The REAL global warming

Having nothing of substance to say, you resort to unsubstantiated and gratuitous mud slinging at what you cannot understand. Hansen et al research papers are still published in high quality journals. Obviously your twaddle is not taken seriously by those with expertise.

And those with expertise are ... ??:sleep:

Obviously you, Craigie - YOU do have expertise, do you not?

And which cereal company did you get get that expertise from? Kelloggs? Uncle Toby's?

And which "source" endowed you with your degree ... Google?

Anyone with a qualification (2 finger style will do) in qwerty can earn a degree from the University of Google, as you clearly have done.

Obviously YOU take my "twaddle" seriously because you KNOW I am correct - the dominoes are falling over now, and the warmistra's are running for cover. I expect many more articles that have previously been suppressed to be published, as editors begin to realise they have been sold a pup.

There is a hell of a lot of damage control going on in the warmistra camp, now that the cover has been blown.

But diehards like yourself and BS would rather continue to deny this, and will end up with an omelette beret, before the dust settles.

We are getting statements like: "We made a few mistakes, but that does not alter the basic science."
Well I agree, because the "basic science" didn't point to AGW to begin with.

Things like a fraudulent hockey stick, and eager beavers wanting to rush to conclusions and grasp any "scientific straws" to get into print, are to blame.

And of course the gullible, who have to take their jumper off on a warm morning, and declare that it must be a trend.
And if it is a trend, then the sky will fall - it's just a question of time.

Speaking of time, Craigie, how much time have these measurements been going on for?
How long have thermometers and satellites been insitu?

And the age of the earth is ... ?

And the last ice age was ... ?

And that is called a ... ? (Clue, it is spelled C-Y-C-L-E)

Of course, you don't have to believe me, there are still 5 or 600 scientists left in the warmistra camp, but by this time next month, I doubt you'd get a fourth for bridge amongst the true believers of AGW. There is a rush for the exits, as they try to distance themselves from the former "facts", former "experts, and former "science" of AGW.

Face it Craigie, the "science" is in a shambles, your team is on the run, and you are still here picking your nose. Better get your Reeboks on mate ... !
 

Attachments

  • Craigie _on _AGW.jpg
    Craigie _on _AGW.jpg
    6.2 KB · Views: 185
By the by, when will you stop waving "peer-reviewed" around like it's some kind of magic talisman? Nobody cares - the peer-review process is as thoroughly compromised as the rest of the AGW con.

When science is not done that way anymore. Don't hold your breath.

You live in a trivially simple world where everything that you don't want to hear is a con, a hoax or a conspiracy. You have no interest whatsoever in the science or the physical reality. Your only concern is propaganda. Everything that doesn't fit your little world is "compromised".

Peer review is an essential part of science. That is not going to change. If you don't like peer review you don't like science - and you plainly don't like the science because it is telling you things that you don't want to hear.
 
And those with expertise are ... ??:sleep:

Obviously you, Craigie - YOU do have expertise, do you not?

And which cereal company did you get get that expertise from? Kelloggs? Uncle Toby's?

And which "source" endowed you with your degree ... Google?

Anyone with a qualification (2 finger style will do) in qwerty can earn a degree from the University of Google, as you clearly have done.

Obviously YOU take my "twaddle" seriously because you KNOW I am correct - the dominoes are falling over now, and the warmistra's are running for cover. I expect many more articles that have previously been suppressed to be published, as editors begin to realise they have been sold a pup.

There is a hell of a lot of damage control going on in the warmistra camp, now that the cover has been blown.

But diehards like yourself and BS would rather continue to deny this, and will end up with an omelette beret, before the dust settles.

We are getting statements like: "We made a few mistakes, but that does not alter the basic science."
Well I agree, because the "basic science" didn't point to AGW to begin with.

Things like a fraudulent hockey stick, and eager beavers wanting to rush to conclusions and grasp any "scientific straws" to get into print, are to blame.

And of course the gullible, who have to take their jumper off on a warm morning, and declare that it must be a trend.
And if it is a trend, then the sky will fall - it's just a question of time.

Speaking of time, Craigie, how much time have these measurements been going on for?
How long have thermometers and satellites been insitu?

And the age of the earth is ... ?

And the last ice age was ... ?

And that is called a ... ? (Clue, it is spelled C-Y-C-L-E)

Of course, you don't have to believe me, there are still 5 or 600 scientists left in the warmistra camp, but by this time next month, I doubt you'd get a fourth for bridge amongst the true believers of AGW. There is a rush for the exits, as they try to distance themselves from the former "facts", former "experts, and former "science" of AGW.

Face it Craigie, the "science" is in a shambles, your team is on the run, and you are still here picking your nose. Better get your Reeboks on mate ... !

Rambling nonsense. Go and take it up with the likes of the Royal Society, The American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (the worlds largest scientific body) or many more of the worlds top scientific associations. None of them have changed their position or are likely to. For it is with them that you have a dispute.

Your posts are increasingly incoherent and childish.
 
When science is not done that way anymore. Don't hold your breath.

