No more global warming?

The Earths climate does change. The hubris is that man is the cause of this. The recent debunking of the IPCCs' 'voodoo science' claims that the glacies are melting faster than an ice lolly in Tunisia, goes to show how far these 'scientists' are prepared to go to purloin some more wonga from the taxpayer, (that's you me and me folks!), as my grandad used to say, Piffle!.

I despair. :embarassed:

Climate Secretary "declares war" on climate change sceptics

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The climate secretary, Ed Miliband, last night warned of the danger of a public backlash against the science of global warming in the face of continuing claims that scientists have manipulated data.
In an exclusive interview with the Observer, Miliband spoke out for the first time about last month's revelations that climate scientists had withheld and covered up information and the apology made by the influential UN climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which admitted it had exaggerated claims about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.
The perceived failure of global talks on combating climate change in Copenhagen last month has also been blamed for undermining public support. But in the government's first high-level recognition of the growing pressure on public opinion, Miliband declared a "battle" against the "siren voices" who denied global warming was real or caused by humans, or that there was a need to cut carbon emissions to tackle it.
"It's right that there's rigour applied to all the reports about climate change, but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it's somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that's there," he said.
"We know there's a physical effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to higher temperatures, that's a question of physics; we know CO2 concentrations are at their highest for 6,000 years; we know there are observed increases in temperatures; and we know there are observed effects that point to the existence of human-made climate change. That's what the vast majority of scientists tell us."
Mistakes and attempts to hide contradictory data had to be seen in the light of the thousands of pages of evidence in the IPCC's four-volume report in 2007, said Miliband. The most recent accusation about the panel's work is that its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, may have known before the Copenhagen summit that its assessment report had seriously exaggerated the rate of melting of the Himalayan glaciers.
However, Miliband was adamant that the IPCC was on the right track. "It's worth saying that no doubt when the next report comes out it will suggest there have been areas where things have been happening more dramatically than the 2007 report implied," he said.
The danger of climate scepticism was that it would undermine public support for unpopular decisions needed to curb carbon emissions, including the likelihood of higher energy bills for households, and issues such as the visual impact of wind turbines, said Miliband, who is also energy secretary.
If the UK did not invest in renewable, clean energy, it would lose jobs and investment to other countries, have less energy security because of the dependence on oil and gas imports and contribute to damaging temperature rises for future generations. "There are a whole variety of people who are sceptical, but who they are is less important than what they are saying, and what they are saying is profoundly dangerous," he said. "Every#thing we know about life is that we should obey the precautionary principle; to take what the sceptics say seriously would be a profound risk."
The Copenhagen conference in December ended with no formal agreement to make deep cuts in global emissions, or even set a timetable, but Miliband warned activists against "despair".
The UN conference was a "disappointment", he said, but there were important achievements, including the agreement by countries responsible for 80% of emissions to set domestic carbon targets by today. "There's a message for people who take these things seriously: don't mourn, organise," said Miliband, who has previously called for a Make Poverty History-style mass public campaign to pressure politicians into cutting emissions.
Lord Smith, the Environment Agency chairman, said: "The [Himalayan] glaciers may not melt by 2035, but they are melting and there's a serious problem that's going to affect substantial parts of Asia over the course of the next 100 or more years."

Woo! :birthday2:
Makes a change from the usual "One out of a thousand predictions made by the IPCC is wrong CLIMATE CHANGE IS A LIE" that we're all so very used to hearing.

You'd be better off with a banana.

Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
The Earths climate does change. The hubris is that man is the cause of this. The recent debunking of the IPCCs' 'voodoo science' claims that the glacies are melting faster than an ice lolly in Tunisia, goes to show how far these 'scientists' are prepared to go to purloin some more wonga from the taxpayer, (that's you me and me folks!), as my grandad used to say, Piffle!.

Oh yeah, that's something new - a certain group of people have their own interests to look after for. You do know those scientists are still people, and you were probably born before yesterday too :tongue:. Hell, if it were not for deniers, they would notbe so overeager to present new proof. But enough of this, as I said, climate change or not, we need to stop the trashing of this planet (God, I hate saying that...). You do not need an excuse for idleness.

lolololol http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...e-article.html

Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
You'd be better off with a banana.

Way to avoid the actual topic. Besides, that was the Foreign Secretary, someone totally different.

