Jack - go and nitpick elsewhere.jackspratt wrote:Nope - sorry, that doesn't wash.ronan01 wrote:Misread the amount as pound stirling and did a bad coversion.
None of the figures I quoted, even misread as Sterling, would convert to anywhere near $500k.
You have been caught out yet again Onan - unless you can provide the source of your "misread" amount.
ClimateGate busts things wide open
ClimateGate busts things wide open
ClimateGate busts things wide open
1. You do not seem to be happy with anything than even remotely resembles industrialised society. Lets leave it all in the ground and go back to banging rocks together: You do seem to have a problem with pipelines, it seems they do no good and are too risky to develop or use. The are pipelines all over the world doing their job without too many problems. However, I could have drawn too long a bow on that one.BobHelm wrote:I will happily answer your questions & comments once you have answered mine.
You have accused me of 3 different of presenting 3 views which I clearly refute.
Either show where I have done so or admit that you are mistaken...
Simple really, but needs to be done...
I will repeat them for you as you seem to have forgotten...
You do not seem to be happy with anything than even remotely resembles industrialised society. Lets leave it all in the ground and go back to banging rocks together.Show me one place where I have said that I think that carbon trading was anything but a very poor idea.Show me one place where I have ever said that the increase in temperature is due to CO2 increases..
2. Show me one place where I have said that I think that carbon trading was anything but a very poor idea: Not sure I attributed that to you - show me where I said you said carbon trading was good.
3. Show me one place where I have ever said that the increase in temperature is due to CO2 increases: Not enough time to review the thread, so you could be right, however, you make enough references to CO2 to infer it is a problem - so what is the problem with CO2?
Now provide the answers you said you would happily provide.
- jackspratt
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 16156
- Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
ClimateGate busts things wide open
So we can now assume you just pluck numbers out of the air to suit/boost your "arguments".ronan01 wrote:Jack - go and nitpick elsewhere.jackspratt wrote:Nope - sorry, that doesn't wash.ronan01 wrote:Misread the amount as pound stirling and did a bad coversion.
None of the figures I quoted, even misread as Sterling, would convert to anywhere near $500k.
You have been caught out yet again Onan - unless you can provide the source of your "misread" amount.
You used the made-up number of 500k in an attempt to impugn the reputation/credibility of Greenpeace, and in the process have only managed to confirm your own (lack of) credibility.
ClimateGate busts things wide open
Ah your a genius Mr Pratt. You spend your time nitpicking over others, but never say anything of substance yourself - a philosphical gadfly.jackspratt wrote:So we can now assume you just pluck numbers out of the air to suit/boost your "arguments".ronan01 wrote:Jack - go and nitpick elsewhere.jackspratt wrote:Nope - sorry, that doesn't wash.ronan01 wrote:Misread the amount as pound stirling and did a bad coversion.
None of the figures I quoted, even misread as Sterling, would convert to anywhere near $500k.
You have been caught out yet again Onan - unless you can provide the source of your "misread" amount.
You used the made-up number of 500k in an attempt to impugn the reputation/credibility of Greenpeace, and in the process have only managed to confirm your own (lack of) credibility.
As I said - I did a bad conversion. Not good enough for you - you want to call me a liar - go ahead. Notyhing will satisfy you when you engaged in a fit of self righteous indignation.
As for the reputatio of Greenpeace - it speaks for itself. Is this not the organisation that publicly declared "we know where you live" to "deniers" in an attempt to imtimidate them and prevent free speech?
Did Greenpeace say "we know where you live" and imply violence towrd those who do not agree with them.
ClimateGate busts things wide open
1. That is one huge jump....because I can see that there are serious problems with pipelines carrying oil in North America that I have a problem with ALL technology.ronan01 wrote: 1. You do not seem to be happy with anything than even remotely resembles industrialised society. Lets leave it all in the ground and go back to banging rocks together: You do seem to have a problem with pipelines, it seems they do no good and are too risky to develop or use. The are pipelines all over the world doing their job without too many problems. However, I could have drawn too long a bow on that one.