You live in a trivially simple world where everything that you don't want to hear is a con, a hoax or a conspiracy. You have no interest whatsoever in the science or the physical reality. Your only concern is propaganda. Everything that doesn't fit your little world is "compromised".

Peer review is an essential part of science. That is not going to change. If you don't like peer review you don't like science - and you plainly don't like the science because it is telling you things that you don't want to hear.


Ah, Craigie ... just answer the question matey.

Maiden22 actually said nothing requiring the kind of response generated by your defensive twaddle.

This is what he said:

Nobody cares - the peer-review process is as thoroughly compromised as the rest of the AGW con.

As you can see by the daily news-clippings, "peer-review" is just "copy-me" from the latest "Fishermen's Digest" or "Mountain Climber's Weekly".

Now THOSE are credible sources, and some mighty well-read peers we have in those magazines too. I think the IPCC would be interested in some of those stories.
 
Go and take it up with the likes of the Royal Society, The American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (the worlds largest scientific body) or many more of the worlds top scientific associations. None of them have changed their position or are likely to. For it is with them that you have a dispute.

Keep it up Craigie - you are increasingly being seen as a blow-hard who lack the ability to answer a straight question - there is a huge list in this thread of questions you never responded to, and THAT, my good buddy, is what destroys your cred.

You continue to defer to "societies, and associations" yada yada - but to be honest, I don't give a toss - they are all in on the con.

As I said several pages back, if AGW really WAS the global threat "they" are trying to pretend it is, why are governments NOTvoluntarily cutting back on emissions?

The simple answer is: Because there is no problem with emissions.

There is a problem with the science and the credibility of the claimants though, isn't there.

I love it when you talk dirty to me - "rambling nonsense, incoherent and childish" because it just goes to show you are resorting to name-calling, instead of facts.

Craigie - your "facts" got whacked with a great big "hockey stick", but you still think the game is in progress. I think if you check the record, you will find the game got called off after Copenhagen, due to there being some sort of serious tampering with the "evidence".

I can play this game of ping-pong for as long as you wish.

You are NOT a climatologist - you are an arm-chair commentator who just happens to believe that we humans are somehow destroting the planet with excess carbon emissions, and that to fix it, we have to destroy our economies.

Only what you don't say, is that in destroying these economies, it will NOT reduce the so-called emissions, but shaft them sideways, as "producers of emissions" buy "credits" from "non-producers", thus allowing the "producers" to continuing to produce emissions.

In the process, the so-called emissions continue to be produced - only a market to trade them has been created, and those that have credits, swap them for money, from those that don't have credits.

And what you fail to admit, is that the likes of Goldman Sachs have taken a huge punt on the success of the New World Order in getting carbon Credits listed as a Tradeable Commodity.

You and your ilk love to label people that understand this con as "denialists" blah blah.

But you fail to respond to questions, or produce evidence that these statements of organizing the political will globally are NOT going to hurt societies and their freedom.

These alarmist absolutely LOVE people like yourself - you are giving them free-kick after free-kick, and they don't have to pay a penny for your time.
 

Attachments

  • idiot.gif
    idiot.gif
    39.7 KB · Views: 193
Last edited:
Rambling nonsense. Go and take it up with the likes of the Royal Society, The American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (the worlds largest scientific body) or many more of the worlds top scientific associations. None of them have changed their position or are likely to. For it is with them that you have a dispute.

Your posts are increasingly incoherent and childish.

The Royal Society is a joke, like virtually every other official body in the UK.

The AAAS may be the "world[']s largest scientific body" but it is a generalist organisation open to all. How many members are qualified to pontificate on global warming? And how many members agree with the alarmist case - not that the world has warmed, or that man may have some influence, but the "shut down the West and stop the Third World developing or we're all doomed" case?

This article has just been published by Science, the journal of the AAAS:

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/0129sp_vapor.shtml

Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas—it absorbs sunlight and re-emits heat into Earth's atmosphere. The findings reveal that stratospheric water vapor has been an important driver of global climate change over the past decade.

“Stratospheric water vapor has played a significant role in the ups and downs in the rate of global warming of the past few decades,” said Susan Solomon, Senior Scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and lead author of the study. “It's amazing how narrow the layer is that is doing this.”

Using a combination of data and models, Solomon and colleagues show that a decline in the concentration of water vapor in the stratosphere around the year 2000 had an effect on global average surface temperatures roughly between the years 2000 and 2009.

In particular, lower stratospheric water vapor has probably been a significant factor in the flattening of global average temperatures since 2000, acting to slow the rate of warming by about 25%, the researchers report.

Moreover, the authors show that the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere probably increased between 1980 and 2000, a period of more rapid global warming. Although it remains unclear why water vapor levels have recently decreased, the results of the study signal how important the concentration of stratospheric water vapor might be to Earth’s climate.

“This doesn't change the view that the world has warmed over the last 100 years or so, [Who claims that it hasn't? Although given the bullsh1t that passes as the temperature record it is hard to be sure.]but it does help us understand why it's not warming quite as fast in the past decade as it did in the decade before that,” said Solomon.