Originally Posted by Fragony:
lolololol http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...e-article.html

So, two sources trustworthiness are in dispute. It's a terrible shame for the climate change denier camp that the IPCC uses more than just two sources to come to it's conclusions. I guess it shows just how desperate that deniers are when they have to resort to such weak, pathetic and infantile attempts to refute science.

I am not desperate I am patient, more is yet to come.

Originally Posted by Subotan:


So, two sources trustworthiness are in dispute. It's a terrible shame for the climate change denier camp that the IPCC uses more than just two sources to come to it's conclusions. I guess it shows just how desperate that deniers are when they have to resort to such weak, pathetic and infantile attempts to refute science.

the correct appellation is "skeptic" thank you very much, and; lol.

Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
The Earths climate does change. The hubris is that man is the cause of this.

I seem to see this claim repeated a lot; that it is somehow arrogant to claim that humans can be affecting the climate.

Do you have some sort of order-of-magnitude calculation to back this up, or at least some coherent line of reasoning? You see, I have come to suspect it is nothing more than a gut feeling based on the observation that the earth is "big" while humans are "small".

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, I'm afraid I have yet to hear any convincing argument that it is somehow obvious.

wow, common sense prevails at the BBC, who'd a thunk it!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/

Originally Posted by :
The problem with hidden agendas

Justin Rowlatt | 19:18 UK time, Wednesday, 27 January 2010

I'm used to my reports and blogs causing a stir but the Analysis programme I made this week for Radio 4 seems to have been even more incendiary than most.

It asks an admittedly deliberately provocative question - whether the green movement is bad for the environment.

But the actual programme is, I thought, more balanced and nuanced. It discusses whether some of the ideological baggage of the green movement can be a problem when campaigning on the climate issue.

Yet it led one contributor to the programme to describe me as dangerous. I've been called all sorts of things in my life, but that's a new one on me.

I've also had a clutch of critical e-mails. One described the programme as "an attempt to catch a currently fashionable vogue for smearing environmentalists".

Then there is the usual slew of angry posts on my blog.

This time even the producer has come in for flack. There have been pointed attacks on her article on the use of religious imagery by environmentalists. (But it has been posted up by Al Gore.)

So why is the programme causing such controversy?

A number of people thought it was plain biased.

"It's good old fashioned journo trick", reads a comment on one blog.

"Set up the straw man, conflate lots of ideas and different people's work behind it and deliver your own value laden conclusions as if you were taking the only rational position possible."

Is that fair? Judge for yourself, listen to it now.

Alternatively, you can read a full transcript here.

The more patient among you can wait until Sunday 31st, then you will be able to do it the old fashioned way and listen to the programme on the wireless. Radio 4 at 9.30pm. (You may it find a useful sleep aid).

But I will cut to the chase. I argue in the programme that green campaigners should be very wary of using the urgency of the climate issue as cover to push forward other, agendas - poverty or equality, for example.

Here's the conclusion: "I don't have a problem with people campaigning for those other agendas for their vision of a better society. For me the problem comes if the
fear of the consequences of climate change is used as cover to smuggle in other objectives for social and political change. That's because many people already
have a sense that there's something suspicious about the campaign to tackle global warming; they instinctively distrust the science and if they feel that the solutions people are proposing are less to do with carbon than pushing through a hidden agenda that will only serve to confirm their scepticism."

Now that's not that controversial is it?

Cool stuff from serious scientists, looks promising. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/fusion-ldx-0125.html

lolololol http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot....limate_28.html

I'd trust Greenpeace to be more truthful about climate change than people sponsored by the likes of ExxonMobil.

well I don't

And your reasoning for that is? At least Greenpeace are not only unlikely to be motivated by a financial agenda, but seeing as they are "the" environmental NGO, they're going to have all the experts, access to the data etc.

Originally Posted by Fragony:
well I don't

Why not? ExxonMobil has monetary interests on their side. I swear, if the Devil himself appeared to them and asked them to sell their souls for money, they would do it, without more than a minute of consideration. I mean, I do not wish to cartoonishly vilify them, as I think this greed is absolutely natural, and do not get me wrong, I am not at all anti-corporation, but I do understand how things work to a degree. ExxonMobil has all the interest do downplay peak oil, global warming, etc, etc and if they are not already downplaying it, then they are idiots - which they are not.

Greenpeace, well, they are crazy about the environment, they are semi-militant 'green' radicals, but they genuinely think they have a duty for the environment and they try to protect it to the best of their somewhat misguided minds. They have no ulterior interests. Not unless you are some conspiracy nut at least...

Originally Posted by Subotan:
And your reasoning for that is? At least Greenpeace are not only unlikely to be motivated by a financial agenda, but seeing as they are "the" environmental NGO, they're going to have all the experts, access to the data etc.

lol. and greenpeace obviously have no agenda!

whereas the oil companies stand to make a fortune in green technologies.

So what is Greenpeace's agenda then? Are they actually a false flag organisation?

And there is no way you can seriously believe that the second point makes oil companies credible when discussing climate science.

Originally Posted by Subotan:
So what is Greenpeace's agenda then? Are they actually a false flag organisation?

And there is no way you can seriously believe that the second point makes oil companies credible when discussing climate science.

no, but they are full of ageing hair-shirt hippies who want us all to spend the rest of our lives living in caves and eating mung-beans. they engage zero lofic as witnessed by brent-spar.

yes i do, because the oil companies are among the biggest investors in renewable energy, and thus stand to make a killing from climate alarmism.

Originally Posted by :
no, but they are full of ageing hair-shirt hippies who want us all to spend the rest of our lives living in caves and eating mung-beans. they engage zero lofic as witnessed by brent-spar.

That may be true amongst some members of the organisation, but that is not official policy.

Originally Posted by :
yes i do, because the oil companies are among the biggest investors in renewable energy, and thus stand to make a killing from climate alarmism.

Haha! Hahahahaha!

Diversification and insurance policies are not necessarily carried out/bought because you believe the bad event is going to happen. It is more of a just-in-case thing. Nor are the diversification and insurance policies there to make future profit - no, they normally exist for the purpose of minimising the losses, as opposed to being the primary vehicles of money-making.

The oil companies squeeze comparatively spectacular profits from the mining, refining, and sometimes distribution. 'Green' technology may also make profit, but it will never match the today's status quo. Oil companies see the supposed trend towards 'green' technology, and they jump on the bandwagon, partially in hopes of additional, but smaller profits; partially as a PR stunt; partially as insurance in case petroleum production does go bust/becomes outdated. However, they do not want, under any circumstance, to see the shift from oil to 'green' energy sources.

'Green' technology, however, is certainly not their territory (technological innovation is not the hallmark of oil industry, and even if it was, there are hundreds of tech companies doing the same), it is uncertain territory, with possible competition on all sides, and the profits significantly lower even in the best of circumstances. Right now, the oil companies' environment is rather secure, stabilised, with no apparent possibility of large-scale competition.

The Economist, for instance, pointed out that the costs of oil exploration are so high, and the returns so low and distant that even the national oil companies, such as that of Mexico or Venezuela, are abandoning the search for new deposits. Only the major private oil companies have the money, as well as some of the nationalised oil industries, such as the Russian one. Thus, the current petroleum market environment is so secure that even a discovery of new deposits will only benefit the oil companies. And for all we know, they may keep some deposits intentionally unannounced (but of course, keep the land to themselves so that others will not get to the oil before they open it up) to keep the supply tight and prices high. Then, they could 'discover' the 'new' oil fields just to keep the concept of peak oil far away enough from people's minds to be comfortable. While this is rather quite unlikely, it is a possibility. And the companies could do this without keeping the fields secret too, as they are doing this right now, day-by-day, keeping the quotas, but if the oil price soar too high, they may find themselves under government pressure.

I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!

Originally Posted by drone:
I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!

**** it, you beat me to it.

Originally Posted by Subotan:
So what is Greenpeace's agenda then? Are they actually a false flag organisation?

It's their interest to feed the hoax and keep people scared, and it are watermelons, they preach green but pray to scoialism


even more fraud, Chinese data joins the great deception

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-jones-chinese

Originally Posted by Fragony:
It's their interest to feed the hoax and keep people scared

Yes, we get that but WHY!?

Money of course. Billions of euro's go to all sort of NGO's, the same NGO who are behind this global hoaxing.

Billions of euro's to Africa to help poor country's combat CO2 and you aren't like eeehhhh wut, CO2 from what. Like all development aid 80% willend up in Switzerland and the rest on the stock market.

edit: forgot about carbon emmision rights trade, google it, and then google it with scam and fraud and organised crime

Originally Posted by Fragony:
Money of course. Billions of euro's go to all sort of NGO's, the same NGO who are behind this global hoaxing.

