[Closed] It's global cooling, not warming!

Junkyard - Would you admit that that is also a possibility?

Now do you understand my comments regarding the psychology of looking for patterns where there is, in actual fact, chaos? now do you understand my comments regarding the clustering illusion?

No I just look at the data - the clustering illusion clearly says that it is humans seeing patterns in random data for this to be true then C02would not actually be increasing it is random and we are all misinterpreting and the same with temperature? Clearly that is a load of b0ll0ks as a hypothesis. Barrel scrapping in the extreme.
As for patterns science is data led not agenda led – nothing else can change it’s paradigms like science it s why it is so powerful – not go forth and gather the daat – not pop psychology- to persuade me.

You're the one who introduced the word possibility!

natural cycles at work but no natural cycle includes man made C02 release

And no natural cycle prior to 230 million years ago included dinosaurs impact on the planet did it - of course, therefore the dinosaurs must have caused their own extinction, as they were the only new variable!

And wooly mammoths probably caused the last ice age, as prior to then, there were no mammoth made climate inputs!

You can draw any pattern you like in the data

yes that is exatky what science doed how incredibly perceptive off you - FFS if that is your view - which is ridicolous beyond words - there is NO point in debating it with you as whatever evidence I produce you will just repeat that line.

Culd you explain how if C02 is not actually increasing I could produce an upward trend in the data?

Could you explain how if C02 is not actually increasing I could produce an upward trend in the data?

Can you explain how I was able to produce a downward trend from the same data?

its a circular argument - either of us can cherry pick the start and end point to prove our point!

No I meant just C02 as I assume even you are not prepared to argue that it is not increasing or are you also suffering from the same affliction as us all when we look at C02 ppm readings?
So if we look at C02 data and

You can draw any pattern you like in the data

And no natural cycle prior to 230 million years ago included dinosaurs impact on the planet did it - of course, therefore the dinosaurs must have caused their own extinction, as they were the only new variable!

[img] [/img]

Whats that Junkyard, you don't like people reducing your thinking to the point reductio ad absurdum? 😈

C02 as I assume even you are not prepared to argue that it is not increasing

Look, I can even give you a nice [s]correlation[/s] graph of historical CO2 levels that proves that CO2 levels can rise whilst still being part of an overall downward trend:

[img] [/img]

Wheres your [s]correlation[/s]link between temperature and CO2 now?

I am pleased that at least I have finally taught you the difference between a graph and a correlation. I suepect that is the best I can do with the limited materials I am working with 😉

C'mon junkyard!

What do you see before you? Upward or downward trend in CO2?

Of course, if you want to cherry pick the last century worth of data...

😆

CaptJon said:

Interesting, that is an approach Mann, Jones et al take, i.e. forming an opinion based on assumed bias

No it's not. I know quite a lot about them (the SPPI) and they are a [b]completely biased [/b]bunch of f'in nutters.

I was just being polite in my first post.

Unlike Mann, Jones et al, eh RPRT?

Z11 said:

but its a logical illusion to think that you can draw any form of conclusion either way

Duh!

You seem to have gone a bit gung-ho. I think you've let the fact that we found a point of agreement go to your head and you just made another stupid statement.

As junkyard points out, we are talking probabilities not possibilities. Just because 2 things are possible, doesn't mean that they are equally probable (though it's nice to hear that you are open minded enough to at least acknowledge that there is a possibility that you are completely wrong).

I still think man made CO2 causing climate change is a near certainty BTW.

Unlike Mann, Jones et al, eh RPRT?

We already discussed that some time ago.

Then you should see the problem with trying to play ad hominem with the analysis of climategate on the basis that it was from SPPI shouldn't you?

I still think man made CO2 causing climate change is a near certainty BTW.

Of course you do, you made it clear that you were happy to accept that the "consensus" must be right, simply because its the consensus!