There is a peer-reviewed article from the house rag of your precious AAAS. It descibes water vapour, just in the short extract that they have prominently displayed on their website, thus:

potent greenhouse gas

played a significant role

important driver of global climate change

probably been a significant factor in the flattening of global average temperatures

how important the concentration of stratospheric water vapor might be to Earth’s climate


Now, I'm not an expert, so I've probably got this wrong. But to my mulish brain that seems to be suggesting that water plays a significant role in earth's climate, is an important driver of global climate change, and has probably been a significant factor in the flattening of global average temperatures.

Also, the paper may just signal how important the concentration of stratospheric water vapor might be to Earth’s climate.

So stick that in your pipe and peer-review it.
 
The Royal Society is a joke, like virtually every other official body in the UK.

The AAAS may be the "world[']s largest scientific body" but it is a generalist organisation open to all. How many members are qualified to pontificate on global warming? And how many members agree with the alarmist case - not that the world has warmed, or that man may have some influence, but the "shut down the West and stop the Third World developing or we're all doomed" case?

This article has just been published by Science, the journal of the AAAS:

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/0129sp_vapor.shtml

Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas—it absorbs sunlight and re-emits heat into Earth's atmosphere. The findings reveal that stratospheric water vapor has been an important driver of global climate change over the past decade.

“Stratospheric water vapor has played a significant role in the ups and downs in the rate of global warming of the past few decades,” said Susan Solomon, Senior Scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and lead author of the study. “It's amazing how narrow the layer is that is doing this.”

Using a combination of data and models, Solomon and colleagues show that a decline in the concentration of water vapor in the stratosphere around the year 2000 had an effect on global average surface temperatures roughly between the years 2000 and 2009.

In particular, lower stratospheric water vapor has probably been a significant factor in the flattening of global average temperatures since 2000, acting to slow the rate of warming by about 25%, the researchers report.

Moreover, the authors show that the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere probably increased between 1980 and 2000, a period of more rapid global warming. Although it remains unclear why water vapor levels have recently decreased, the results of the study signal how important the concentration of stratospheric water vapor might be to Earth’s climate.

“This doesn't change the view that the world has warmed over the last 100 years or so, [Who claims that it hasn't? Although given the bullsh1t that passes as the temperature record it is hard to be sure.]but it does help us understand why it's not warming quite as fast in the past decade as it did in the decade before that,” said Solomon.


There is a peer-reviewed article from the house rag of your precious AAAS. It descibes water vapour, just in the short extract that they have prominently displayed on their website, thus:

potent greenhouse gas

played a significant role

important driver of global climate change

probably been a significant factor in the flattening of global average temperatures

how important the concentration of stratospheric water vapor might be to Earth’s climate


Now, I'm not an expert, so I've probably got this wrong. But to my mulish brain that seems to be suggesting that water plays a significant role in earth's climate, is an important driver of global climate change, and has probably been a significant factor in the flattening of global average temperatures.

Also, the paper may just signal how important the concentration of stratospheric water vapor might be to Earth’s climate.

So stick that in your pipe and peer-review it.

The usual denialist knee jerk response yet again. A new paper is published and they instantly leap upon one fact in isolation. Solar cycles, cosmic rays, water vapor in the Stratosphere - doesn't really matter what, as long as it can be spun in the "right" way.

As if by magic all previous research has suddenly been invalidated, that CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas and that humans have stopped emitting large quantities of it.

Not quite so .......

Radiative_Forcing_Vapor.gif


The chart from the Solomon paper shows the suggested contribution to radiative forcing from increase in Stratosphere H2O (gray shaded area). It is fairly obvious that it is not the dominant factor.

The paper also does not give a reason for the change, so any assertion that a recent decrease is some sort of permanent negative feedback is no more than speculation. Alternatively, It may be natural internal variability or a bit of both, or even a positive feedback with variation.

Possible causes may be the break up of methane or conditions associated with El Nino. The step at 2000 possibly suggests some El Nino connection. No doubt further research will tell more.

Sorry, this paper in no way disputes AGW.

More info here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/role-of-stratospheric-water-vapor-in-global-warming.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-wisdom-of-solomon/
 
Last edited:
As if by magic all previous research has suddenly been invalidated

Umm. Not "by magic" ... by fraud!

" ... private discussions between scientists in the U.S. and Britain -- showed that a group of influential climatologists tried for years to manipulate global warming data, rig the scientific peer-review process and keep their methods secret from other, contrary-minded researchers."

How would that stand up in court under fraud charges???

You see Craigie, you have never addressed the Hockey Stick fraud issue. It is not by magic that "previous research" is invalidated, but by the fraud of the proponents, which has led to very deep suspicion of the motives of the entire alarmist movement.

You fail to grasp that you are propping up a dead mule - no one trusts the "science" any more - they have been caught out in too many places fiddling the books to "prove" their case. So much so that when some "evidence" or other that is now put forward supporting their case, it is immediately seen with rightful suspicion.