Billions of euro's to Africa to help poor country's combat CO2 and you aren't like eeehhhh wut, CO2 from what. Like all development aid 80% willend up in Switzerland and the rest on the stock market.

edit: forgot about carbon emmision rights trade, google it, and then google it with scam and fraud and organised crime

trillions to distribute from the rich west to the poor nations. equality of outcome cometh.

That certainly explains why countries aren't living up to their developmental commitment, and didn't firm up much of their commitment to countries at Copenhagen.

Your argument hasn't got a leg to stand on. You say there is a global conspiracy, yet provide no real evidence for it. Also can you explain why no evidence for a monetary conspiracy was found in the East Anglia emails?

Because they only do what some still think to be 'science'.

Your argument hasn't got a leg to stand on.

How about IPCC-gate, climate-gate, amazon-gate, himelaya-gate, northpole-gate, gletcher-gate, etc etc etc

Originally Posted by CountArach:
That certainly explains why countries aren't living up to their developmental commitment, and didn't firm up much of their commitment to countries at Copenhagen.

Your argument hasn't got a leg to stand on. You say there is a global conspiracy, yet provide no real evidence for it. Also can you explain why no evidence for a monetary conspiracy was found in the East Anglia emails?

now hold on there cowboy, i said nothing about a global conspiracy, and have actually disavowed that very conspiracy theory earlier in this thread.

Originally Posted by Fragony:
How about IPCC-gate, climate-gate, amazon-gate, himelaya-gate, northpole-gate, gletcher-gate, etc etc etc

You can add 'gate' to whatever you like. Scientists make some mistakes, yeah. The IPCC is not infallible, yeah. But that doesn't deny the fact that the overwhelming (note: I don't believe it is a complete concensus) majority of the climatological community believes in Man-made global warming.

Originally Posted by :
now hold on there cowboy, i said nothing about a global conspiracy, and have actually disavowed that very conspiracy theory earlier in this thread.

That was aimed more at Fragony than you, who has consistently been pushing the faceless conspiracy theory stuff.

Originally Posted by Furunculus:
now hold on there cowboy, i said nothing about a global conspiracy, and have actually disavowed that very conspiracy theory earlier in this thread.

Maybe he meant the SPIES ARE BEHIND CLIMATEGATE conspiracy as Blairs senior-advisor Sir David King put it, which isn't even that unlikely by the way but I thank them for it, have had enough with this nonsense.

Originally Posted by Fragony:
Maybe he meant the SPIES ARE BEHIND CLIMATEGATE conspiracy as Blairs senior-advisor Sir David King put it, which isn't even that unlikely by the way but I thank them for it, have had enough with this nonsense.

A response would be appreciated.

Originally Posted by CountArach:
But that doesn't deny the fact that the overwhelming (note: I don't believe it is a complete concensus) majority of the climatological community believes in Man-made global warming.

That was aimed more at Fragony than you, who has consistently been pushing the faceless conspiracy theory stuff.

i believe in anthropogenic warming, what i question is the following:
> The IPCC's full understanding of of feedback and forcing mechanisms.
> The consequent assumption that CO2 increase will lead to catastrophic warming.
> The fact that there will be catastrophic warming which will require radical action.
> The efficacy of the radical action proposed (if CO2 ain't such a baddy)
> The sense of pursuing such expensive action when the human condition suffers so many other ills.
as stated in my profile: "No-one doubts that climate changes, and I know that it can be catastrophic, but if this bout is not principally anthropogenic, or; is anthropogenic but not catastrophic, or; is catastrophic but not CO2 induced, then our current direction in spending trillions in future wealth growth on controlling CO2 may be as futile and pointless as Canute with his tides. I have grave doubts about the proposed political solution, and I do not accept that IPCC climate scientists are peerless and disinterested paragons worthy of unquestioning faith."


fair enough.

Originally Posted by Fragony:
Money of course. Billions of euro's go to all sort of NGO's, the same NGO who are behind this global hoaxing.

So let me get this straight.

You do not trust Greenpeace, an environmental not-for-profit NGO, with information about the environment. Meanwhile you do trust multinational companies such as ExxonMobil who happen to have every interest in misleading the public about the environment at best, and suppressing debate about climate change at worst with that same information?

Now I have met people who hold opinions I disagree with, including you. I have also met people who hold opinions which are misinformed, including you. But I have never met someone who holds an opinion so obviously illogical, and so stubbornly opposed to reality. There is no way you can actually believe that.

Originally Posted by Fragony:
How about IPCC-gate, climate-gate, amazon-gate, himelaya-gate, northpole-gate, gletcher-gate, etc etc etc

https://i291.photobucket.com/albums/...mpton-gate.jpg

Note the use of the word gate in substitution for an argument.

Originally Posted by CountArach:
A response would be appreciated.

Hey you are the moderator and I am your loyal slave, tell me, how can national wealth distribution exist without a national government, then how can it exist internationally without world government?

There is no way you can actually believe that.

Oh I do, wouldn't call it a conspiracy, more like mass hysteria making it easy for those who make a nice living from it. Fun thing is, terrorists actually exist and everybody sees a global conspiracy in the war against it.

Originally Posted by Fragony:
Hey you are the moderator and I am your loyal slave, tell me, how can national wealth distribution exist without a national government, then how can it exist internationally without world government?

Why aren't you simply responding to my request? I'll quote it here for you:

Originally Posted by Me:
That certainly explains why countries aren't living up to their developmental commitment, and didn't firm up much of their commitment to countries at Copenhagen.

Your argument hasn't got a leg to stand on. You say there is a global conspiracy, yet provide no real evidence for it. Also can you explain why no evidence for a monetary conspiracy was found in the East Anglia emails?

I did answer, I said what I think. And I don't believe in conspiracy's but I do believe in the dynamics of human stupidity. And believing that men can be responsible for climate change is pretty stupid in my book. And there will always be people who can use that to their advantage, all I can say is wait a few years and we will be having a laugh over this, in case you aren't dead of course.

I already explained why X-gate isn't an answer.

edit ohno

Come on guys, move on. Arguing with a conspiracy theorists is absolutely pointless... Fragony, calling a conspiracy theory using different names 'collective human stupidity', still makes it a conspiracy theory, if what you posted recently is your true viewpoint.

What I would not expect, however, is someone as intelligent as Fragony falling for such a cheap trick. Denialists come in all sorts, and I am fine with many, as I have a strong cynical and skeptical streak myself, but conjuring conspiracy theories of that scale seemed to me like a thing a Right-wing nut in the Southern US would do. I suppose humans are more alike than I thought :shrug:.

Why can you not simply say the science is bungled and let it rest? Does this really need a conspiracy?


While I may not argue with you on this, Frags, I would like it if you explained your theory in one post, in a lengthy and descriptive manner, instead of evading questions and throwing accusations around (not that I am accusing specifically you of doing such things). I am genuinely curious - I do not want a debate - I simply want to listen to you :yes:.

Sure, global warming = scam = money for scammers

Do you have any explanation for that reasoning?

Yes I know bull when I see it, and this is bull.

Originally Posted by Fragony:
Yes I know bull when I see it, and this is bull.

So you are entirely relying on intuition? Well, that's excellent...

Originally Posted by CountArach:
So you are entirely relying on intuition? Well, that's excellent...

Well that and common sense, mass attracts mass so I would rather blame the clockwork consistency of temperature fluctuations on planetary alignment.

Planetary Alignment you say?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...core-petit.png

What else

Originally Posted by Furunculus:
the correct appellation is "skeptic" thank you very much, and; lol.

For some reason, when I read that, I read it as "The correct application is 'septic' thank you very much" and I had to double-take to make sure I read it right.

thanks for that. :balloon2:

Originally Posted by Fragony:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...core-petit.png

What else

The way you apply science so selectively is astonishing.

Originally Posted by Subotan:
The way you apply science so selectively is astonishing.

You are of course correct. What we can clearly see in this graph is a cycle of industrial ages leading to CO2 output, and the dust is because earth dies each and every time.

But then again maybe it doesn't. Good thing warmists like hockeysticks as there are billions of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Luckily, the IPCC has more backbone that Fragony gives it credit for.

Originally Posted by :
In a robust defence of his position and of the science of climate change, Pachauri said:

• The mistake had seriously damaged the IPCC's credibility and boosted the efforts of climate sceptics.
• It was an isolated mistake, down to human error and "totally out of character" for the panel.
• It does not undermine the "basic truth" that human activity is causing temperatures to rise.
• That he would not resign and was #subject to lies about his personal income and lifestyle.