Not me anymore experts and their consensus vieas you have converted me thanks.
Smoking is linked to cancer Pah what do you know expert we had cancer before people smoked well deny eh see you cant , can you ,natural cycle innit ...cherry picking their data ****ing Doctors with their consensus views .... mass hysteria about the clustering illusion... I tell thee.... just boils my pi55.

zulu-eleven:

I just had a look for the Bemer RA (2001) paper on Web Of Knowledge (a global database of peer reviewed research, in case you didn't know) reportedly the source of the CO2 curve you posted and couldn't find it anywhere.

Do you have it?

Of course you do, you made it clear that you were happy to accept that the "consensus" must be right, simply because its the consensus!

You know what, that's the first thing you've said that slightly winds me up. You already put that point to me and I already explicitly told you that I didn't follow the consensus, [b]because[/b] it was the consensus.

Repeating it is rather disrespectful. Its like calling someone a liar to their face.

But on the point of the ad hominem criticism of the report, I don't see any problem at all. I don't know exactly what points it makes because I haven't read it. I'm afraid I have to say that I rank Lord Monckton somewhere in the vicinity of David Icke on my list of people worth listening to. I do read skeptic stuff, but not theirs.

.......do you honestly think of yourself as a modern day Darwin?

You already put that point to me and I already explicitly told you that I didn't follow the consensus, because it was the consensus.

Repeating it is rather disrespectful. Its like calling someone a liar to their face.

You've discovered one of ratty's most treasured tacit. Many a time he's told me what I think, and why I think, what I think.

why do you call him ratty ernie? Sounds interesting

Oh, sorry RPRT, I forgot you told us that you were convinced by the argument... you never told us which aspects of that argument of course though 😉

Ashmo, I would guess its something to do with - Berner, R.A. and Kothavala, Z., 2001, GEOCARB III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time. Am. J. Sci., v. 301, p. 182-204.

Junkyard - Ratty, my former login here was Labrat... twelve years in pharma toxicology research, oh, the things I could tell you about torturing data to prove something is safe 😈

Ernie - hello kettle, this is pot, colour check, over 😀

why do you call him ratty ernie?

😕 Because he's labrat ?

Plus "ratty" sounds more cuddly.............I've always liked Wind in the Willows

rightplacerighttime - Member
CaptJon said:

Interesting, that is an approach Mann, Jones et al take, i.e. forming an opinion based on assumed bias
No it's not. I know quite a lot about them (the SPPI) and they are a completely biased bunch of f'in nutters.

I was just being polite in my first post.

That, and your other posts on this thread confirm to me you're not interested in evaluating evidence presented to you in anything like a rigorous manner.

Ashmo, I would guess its something to do with - Berner, R.A. and Kothavala, Z., 2001, GEOCARB III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time. Am. J. Sci., v. 301, p. 182-204.

I wasn't being awkward, I genuinely couldn't find the paper. The typeface made Berner look like Bemer.

Unsuprisingly the paper has been placed in an erroneous context.

a general point:

That paper uses modelling to reconstruct paleozoic temperature. Now these models are NO WHERE near as constrained as Pleistocene climate models, for which we have a pretty much spot on idea of paleogeography and a direct record of atmospheric composition since circa 400kya. Yet these models are rejected and the less constrained deep-time models are used as a pro-sceptic argument.

a fundamental point:

Humans do not exist on a 100's mya timescale. At different times in time different climate forcings become important. Vostok/GRIP/EPICA have shown that natural changes in co2 occur in the Quaternary which are of similar size to anthropogenic input. If a natural input which correlates well with changes catastrophic (to humans at least) changes in near time, on time scales important to humans. An extension upwards of these trends is not unreasonable given the C budgets involved. The obvious conclusion therefore that those changes are important, not changes in the Paleozoic where paleo-geographies and resolvable timescales are totally different.

This thread has just gone round in circles now and it's clear you're just another "sceptic" who, for whatever reason, refuses to listen to professionals, evidence and reason but likes listening nutcases putting together graphs in Excel in their bedrooms.