In the Australian Parliament today, PM Kevin Rudd was on the back foot to explain why he has been silent since Copengagen - lacking a "Plan B" because of his over-confidence that the world would blindly accept the warmistra's alarmist case for an imminent melt-down this century.

... that CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas and that humans have stopped emitting large quantities of it.

Actually, while CO2 may be in the class of so-called greenhouse gases, it is not the most important of the group. You already know which ones are. It is simply a case of which ones can be taxed the most - and since humans rely on an endless and reliable source of energy, and THAT energy produces CO2 as a by-product of the generating process, it is a simple matter to tax CO2 at every point.

And all this despite CO2 having virtually NOTHING to do with temperature fluctuations on the planet. We have already shown research that proves that temperature rises precede CO2 rises by about 800 years yet you dismiss that research flippantly, because it does the warmistra case no good.

The paper also does not give a reason for the change, so any assertion that a recent decrease is some sort of permanent negative feedback is no more than speculation. Alternatively, It may be natural internal variability or a bit of both, or even a positive feedback with variation.

Strange you should make such a statement - that is EXACTLY the sort of thing I would have said about the "AGW science".

* does not give a reason for the change
* negative feedback is some sort of speculation
* may be natural internal variability
* ... a bit of both ...
* or even a positive feedback with variation

Could it be that you are beginning to see the weakness in the alarmist case for AGW???

Surely not - such a blow-hard as yourself capitulating?
No - I think you have just made a Freudian slip, that's all. You are still hard-wired to persist to the death on this.

Possible causes may be the break up of methane or conditions associated with El Nino. The step at 2000 possibly suggests some El Nino connection. No doubt further research will tell more.

My goodness me - more speculation and conjecture from you, Craigie.

Surely such speculation and conjecture have no place in the "science" of AGW.

Another Freudian slip-up mate?

Anyway - now you have come up with another theory ("may be the break up of methane or conditions associated with El Nino. The step at 2000 possibly suggests some El Nino connection") you can now go ahead quietly and use scientific measurement and data to build a supporting case for the theory.

Pretty soon you can have the "may be" or "conditions associated with" or "suggests some connection" written up as "science" when it is merely some pundits grab for sponsorship cash for his "research" dept.

It seems the list of scientists joining the sceptics ranks are growing ...

http://tinyurl.com/8w3nvv

and more "skewed" data:

"Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.

Yet as American researchers Joseph D'Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses "just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees."

"The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record."

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2465231#ixzz0eTLibyAC

Your problem is that the "science" has been manipulated, and the parts of research (data) that do not support the AGW hypothesis, have been omitted, deleted, hidden or no longer measured.

You can not prove otherwise, because the truth is now out of the bag.
 

Attachments

  • Truth.jpg
    Truth.jpg
    31.1 KB · Views: 181
Umm. Not "by magic" ... by fraud!

" ... private discussions between scientists in the U.S. and Britain -- showed that a group of influential climatologists tried for years to manipulate global warming data, rig the scientific peer-review process and keep their methods secret from other, contrary-minded researchers."

How would that stand up in court under fraud charges???

You see Craigie, you have never addressed the Hockey Stick fraud issue. It is not by magic that "previous research" is invalidated, but by the fraud of the proponents, which has led to very deep suspicion of the motives of the entire alarmist movement.

Yes, we know it's all a conspiracy - thousands of peer reviewed research papers, temperature record from land, ocean and satellite measurement, the official position of every major scientific association that has made an official announcement, the physics of CO2, the earths radiative inbalance and on and on.

Just calm down have a nice cup of tea and a Bex, a lie down and things will be better. When you do feel better, you might like to refresh your knowledge of the hockey stick. It's well out of date (if it was ever fresh).
 
Yes, we know it's all a conspiracy - thousands of peer reviewed research papers, temperature record from land, ocean and satellite measurement, the official position of every major scientific association that has made an official announcement, the physics of CO2, the earths radiative inbalance and on and on.

Just calm down have a nice cup of tea and a Bex, a lie down and things will be better. When you do feel better, you might like to refresh your knowledge of the hockey stick. It's well out of date (if it was ever fresh).

Go Craigie - you are at your best tonight mate!

Belief is everything ... maintain the faith, bro ... maintain the faith!
 
... thousands of peer reviewed research papers, temperature record from land, ocean and satellite measurement

Er, did someone mention "Peer Review"???

From "The Guardian" 02/02/2010

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review#

But a close reading of the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November exposes the real process of everyday science in lurid detail.

Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The cornerstone of maintaining the quality of scientific papers is the peer review system. Under this, papers submitted to scientific journals are reviewed anonymously by experts in the field. Conducting reviews is seen as part of the job for academics, who are generally not paid for the work.

The papers are normally sent back to the authors for improvement and only published when the reviewers give their approval. But the system relies on trust, especially if editors send papers to *reviewers whose own work is being criticised in the paper. It also relies on anonymity, so reviewers can give candid opinions.

