Bloody hell, that's desperate. Conclusion, by now EVERYONE understands the difference between weather and climate.
Upvote
0
What global warming?
- Thread starter Cornish Steve
- Start date
Bloody hell, that's desperate. Conclusion, by now EVERYONE understands the difference between weather and climate.
- Original Poster
- #1,002
I came across another interesting article a couple of days ago. It included the following:
The climate campaign establishment increasingly looks like its own self-contained and self-referential lunatic asylum, unable to exercise any self-restraint in finding positive proof of climate change in every weather surprise. Several years back, climate campaigners in Britain [i.e., climate], citing the latest warming models, ostentatiously predicted that snowstorms would soon be a thing of the past in Britain, something schoolchildren would read about in history books or hear tales about from their grandparents. Then this fall just past, the British Met Office predicted a 60 to 80 percent chance of a warmer-than-average winter this year [i.e., weather]. But now Britain is having its second extremely cold winter in a row, with record snowfalls nearly strangling the nation. Oops.
The incredible part of this statement is that, just months ago, the Met Office predicted a warmer than average winter. What credibility does this give to their models - climate or weather? Or was this all political posturing as you claim?
The author refers to climate change as a "non-falsifiable hypothesis," that is, a theory or belief that explains everything and is therefore impossible to be contradicted by observations or contrary evidence.
The climate campaign establishment increasingly looks like its own self-contained and self-referential lunatic asylum, unable to exercise any self-restraint in finding positive proof of climate change in every weather surprise. Several years back, climate campaigners in Britain [i.e., climate], citing the latest warming models, ostentatiously predicted that snowstorms would soon be a thing of the past in Britain, something schoolchildren would read about in history books or hear tales about from their grandparents. Then this fall just past, the British Met Office predicted a 60 to 80 percent chance of a warmer-than-average winter this year [i.e., weather]. But now Britain is having its second extremely cold winter in a row, with record snowfalls nearly strangling the nation. Oops.
The incredible part of this statement is that, just months ago, the Met Office predicted a warmer than average winter. What credibility does this give to their models - climate or weather? Or was this all political posturing as you claim?
The author refers to climate change as a "non-falsifiable hypothesis," that is, a theory or belief that explains everything and is therefore impossible to be contradicted by observations or contrary evidence.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #1,004
Did you actually read the quote? It relates to both climate and weather (see my inserts in [] ).
The models used by researchers, being very complex and processor-intensive, share many of the same assumptions. They are not fundamentally different. If short-term predictions go haywire, it raises very valid concerns about long-term predictions.
The models used by researchers, being very complex and processor-intensive, share many of the same assumptions. They are not fundamentally different. If short-term predictions go haywire, it raises very valid concerns about long-term predictions.
Upvote
0
A lot of columnists quote Piers Corbyn, a climate "sceptic" who runs a business predicting extreme weather events - with a good reputation for getting it right, although the only rigorous check on this was done in 2001.
I thought I'd check out Mr Corbyn's claims on climate. Amid all the bad tempered ranting on his website, I found the claim dated 2008 "The world is cooling and will continue to do so". Since he said that, temperatures have risen to an all time high as per the predictions of mainstream science. So, the only prediction I could find and it is clearly wrong.
Exactly the same happens when you look at the claims of Delingpole, Booker, Monckton and the rest - cherrypicking, distortions and fabrications - yet they blunder on regardless.
Here's my take on why.
I thought I'd check out Mr Corbyn's claims on climate. Amid all the bad tempered ranting on his website, I found the claim dated 2008 "The world is cooling and will continue to do so". Since he said that, temperatures have risen to an all time high as per the predictions of mainstream science. So, the only prediction I could find and it is clearly wrong.
Exactly the same happens when you look at the claims of Delingpole, Booker, Monckton and the rest - cherrypicking, distortions and fabrications - yet they blunder on regardless.
Here's my take on why.
Upvote
0
S
skiesnpies
As the man said in "American Beauty" - never underestimate the power of denial.
We are living beyond our means environmentally and there are tough challenges ahead climate change or not. People don't want to confront that naturally as it means tough decisions.
Climate change is a science, like any other science. People put forward theories for others to consider. With the theory of climate change, almost all scientists who have looked in any detail believe the theory to be sound (remember evolution is just a theory , relativity is just a theory). What the media fail to report (as they like to put both sides) is that those that look into it properly and study it, almost all fall on the side of "it is happening". Of course, some don't agree, and of course some findings are wrong or turn out untrue, but the bulk of the data suggests it is here, it is man made and it is getting worse.
