences, the models don't even hit the right planet. Not one Model predicted the 15 year "pause in warming" we're currently in, not one.....If they cant get the very basic near term projections right how can they be trusted for 100+ year projections?......Because Hanson, Wigley, Mann and Jones say so? You misread me. I said the models are "imperfect" and are "improvable". Describing a model is "wrong" is quite simplistic. (Are my calipers "wrong" because they have an error stamped on the case?) To the best of my reading, the models are within their stated confidences. I have seen critics remove the confidence intervals, and then criticise the models for the mean prediction not matching the observation, but I would strongly suggest that is a deliberate misrepresentation, and indicates an intent to deceive. I would be happy to read more about the errors due to Reykyavik, or assessments of the models, but I will warn you. I place little credence on blog posts, or news stories from Murdock-owned papers. In the interest of fairness, I wouldn't expect you to believe anything from the Guardian, the Independent, or Mother Jones. What I have read from refereed journal publications and (what I consider) credible neutral sources like New Scientist, Scientific American, and Science News suggests these models are quite accurate, and getting better. I believe the 15 year pause in warming is now 17 years. Why? You need to include 1998--a very hot year with a strong El Nino, in the window or else it doesn't make the case for the pause. Even if there is a pause, which I concede there may be, the temperature anomaly is positive indicating the warming continues. To argue against warming, it seems to me, you'd need a decrease in temperature, not a holding fast of elevated temperature. The best the skeptics can do is argue for "hotter than normal, but not getting still hotter" using a select data range. Na...But it's true the Oil and Gas industry is a huge part of the overall regional economy, more so Homa and Cajun country than New Orleans it's self. But we'd all feel it down here if production was to cease permanently.....Obama's six-month Rig moratorium was devastating for the region....But Oil and Gas production wont be going anywhere soon.....The resources will dry up before anything is affected from politics....The US simply needs it's Oil. Ironically Louisiana being a 'Solar energy State' has a bigger direct economical effect for me....There is so much public money sloshing about for Green energy it'll make your eyes water.....I'm no different to those Geologist's....Following the dollar Thanks for the update. I wouldn't think any intelligent person would call for the petroleum industry to cease permanently, and certainly not in the short or medium term. I can't see resources as drying up as much as getting more costly to get what's remaining, that it's not worth producing. I do think we need more credible alternatives, and as of today the alternatives are not often feasible. Whether on climate modeling or alternative energy, I am a big advocate of heavy research funding, but then again that may be me following the dollar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaroid Saint Posted 3 June, 2014 Share Posted 3 June, 2014 http://m.policymic.com/articles/90321/obama-just-did-what-no-other-president-before-him-has-done?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social Just to keep the thread up to date. I have no comment, Hookie has said all that needs to said. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 21 August, 2014 Share Posted 21 August, 2014 The b0££0x continues... Scientists have struggled to explain the so-called pause that began in 1999, despite ever increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.The latest theory says that a naturally occurring 30-year cycle in the Atlantic Ocean is behind the slowdown. The researchers says this slow-moving current could continue to divert heat into the deep seas for another decade. However, they caution that global temperatures are likely to increase rapidly when the cycle flips to a warmer phase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 17 January, 2015 Share Posted 17 January, 2015 The b0££0x continues... It certainly does. Where exactly is the pause on this graph? 2014 warmest year on record http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30852588 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 18 January, 2015 Share Posted 18 January, 2015 It certainly does. Where exactly is the pause on this graph? 2014 warmest year on record http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30852588 That put me in my place, didn't it? In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all. Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much. As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. Its report said: ‘Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty. Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year… the Earth’s average temperature for the past decade has changed very little.’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 18 January, 2015 Share Posted 18 January, 2015 14 of the 15 warrmest years on record have been in the 21st century. What does that sequence do to the probability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 18 January, 2015 Share Posted 18 January, 2015 14 of the 15 warrmest years on record have been in the 21st century. What does that sequence do to the probability? That sequence increases the probability that you, and countless other tax payers, will continue to blindly swallow all the bu££$!t the so-called environmental scientists publish, in order to spend your money on their pointless research. Sucker.