Cracks in the system have been obvious for years. Yesterday it emerged that 14 leading researchers in a different field – stem cell research – have written an open letter to journal editors to highlight their dissatisfaction with the process. They allege that a small scientific clique is using peer review to block papers from other researchers.

Many will see a similar pattern in the emails from UEA's Climatic Research Unit, which brutally expose what happens behind the scenes of peer review and how a chance meeting at a barbecue years earlier had led to one journal editor being suspected of being in the "greenhouse sceptics camp".

The head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, as a top expert in his field, was regularly asked to review papers and he sometimes wrote critical reviews that may have had the effect of blackballing papers criticising his work.


I won't expect you to actually read that article, Craigie, because of your rigidity.

But I submit it to show that your hallowed "Peer Review" statement is utter $h!t!

It is more biased than independent.

This article actually gives irrefutable examples of so-called peer-reviewed articles being rejected simply at the bias of the reviewer.

You can't dispute that Craigie, so you'd best discredit the writer, which is your usual weapon against the truth.

Painful huh?
 

Attachments

  • The truth hurts.JPG
    The truth hurts.JPG
    36.3 KB · Views: 129
Er, did someone mention "Peer Review"???

This article actually gives irrefutable examples of so-called peer-reviewed articles being rejected simply at the bias of the reviewer.

You can't dispute that Craigie, so you'd best discredit the writer, which is your usual weapon against the truth.

Painful huh?

Oh - nearly forgot - this one has been tucked away - the Guardian article brought it up:

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310.html

There's your Hockey Stick hypothesis shot to bits, Craigie, in case you are thinking of dribbling on about it. What a load of crock!

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310image.html
 
Oh - nearly forgot - this one has been tucked away - the Guardian article brought it up:

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310.html

There's your Hockey Stick hypothesis shot to bits, Craigie, in case you are thinking of dribbling on about it. What a load of crock!

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310image.html

I urged you to update your knowledge of the "hockey stick". More recent reconstructions confirm it. Mann was right and Soon et al (2003) are wrong. For example the MWP was not as warm as as skeptics have claimed, and was very regional in nature.

Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif


Temp_Pattern_1999_2008_NOAA.jpg


http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

The Guardian need to improve it's game.
 
I won't expect you to actually read that article, Craigie, because of your rigidity.

But I submit it to show that your hallowed "Peer Review" statement is utter $h!t!

It is more biased than independent.

This article actually gives irrefutable examples of so-called peer-reviewed articles being rejected simply at the bias of the reviewer.

You can't dispute that Craigie, so you'd best discredit the writer, which is your usual weapon against the truth.

Painful huh?

I'd already read that article. It is strange and incoherent.

What it doesn't show that in general is that peer-review has broken down. It really fails to make any case against Mann for rejecting a paper he reviewed. The journalist has not shown that the paper was worthy of publication and the author has "lost" the reasons provided by the reviewers for rejecting it.
 
While we are on the topic of loonies claiming it's all a conspiracy, lets look at the surface temperature record as compiled by NOAA. Denialists love to assert falsification of the record through adjustments to deal with all sorts of issues with the raw data. What's the reality?

image003.jpg

image004.jpg

Essentially no difference between the raw and adjusted data.

NOAA point out that the adjustment process has been necessary to determine if there is bias due to instrumental errors rather than relying on "errors will all average out" mentality.

NOAA give an account of how they construct the temperature record here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html
 
Sorry, this paper in no way disputes AGW.

It is not one fact in isolation - it is one of many factors that make up our very complex climate.

And it depends upon what you mean by AGW. If you mean the deranged apocalyptic nonsense spouted by people like you, I'm afraid that it does dispute it. It shows that the argument is very much more complicated than you would have people believe.
 
While we are on the topic of loonies claiming it's all a conspiracy, lets look at the surface temperature record as compiled by NOAA. Denialists love to assert falsification of the record through adjustments to deal with all sorts of issues with the raw data. What's the reality?

OK Craigie - on the subject of Loonies ...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/...emperature-product-ersst-has-spurous-warming/

Maybe ... just maybe ... NOAA has an agenda - their "anomalies" are not all you purport them to be.

You'd have to agree (but you won't) that the MWP figures can never be more than a fabrication - a "best guess". And, umm, can you elaborate a bit more on the evidence that Mann's Hockey Stick hypothesis is correct - I don't seem to have read of any major world-wide conversions to this theory being correct recently.

Smattering this thread with heat maps and anomaly maps is useless. You can show that July 2009 recorded warmer ocean temperatures, and all concerned nod their heads wisely and mutter deep and meaningful sooth-sayings about how the planet suddenly got warmer then.

But they don't seem to mention the UNUSUALLY cooler 2008 readings.

Here's where the wise crowd go "Oooh. Awww. Mmmm."

Because both of these years were quite outside the mean up until that time.

What is completely ridiculous here, is the weighting put on one or two years out of the past 10, or even 5 or ten years out of the past 50, or even 50 to 100 years out of the past 400 years, in terms of geophysical time.