I just love the posters who say "I haven't used my BBQ so its not happening" and "we had the coldest winter in Devon last year so it can't be true" - that isn't science
We are living beyond our means environmentally and there are tough challenges ahead climate change or not. People don't want to confront that naturally as it means tough decisions.
Climate change is a science, like any other science. People put forward theories for others to consider. With the theory of climate change, almost all scientists who have looked in any detail believe the theory to be sound (remember evolution is just a theory , relativity is just a theory). What the media fail to report (as they like to put both sides) is that those that look into it properly and study it, almost all fall on the side of "it is happening". Of course, some don't agree, and of course some findings are wrong or turn out untrue, but the bulk of the data suggests it is here, it is man made and it is getting worse.
I just love the posters who say "I haven't used my BBQ so its not happening" and "we had the coldest winter in Devon last year so it can't be true" - that isn't science
Upvote
0
I just love the posters who say "I haven't used my BBQ so its not happening" and "we had the coldest winter in Devon last year so it can't be true" - that isn't science
Of course not its FACT.
Earl
Upvote
0
S
skiesnpies
They way I see it :
1) CO2 is an insulating gas, provable in a junior school science project
2) We have released measurable amounts of CO2 by burning fossil fuels, the quantity of which you can calculate in a high school maths lesson.
3) We know the size of the atmosphere
4) Therefore we know as a percentage, how much more CO2 we should have
AND
5) We can measure the CO2 increase very accurately - and it IS on the increase at a rate greater than at any time in earths history.
Currently we are fairly sure a chunk was absorbed by the sea, as the sea is becoming more acidic and the amount we expect to find - that we KNOW we released, isn't there. The sea is saturating though (again you can demonstrate this easily in a school lab), so we should expect to see CO2 levels rising more quickly ongoing.
By far the majority of science papers out there conclude the same thing, the deniers cling to tiny bits of obscure contrary evidence and bang on and on about it, ignoring the bulk of the evidence altogether. Its like the moon landings being a hoax, they cling to scraps of "evidence" and totally miss the bigger picture (like that the Russians were watching very very closely).
Of course, there will always exceptions and queries, but in science, it is the wealth of data which is used, not odd exceptions.
I have never met a "denier" with a really credible argument, just a bunch of people with a good reason to find a way of avoiding the truth.
Chosen Charity:
www.HeartOfEnglandForest.com
1) CO2 is an insulating gas, provable in a junior school science project
2) We have released measurable amounts of CO2 by burning fossil fuels, the quantity of which you can calculate in a high school maths lesson.
3) We know the size of the atmosphere
4) Therefore we know as a percentage, how much more CO2 we should have
AND
5) We can measure the CO2 increase very accurately - and it IS on the increase at a rate greater than at any time in earths history.
Currently we are fairly sure a chunk was absorbed by the sea, as the sea is becoming more acidic and the amount we expect to find - that we KNOW we released, isn't there. The sea is saturating though (again you can demonstrate this easily in a school lab), so we should expect to see CO2 levels rising more quickly ongoing.
By far the majority of science papers out there conclude the same thing, the deniers cling to tiny bits of obscure contrary evidence and bang on and on about it, ignoring the bulk of the evidence altogether. Its like the moon landings being a hoax, they cling to scraps of "evidence" and totally miss the bigger picture (like that the Russians were watching very very closely).
Of course, there will always exceptions and queries, but in science, it is the wealth of data which is used, not odd exceptions.
I have never met a "denier" with a really credible argument, just a bunch of people with a good reason to find a way of avoiding the truth.
Chosen Charity:
www.HeartOfEnglandForest.com
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
So what is it as a percentage of the Earths atmosphere and how does that compare with the fireworks of WW2.?
Earl
Upvote
0
S
skiesnpies
389 parts per million currently.
They only started yearly records in 1955 - before that figures are more spaced apart so the direct impact in WW2 is hard to say. I realise a lot happened, but I can't imagine somehow that it would have the same impact as all of the coal and oil burned since the industrial revolution???
They only started yearly records in 1955 - before that figures are more spaced apart so the direct impact in WW2 is hard to say. I realise a lot happened, but I can't imagine somehow that it would have the same impact as all of the coal and oil burned since the industrial revolution???