So yeah, in a bit Charles.

No Ashmo, I'm a skeptic who thinks that the alarmist extrapolation of data to "prove" that the sky is falling in, the end of the world is nigh and we're all going to die because of climate change of a fraction of a degree is a wholly pointless exercise, given

i) Adaptability of the human race, and

ii) The real, tangible threats and immediate challenges that face the vast majority of the worlds population [b]now[/b] and in the near future

When we've made serious inroads into famine, war, disease, genocide and inequality, lets start worrying about tomorrow.

Nearly a million people die every year from malaria, last year up to half a million kids were subjected to blindness through Vitamin A deficiency -the financial cost of dealing with this would pale into insignificance against the amount of money being bandied around in cap and trade CO2 credits.

The only thing that can be known for certain is that some level of climate change, up or down, sooner or later, is an inevitability - the human race is foolish to think that it can stand like Canute preventing it, and needs to concentrate on how it will adapt to cope with it!

CatpJon said (about me):

I'd hazard a guess that as you're on this thread you're interested in and/or involved in science.

But a page later he said:

your other posts on this thread confirm to me you're not interested in evaluating evidence presented to you in anything like a rigorous manner.

Quite the analyst aren't you?

The only thing that can be known for certain is that some level of climate change, up or down, sooner or later, is an inevitability - the human race is foolish to think that it can stand like Canute preventing it, and needs to concentrate on how it will adapt to cope with it!

Or even better, get the nuclear rocket program back up and running and move to Mars (we've got the whole planetary warming thing sussed after all).

When we've made serious inroads into famine, war, disease, genocide and inequality, lets start worrying about tomorrow.

The thing is, climate change is likely to cause all of those things you are worried about. That's why I for one am worried about climate change.

I would also argue that our rate of economic growth and the speed at which we are exploiting and burning hydrocarbons are in themselves (even without the climate change) causing all those things.

But in any case it's not a zero sum game. You can worry about all those other things AND worry about climate change.

BTW we had plenty of money to deal with malaria long before cap and trade, but we chose to spend it on other things. Again, it's not a zero sum game. Why do you make such an idiotic point?

Why do you make such an idiotic point?

rprt - I would imagine Cptnjohns opinion might have been swayed by the comment

But on the point of the ad hominem criticism of the report, I don't see any problem at all. I don't know exactly what points it makes because I haven't read it

climate change is likely to cause all of those things you are worried about

All the more reason to do something about [b]them[/b] then, because if you're wrong about the cause, and it is independent of CO2, then the precautionary principle would suggest its the safest action to take...

[b]Money is finite. Choices have to be made.[/b]

Indeed!

5th Elephant

It's idiotic because Z11 presents it as if it was a straight choice between cap and trade and preventing malaria - which of course it isn't.

I'm not against spending money on preventing malaria but that is an unrelated issue. Trying to combine the two is a straw man argument.

Z11 said:

Whilst of course asserting that you had been thoroughly convinced by open minded analysis of the arguments rather than merely backing the consensus!

Are you telling me that you read EVERYTHING on the science of climate change?

Or do you use your discretion and read what you think might be genuinely informative? For example, stuff that you know is peer reviewed?

Z11 said:

All the more reason to do something about [b]them[/b] then

I thought I made it clear in the same post that you quote that I think it would be good to slow down our exploitation of fossil fuels anyway, because I think that our rampant thirst for oil is causing all of those problems you mention.

edit - and which would of course happily have the knock on effect of reducing CO2 and climate change.

5th Elephant said:

Money is finite.

Sorry, missed this first time, and maybe I shouldn't risk the thread going off at another tangent, but maybe you should think about that statement a bit more.

Or do you use your discretion and read what you think might be genuinely informative?

No rp - I just dismiss things out of hand because I disagree with the source! 🙄

regards my statement on money - Sorry again RP, I thought you made it clear the problem was

our rate of economic growth

I didn't dismiss it out of hand - I told you, I already had an opinion about the group that published the report.