:birthday2:

Originally Posted by Subotan:
Luckily, the IPCC has more backbone that Fragony gives it credit for.



:birthday2:

This isn't just about the IPCC anymore mia muca

Originally Posted by Fragony:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...core-petit.png

What else

Note how:
1) We haven't come out of that high temperature.
2) Dust has come out of that high range.
3) CO2 has increased

You can't post graphs without explaining what you are trying to say in using them.

I’m probably late to the party, but here’s my opinion re:the conspiracy discussion.

While there is no evidence (and no reason to believe) that Al Gore is sitting at the head of an evil organization using Global Warming as a front for world domination a la Dr. Evil, it is quite clear that there is a powerful group of aligned interests far too invested in the theory to allow it to be questioned. Many scientists have staked their careers on the theory panning out, while many left wing politicians have embraced it as sequitur to increased government power and regulation, especially over Leftist boogey-men such as large corporations and industry. The recent EPA ruling on co2 in the United States opens the door for unprecedented government power over virtually all aspects of American’s lives. Then you have the profiteers, such as Gore, who stoke fears of apocalyptic destruction to peddle books and “Green” technology. And of course, at this point everyone’s reputation is on the line.

What is worrying is that these varied groups are increasingly dependent on each other in a vicious cycle for support, especially now that there is a concerted movement challenging the validity of the theory. The scientist rely on government grants for their livelihoods and to continue their research, while the politicians need a steady stream of cataclysmic “projections” and “models” to stoke fears and maintain support for an expansion of government power that is only acceptable in the public’s eyes under the guise of “saving the planet”. Of course the profiteers need both of the aforementioned parties to stay in business.

None of this is to say that man-made global warming is definitively false, or even that the original fears were not completely justified given the computer models at the time. However, Global Warming… err… Climate Change is now an industry, complete with balance sheets and lobbyists. And what is clear is that despite mounting evidence the runs contrary to the theory, there is an entrenched group of powerful interests pushing wild and unjustified claims of global catastrophe on a populace with no real way to parse the science behind it; with far more at stake than an egalitarian concern for the future of the planet – as evidenced by the fact that even if the harshest legislation were passed across the globe, their own projections indicate it would have little to no actual impact on global temperatures. Even more troubling is the demonstrated willingness of this collusion to alter and even eliminate contrary data and target the careers of opposing scientists for destruction. Scary stuff, indeed.

Wasn't Pachauris' job fixing trains or summat? Obviously well qualified to head up a global con trick organisation propagating inquiring into global warming.

Welcome back PanzerJaeger.

You can't post graphs without explaining what you are trying to say in using them.

I thought I made it pretty clear. No such thing as manmade global warming. It just doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Fragony:
Welcome back PanzerJaeger.

You can't post graphs without explaining what you are trying to say in using them.

I thought I made it pretty clear. No such thing as manmade global warming. It just doesn't exist.

Yes, I know that is what you think, but you have not refuted any evidence nor provided any alternative explanations.

Originally Posted by CountArach:
Yes, I know that is what you think, but you have not refuted any evidence nor provided any alternative explanations.

That's odd I thought I just did, planetary alignment, do you deny planetary alignments? Look at the moon and what it does to the currents every day, but sure a change in planetary alignments has no effects on oceanic currents whatsoever, no effect, it's Co22222222222 brrr

The Time Cube is not a legitmate explanation.

Originally Posted by Subotan:
The Time Cube is not a legitmate explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...ycles#Problems (did these idiots consider land masses moving??)

Many problems, but still that much more likely. Dunno what a time cube is by the way

I am shocked, shocked I say http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/156703

edit; encore http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/201...fricagate.html

The Daily Express? Why should I trust a rag owned by a pornographer over peer-reviewed scientific journals?

yeahlol

Originally Posted by Fragony:
yeahlol

I can't think of a rebuttal to this, so I'm declaring Fragony the winner of this thread.

Isn't like the IPCC isn't discredited because of gross manipulation of data, peer review doesn't mean anything if the peer reviewers are cherry-picked and sceptics aren't invited to the party.

Originally Posted by Subotan:
The Daily Express? Why should I trust a rag owned by a pornographer over peer-reviewed scientific journals?

that's right there cowboy, play the man not the ball!