Upvote
0
S
skiesnpies
Incidentally, atmospheric CO2 concentrations went up 0.6% in the last 12 months alone and 18% in the last 50 years.
Concentrations measured from ice cores (a controversial way to measure initially but now fairly well respected as accurate) prior to this were stable at about 280ppm for the last 1,000 years or so and then started to rise from about 1750.
Yes volcano's and one off events cause blips and the odd unexplained downward curve for a year or two, but otherwise it has been a fairly steady increase year on year for 250 years - and its hard to argue that a very clear increase year on year that has shown an overall increase of 28% is down to chance numbers. If it was 0.5%, fair enough, but 28% ????
Lots of scientific (peer reviewed) research papers here on ancient CO2 level measurements, how they measured and how they compare to other trends. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm.
Earth has had higher levels of CO2 concentrations in the past, but it also had MUCH higher average global temperatures - ie. that could be what we are re-creating!
Concentrations measured from ice cores (a controversial way to measure initially but now fairly well respected as accurate) prior to this were stable at about 280ppm for the last 1,000 years or so and then started to rise from about 1750.
Yes volcano's and one off events cause blips and the odd unexplained downward curve for a year or two, but otherwise it has been a fairly steady increase year on year for 250 years - and its hard to argue that a very clear increase year on year that has shown an overall increase of 28% is down to chance numbers. If it was 0.5%, fair enough, but 28% ????
Lots of scientific (peer reviewed) research papers here on ancient CO2 level measurements, how they measured and how they compare to other trends. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm.
Earth has had higher levels of CO2 concentrations in the past, but it also had MUCH higher average global temperatures - ie. that could be what we are re-creating!
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
S
skiesnpies
oh and another thing (this is like having a row with my wife hee hee)
the highest recorded CO2 level for the last 1/2 million years is about 280.
So for 450,000 years, it fluctuated up and down a bit through ice ages etc, topping out at 280 on a half dozen occasions, and then in 250 years it goes to 389 - just coincidentally at the same time as we industrialise a huge growing population?
Can't possibly be us can it ?
Oh, and you never clean up after yourself either - oh hang on, wrong argument
the highest recorded CO2 level for the last 1/2 million years is about 280.
So for 450,000 years, it fluctuated up and down a bit through ice ages etc, topping out at 280 on a half dozen occasions, and then in 250 years it goes to 389 - just coincidentally at the same time as we industrialise a huge growing population?
Can't possibly be us can it ?
Oh, and you never clean up after yourself either - oh hang on, wrong argument
Upvote
0
D
dagr
That would have made sense if you had left out the word "global".
December 2010 was actually quite a warm month, although the coolest December since the year 2000.
I think 2010 was one of the warmest year's ever (globally).
Upvote
0
D
Dawg
Nice. You are of course part of the charidee sector, and in the part with a specific interest in this, no? As in being paid?
Good impartial advice from a warmist paid to beat the warmist drum.
Yawn/Crusty.
Upvote
0
S
skiesnpies
Yes, you are quite correct, the fact that I feed myself by having a job makes the science all complete nonsense. In fact, while I was studying this topic for my Msc (while not being paid) I deliberately mis-read all the scientific research just in case. You have completely busted my credibility.
Where as you are an independent researcher with no job, who has looked outside and said "its cold today" therefore there is nothing to this theory. Yep, credibility by the bucket load.
Unless you can take some sort of scientific stand point and put some evidence on the table, this just becomes a pub argument with stuff that can just be made up, and I don't really want to take part in that kind of thing. Note, I am happy to reference all the stuff about I quoted.
Where as you are an independent researcher with no job, who has looked outside and said "its cold today" therefore there is nothing to this theory. Yep, credibility by the bucket load.
Unless you can take some sort of scientific stand point and put some evidence on the table, this just becomes a pub argument with stuff that can just be made up, and I don't really want to take part in that kind of thing. Note, I am happy to reference all the stuff about I quoted.
Upvote
0
D
Dawg
I love people who mention they have degrees. They must be sooo clever. Was your MSc in Metallurgy? Leaden sarcasm? Or Toy throwing, Prams out of?
I'm sure you can reference bucket loads of stuff. Yippee for you, Google and The Wiki-wonkies. Can you also reference the economic implausibility of much of the proposed solution? I can't, but I know a man who can.