Ludicrous to guess at past temperatures, and then use those "readings" to formulate an hypothesis - curve-fitting at its finest.

This is an extreme bias, and one that needs to be pointed out. Clearly there are a growing number of scientists becoming more than sceptical about AGW.

Why is this?

Are they not reading this thread, and getting converted to the "correct" point of view?

Or maybe they are :LOL::LOL:

What you are saying, Craigie, is that all of the non-warmistra's are fools and idiots.

My position is that there really is an agenda to introduce to the planet, an unnecessary and useless tax, that will NOT reduce by ONE molecule, the amount of CO2 produced. It will merely make it a tradable commodity for the rich and street-smart amongst us to become even richer, at the expense of the already-poverty-stricken brothers and sisters who are our neighbours.

I clog up your airwaves because I see you are inadvertently helping their cause, by pushing an agenda about which you simply have no idea. You are so quick to brand anything non-mainstream as a conspiracy, that you really willingly overlook the glaring faults in the "science".

I happen to work with people who can not even afford decent health-care. I see people die because they can not afford the treatment that may have saved them. And I see poverty on a daily basis, because of the greed of landlords and governments and developers, why are asserting their "god-given" (small 'g') right to rip off in the name of investment-return-profits, every cent they can from those unable to even mount the beginnings of a defence against them.

If you had a single ounce of compassion and empathy for your fellow human beings, you would stop and think: "What the hell am I pushing this agenda for", knowing full well that the destruction of the economy as we know it will ensue, and the poor of the world will only become poorer, as the rich and powerful position themselves (no secret that Goldman Sachs have already done exactly that) to rake in excessive profits through the trading of so-called "Carbon Credits".

For the poor, these will become "Carbon Debits" because unlike the wealthy, they will be unable to manipulate the system to buy their way clear of the burden that will be imposed. Already here in Australia, this insidious thing is not law, but electricity costs are rising as if it is. And this in a country that is one of the biggest coal exporters on the planet. It is estimated this will cost families >$1,000 pa just for starters - we all know that costs, once introduced, will rise over time to something ever more burdensome. Add that to the family budget and see how many school lunches the kids will miss when it comes in.

You just do not get it do you - your ego is all that matters to you - to emerge triumphant in some unwinnable Internet battle of right-and-wrong on AGW. I hold you in the highest of contempt because of your support for something that I see is NOT proven, and is designed to harm innocent people where it hurts them the most - in their ability to provide for their own daily sustenance and security.

This will turn ordinary family people into milking-cows for the wealthy - fodder for the carbon-credit traders, who are already going from door-to-door trying to sign people into long contracts for energy, that they will have no "out" from.

That's why I goad you, Craigie - because you are a sitting duck target. You are blind in the worst possible way - you do not WANT to see.

You have the history of the EEC - how it was formed from a group of 6 countries in 1952, who wanted to control the marketing of Iron and Steel, and Coal. From those humble beginnings, grew the almighty EURO, and now, as a political force, with its tentacles wrapped around any country close enough and unfortunate enough to have to rely on intra-continental trade with associated countries, they are damned if they do join the EEC (ie Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain, who are the worst-affected so far) and damned-well locked-out if they don't join.

Conspiracy?

What conspiracy?????

It's right there in front of your face - it is as clear to me as daylight itself, that the European Union wants to be the seat of One World Government, and you, Craigie, are playing right into their hands, by your endless regurgitation of "facts" and "science". Yet, when presented with the very clear evidence of fraud, you stick your bum in the air and your head in the sand and ignore any evidence that contradicts your dearest and heart-felt beliefs in AGW - the biggest hoax ever connived, contrived and foisted on the human race.

No, you just do not get it, and you won't. You are not just a pawn, you are a WILLING pawn, playing in the biggest game in town, and you don't even have the stakes for a seat at the table.

You are just an armchair observer, farting 50 cms higher than your @r$e!

Lucky I'm in a good mood tonight, or I might tear a strip off you.
 
OK Craigie - on the subject of Loonies ...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/...emperature-product-ersst-has-spurous-warming/

Maybe ... just maybe ... NOAA has an agenda - their "anomalies" are not all you purport them to be.

You'd have to agree (but you won't) that the MWP figures can never be more than a fabrication - a "best guess". And, umm, can you elaborate a bit more on the evidence that Mann's Hockey Stick hypothesis is correct - I don't seem to have read of any major world-wide conversions to this theory being correct recently.

Smattering this thread with heat maps and anomaly maps is useless. You can show that July 2009 recorded warmer ocean temperatures, and all concerned nod their heads wisely and mutter deep and meaningful sooth-sayings about how the planet suddenly got warmer then.

But they don't seem to mention the UNUSUALLY cooler 2008 readings.

Here's where the wise crowd go "Oooh. Awww. Mmmm."

Because both of these years were quite outside the mean up until that time.

What is completely ridiculous here, is the weighting put on one or two years out of the past 10, or even 5 or ten years out of the past 50, or even 50 to 100 years out of the past 400 years, in terms of geophysical time.