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 18 January, 2015 Share Posted 18 January, 2015 That sequence increases the probability that you, and countless other tax payers, will continue to blindly swallow all the bu££$!t the so-called environmental scientists publish, in order to spend your money on their pointless research. Sucker.... So you know the probability of it being co-incidental are astronomically long and you've decided to dissemble randomly. Just so we're clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 18 January, 2015 Share Posted 18 January, 2015 14 of the 15 warrmest years on record have been in the 21st century. What does that sequence do to the probability? There's a comment on another thread about heads coming up ten times in a row and the probability of the next toss. Probability doesn't really come into it. Last year was as warm as a previous one, more or less. And what about the years that aren't on record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 18 January, 2015 Share Posted 18 January, 2015 So you know the probability of it being co-incidental are astronomically long and you've decided to dissemble randomly. Just so we're clear. What's clear about that post? Dissemble randomly??? When you start writing English, I may be able to post a witty rejoinder, but the rabbit droppings that you regularly post make that impossible. Face it, you're embarrassing yourself now.... Where exactly is the pause on this graph? The Earth’s average temperature for the past decade has changed very little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 18 January, 2015 Share Posted 18 January, 2015 There's a comment on another thread about heads coming up ten times in a row and the probability of the next toss. Probability doesn't really come into it. Last year was as warm as a previous one, more or less. And what about the years that aren't on record? You're right, probability doesn't come into it. But wether a coin lands heads or tails depends on how it is tossed, similarly there are reasons why 14 of the 15 warmest years have happened recently - I wonder what they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 18 January, 2015 Share Posted 18 January, 2015 You're right, probability doesn't come into it. But wether a coin lands heads or tails depends on how it is tossed, similarly there are reasons why 14 of the 15 warmest years have happened recently - I wonder what they are? Aye, there's the rub. These are only the warmest years in modern records. The world has been a lot warmer before, and a lot colder, come to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 19 January, 2015 Share Posted 19 January, 2015 Aye, there's the rub. These are only the warmest years in modern records. The world has been a lot warmer before, and a lot colder, come to that. Of course, and there would be a reason for the changes which would be observable and measurable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 19 January, 2015 Share Posted 19 January, 2015 (edited) Aye, there's the rub. These are only the warmest years in modern records. The world has been a lot warmer before, and a lot colder, come to that. 'kin 'ell do we need to go through this again? Yes its been warmer in the past - when CO2 concentrations were higher. You then say 'ah yes but what came first the higher temperatures or the higher CO2?'. I point you in the direction of the massive body of evidence showing the higher atmospheric carbon creates higher temperatures then you or GM come back citing some 84 year old retired chemist with no background in climate science who disagrees with 98% of his colleagues. No thanks. Edited 19 January, 2015 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 19 January, 2015 Share Posted 19 January, 2015 There was a time when it was CERTAINLY the earth was flat. No one could credibly suggest otherwise Who knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 19 January, 2015 Share Posted 19 January, 2015 There was a time when it was CERTAINLY the earth was flat. No one could credibly suggest otherwise Who knows and when sea monsters gobbled up ships. You see any of those during your RN days? Science has taken over from blind belief, at least in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 19 January, 2015 Share Posted 19 January, 2015 'kin 'ell do we need to go through this again? Yes its been warmer in the past - when CO2 concentrations were higher. You then say 'ah yes but what came first the higher temperatures or the higher CO2?'. I point you in the direction of the massive body of evidence showing the higher atmospheric carbon creates higher temperatures then you or GM come back citing some 84 year old retired chemist with no background in climate science who disagrees with 98% of his colleagues. No thanks. It appears we do. and when sea monsters gobbled up ships. You see any of those during your RN days? Science has taken over from blind belief, at least in most cases. It has happened: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Loss-Essex-Whale-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140437967 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 19 January, 2015 Share Posted 19 January, 2015 and when sea monsters gobbled up ships. You see any of those during your RN days? Science has taken over from blind belief, at least in most cases. I bet in 300 years time, they will look back and laugh at much of the science we swear by today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 19 January, 2015 Share Posted 19 January, 2015 They'll be too tired from swimming, IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 19 January, 2015 Share Posted 19 January, 2015 I bet in 300 years time, they will look back and laugh at much of the science we swear by today Well 27 years ago Margret Thatcher said increased CO2 emissions would lead to an increase in temperature, must have just been a lucky guess I suppose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 19 January, 2015 Share Posted 19 January, 2015 No one in the media has summed up how I feel about the climate debate better than Matt Ridley in the Times this morning, here. What sealed my apostasy from climate alarm was the extraordinary history of the famous “hockey stick” graph, which purported to show that today’s temperatures were higher and changing faster than at any time in the past thousand years. That graph genuinely shocked me when I first saw it and, briefly in the early 2000s, it persuaded me to abandon my growing doubts about dangerous climate change and return to the “alarmed” camp.Then I began to read the work of two Canadian researchers, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They and others have shown, as confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, that the hockey stick graph, and others like it, are heavily