That is not "out of hand"

Do you not see that?

dismissing it without reading it [b]is[/b] dismissing it out of hand rp!

The reflexive dismissal of any study or report because of its source is an intellectually lazy excuse not to have to think, period. It's a convenient excuse not to have to face evidence that challenges your existing fervent belief!

regards my statement on money - Sorry again RP, I thought you made it clear the problem was "our rate of economic growth"

I don't understand your point.

[img] [/img]

Spot the difference.

The Ordovician glaciation is a temperature drop that we don't have an explanation for. Gondwana went over the pole which with a low CO2 level would have been enough to cause a glaciation, but CO2 estimates for the period are high and the glaciation would have required a rapid fall in CO2 or some other event such as a rapid fall in solar output. How the Earth was able to lose so much heat and get so cold at the time if CO2 did remain high is still not clear. We need an event or set of conditions and we don't have either yet - unless you know different.

The Carboniferous glaciations fit quite well with what we've seen in the Quaternary: low CO2, north-south land masses restricting ocean circulation and a significant land mass over the pole favouring ice formation.

Edit: The authors of the [url= http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf ]paper[/url] the CO2 graph is derived from recognise that the resolution of their model is insufficent to show changes in CO2 over periods of 10 million years which could explain the Ordovician glaciation. Just because their graphs doesn't show a drop in CO2 doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Z11 - have you read it? (there may be a test later)

Sorry Edukator - are you saying that that does not represent an overall, long term downward trend in CO2, or are you trying to say It represented something I never claimed?

we don't have an explanation for

Hmm, ok then, that settles things doesn't it?

The difference between the two similar looking graphs on the previous page in case nobody spotted it is the range of possible values Berner's model kicks out (if you accept his method of calculating paleo CO2 is accurate). The resolution is such that using it to make correlations with temperature graphs with much higher resolutions will produce anomalies.

These reservations and cautions as to the use of Berner's data don't detract from the point I made when originally posting the graph (with the error range) many pages back: that current temperatures and CO2 levels are lower than they have been through most of recorded gelogical time but that CO2 are rising rapidly towards levels that haven't been seen for about 25 million years. We have every reason to believe that those higher CO2 levels will lead to a return condtions not see for miilions of years and those conditions will include higher atmospheric energy levels and temperatures than man has ever known.

Is it correctthat the IPCC has again used information that is incorrect. last week it's glaciers and this week it's extreme weather events since the 70's.
Whoever is right in this debate, they really do need some lessons in getting the truth out not what they believe is the truth. Armagedon porn is not going to get a change in how we live.

Crikey - its like a weekly occurance

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/153911/Bogus-flood-claims-fuel-global-warming-lies-

🙄

I know the asylum gives you access to the computers but not at the weekend the break is great for us all 😆

The claim was correct at the time of the report but the authors changed their conclusion. Due to this so did the IPCC. Imagine letting the evidence change your view - I cant think why you cannot understand this 😉

Never mind all this climate change malarkey, have any of you been on the Alpha Course?

Well Hainey it looks like you posted them to death, pity as once past the insults this was very interesting debate. Particularly z11 posts, still reckon we have an issue on GW though. Having said that we'ed be better just facing up to the damage to our(and those after us) world resources doing stuff about it.

Junkyard, i admire your devotion to the cause! 😆

I also love your stereotypical religious reply of accuse someone of being insane if they question your science! You couldn't fit into the mould better if you tried! 😉

also love your stereotypical religious reply

Your accusations of "religious replies" seem almost religious.

Where were you accused of being "insane" BTW?