But then, as you say I am a mere unemployed researcher who doffs his cap to a single issue crusty with a , gasp, degree.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
S
skiesnpies
My degree was in environmental science, specialising in climate change - which was the ONLY reason I mentioned it. I respond to threads like these to try and counter so much BS that is spouted by people who simply know nothing about what they say. I do know, as I took the time to find out.
There is a general perception out there held by a lot of people that climate change is a myth, but this perception is as unfounded as the perception that God made the world in 7 days - but lots of people are fooled into believing it. Anyway thats a whole different issue - which I can't comment on as I am a "single issue crustie".
I am still waiting for some science or evidence by the way, I take it the name calling is a distraction from the fact that you don't have any? Wouldn't it be simpler for you to respond to topics you know nothing about with "I don't know anything about this" and then remain quiet?
There is a general perception out there held by a lot of people that climate change is a myth, but this perception is as unfounded as the perception that God made the world in 7 days - but lots of people are fooled into believing it. Anyway thats a whole different issue - which I can't comment on as I am a "single issue crustie".
I am still waiting for some science or evidence by the way, I take it the name calling is a distraction from the fact that you don't have any? Wouldn't it be simpler for you to respond to topics you know nothing about with "I don't know anything about this" and then remain quiet?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
D
Dawg
Science or evidence of what? Did I assert something factual about AGW that you dispute? Nope. I was just making a point about your name calling, dismissing someone as a troll because they didn't have the same understanding as you. Well fie!
And, after 100 pages of a thread, I can't lead it slightly off track by ribbing your missionary zeal, well fie! And Fie again!
Anyway is 'Environmental Science specializing in Climate Change' a real degree? Or one of the one of the ones down the corridor from Golf Bunker Management?
Upvote
0
LOL, I saved them during 20 years hard work Earl - baffled as to where this one is going but looking forward to finding out
Well I reckon you were paid to do your degree by your previous employment.?
Earl
Upvote
0
S
skiesnpies
Nope, you are quite correct, I just re-read, you didn't in fact claim anything, my mistake. Your still wrong though
And no, nothing to do with Golf Bunkers, I got my degree in a christmas cracker.....
Upvote
0
S
skiesnpies
Dude, thats weird logic, that means if I ever do any work and don't spend 100% of the cash, I am forever being PAID to undertake ANY activity what ever my motives?
Upvote
0
S
StephenW
Anthony Watts's blog has been voted best science blog in the 2011 "bloggies" Weblog Awards.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/27/wuwt-voted-best-science-blog-in-the-2011-bloggies/
Some other interesting blogs via the links on the bloggies site:
http://2011.bloggi.es/#science
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/27/wuwt-voted-best-science-blog-in-the-2011-bloggies/
Some other interesting blogs via the links on the bloggies site:
http://2011.bloggi.es/#science
Upvote
0
S
StephenW
What ever next, a connection between News of the World and Climategate?
Seriously, this is interesting. Relates to the enquires in the UK after CRU e-mails were leaked:
" Covert Operations by East Anglias CRU
Steve McIntyre, posted on
Jul 14, 2011 at 2:53 PM
Today brings news of the arrest of the managing director of a firm hired by the University of East Anglias CRU (Climatic Research Unit) to carry out covert operations h/t reader Chu here). Neil Wallis of Outside Organisation was arrested today in connection with the spreading News of the World scandal. "
Seriously, this is interesting. Relates to the enquires in the UK after CRU e-mails were leaked:
" Covert Operations by East Anglias CRU
Steve McIntyre, posted on
Jul 14, 2011 at 2:53 PM
Today brings news of the arrest of the managing director of a firm hired by the University of East Anglias CRU (Climatic Research Unit) to carry out covert operations h/t reader Chu here). Neil Wallis of Outside Organisation was arrested today in connection with the spreading News of the World scandal. "
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
What I Wish I'd Known Before Using AI in My BusinessSomewhere between the headlines promising AI will transform everything...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Is AI Making the Internet Worse?It started with a comment about music. @JEREMY HAWKE , a courier...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The AI Divide: What UKBF Members Really Think in 2026Every few months on UK Business Forums, a thread appears that refuses...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When the Algorithm Gets It Wrong: What eBay's AI Moderation Problem Tells Us About Platform RiskA thread appeared on UKBF this week that, on the surface, looks like a...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Should you crowdfund? A framework for UK founders in 2026Three articles into a series on what crowdfunding actually costs, the...
- Ozzy
- Updated: