The REAL global warming

[maiden22]

This one has got to be a classic in ignorance and arrogance.



Indeed and lower ph means higher acidity. High ph value means more alkaline or basic. The most fundamental chemistry there is.

WTF are you dribbling about? I am aware that lower pH means more acidic. You could increase the height of the world's tallest building by balancing a lego brick on top of it. The building would be taller. It is another thing to extrapolate from this that within 100 years the building could reach to the moon. The question is how much lower, and what causes it, and what the effects are? We know the answer to the first - hardly. The next two we don't.

Ah, I can't be bothered with the rest.


You should be embarrassed by your post.

You should be embarassed by your reflection in the mirror.

But well done for staying away from the name calling. I can see that the can scared you. Good - good for you. You should be scared by the can. But just keep behaving yourself and you'll be OK.

 

[dcraig1]

You should be embarassed by your reflection in the mirror.

But well done for staying away from the name calling. I can see that the can scared you. Good - good for you. You should be scared by the can. But just keep behaving yourself and you'll be OK.

Tell ya what, if you stop sprinkling every post with garbage about hoaxes, scammers, swindles, global conspiracies for a one world government and a general denigration of every scientist in the world (ie most) who have nothing to do with denialist nonsense, then I will stop making the not unreasonable observation that you are just another of the McCarthy style conspiracy theory denialists.

Ya cannot get fairer than that.

Your post on ocean acidification, though, is still cringe worthy.

 

[maiden22]

Tell ya what, if you stop sprinkling every post with garbage about hoaxes, scammers, swindles, global conspiracies for a one world government and a general denigration of every scientist in the world (ie most) who have nothing to do with denialist nonsense, then I will stop making the not unreasonable observation that you are just another of the McCarthy style conspiracy theory denialists.

Ya cannot get fairer than that.

Your post on ocean acidification, though, is still cringe worthy.

I don't sprinkle every post blah blah blah - it was you who introduced the idea of a conspiracy. Others just point out that people may have less than pure motives. I also do not denigrate every blah blah blah - merely point out that there are opposing views, and some scientists may be mistaken.

I do however object quite strongly to being called a denier. Apart from being patently untrue, it is grossly offensive as it is intended to evoke thoughts of the world's most famous denial - something that is genuinely denial, although I would not expect you to appreciate the difference.

The acid post was not cringeworthy, although yours was - you attempt to present meaningless theories as fact.

As you wish - back to name-calling.

 

[maiden22]

Craig, this research has been peer-reviewed:

 

[maiden22]

Just in case you didn't get it:

 

[maiden22]

More consensus:

"India forms new climate change body
The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...7590/India-forms-new-climate-change-body.html

 

[dcraig1]

More consensus:

"India forms new climate change body
The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...7590/India-forms-new-climate-change-body.html

Regardless of the spin put on it by the Telegraph, this is a welcome development. If you actually read the article, the Indian government spokesman quite clearly expresses a concern about the melting Himilayan glaciers and the consequences for water security in his country. No doubt the new organization(s) will be staffed by capable scientists and make welcome contributions to the next IPCC report.

A number of countries already have advisory bodies created to advise their respective governments on climate change and it would seem only sensible than India do so as well.

It is rather shocking to actually compare the Telegraph's spin - "The move is a significant snub to both the IPCC and Dr Pachauri" to the reality as reported in The Times of India:

"NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has disregarded the controversy over the authenticity of projections made by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to say that climate change is a real threat.

Speaking at the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit on Friday, organised by R K Pachauri’s The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Singh said, “Some aspects of the science that is reflected in the work of the IPCC have faced criticism. But this debate does not challenge the core projections of the IPCC... Let me here assert that India has full confidence in the IPCC process and its leadership and will support it in every way that it can.”

The PM lauded Pachauri for his “able and far-sighted leadership” in getting TERI its “well deserved respect and international acclaim”, but did not endorse Pachauri’s complaint that he was victim of a conspiracy."

my emphasis

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-Pachauris-leadership/articleshow/5540596.cms

 

[dcraig1]

This will only be of interest if you are not an

If you're not, good article on the AGW scandal, as well as tracing its roots a little further back than usual ( http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/ipcc_international_pack_of_cli.html ). Don't worry if you find it plausible - recognising other people's dubious motives does not make you a conspiracy theorist. It might however mean that you don't need some of this:

You can't contain yourself, can you. More tin foil hat conspiracy garbage of the lowest calibre.

I've extracted a few pieces from the linked article.

