IPCC calculation model. It doesn't really matter that this is Ausie only. At least a MSM source but not really what I was looking for though http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...eneration.html
IPCC calculation model. It doesn't really matter that this is Ausie only. At least a MSM source but not really what I was looking for though http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...eneration.html
Ah yes, the climategate that has been checked over several times now, yet it apparently does not satisfy the skeptics because somehow the scientists keep getting exonerated. Must be a conspiracy somewhere.
They should be more open with their research though and have AFAIK rightfully been criticised for that.
The butcher judging his own product as we say here, the models on which the consensus is based are flawed or at least disputed, and that's the nicest thing you can say about it, outright fraud would be more accurat. It reeks of post-normal sciene, and not a little bit. Wouldn't go as far as calling it a conpiracy, but a lie yes, and a very lucrative one.
Last edited by Fragony; 09-29-2011 at 16:15.
There were several independent investigations of it, both UK and US making it a total of six so far I believe. But it will never be enough.
Don't worry Fragony. If you ever get tired of it all and want to find a more remote place to live I hear they need more farmers on Greenland.
We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Greenland was called that for a reason. Is it the greenest it has ever been?
=][=
Is the world warming? Overall yes
How much is man made? A lot, but how much I'm not sure.
Is it a bad thing? Not necessarily. It is much better then a mini ice age. Dinosaurs roamed a much warmer world. So whose up for T-Rex drumsticks? They come with one hell of a bite.
You all do realise that the Earth is being terra-formed in favour of the octo-squids?
There are times I wish they’d just ban everything- baccy and beer, burgers and bangers, and all the rest- once and for all. Instead, they creep forward one apparently tiny step at a time. It’s like being executed with a bacon slicer.
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.
"The purpose of a university education for Left / Liberals is to attain all the politically correct attitudes towards minorties, and the financial means to live as far away from them as possible."
One of the Biggest Climate Skeptics' own research has set the record straight for him.
News Article on Washington Post
Muller and his fellow researchers examined an enormous data set of observed temperatures from monitoring stations around the world and concluded that the average land temperature has risen 1 degree Celsius — or about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — since the mid-1950s.Muller’s figures also conform with the estimates of those British and American researchers whose catty e-mails were the basis for the alleged “Climategate” scandal, which was never a scandal in the first place.The Berkeley group’s research even confirms the infamous “hockey stick” graph — showing a sharp recent temperature rise — that Muller once snarkily called “the poster child of the global warming community.” Muller’s new graph isn’t just similar, it’s identical.skeptics are wrong when they claim that a “heat island” effect from urbanization is skewing average temperature readings; monitoring instruments in rural areas show rapid warming, too.The results have not yet been subjected to peer review, so technically they are still preliminary. But Muller’s plain-spoken admonition that “you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer” has reduced many deniers to incoherent grumbling or stunned silence.
Last edited by Beskar; 10-25-2011 at 08:47.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
happy to agree with all of the above, but it does not substantially change my criticism of CAGW:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10...udy/page2.html
Muller also cautions that observers should not take the BEST results and use them to prove something that they can't. When we asked him if it were possible to extrapolate from his team's results and predict whether the temperature increase will continue, he told us: "I don't think that is possible. The key issue is what fraction of the observed change is anthropomorphic. We don't shed much light on that."
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
"If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
Albert Camus "Noces"
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pintenOriginally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Down with dried flowers!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Am I understanding this; Muller is no longer a skeptic at all because his research says that two out of three temperature gauging stations show warming...? Is the fact that the earth is warming even up for debate?
Sorry buddy, but unless your research shows that 1) it's anthropogenic, 2) it's going to continue to rise to crises levels I will happily remain incoherently grumbling and being stunned silent.The results have not yet been subjected to peer review, so technically they are still preliminary. But Muller’s plain-spoken admonition that “you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer” has reduced many deniers to incoherent grumbling or stunned silence.
Edit: I guess what I'm not understanding is the media's reacting to this as a lolpwnd moment for skeptics.
Last edited by Proletariat; 10-27-2011 at 02:36.
- Tellos Athenaios
CUF tool - XIDX - PACK tool - SD tool - EVT tool - EB Install Guide - How to track down loading CTD's - EB 1.1 Maps thread
“ὁ δ᾽ ἠλίθιος ὣσπερ πρόβατον βῆ βῆ λέγων βαδίζει” – Kratinos in Dionysalexandros.
I would not say that, but rather that man is not the main driver of the climate, since in the past we have seen fluctuations of the temperature. There is an experiment at CERN called the CLOUD experiment Basically they are testing in lab conditions to see what is driving.
good vid, cheers
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
If you are a scientist you should be a balanced skeptic. Examine the evidence and refine the methods to get the data.
Science should work to a consensus it should not work towards being a dogma.
The current consensus is that humans are helping the globe warm.
The reaction should not be denial it should be to build better tools and to question if this is really a good or bad thing.
Too much and we are Venus so global warming could be terrible, a couple of degrees more and we can go back to having Terrible Lizards.
Last edited by Papewaio; 11-04-2011 at 10:37. Reason: Posting on a train, on a phone whilst drunk
i'm not sure that there is anything to disagree with there Pape.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Cool new e-mails http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-debate/
The euro crisis is a godsend in way, at least gutmensch gets to blame capitalism for something that is real, the absence of a need for post-modern science is somewhat refreshing, but I still think we should rebuild the wall
NEINNEINNEIN thx to the IPCC models we can predict an industrial age every 10.000 years with clockwork precision and ours is comming to an end
if we do not act right now
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...jim-lacey?pg=1 <-'More nails for the coffin of man-made global warming' inquisitive journalist explains e-mails
But warmists will just continue to repear repeat keep repeating, it doesn't have to be true just keep repeating
Last edited by Fragony; 11-30-2011 at 08:37.
durban failed, jolly good:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/12/cop17_failure/
i have a pretty high confidence that the science in IPCC5 in 2015 will be 'right', and some small confidence that the policy recommendeed will not be quite so insane, but i'll be damned if i want any legally binding treaties agreed before then.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
I was watching Frozen Planet with the great David Attenborough. One stat he mentioned is that the Artic ice since 1981 has retreated to 2/3s the surface cover...a third of the ice has disappeared!
But it's not that bad, it's worse. Another stat in the same section... Military submarine data that measures Artic ice thickness ... And they have measured it a lot... After all if you need to surface for an emergency you need to know where. The ice thickness has halved.
So the Artic ice has halved in amount.
That's bad, but wait its worse.
You need to multiplie the two area x thickness = volume.
Artic ice volume 2011 = 1/2 * 2/3 = 1/3 the volume of 1981.
Now if the Antartic lost 2/3 of its ice the oceans would rise 40m. Nothing to worry about there.
good job it isn't then, eh?
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Bookmarks