2. Show me one place where I have said that I think that carbon trading was anything but a very poor idea: Not sure I attributed that to you - show me where I said you said carbon trading was good.
3. Show me one place where I have ever said that the increase in temperature is due to CO2 increases: Not enough time to review the thread, so you could be right, however, you make enough references to CO2 to infer it is a problem - so what is the problem with CO2?
Now provide the answers you said you would happily provide.
Just to clarify, every year, since it has been open, the Alaska pipeline has caused millions of USD in damage & killed people. Those are figures from the USA Government Department responsible for overseeing pipelines.
Because it is not in your back yard that is perfectly acceptable to you & it is a great idea to build another one to repeat the process. Pure madness...
2.
If that is not suggesting that I think carbon trading is a good idea, then just what the hell is it suggesting??how many "carbon stocks" have Jackpratt and Bob Helm bought?
3. You have time enough to accuse, but not time enough to check your facts....that just about sums you up to a tee ronan.
Then show me one!!you make enough references to CO2 to infer it is a problem
Lies, rumours & innuendo is about all the deniers can come up with.
ClimateGate busts things wide open
OK Bob - you believe in climate change. (full stop).
Apart from that it seems you dont know enough knowledge to comment on CO2, etc, but have enough knowledge to label others a denier.
Apart from that it seems you dont know enough knowledge to comment on CO2, etc, but have enough knowledge to label others a denier.
ClimateGate busts things wide open
If someone posts incorrect information &, in some cases downright lies then I think it is important that other members are made fully aware of that.
Climate change is happening, as far as I can see anyone not actually employed by the oil industry to say otherwise agrees on that.
I suspect that human beings have more than a little impact on the change, it is, I think foolish to believe otherwise given pollution issues in the past.
While I am willing to listen to all reasonable arguments, I find deliberate distortions of the truth difficult to take though...
Through this complete thread I have seen individuals quote 'claims' made about both the original 'Climategate' issue & about the changing world temperatures.
With the passage of time of this thread many of those early claims have now shown to be completely incorrect.
Yet, without admitting that they were completely wrong in the past some of those members (well, actually, you, ronan) are still pumping out similar garbage today.
Your old claims were proved to be inaccurate but you are still happy to make more today....I can't think of anything else to call you except a denier ronan, as you continually quote the same old clap trap by the same old oil industry paid 'stars' of the non scientific world....
Show me some scientific data that says climate change is all a figment of mad scientists' minds ronan...there, that should be easy enough to do....
Climate change is happening, as far as I can see anyone not actually employed by the oil industry to say otherwise agrees on that.
I suspect that human beings have more than a little impact on the change, it is, I think foolish to believe otherwise given pollution issues in the past.
While I am willing to listen to all reasonable arguments, I find deliberate distortions of the truth difficult to take though...
Through this complete thread I have seen individuals quote 'claims' made about both the original 'Climategate' issue & about the changing world temperatures.
With the passage of time of this thread many of those early claims have now shown to be completely incorrect.
Yet, without admitting that they were completely wrong in the past some of those members (well, actually, you, ronan) are still pumping out similar garbage today.
Your old claims were proved to be inaccurate but you are still happy to make more today....I can't think of anything else to call you except a denier ronan, as you continually quote the same old clap trap by the same old oil industry paid 'stars' of the non scientific world....
Show me some scientific data that says climate change is all a figment of mad scientists' minds ronan...there, that should be easy enough to do....
ClimateGate busts things wide open
Scientific evidence - try here - then tell me where "climate change" is shown to be an issue:BobHelm wrote:If someone posts incorrect information &, in some cases downright lies then I think it is important that other members are made fully aware of that.
Climate change is happening, as far as I can see anyone not actually employed by the oil industry to say otherwise agrees on that.
I suspect that human beings have more than a little impact on the change, it is, I think foolish to believe otherwise given pollution issues in the past.
While I am willing to listen to all reasonable arguments, I find deliberate distortions of the truth difficult to take though...
Through this complete thread I have seen individuals quote 'claims' made about both the original 'Climategate' issue & about the changing world temperatures.
With the passage of time of this thread many of those early claims have now shown to be completely incorrect.