Originally Posted by Furunculus:
that's right there cowboy, play the man not the ball!

The Daily Express is not a legit source of information about climate change, or for that matter, anything.

let me put it more simply:
1) have the beeb been repeatedly accused of uncritical coverage of AGW as put forward by the IPCC?
2) does the beeb have a huge proportion of its pension fund tied in investments concentrating on AGW industries?

If yes to Q 1& 2 what is it about the article that is reprehensible?

---------------------------------------------------------------

on earths orbit and climate change:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/0...warming-signs/

Originally Posted by Furunculus:
let me put it more simply:
1) have the beeb been repeatedly accused of uncritical coverage of AGW as put forward by the IPCC?

The same reason the BBC is accused of uncritical coverage of evolution.

Originally Posted by Furunculus:
2) does the beeb have a huge proportion of its pension fund tied in investments concentrating on AGW industries?

Huge? Rather, its the opposite.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/en/si...estments.shtml

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Vodafone Group£81.4mGlaxosmithkline£80.0mAstrazeneca£74.3mHSBC£71.1mBP£56.8mRoyal Dutch Shell£53.6mPetroleo Brasileiro£47.9mImperial Tobacco£44.1mBG Group£44.0mTesco£37.6mBritish American Tobacco£37.5mBHP Billiton£30.6mAmazon£30.2mAtlas Copco£29.8mBAE Systems£28.3mBarclays£26.6mCentrica£26.0mGoogle£25.0mReckitt Benckiser£21.7mRio Tinto£20.7mTotal£20.1mBanco Santander£20.0mABB Ltd£19.9mSandvik£19.8mCapita£19.2mVestas Wind System£19.1mGazprom£18.9mMerck & Co£18.7mSun Hung Kai Properties£18.4mNational Grid£17.8mApple£17.7mMicrosoft£17.2mCanon£17.1mAltria£17.0mCompass£16.8mMonsanto£16.6mReynold s£16.3mL'oreal£16.3mBT£15.9mKoninklijke£15.7mNintendo£15.7mRWE£15.4mCredit Suisse£15.1mRoyal Dutch Shell£14.7mScottish & Southern Energy Plc£14.4mPfizer£14.2mDeere & Co£14.2mSAP£13.9mEbay£13.3mTeva Pharmaceutical£13.2mDrax£12.3mOracle£12.1mFirst Solar£12.0mCisco£12.0mWalgreen£12.0mLloyds Banking Group£11.9mTencent£11.9mLukoil£11.9mVCA Antech£11.6mRSA Insurance£11.5mMuenchener Rueckversicherungs£11.4mChina Overseas Land & Invest£11.4mStraumann£11.4mIron Mtn£11.4mAlstom£11.4mChina Mobile£11.3mNovozymes£11.3mDiageo£11.2mCobham£11.2mUBS£11.1mArcelormittal £11.0mWhole Foods£11.0mBayer£10.9mDBS£10.9mSiemens£10.9mIBM£10.8mSociete Generale£10.8mAnadarko£10.8mUnilever£10.8mING£10.3mLi & Fung£10.3mChevron Corporation£10.2mPPR£9.9mRolls Royce Group£9.8mHong Kong Exchanges & Clearing£9.7mTelefonica£9.6mBHP Billiton£9.5mHutchison£9.4mBank Of China£9.3mKroger£9.2mStatoilhydro£9.2mMorrison£9.2mItau Unibanco£9.0mMacquarie£9.0mSABmiller£8.9mJPMorgan Chase & Co£8.6mEricsson£8.5mWalt Disney£8.5mConocophillips Uk£8.3m

Damn, the formatting went all screwy :(

Originally Posted by Subotan:
The same reason the BBC is accused of uncritical coverage of evolution.