Ttitle: "IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks"

Quote: "Simply stated, we've been swindled".

Quote: "The CFC ban was a perfect pilot for the anthropogenic global warming fraud."

Quote: "The CFC ban empowered and emboldened the eco-left. It paved the way for their next big scam. "

Quote: "Then, in 1985, the journal Nature (sound familiar?) published an article by some British researchers" The journal Nature in on the conspiracy again

Quote: "It was at that moment that it became clear that the long-held scientific position that the Earth's ecosystem has always and will always maintain CO2 equilibrium could be easily swayed toward a more exploitable belief system."

The crackpot stuff disputing the role of CFCs in ozone depletion should be warning enough that the rest is not worth reading.

Maiden, by linking to this twaddle, you amply demonstrate that your only answer to the science is to resort to conspiracy theory and defamation of the many, many scientists who have alerted the world to the danger of AGW.

But I will give the publishing web site "American Thinker" high marks for irony. They truly do excel.

 

[dcraig1]

Hottest January By Satellite Measurement

The UAH compilation of satellite data shows January 2010 to be the hottest ever recorded by satellite measurement reports very well known AGW skeptic Roy Spencer, despite a cold winter in a small part of the world.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/04/january-uah-global-temperature-warmest/

So lets hear from the conspiracy fanatics - Roy Spencer has gone over to the dark side.

Face facts - the world in warming!

 

[maiden22]

Regardless of the spin put on it by the Telegraph, this is a welcome development. If you actually read the article, the Indian government spokesman quite clearly expresses a concern about the melting Himilayan glaciers and the consequences for water security in his country. No doubt the new organization(s) will be staffed by capable scientists and make welcome contributions to the next IPCC report.

A number of countries already have advisory bodies created to advise their respective governments on climate change and it would seem only sensible than India do so as well.

It is rather shocking to actually compare the Telegraph's spin - "The move is a significant snub to both the IPCC and Dr Pachauri" to the reality as reported in The Times of India:

"NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has disregarded the controversy over the authenticity of projections made by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to say that climate change is a real threat.

Speaking at the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit on Friday, organised by R K Pachauri’s The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Singh said, “Some aspects of the science that is reflected in the work of the IPCC have faced criticism. But this debate does not challenge the core projections of the IPCC... Let me here assert that India has full confidence in the IPCC process and its leadership and will support it in every way that it can.”

The PM lauded Pachauri for his “able and far-sighted leadership” in getting TERI its “well deserved respect and international acclaim”, but did not endorse Pachauri’s complaint that he was victim of a conspiracy."

my emphasis

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-Pachauris-leadership/articleshow/5540596.cms

Is it stupidity or dishonesty that motivates you to make posts like that?

Can it be possible that you really don't know what politicians mean when they say something like "Let me here assert that India has full confidence in the IPCC process and its leadership and will support it in every way that it can".

Here's a little tip for you. Watch carefully next time a scandal is engulfing a politician. If Australia is anything like the UK, said politician will be desperately hanging on for as long as he can. When the Prime Minister eventually wades in saying that his colleague is a fine MP, doing a great job, has his full confidence etc, the guy will be gone within the week.

 

[maiden22]

You can't contain yourself, can you. More tin foil hat conspiracy garbage of the lowest calibre.

I've extracted a few pieces from the linked article.

Ttitle: "IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks"

Quote: "Simply stated, we've been swindled".

Quote: "The CFC ban was a perfect pilot for the anthropogenic global warming fraud."

Quote: "The CFC ban empowered and emboldened the eco-left. It paved the way for their next big scam. "

Quote: "Then, in 1985, the journal Nature (sound familiar?) published an article by some British researchers" The journal Nature in on the conspiracy again

Quote: "It was at that moment that it became clear that the long-held scientific position that the Earth's ecosystem has always and will always maintain CO2 equilibrium could be easily swayed toward a more exploitable belief system."

The crackpot stuff disputing the role of CFCs in ozone depletion should be warning enough that the rest is not worth reading.

Maiden, by linking to this twaddle, you amply demonstrate that your only answer to the science is to resort to conspiracy theory and defamation of the many, many scientists who have alerted the world to the danger of AGW.

But I will give the publishing web site "American Thinker" high marks for irony. They truly do excel.

Let us assume that you are correct lol:) and that I am a conspiracy theorist.

Worst case? I can come to my senses and stop being one.

How long do you want to keep up the childish name-calling?