Yet, without admitting that they were completely wrong in the past some of those members (well, actually, you, ronan) are still pumping out similar garbage today.
Your old claims were proved to be inaccurate but you are still happy to make more today....I can't think of anything else to call you except a denier ronan, as you continually quote the same old clap trap by the same old oil industry paid 'stars' of the non scientific world....
Show me some scientific data that says climate change is all a figment of mad scientists' minds ronan...there, that should be easy enough to do....
http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate ... r_2011.pdf
Climate change is happening. When did it not? The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Tell me something useful.
Big oil. Childish gibberish.
From your mates at Greenpeace
Three long fuses lead back to the world’s biggest carbon bomb: The Canadian Tar Sands. The fuses are pipelines – existing and proposed – that run from the black sludge lakes and devastated landscape of northern Alberta, Canada to marine ports where oil producers hope to ship tar sands crude oil to world energy markets.
Releasing the ancient tar sands carbon into Earth’s atmosphere threatens every man, woman, and child on Earth as well as every other creature. NASA climatologist Dr. James Hansen has warned that if the tar sands is fully exploited, “it is game-over for Earth’s climate.” The carbon contained in the tar sands is enough to send Earth’s atmosphere into runaway heating, releasing ancient methane and killing sea life and forests, so that humanity could not reverse the heating regardless of what we do.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... log/36923/
ClimateGate busts things wide open
Your evidence is suspect to say the least...
The first thing it says it that it is only using 1998-2006 to compare the figures with.
It admits that everyone else uses a longer period of half a century from 1961.
They do not use the longer, 50 year period because they do not like the early years as they are too cold for them.
What a sham & a shambles. To think that you continually have complained that the scientists fiddle the figures.
The first (& so far only) set of denier figures & they are fiddled..
Plus, when I said that in your glee in reporting that CO2 had gone up greater than temperature you did not report the rest of the 2011 figures. You said..
What is it ronan...acceptable science if it agrees with what you believe in & unacceptable science if it shows you are mistaken??
by ronan01 » February 4, 2010, 7:39 am
Koch Industries over 50 million given to deniers
ExxonMobil - over 2 million to AEI alone, After it had promised to stop funding them...
Southern Company - over 1 million to Willie Soon, held as an 'independent' scientist by deniers...
The first thing it says it that it is only using 1998-2006 to compare the figures with.
It admits that everyone else uses a longer period of half a century from 1961.
They do not use the longer, 50 year period because they do not like the early years as they are too cold for them.
What a sham & a shambles. To think that you continually have complained that the scientists fiddle the figures.
The first (& so far only) set of denier figures & they are fiddled..
Plus, when I said that in your glee in reporting that CO2 had gone up greater than temperature you did not report the rest of the 2011 figures. You said..
Yet your denier figures are ALL comparing 1 year...1997 WAS THE WARMEST YEAR SINCE ..... SO WHAT, WHO CARES! It is a meaningless number.
What is it ronan...acceptable science if it agrees with what you believe in & unacceptable science if it shows you are mistaken??
Changed your mind since this comment on the thread then???Climate change is happening. When did it not? The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Tell me something useful.
by ronan01 » February 4, 2010, 7:39 am
Why rush into spending trillions to MAYBE forestall 0.02C of “global warming”, assuming of course that there is any “global warming”.
Sure just GoogleBig oil. Childish gibberish.
Koch Industries over 50 million given to deniers
ExxonMobil - over 2 million to AEI alone, After it had promised to stop funding them...
Southern Company - over 1 million to Willie Soon, held as an 'independent' scientist by deniers...
ClimateGate busts things wide open
http://www.alternet.org/environment/152 ... al_warmingHuge Blow to Science Deniers: Koch Funded Researchers Confirm Global Warming
But Muller's congressional testimony last March didn't go according to plan. He told them a preliminary analysis suggested that the three main climate models in use today—each of which uses a different estimating technique, and each of which has potential flaws—are all pretty accurate: Global temperatures have gone up considerably over the past century, and the increase has accelerated over the past few decades. Last week, BEST confirmed these results and others in its first set of published papers about land temperatures.(Ocean studies will come later.) Using a novel statistical methodology that incorporates more data than other climate models and requires less human judgment about how to handle it (summarized by the Economist here), the BEST team drew several conclusions:
The earth is indeed getting warmer. Global average land temperatures have risen 0.91 degrees Celsius over the past 50 years. This is "on the high end of the existing range of reconstructions."
The rate of increase on land is accelerating. Warming for the entire 20th century clocks in at 0.73 degrees C per century. But over the most recent 40 years, the globe has warmed at a rate of 2.76 degrees C per century.
Warming has not abated since 1998. The rise in average temperature over the period 1998-2010 is 2.84 degrees C per century.
The BEST data significantly reduces the uncertainty of the temperature reconstructions. Their estimate of the temperature increase over the past 50 years has an uncertainty of only 0.04 degrees C, compared to a reported uncertainty of 0.13 degrees C in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
Although many of the temperature measuring stations around the world have large individual uncertainties, taken as a whole the data is quite reliable. The difference in reported averages between stations ranked "okay" and stations ranked "poor" is very small.
The urban heat island effect—i.e., the theory that rising temperatures around cities might be corrupting the global data—is very small.
Climategate was always a ridiculous sideshow, and this is just one more nail in its coffin. Climate scientists got the basic data right, and they've almost certainly gotten the human causes right too.
ClimateGate busts things wide open
Bob Helm big oil gibberish
I'm sure Lord Lawson can take consolation from the words of his old boss Margaret Thatcher: "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."
Never were these words truer than in the case of the climate change debate. The alarmists simply haven't got a leg to stand on, so the best they can do to shore up the ruins of their collapsing cause is to engage in ad homs, appeals to authority and utterly dishonest campaigns like the current Guardian-encouraged witch-hunt to try to force the Global Warming Policy Foundation to reveal its sources of funding.
Why is the campaign so utterly dishonest? First, it succumbs to what Jamie Whyte calls the Motive Fallacy: the demonstrably false notion that if you have an interest (financial or otherwise) in holding an opinion it must perforce be untrue. Whyte gives one example: "A man may stand to gain a great deal of peace and quiet from telling his wife that he loves her. But he may really love her nonetheless."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... -dead-yet/
This leads to a third answer, which is that a preoccupation with who-is-funded-by-whom epitomises the vacuity of contemporary politics. It is a way of avoiding criticism, rather than engaging with it. Montague’s reckoning appears to be that the criticism offered by the GWPF is answered, just so long as he can tie the name on the cheque to the fossil-fuel sector.
This he-who-pays-the-piper-calls-the-tune nonsense is a familiar motif in the climate-change debate, but it is not unique to it. The wider phenomenon of increased emphasis on ‘evidence’ in public policy inevitably leads to claims that others are ‘denying’ scientific fact. The irony of evidence-based policy-making, then, is that it locates the debate, not on the ground of evidence, but on who is the least impeachable provider of it. Thus, environmentalists are preoccupied with the follow-the-money argument, oblivious to the financial interests stacked up in favour of green energy.
And Greenpeace spokesman said: " We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.".
I'm sure Lord Lawson can take consolation from the words of his old boss Margaret Thatcher: "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."
Never were these words truer than in the case of the climate change debate. The alarmists simply haven't got a leg to stand on, so the best they can do to shore up the ruins of their collapsing cause is to engage in ad homs, appeals to authority and utterly dishonest campaigns like the current Guardian-encouraged witch-hunt to try to force the Global Warming Policy Foundation to reveal its sources of funding.
Why is the campaign so utterly dishonest? First, it succumbs to what Jamie Whyte calls the Motive Fallacy: the demonstrably false notion that if you have an interest (financial or otherwise) in holding an opinion it must perforce be untrue. Whyte gives one example: "A man may stand to gain a great deal of peace and quiet from telling his wife that he loves her. But he may really love her nonetheless."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... -dead-yet/
This leads to a third answer, which is that a preoccupation with who-is-funded-by-whom epitomises the vacuity of contemporary politics. It is a way of avoiding criticism, rather than engaging with it. Montague’s reckoning appears to be that the criticism offered by the GWPF is answered, just so long as he can tie the name on the cheque to the fossil-fuel sector.