Huge? Rather, its the opposite.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/en/si...estments.shtml

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Vodafone Group£81.4mGlaxosmithkline£80.0mAstrazeneca£74.3mHSBC£71.1mBP£56.8mRoyal Dutch Shell£53.6mPetroleo Brasileiro£47.9mImperial Tobacco£44.1mBG Group£44.0mTesco£37.6mBritish American Tobacco£37.5mBHP Billiton£30.6mAmazon£30.2mAtlas Copco£29.8mBAE Systems£28.3mBarclays£26.6mCentrica£26.0mGoogle£25.0mReckitt Benckiser£21.7mRio Tinto£20.7mTotal£20.1mBanco Santander£20.0mABB Ltd£19.9mSandvik£19.8mCapita£19.2mVestas Wind System£19.1mGazprom£18.9mMerck & Co£18.7mSun Hung Kai Properties£18.4mNational Grid£17.8mApple£17.7mMicrosoft£17.2mCanon£17.1mAltria£17.0mCompass£16.8mMonsanto£16.6mReynold s£16.3mL'oreal£16.3mBT£15.9mKoninklijke£15.7mNintendo£15.7mRWE£15.4mCredit Suisse£15.1mRoyal Dutch Shell£14.7mScottish & Southern Energy Plc£14.4mPfizer£14.2mDeere & Co£14.2mSAP£13.9mEbay£13.3mTeva Pharmaceutical£13.2mDrax£12.3mOracle£12.1mFirst Solar£12.0mCisco£12.0mWalgreen£12.0mLloyds Banking Group£11.9mTencent£11.9mLukoil£11.9mVCA Antech£11.6mRSA Insurance£11.5mMuenchener Rueckversicherungs£11.4mChina Overseas Land & Invest£11.4mStraumann£11.4mIron Mtn£11.4mAlstom£11.4mChina Mobile£11.3mNovozymes£11.3mDiageo£11.2mCobham£11.2mUBS£11.1mArcelormittal £11.0mWhole Foods£11.0mBayer£10.9mDBS£10.9mSiemens£10.9mIBM£10.8mSociete Generale£10.8mAnadarko£10.8mUnilever£10.8mING£10.3mLi & Fung£10.3mChevron Corporation£10.2mPPR£9.9mRolls Royce Group£9.8mHong Kong Exchanges & Clearing£9.7mTelefonica£9.6mBHP Billiton£9.5mHutchison£9.4mBank Of China£9.3mKroger£9.2mStatoilhydro£9.2mMorrison£9.2mItau Unibanco£9.0mMacquarie£9.0mSABmiller£8.9mJPMorgan Chase & Co£8.6mEricsson£8.5mWalt Disney£8.5mConocophillips Uk£8.3m

Damn, the formatting went all screwy :(

that's more like it Subotan; challenge the facts instead of suffocating the debate.

A scary look into the future via Audi, pre-global warming implosion. Thank god for climate-gate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml54UuAoLSo

I can't believe how people just love to shut themselves off from the facts. Hey global warming denyers, how about you just take one look down south at Australia, I see temps down there and they are skyrocketing, it's like its summer down there right now, so before you start commenting on how snow outside your window disproves global warming I suggest you take a good look at the world around you.

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
I can't believe how people just love to shut themselves off from the facts. Hey global warming denyers, how about you just take one look down south at Australia, I see temps down there and they are skyrocketing, it's like its summer down there right now, so before you start commenting on how snow outside your window disproves global warming I suggest you take a good look at the world around you.

hah got me

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
I can't believe how people just love to shut themselves off from the facts. Hey global warming denyers, how about you just take one look down south at Australia, I see temps down there and they are skyrocketing, it's like its summer down there right now, so before you start commenting on how snow outside your window disproves global warming I suggest you take a good look at the world around you.

thanks for that, i'm a changed man now that i have absorbed your righteous wisdom!
[alert] *sense of humour failure* [/alert] apologies, thanks Louis. :)

-----------------------------------------------------------

entertaining tear-down of Sir David Kings recent op-ed in the telegraph:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/0...ite-bad-logic/

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
take one look down south at Australia, I see temps down there and they are skyrocketing, it's like its summer down there right now

It is summer down there right now. :cowboy:


Edit: wait, you made a joke.

Jerome Ravetz, of Oxford University - Climategate: Plausibility and the blogosphere in the post-normal age:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/0...st-normal-age/

And after gate after gate we now also have waterpower-gate. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ge-report.html

Of course this isn't going to convince people who are absolutely terrified of CO2, but every person that becomes secular, or even who allows himself a shred of doubt, is a victory of reason on absolute faith.

edit, lol http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=3040


edit, surprise surprise, members of the IPCC panel were handpicked by the government on religious believes, out of the 108 (wth??) members of the Dutch IPCC delegation guess how many sceptics there were. Let me give you a hint, more then zero, less then two.

Ah, told you so, next

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...organised.html

Well, what is going to kill us now? I say we should be absolutely terrified of aliens.