reliant on dubious sets of tree rings and use inappropriate statistical filters that exaggerate any 20th-century upturns. What shocked me more was the scientific establishment’s reaction to this: it tried to pretend that nothing was wrong. And then a flood of emails was leaked in 2009 showing some climate scientists apparently scheming to withhold data, prevent papers being published, get journal editors sacked and evade freedom-of-information requests, much as sceptics had been alleging. That was when I began to re-examine everything I had been told about climate change and, the more I looked, the flakier the prediction of rapid warming seemed. I am especially unimpressed by the claim that a prediction of rapid and dangerous warming is “settled science”, as firm as evolution or gravity. How could it be? It is a prediction! No prediction, let alone in a multi-causal, chaotic and poorly understood system like the global climate, should ever be treated as gospel. With the exception of eclipses, there is virtually nothing scientists can say with certainty about the future. It is absurd to argue that one cannot disagree with a forecast. Is the Bank of England’s inflation forecast infallible? Incidentally, my current view is still consistent with the “consensus” among scientists, as represented by the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The consensus is that climate change is happening, not that it is going to be dangerous. The latest IPCC report gives a range of estimates of future warming, from harmless to terrifying. My best guess would be about one degree of warming during this century, which is well within the IPCC’s range of possible outcomes. I'm more worried about a comet strike than climate change. You should be too, unless you rely on research funding on proving there is something to worry about. If so, get a proper job, FFS.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 19 January, 2015 Share Posted 19 January, 2015 No one in the media has summed up how I feel about the climate debate better than Matt Ridley in the Times this morning, here. I'm more worried about a comet strike than climate change. You should be too, unless you rely on research funding on proving there is something to worry about. If so, get a proper job, FFS.... I'm with you on this one. Of course the climate is changing, it always has and it always will. The big question is whether we can influence or accept these changes for the benefit of the future of mankind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 20 January, 2015 Share Posted 20 January, 2015 Flightradar24 @flightradar24 1700 private jets expected to Davos in Switzerland to discuss climate change at World Economic Forum pic.twitter.com/RUbMDYYksT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 January, 2015 Share Posted 20 January, 2015 1700 private jets expected to Davos in Switzerland to discuss climate change at World Economic Forum [/color] Sadly true - public policy, climate change, global co-ordination, meaningful action and hypocrisy. Some of those know each other well, some total strangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 23 February, 2015 Share Posted 23 February, 2015 Climate change deniers in dodgy results shocker: http://the-daily.buzz/scientist-exposed/?ts_pid=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 It's to get a carbon tax........out of you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 I'm with you on this one. Of course the climate is changing, it always has and it always will. The big question is whether we can influence or accept these changes for the benefit of the future of mankind. If you really think that mankind can change the climate fly to the sun............and climate is cyclical could be back to another ice age in 5000 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 24 February, 2015 Share Posted 24 February, 2015 If you really think that mankind can change the climate fly to the sun............and climate is cyclical could be back to another ice age in 5000 years I've made my views clear. I don't believe that human outputs are significant, and I do understand all the arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 March, 2015 Share Posted 6 March, 2015 Climate change causes terrorism.... [video=youtube;Zrr5BvrAo-Y] I wish he'd get a move on and organise this bloomin' revolution of his Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 25 April, 2015 Share Posted 25 April, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3052926/Our-climate-models-WRONG-Global-warming-slowed-recent-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tedmaul Posted 25 April, 2015 Share Posted 25 April, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3052926/Our-climate-models-WRONG-Global-warming-slowed-recent-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html The Mail Online website. That well respected publisher of scientific evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias Hope this helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 25 April, 2015 Share Posted 25 April, 2015 The Mail Online website. That well respected publisher of scientific evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias Hope this helps Cheers. I'll be sure to quote that bastion of truth Wikipedia in future.... Hope this doesn't help in the slightest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tedmaul Posted 25 April, 2015 Share Posted 25 April, 2015 As opposed to the bastion of scientific truth that is the Mail Online. Really? Try widening your internet search parameters from the Daily Mail, if you're interested in scientific matters. There's a load of good stuff. And even better, most sites don't have a sidebar featuring Kim Kardashian and Jennifer Aniston's latest diet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 25 April, 2015 Share Posted 25 April, 2015 As opposed to the bastion of scientific truth that is the Mail Online. Really? Try widening your internet search parameters from the Daily Mail, if you're interested in scientific matters. There's a load of good stuff. And even better, most sites don't have a sidebar featuring Kim Kardashian and Jennifer Aniston's latest diet. That rules me out then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now