This he-who-pays-the-piper-calls-the-tune nonsense is a familiar motif in the climate-change debate, but it is not unique to it. The wider phenomenon of increased emphasis on ‘evidence’ in public policy inevitably leads to claims that others are ‘denying’ scientific fact. The irony of evidence-based policy-making, then, is that it locates the debate, not on the ground of evidence, but on who is the least impeachable provider of it. Thus, environmentalists are preoccupied with the follow-the-money argument, oblivious to the financial interests stacked up in favour of green energy.
And Greenpeace spokesman said: " We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.".
ClimateGate busts things wide open
Lord Lawson, you are really having a laugh now aren't you...
Him & Christopher Walter Monckton, my God that would be a dinner party to avoid...
Even his current Conservative Party cronies have deserted him....look what they say about him & his 'think tank' ....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... think-tank
Rolling out another failed economist to support your views...talk about scraping the barrel...
But, you appear to completely have missed the significant event, so I will repeat it for you....
Him & Christopher Walter Monckton, my God that would be a dinner party to avoid...
Even his current Conservative Party cronies have deserted him....look what they say about him & his 'think tank' ....
The energy secretary, Chris Huhne, has attacked Lord Lawson's influential climate sceptic thinktank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, as "misinformed", "wrong" and "perverse".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... think-tank
Rolling out another failed economist to support your views...talk about scraping the barrel...
But, you appear to completely have missed the significant event, so I will repeat it for you....
BobHelm wrote:http://www.alternet.org/environment/152 ... al_warmingHuge Blow to Science Deniers: Koch Funded Researchers Confirm Global Warming
But Muller's congressional testimony last March didn't go according to plan. He told them a preliminary analysis suggested that the three main climate models in use today—each of which uses a different estimating technique, and each of which has potential flaws—are all pretty accurate: Global temperatures have gone up considerably over the past century, and the increase has accelerated over the past few decades. Last week, BEST confirmed these results and others in its first set of published papers about land temperatures.(Ocean studies will come later.) Using a novel statistical methodology that incorporates more data than other climate models and requires less human judgment about how to handle it (summarized by the Economist here), the BEST team drew several conclusions:
The earth is indeed getting warmer. Global average land temperatures have risen 0.91 degrees Celsius over the past 50 years. This is "on the high end of the existing range of reconstructions."
The rate of increase on land is accelerating. Warming for the entire 20th century clocks in at 0.73 degrees C per century. But over the most recent 40 years, the globe has warmed at a rate of 2.76 degrees C per century.
Warming has not abated since 1998. The rise in average temperature over the period 1998-2010 is 2.84 degrees C per century.
The BEST data significantly reduces the uncertainty of the temperature reconstructions. Their estimate of the temperature increase over the past 50 years has an uncertainty of only 0.04 degrees C, compared to a reported uncertainty of 0.13 degrees C in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
Although many of the temperature measuring stations around the world have large individual uncertainties, taken as a whole the data is quite reliable. The difference in reported averages between stations ranked "okay" and stations ranked "poor" is very small.
The urban heat island effect—i.e., the theory that rising temperatures around cities might be corrupting the global data—is very small.
Climategate was always a ridiculous sideshow, and this is just one more nail in its coffin. Climate scientists got the basic data right, and they've almost certainly gotten the human causes right too.
ClimateGate busts things wide open
What Lawson has said:
"Had he wished to be objective, he would have noted that, while there was indeed a modest increase in mean global temperature (of about half a degree Centigrade) during the last quarter of the 20th century, so far this century both the UK Met Office and the World Meteorological Office confirm that there has been no further global warming at all.
What will happen in the future is inevitably unclear. But two things are clear. First, that Sir David’s alarmism is sheer speculation. Second, that if there is a resumption of warming, the only rational course is to adapt to it, rather than to try (happily a lost cause) to persuade the world to impoverish itself by moving from relatively cheap carbon-based energy to much more expensive non-carbon energy."
Seems sensible to me. A bit more sober than the big oil gibberish being spouted.