 

[maiden22]

Re: Hottest January By Satellite Measurement

The UAH compilation of satellite data shows January 2010 to be the hottest ever recorded by satellite measurement reports very well known AGW skeptic Roy Spencer, despite a cold winter in a small part of the world.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/04/january-uah-global-temperature-warmest/

So lets hear from the conspiracy fanatics - Roy Spencer has gone over to the dark side.

Face facts - the world in warming!

Face facts - no-one disputes that it is! It may very well be! What timescale are you using ! (?)

Face facts - no Roy Spencer hasn't!

Face facts - I have pointed out perfectly valid concerns over the accuracy of the temperature record!!

Face facts - this is not the same as saying the world isn't warming!!!

Face facts - your case is not that the world is warming!!!!

Face facts - this does not prove that mankind is responsible!!!!!

Face facts - you are part of a giant a$$hole conspiracy!!!!!!

(OK, that last one is not proven, although there is a growing consensus).

 

[maiden22]

Good news Craig:

http://passionweiss.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/idiot2.jpg

 

[maiden22]

Something to keep you busy when you're not "sceptically" "researching" the climate:

 

[maiden22]

Given your stance on any claptrap released by anyone who's got a GCSE in "science", I thought that you might be interested in this:

 

[maiden22]

Craighole insists that Climategate shows nothing - no impropriety, nothing to worry about, no fraud, no manipulation, no attempt to hide anything. It's all just something got up by conspiracy theorists (like me presumably).

It appears that you don't have to be a ranting blah blah blah to disagree.

The following story (see second link for video) shows William Sprigg's opinion. Who he? Former IPCC bigwig and an AGW beleiver.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4V-vrT-HW8&annotation_id=annotation_191218&feature=iv

It's worth watching, but for the lazy here is a quote "[The emails] definitely suggest that climate data have been witheld and manipulated".

What's wrong with him Craig? Is he a ranter, a conspiracy theorist, etc or has he just decided (unlike you) not to be wilfully blind?

Hang on though - all is saved! His speech has not been "peer-reviewed" (!) so it is NOTHING!

 

[maiden22]

Don't look now Craighole - more conspiracy theories coming. Just ignore it - it hasn't been peer-reveiwed by liars.

For everyone who hasn't got their mind set to "gullible cretin":

In most areas of science, it is considered noble to be a skeptic of a given theory, unless that theory is man-made climate change. According to Al Gore, “The debate [about climate change] in the scientific community is over,” yet the debate curiously rages on. English Prime Minister Gordon Brown, frustrated by those pesky second-guessers, proclaimed, “we mustn’t be distracted by … flat-earth climate skeptics.” Yet while those who reject the climate change orthodoxy are portrayed as denying scientific fact, the facts are overwhelmingly supporting that skeptical view.

http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=19993

 

[maiden22]

Hey Craig, the consensus just keeps getting stronger.

Here's the UK Government's chief scientific adviser John Beddington distancing himself from the Craig-style nutters.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece

 

[maiden22]

Craig, you're really going to love this one.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5745566/by-the-waters-of-denial-they-sit-and-weep.thtml

Melanie Phillips weighs in. I've picked out a few quotes that should have special appeal:

"the green movement was using climate change as a cover to smuggle in other agendas such as poverty or equality."

"the fact is that from the start environmentalism has self-evidently been all about changing the nature of society rather than changing society’s views about nature."

"there is a very strong green fascism in much of the environmental world. I’ve heard it said at meetings I’ve been at – that climate change is so important - democracy has to be sacrificed"

"The ‘scientific’ basis for it [AGW] is de-materialising day by day, leaving merely the sulphurous stink of intellectual fraud on an epic scale."

"And what can one say about ‘the science’? ‘The ‘science’ is already paying dearly for its abuse of freedom of information, for unacceptable cronyism, for unwonted arrogance, and for the disgraceful misuse of data at every level, from temperature measurements to glaciers to the Amazon rain forest. What is worse, the usurping of the scientific method, and of justified scientific scepticism, by political policies and political propaganda could well damage science sensu lato - never mind just climate science - in the public eye for decades." (Quoting Philip Stott)

"Miliband resembles one of those people who are discovered living in the jungle decades after the end of a war without realising it is all over. Someone should sit him down with a nice strong cup of hot sweet Fairtrade tea and a blanket over his shoulders, and embark him without delay upon a course of post-traumatic stress counselling. An awful lot of reputations are about to be reduced to, um, carbon – his included."

 

[maiden22]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related

Have a look at this clip Craighole - excellent and serious analysis.