I know the asylum gives you access

a·sy·lum (-slm)
n.
An institution for the care of people, especially individuals with physical or mental impairments, who require organized supervision or assistance
I may have been saying you are mentally impared - daft, silly , perhaps even dim witted whatever but mainly I was just being sarcastic.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based its claims on an unpublished and unverified ­report.

it then ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the ­evidence supporting the link was too weak

the paper on which the IPCC based its claim, written in 2006 by a disaster impacts expert, had not been scientifically scrutinised at the time the body issued its report

🙄

So to now draw focus away from the topic in hand, you are going to try and get involved in a debate regarding the meaning of an asylum?

FFS get a grip! 😆

Junkyard, i admire your devotion to the cause!

I also love your stereotypical religious reply of accuse someone of being insane if they question your science!

You couldn't fit into the mould better if you tried!

WTF are you on about ? Do religious people really accuse people of being insane for questioning their science ?

Ermm, YES.

erm yes Hainey it is clearly me who does not answer your question can you read read my post whereI answered you - can you recall my two questions you have left unasered for about 6 pages now even after I answered yours 🙄

[b]The claim was correct at the time of the report but the authors changed their conclusion. Due to this so did the IPCC.[/b]

EDIT:I see little point in continuing this it is futile if you actually believe that religous people call people [b]insane[/b] for not believing in their science..do you know what these words mean?. Religion uses faith NOT science even the religous accept faith is the bedrock of their belief system not science - deary me.
Happy trails

Regards the inclusion of the bullshit himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 in the IPCC report - one of the most telling quotes ever revealed came out over the weekend

Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

There, thats the difference between [i]science[/i] and politics!

Z11

I think you highlight a very important point that scientists aren't very good at playing politics. In this case a scientist made a poor decision.

However, the glaciers are melting and the basic science (CO2 as a cause of climate change) is still sound.

My personal interpretation of this is that scientists are becoming increasingly frustrated at not being taken seriously by politicians and a few have made some unwise (non-scientific) attempts to raise the profile of the problem.

Doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

American justice last night ruled that companies can provide unlimited financing for political parties. Exxon will be happy now it can buy the Republicans it didn't already own.

But in any case it's not a zero sum game. You can worry about all those other things AND worry about climate change.

BTW we had plenty of money to deal with malaria long before cap and trade, but we chose to spend it on other things. Again, it's not a zero sum game. Why do you make such an idiotic point?

It's idiotic because Z11 presents it as if it was a straight choice between cap and trade and preventing malaria - which of course it isn't.

I'm not against spending money on preventing malaria but that is an unrelated issue. Trying to combine the two is a straw man argument.

[b]RPRT - I'm afraid it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to say told you so on this one:
[/b]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/25/climate-aid-uk-funding

[i]A £1.5bn pledge by Gordon Brown to help poor countries cope with the ravages of climate change will drain funds from existing overseas aid programmes to improve health, education and water supplies, the government admitted today.[/i]

Z11 - you're not really looking beyond the superficial story.

The important point is still [b]we chose[/b] this route.

Who says we've only got 1.5 bn to spend on overseas aid? Who says we've got to cancel one to do the other? Who says we couldn't scrap Trident instead and do both?

Try to look at the bigger picture, not just the headline.

Thanks for that link though. Did you see these pictures on the same page?

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2010/jan/14/sinking-sundarbans-peter-caton?picture=357996151 ]climate change? What climate change?[/url]

of course not his blinkered view prevented him seeing the whole picture

Fantastic photos of the damage caused by the cyclones there RPRT

Correlation does not mean causality!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

Of course, cutting down all your mangrove swamps doesn't help either... As Nils Axel morner noted:

""[i]Much has been said about the future flooding of Bangladesh with an assumed death toll in the order of tens of thousands of people. The country is very vulnerable to flooding. This is correct. The effect from an assumed sea level rise is quite another thing, however.
I have just returned from a short study of the coastal conditions in the Sundarban delta in Bangladesh.
At Kotka, a city located in the delta, it was possible to document firm evidence of strong coastal erosion with no rise in sea level. This implies that we get the same observational answer as in the Maldives; no present sea level rise.[/i]"

Can you offer me any information that there has actually been a sea level rise in the sundurbans..... or is it just another case of hype getting in the way of the facts!