As for your laugable ad hominen attack and attempted smear, the following link contains a detailed refutation of your ridiculous claim:
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2011/ ... -1001.html
Bob has clearly demonstrated the case for "climate change" rests on a preoccupation with whom funds whom big oil gibberish and childish ad hominem attacks.
It is dead in the water. To argue the contrary is a Phythonesqe demonstration of absurdity:
"No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage! .... Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords."
"Climate change" is not a Norwegian Blue pining for the fjiords.
"Climate change" is a dead parrot.
"Had he wished to be objective, he would have noted that, while there was indeed a modest increase in mean global temperature (of about half a degree Centigrade) during the last quarter of the 20th century, so far this century both the UK Met Office and the World Meteorological Office confirm that there has been no further global warming at all.
What will happen in the future is inevitably unclear. But two things are clear. First, that Sir David’s alarmism is sheer speculation. Second, that if there is a resumption of warming, the only rational course is to adapt to it, rather than to try (happily a lost cause) to persuade the world to impoverish itself by moving from relatively cheap carbon-based energy to much more expensive non-carbon energy."
Seems sensible to me. A bit more sober than the big oil gibberish being spouted.
As for your laugable ad hominen attack and attempted smear, the following link contains a detailed refutation of your ridiculous claim:
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2011/ ... -1001.html
Bob has clearly demonstrated the case for "climate change" rests on a preoccupation with whom funds whom big oil gibberish and childish ad hominem attacks.
It is dead in the water. To argue the contrary is a Phythonesqe demonstration of absurdity:
"No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage! .... Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords."
"Climate change" is not a Norwegian Blue pining for the fjiords.
"Climate change" is a dead parrot.
ClimateGate busts things wide open
Nigel Lawson is a failed economist.
While in power he managed to get UK inflation to 8% and the bank rate to 15% & helped oversee the ruination of manufactured industry in the UK as a result.
So he actively failed in the job that he was qualified to do & now you want to take his advice on something he knows nothing about!!
Madness, just because he agrees with your standpoint.
I see you have not answered the clearly stated claims by Muller to the US congress that...
It is all very well having silly digs at GreenPeace & Sir David Attenborough but the fact of the matter is that your basic premises that climate change is not happening has been proved to be wrong.
Even more galling for you is that this, above, has been confirmed by Muller a scientist who always took an anti climate warming stance...
You can make your silly jokes ronan, because that is exactly what all your arguments have been reduced to...
While in power he managed to get UK inflation to 8% and the bank rate to 15% & helped oversee the ruination of manufactured industry in the UK as a result.
So he actively failed in the job that he was qualified to do & now you want to take his advice on something he knows nothing about!!
Madness, just because he agrees with your standpoint.
I see you have not answered the clearly stated claims by Muller to the US congress that...
That was then further confirmed by the BEST analysis...That the three main climate models in use today—each of which uses a different estimating technique, and each of which has potential flaws—are all pretty accurate: Global temperatures have gone up considerably over the past century, and the increase has accelerated over the past few decades.
It is all very well having silly digs at GreenPeace & Sir David Attenborough but the fact of the matter is that your basic premises that climate change is not happening has been proved to be wrong.
Even more galling for you is that this, above, has been confirmed by Muller a scientist who always took an anti climate warming stance...
You can make your silly jokes ronan, because that is exactly what all your arguments have been reduced to...
ClimateGate busts things wide open
'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!
ClimateGate busts things wide open
& still not answered the question...
A busted flush...poor ronan, almost feel sorry for him left without a cause to rant over....
The thread was about Scientists manipulating data to achieve the results that they said would happen..
2 Government enquires have said that the original claims were totally incorrect & now, even worse, a denier scientist has stood up before a senate committee & admitted that what the Global Warming models predicted would happen is exactly what did happen...
So sad.....
A busted flush...poor ronan, almost feel sorry for him left without a cause to rant over....
The thread was about Scientists manipulating data to achieve the results that they said would happen..
2 Government enquires have said that the original claims were totally incorrect & now, even worse, a denier scientist has stood up before a senate committee & admitted that what the Global Warming models predicted would happen is exactly what did happen...