Ludicrous to guess at past temperatures, and then use those "readings" to formulate an hypothesis - curve-fitting at its finest.

This is an extreme bias, and one that needs to be pointed out. Clearly there are a growing number of scientists becoming more than sceptical about AGW.

Why is this?

Are they not reading this thread, and getting converted to the "correct" point of view?

Or maybe they are :LOL::LOL:

What you are saying, Craigie, is that all of the non-warmistra's are fools and idiots.

My position is that there really is an agenda to introduce to the planet, an unnecessary and useless tax, that will NOT reduce by ONE molecule, the amount of CO2 produced. It will merely make it a tradable commodity for the rich and street-smart amongst us to become even richer, at the expense of the already-poverty-stricken brothers and sisters who are our neighbours.

I clog up your airwaves because I see you are inadvertently helping their cause, by pushing an agenda about which you simply have no idea. You are so quick to brand anything non-mainstream as a conspiracy, that you really willingly overlook the glaring faults in the "science".

I happen to work with people who can not even afford decent health-care. I see people die because they can not afford the treatment that may have saved them. And I see poverty on a daily basis, because of the greed of landlords and governments and developers, why are asserting their "god-given" (small 'g') right to rip off in the name of investment-return-profits, every cent they can from those unable to even mount the beginnings of a defence against them.

If you had a single ounce of compassion and empathy for your fellow human beings, you would stop and think: "What the hell am I pushing this agenda for", knowing full well that the destruction of the economy as we know it will ensue, and the poor of the world will only become poorer, as the rich and powerful position themselves (no secret that Goldman Sachs have already done exactly that) to rake in excessive profits through the trading of so-called "Carbon Credits".

For the poor, these will become "Carbon Debits" because unlike the wealthy, they will be unable to manipulate the system to buy their way clear of the burden that will be imposed. Already here in Australia, this insidious thing is not law, but electricity costs are rising as if it is. And this in a country that is one of the biggest coal exporters on the planet. It is estimated this will cost families >$1,000 pa just for starters - we all know that costs, once introduced, will rise over time to something ever more burdensome. Add that to the family budget and see how many school lunches the kids will miss when it comes in.

You just do not get it do you - your ego is all that matters to you - to emerge triumphant in some unwinnable Internet battle of right-and-wrong on AGW. I hold you in the highest of contempt because of your support for something that I see is NOT proven, and is designed to harm innocent people where it hurts them the most - in their ability to provide for their own daily sustenance and security.

This will turn ordinary family people into milking-cows for the wealthy - fodder for the carbon-credit traders, who are already going from door-to-door trying to sign people into long contracts for energy, that they will have no "out" from.

That's why I goad you, Craigie - because you are a sitting duck target. You are blind in the worst possible way - you do not WANT to see.

You have the history of the EEC - how it was formed from a group of 6 countries in 1952, who wanted to control the marketing of Iron and Steel, and Coal. From those humble beginnings, grew the almighty EURO, and now, as a political force, with its tentacles wrapped around any country close enough and unfortunate enough to have to rely on intra-continental trade with associated countries, they are damned if they do join the EEC (ie Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain, who are the worst-affected so far) and damned-well locked-out if they don't join.

Conspiracy?

What conspiracy?????

It's right there in front of your face - it is as clear to me as daylight itself, that the European Union wants to be the seat of One World Government, and you, Craigie, are playing right into their hands, by your endless regurgitation of "facts" and "science". Yet, when presented with the very clear evidence of fraud, you stick your bum in the air and your head in the sand and ignore any evidence that contradicts your dearest and heart-felt beliefs in AGW - the biggest hoax ever connived, contrived and foisted on the human race.

No, you just do not get it, and you won't. You are not just a pawn, you are a WILLING pawn, playing in the biggest game in town, and you don't even have the stakes for a seat at the table.

You are just an armchair observer, farting 50 cms higher than your @r$e!

Lucky I'm in a good mood tonight, or I might tear a strip off you.

Good post (y).
 
OK Craigie - on the subject of Loonies ...

Maybe ... just maybe ... NOAA has an agenda - their "anomalies" are not all you purport them to be.
And maybe the moon is made of green cheese, but the evidence strongly suggests it isn't. Just like the evidence strongly suggests that global temperature is rising. The evidence is so strong in fact that the major associations of world science accept it's validity:

*Academy of Sciences Malaysia
*Academy of Science of South Africa
*American Association for the Advancement of Science
*American Astronomical Society
*American Chemical Society
*American Geophysical Union
*American Institute of Physics
*American Meteorological Society
*American Physical Society
*American Quaternary Association
*Australian Academy of Science
*Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
*Brazilian Academy of Sciences
*Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
*Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
*Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
*Caribbean Academy of Sciences
*Chinese Academy of Sciences
*European Academy of Sciences and Arts
*European Geosciences Union
*European Science Foundation
*French Academy of Sciences
*German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
*Geological Society of America
*Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission
*Indian National Science Academy
*Indonesian Academy of Sciences
*InterAcademy Council
*International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
*International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
*International Union for Quaternary Research
*Mexican Academy of Sciences
*Network of African Science Academies
*Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
*Royal Irish Academy
*Royal Society of Canada
*Royal Society of New Zealand
*Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
*Russian Academy of Sciences
*Science Council of Japan

But you of course know better - it's all part of an agenda. Your combination of arrogance and ignorance is breathtaking.