Oh I keep popping in and out of this thread and boy is it funny. Watching the deniers floundering about trying to prove black is white with some of the grossest distortions of scientific method I have ever seen. Zulu - you are a treat to watch in action. Never have I see such a pile of steaming balderdash from one person. to pick up on one -Nils Axel Morner is a crank paid by lobby groups to rubbish global warming. You can find a crank to support any point of view you want but they still remain a crank. Sea level rise is a proven fact. There is no doubt about this at all. it can be and has been measured. global warming is a fact - proven and measured. You might be able to argue that it is not man made but to deny its happening? Unbelievably stupid. Are you blind?

Junkyard and the rest of the ones talking sense - I have no idea how you have been so patient with this numpty.

Keep up the good work - its highly entertaining

Z11, if nothing else, you win the award for sustained callousness in the face of other peoples suffering.

Your question (again) highlights your willingness to cut and past the first thing you find that seems to support your argument without stopping to think first.

Sea levels are rising.

Because the oceans are a complex system this has different effects in different places.

It is not just as simple as a few millimeters of average rise that we have to worry about. In some places there is a much bigger change to the tidal range, so high tides are much higher (like tens of cm) higher than they have been. Combined with increased storms due to more frequent El Nino years this is having devastating effects in areas like Bangladesh.

Nils-Axel Mörner is the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University. He was president of the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) Commission on Neotectonics (1981-1989). He headed the INTAS (International Association for the promotion of cooperation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union) Project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997-2003).

Mörner has published books and papers on the interaction among isostacy and eustasy, the oscillating regional eustatic curve of NW Europe, the changing geoid concept, the redefinition of the concept of eustasy, the dynamic-rotational redistribution of oceanic water masses, and the interchange of angular momentum between the hydrosphere and solid Earth. His publications span over thirty years. His most cited paper has been cited about 30 times in early 2008. At that time his Hirsch index, as ascertained with Google Scholar, was 9, meaning that nine of his papers which are in the Google Scholar system had been cited 9 or more times by other papers in Google Scholar.

I think he is just a tad more qualified than you TJ! 🙄

Doesn't stop him being a total crank and that is not many citations. His most cited paper had 30 citations? Says it all.

google his name and you see what a crank he is

Seeing as this thread is full of folk copy and pasting I'll do a bit.

Nils-Axel Morner

Morner claims to be an expert in "dowsing," the practice of finding water, metals, gemstones etc. through the use of a Y-shaped twig.

Morner's attempt to prove his dowsing abilities is chronicled by James Randi, the well-known myth buster, who has offered the longstanding One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.
Research and Background

Morner is a retired professor from the University of Stockholm. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Morner has published 65+ original research papers in peer-reviewed journals, mainly in the area of paleoseismicity, [b]in other words the study of historical earthquake activity.[/b]
Morner and the NRSP

Listed as an "allied expert" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it's funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An Oct. 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group."

DeSmog uncovered information that two of the three directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project [b]are registered energy industry lobbyists and senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”[/b]

From http://www.desmogblog.com/nils-axel-morner

and lots more where this came from

So what you are saying is that Scientists will relinquish their morals to tailor data to sway evidence in a particular direction? And that is different from UEA and IPCC how?

What I am saying is you need to weight the importance you attach to the research depending on how honest you believe the people to be, how good their research is, what their qualifications are, how many folk agree with them and a pinch of common sense.

I like the research I look at to be rigorous, valid and reliable - all of which have precise meanings in scientific research Morners stuff appears to be none of these

Still - carry on with your laughable attempts to deny the truth. Its highly amusing to me.

Scientists contribute to the IPCC on a voluntary (unpaid) basis. Which is probably a good sign.

TJ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You can't accuse people of disregarding the science whilst playing the ad hominem game and ignoring all the [i]peer reviewed[/i] research that doesn't support your theory.