So sad.....
ClimateGate busts things wide open
Lawson said:
Had he wished to be objective, he would have noted that, while there was indeed a modest increase in mean global temperature (of about half a degree Centigrade) during the last quarter of the 20th century, so far this century both the UK Met Office and the World Meteorological Office confirm that there has been no further global warming at all.
What will happen in the future is inevitably unclear. But two things are clear. First, that Sir David’s alarmism is sheer speculation. Second, that if there is a resumption of warming, the only rational course is to adapt to it, rather than to try (happily a lost cause) to persuade the world to impoverish itself by moving from relatively cheap carbon-based energy to much more expensive non-carbon energy.
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2011/ ... -1001.html
Hansen said:
James Hansen told the Guardian: "Our children and grandchildren will judge those who have misled the public, allowing fossil fuel emissions to continue almost unfettered, as guilty of crimes against humanity and nature. But the eventual conviction of these people in the court of public opinion will do little to ease the burdens that will have been created for today's young people and future generations."
"The science is clear. Unless we restore the planet's energy balance and stabilise climate, by rapidly reducing fossil fuel emissions, we will leave today's young people a rapidly deteriorating climate system with consequences that will out of their control. If successful, the FOI request may, by exposing one link in a devious manipulation of public opinion, start a process that allows the public to be aware of what is happening, what is at stake, and where the public interest lies."
Hansen has a long history of failed predictions, he also said it is game over if the tar sands are mined, and the oceans will boil because of runaway warming, or something like that - It does seem he is trying to sell a Nowegian Blue.
To me Lawsons proposition seems much more reasonable than Hansens. Lawson does not strike me as alarmist.
Lawsons proposal is also simpler - adapt to change, rather than to try (happily a lost cause) to persuade the world to impoverish itself by moving from relatively cheap carbon-based energy to much more expensive non-carbon energy.
I tend to prefer Lawson on this - at least he provides hope.
Hansens proposition seems unreasonable and alarmist. Hansen believes in "climate change". So does Bob.
Hansen and his fellow totalitarian "climate change" acolytes offer only doom and despair, and increasing threats of "climate criminals" being tried in "climate courts" (I assume this will include a goodly portion of the citizens of Canada for being naugty and exporting their oil without his permission) - unless you play the game and purchase a Norwegian Blue from him that is.
Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
Had he wished to be objective, he would have noted that, while there was indeed a modest increase in mean global temperature (of about half a degree Centigrade) during the last quarter of the 20th century, so far this century both the UK Met Office and the World Meteorological Office confirm that there has been no further global warming at all.
What will happen in the future is inevitably unclear. But two things are clear. First, that Sir David’s alarmism is sheer speculation. Second, that if there is a resumption of warming, the only rational course is to adapt to it, rather than to try (happily a lost cause) to persuade the world to impoverish itself by moving from relatively cheap carbon-based energy to much more expensive non-carbon energy.
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2011/ ... -1001.html
Hansen said:
James Hansen told the Guardian: "Our children and grandchildren will judge those who have misled the public, allowing fossil fuel emissions to continue almost unfettered, as guilty of crimes against humanity and nature. But the eventual conviction of these people in the court of public opinion will do little to ease the burdens that will have been created for today's young people and future generations."
"The science is clear. Unless we restore the planet's energy balance and stabilise climate, by rapidly reducing fossil fuel emissions, we will leave today's young people a rapidly deteriorating climate system with consequences that will out of their control. If successful, the FOI request may, by exposing one link in a devious manipulation of public opinion, start a process that allows the public to be aware of what is happening, what is at stake, and where the public interest lies."
Hansen has a long history of failed predictions, he also said it is game over if the tar sands are mined, and the oceans will boil because of runaway warming, or something like that - It does seem he is trying to sell a Nowegian Blue.
To me Lawsons proposition seems much more reasonable than Hansens. Lawson does not strike me as alarmist.
Lawsons proposal is also simpler - adapt to change, rather than to try (happily a lost cause) to persuade the world to impoverish itself by moving from relatively cheap carbon-based energy to much more expensive non-carbon energy.