You'd have to agree (but you won't) that the MWP figures can never be more than a fabrication - a "best guess". And, umm, can you elaborate a bit more on the evidence that Mann's Hockey Stick hypothesis is correct - I don't seem to have read of any major world-wide conversions to this theory being correct recently.

It's not a theory or a hypothesis. You can't get the simplest things about science right. It's a collation of data into a reconstruction of the temperature record. Just about all the reconstructions show a general hockey stick shape. Look it up. Oh .... I forgot, it all part of the agenda and you know better.
Smattering this thread with heat maps and anomaly maps is useless.
When conversing with you, of course it's pointless, because the great weight of scientific evidence is all part of the agenda.

But they don't seem to mention the UNUSUALLY cooler 2008 readings.

You can't even follow the thread and are rambling. The heat maps related to more recent work on MWP, that support the famous hockey stick and show Soon's 2003 paper to be not quite right.

What you are saying, Craigie, is that all of the non-warmistra's are fools and idiots.

I've no idea what you are talking about.

My position is that there really is an agenda to introduce to the planet, an unnecessary and useless tax, that will NOT reduce by ONE molecule, the amount of CO2 produced. It will merely make it a tradable commodity for the rich and street-smart amongst us to become even richer, at the expense of the already-poverty-stricken brothers and sisters who are our neighbours.
More agenda paranoia.
I happen to work with people who can not even afford decent health-care.
I see people die because they can not afford the treatment that may have saved them.
In Australia? Really? Pull the other one. It may be well short of perfect, but it's largely free in the public system.
And I see poverty on a daily basis, because of the greed of landlords and governments and developers, why are asserting their "god-given" (small 'g') right to rip off in the name of investment-return-profits, every cent they can from those unable to even mount the beginnings of a defence against them.
And this is related to climate change in what way?
If you had a single ounce of compassion and empathy for your fellow human beings, you would stop and think: "What the hell am I pushing this agenda for", knowing full well that the destruction of the economy as we know it will ensue, and the poor of the world will only become poorer, as the rich and powerful position themselves (no secret that Goldman Sachs have already done exactly that) to rake in excessive profits through the trading of so-called "Carbon Credits".

For the poor, these will become "Carbon Debits" because unlike the wealthy, they will be unable to manipulate the system to buy their way clear of the burden that will be imposed. Already here in Australia, this insidious thing is not law, but electricity costs are rising as if it is. And this in a country that is one of the biggest coal exporters on the planet. It is estimated this will cost families >$1,000 pa just for starters - we all know that costs, once introduced, will rise over time to something ever more burdensome. Add that to the family budget and see how many school lunches the kids will miss when it comes in.
Excuse me while I wipe away a tear. If you had any real concern for poverty you would be concerned with issues of equality and social justice. With better public education, better public healthcare and indeed with environmental damage for as always the poor get the rough end of the pineapple. But all you can do is bleat on about electricity bills. And defend the current abuse of the environment by big polluters. What a crock.

Your simplistic view of helping the poor is business as usual where the large polluters get to eat bigger and bigger pies at the feast of environmental destruction in the hope that a few more crumbs will fall off to the needy poor.

This will turn ordinary family people into milking-cows for the wealthy - fodder for the carbon-credit traders, who are already going from door-to-door trying to sign people into long contracts for energy, that they will have no "out" from.
And that is why control of emissions must be done in socially equitable way. With sound regulation. James Hansen suggests a straight tax on carbon and give it back to the poor. Sounds not bad to me. Because some (powerful) groups would like to profit handsomely from control of CO2 emissions, that does not in the slightest way negate the need for such controls. Powerful groups already profit handsomely by spewing uncontrolled amounts CO2 into the atmosphere.
You have the history of the EEC - how it was formed from a group of 6 countries in 1952, who wanted to control the marketing of Iron and Steel, and Coal. From those humble beginnings, grew the almighty EURO, and now, as a political force, with its tentacles wrapped around any country close enough and unfortunate enough to have to rely on intra-continental trade with associated countries, they are damned if they do join the EEC (ie Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain, who are the worst-affected so far) and damned-well locked-out if they don't join.
In the face of overwhelming evidence for AGW, you ramble on about the EEC and the Iron, Steel and Coal market. Just brilliant! You are very confused.
It's right there in front of your face - it is as clear to me as daylight itself, that the European Union wants to be the seat of One World Government
That's just plain idiotic. Yeah right - the US, China, India, Brazil, Russia, Japan even Australia all going to be governed from Europe. And when do you think this amazing state of affairs may come into being? Lunatic fringe stuff.

You present as paranoid.
 
Top