RPRT

Combined with increased storms due to more frequent El Nino years

Peer reviewed source please! There's no proven causal link between weather and extreme climate events -

Correlation is not causality!
Weather is not climate!

TJ, to be honest i have seen a number of your posts on other subjects so know that debating with you is not really worth while. However it does make me laugh how anyone who disagrees with your views is suddenly labelled a crank or an idiot. Very blinkered of you.

What I am saying is you need to weight the importance you attach to the research depending on how honest you believe the people to be

I like the research I look at to be rigorous, valid and reliable

So by that then you would agree that the IPCC and UEA research should now be viewed with deep sceptisism?

When 100 say white and 10 say black and the 100 have rigorous reliable and valid research and the ten do not its easy to see where the truth lies.

still - carry on. Are you a real contortionist or merely a mental one?

This has to be the funniest thread on here ever. You really are laughable in your naivety - or is it a superb troll?

As i said, pointless debating with you. 😯

Hainey I approach all research with open minded scepticism. that's how I was trained along with being given the mental tools to assess the research. Yes the revelations about the stuff you mention means any sensible person will be sceptical about it. Still the overwhelming mass of evidence is on their side and the distortions they made are tiny in comparison to the distortions from the deniers.

I shall leave you to it now. and just carry on laughing at your pathetic attempts to prove black is white.

hainey - Member

As i said, pointless debating with you

whats that phrase about kettles and pots again?

I shall leave you to it now

Goodbye 😉

that debating with you is not really worth while.

Says the person who refuses to answer direct questions - have a little self awareness.
We did the crank above and he was actually disowned by the organisation he worked for and the article HE PUBLISHED - that means he could not get it published - the article was eventuall picked up and published in the journal which includes this in it's latest issue

British Crown Peddles Hitler-Style Genocide- Shocking documentation of the Crown's calls for reducing world population by several billion people in the short term

Jan. 2—As the New Year begins, there is an unmistakable pattern of British-provoked asymmetric warfare around the globe, particularly in the aftermath of the Monarchy's failure at the December 2009 Copenhagen conference on global warming. At the Commonwealth meeting in Trinidad & Tobago in November, Queen Elizabeth II stepped directly onto the world stage, to declare, on behalf of the British Monarchy, "We are in charge." But just weeks later, the British failed miserably in their attempt to use Copenhagen to strike a death blow against the Westphalian system of sovereign nation-states, and to depopulate the planet.

Since Copenhagen, the British have launched a new global "strategy of tensions," beginning with the physical assault against Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and then, against Pope Benedict XVI. A senior U.S. intelligence source warned that the targeting of Berlusconi and the Pope signaled a new round of British destabilizations against all of continental Europe. When London goes to war against continental Europe, it always starts with Italy, a U.S. intelligence source elaborated. Since the end of World War II, Italy has been the weak link on the continent. "Love him or hate him," the source explained, "Prime Minister Berlusconi has brought a degree of stability to Italian politics, that is unprecedented in the last half-century. The targeting of Berlusconi, followed by the assault upon the Pope, delivers an unmistakable message: Italy is in London's crosshairs."

IT does indeed strike me as a little unbalanced - poorest reference used on this entire thread AGAIN - laughabally funny publication though - even the Daily mash has never come up with something that daft.
Do you really want someone like this on your side? And published in that magazine

See here and the page after
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/its-global-cooling-not-warming/page/13

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21285895/Global-Warming-and-Sea-level-Rise-by-Madhav-Khandekar-Canada

Scientific study, peer reviewed, published - the works!

the best guess value of SLR from now until 2025 is estimated to be just about 30 mm with a 95% confidence
interval of +/?10 mm. This estimate is significantly lower than the range projected by the IPCC fourth assessment report in 2007. In terms of climate policy, [b]such a value of future sea level rise poses no major threat to the coastal regions or low-lying countries (e.g.Bangladesh,[/b] The Maldives, Tuwalu) of the world at present or in the foreseeable future.