I tend to prefer Lawson on this - at least he provides hope.
Hansens proposition seems unreasonable and alarmist. Hansen believes in "climate change". So does Bob.
Hansen and his fellow totalitarian "climate change" acolytes offer only doom and despair, and increasing threats of "climate criminals" being tried in "climate courts" (I assume this will include a goodly portion of the citizens of Canada for being naugty and exporting their oil without his permission) - unless you play the game and purchase a Norwegian Blue from him that is.
Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
ClimateGate busts things wide open
And someone is still whistling in the dark hoping that the nasty eco-scientists don't get him...
Because now he knows he is all alone with just the lunatic fringe of the former Conservatives as his aid.
The science is proved, it is no more worth while ex-Chancellors & self appointed 'Advisors' filling the lines with their non scientific thoughts & garbage.
God help anyone that thinks Lord Lawson & Christopher Monckton are worthy sources. So extreme that even members of the party to which they belonged & their beloved leader Maggie have rejected & distanced themselves from the garbage they now spout.
It is indeed sad to see how former politicians are now so isolated in their foolish extremist views...
Because now he knows he is all alone with just the lunatic fringe of the former Conservatives as his aid.
The science is proved, it is no more worth while ex-Chancellors & self appointed 'Advisors' filling the lines with their non scientific thoughts & garbage.
God help anyone that thinks Lord Lawson & Christopher Monckton are worthy sources. So extreme that even members of the party to which they belonged & their beloved leader Maggie have rejected & distanced themselves from the garbage they now spout.
It is indeed sad to see how former politicians are now so isolated in their foolish extremist views...
BobHelm wrote:& still not answered the question...
A busted flush...poor ronan, almost feel sorry for him left without a cause to rant over....
The thread was about Scientists manipulating data to achieve the results that they said would happen..
2 Government enquires have said that the original claims were totally incorrect & now, even worse, a denier scientist has stood up before a senate committee & admitted that what the Global Warming models predicted would happen is exactly what did happen...
So sad.....
ClimateGate busts things wide open
Again Bob brilliantly demonstrates the case for "climate change" is supported only by appeal to authority and ad hominem attacks.
The science is proved - did you really say that, oh dear. The majority of scientists agree, all the studies were peer reviewed. hahahahahaha
Such a strange reaction - but why? Why do these few simple words cause so much concern and such a strong attack on Lawson:
Had he wished to be objective, he would have noted that, while there was indeed a modest increase in mean global temperature (of about half a degree Centigrade) during the last quarter of the 20th century, so far this century both the UK Met Office and the World Meteorological Office confirm that there has been no further global warming at all.
What will happen in the future is inevitably unclear. But two things are clear. First, that Sir David’s alarmism is sheer speculation. Second, that if there is a resumption of warming, the only rational course is to adapt to it, rather than to try (happily a lost cause) to persuade the world to impoverish itself by moving from relatively cheap carbon-based energy to much more expensive non-carbon energy.
Seems a very reasonable suggestion to me - which parts of it are not true. Why the apoplexy Bob?
Is it because it does not conform to the teachings of the church of "climate change"?
The science is proved - did you really say that, oh dear. The majority of scientists agree, all the studies were peer reviewed. hahahahahaha
Such a strange reaction - but why? Why do these few simple words cause so much concern and such a strong attack on Lawson:
Had he wished to be objective, he would have noted that, while there was indeed a modest increase in mean global temperature (of about half a degree Centigrade) during the last quarter of the 20th century, so far this century both the UK Met Office and the World Meteorological Office confirm that there has been no further global warming at all.
What will happen in the future is inevitably unclear. But two things are clear. First, that Sir David’s alarmism is sheer speculation. Second, that if there is a resumption of warming, the only rational course is to adapt to it, rather than to try (happily a lost cause) to persuade the world to impoverish itself by moving from relatively cheap carbon-based energy to much more expensive non-carbon energy.
Seems a very reasonable suggestion to me - which parts of it are not true. Why the apoplexy Bob?
Is it because it does not conform to the teachings of the church of "climate change"?