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

Z11,

I'm not sure your summary of the 23 Q&As put to Prof Jones is really fair.

I know you know that you are quoting out of context, but what's the point of that exactly?

Have you given up on proper debate?

duckman,

why don't you get back to your really important discussion of your favourite chocolate bars?

duckman,

why don't you get back to your really important discussion of your favourite chocolate bars?

Which reflects how important you think your postings are.Why is your discussion on climate change any more important than a discussion on chocolate bars?

duckman,

Did I come onto the chocolate bar thread and ask all you "tough kids" about getting wedgies?

Or did you come on here and apropos of nothing start having a go at us for discussing something we are interested in?

If you don't like this discussion, sod off.

I know you know that you are quoting out of context

No, I'm quoting bang on context - Prof Jones specifically states that there has been [b]no significant warming since 1995[/b], he goes on to accept that it has cooled since 2002, but not significantly.

How long do you want to go on saying that there has been warming when the preeminent "warmist" climate change scientist, who clearly cannot be accused of sceptic bias, says there has not!

So;A number of points;

1) No need to be rude.
2) You are no longer discussing anything, you have been having an arguement for about the last week.
3) Does that mean that the chocolate bar thread has only been contributed to by the sort of person who liked to wedgie junior rprt?
4) At which point did I say that I used to dish out wedgies?
5) You do think you,and your opinion, are very important,don't you?
6) Answer the question, is your fight about climate any more important than a debate on Chocolate?

I wonder what Prof. Jones's favourite chocolate bar is?

Z11

Actually, if you want to be pedantic (and I know you do) he accepts that there has been cooling in the period from 1995 to the [b]present[/b], but goes on to say (in the same answer) that if you look from 1995 to 2009 (only 1 year earlier) then there is warming.

I think what he was trying to point out is that, yes, it is possible to cherry pick your data.

The context I mentioned were the other 22 questions and answers. I think if you really had to sum up the whole of what he said in a few sentences, then most people wouldn't do it the way you did. That is what context means - choosing something representative, not something counter to the main thrust.

So;A number of points;

1) No need to be rude.
2) You are no longer discussing anything, you have been having an arguement for about the last week.
3) Does that mean that the chocolate bar thread has only been contributed to by the sort of person who liked to wedgie junior rprt?
4) At which point did I say that I used to dish out wedgies?
5) You do think you,and your opinion, are very important,don't you?
6) Answer the question, is your fight about climate any more important than a debate on Chocolate?

1) You started it.
2) Isn't that our business?
3) I don't care.
4) You didn't, and neither did I
5) Doesn't everybody?
6) Yes.

Just as an aside, do you think pointless lists are more to do with OCD or anal retentiveness?

1) You started it.
2) Isn't that our business?
3) I don't care.
4) You didn't, and neither did I
5) Doesn't everybody?
6) Yes.

1) No; you did with your numerous comments to Hainey above.
2)

Isn't that our business?

1) I'm sure hainey will be delighted to find he's now got a tough kid to stand up for him.

2) Precisely. "Isn't that our business?", as in "Are we not entitled to talk about what we want without you butting in and telling us not to?"

3) Do you think anybody else cares?

4) All elephants are grey.

5) "Doesn't everybody?" as in "doesn't everybody think their OWN opinion is important?", not as in "doesn't everybody think MY opinion is important?" - you're not very good at this are you?

6) I don't know. Do you? Really?

Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

rightplacerighttime - Member

Actually, if you want to be pedantic (and I know you do) he accepts that there has been cooling in the period from 1995 to the present, but goes on to say (in the same answer) that if you look from 1995 to 2009 (only 1 year earlier) then there is warming.

I think what he was trying to point out is that, yes, it is possible to cherry pick your data.

Isn't "cherry picking" data exactly what the UEA and others have been doing?

No. Read the article Z11 linked to - it's interesting to hear from Prof Jones himself.

Contrary to the nonsense hainey and the like spout about climate science being a religion, Prof Jones is more than happy to explain where the doubt lies, but also why, despite the gaps in the science he thinks there is a solid case.

I wonder where this debate would be if we didn't have computers.

Prof Jones is more than happy to explain where the doubt lies, but also why, despite the gaps in the science he thinks there is a solid case

Funny that he's now made such a conversion to "see the light" - this was the same Prof Jones who's private emails revealed he threatened that "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone"

Crocodile tears!

Maybe global warming is debatable but one things for sure- we should stop raping our planet. It'll only end in tears and has already for many.

Contrary to the nonsense hainey and the like spout about climate science being a religion

I think you missed the point (again) my referral to religion is the way that you shout down and call people heretics if you disagree with them - like the church of scientology. IMHO just a little pathetic.

one things for sure- we should stop raping our planet.

Whole-heartedly agree.

Poor rprt,did my mention of playground bullys touch a raw nerve? I actually posted above as a troll;You bit.
This very long thread actually sums up all the science on climate change, lots of people fiddling(debating) while Rome (the planet) burns.

Poor rprt,did my mention of playground bullys touch a raw nerve? I actually posted above as a troll;You bit.

Well done. I'm sure everyone reaading this thread will be in awe of your verbal and psychological trickery. Have a chocolate bar.

duckman, if you have nothing constructive to say.....

Hainey is that you saying that 😉

Ah Duckman what a great advert for Chrstianity you are.
LOL at rprt reply

Hainey is that you saying that

I know, time to up my medication. 😉

Well done. I'm sure everyone reaading this thread will be in awe of your verbal and psychological trickery. Have a chocolate bar.

At least they will understand what I am talking about.

Junkyard;what a great advert for contraception [i]you[/i] are.

I understand rprt. Are the brainy kids talking above your level of comprehension and you are left with only insults......ahhhh Bless.

when and why did this turn nasty?

play nicely now.

X

Nah,you know better than that.It was in-service yesterday,I was bored,so I put one of the classic stereotypes of scientists into your debate.Hey; it was that or pocket protectors.

[url= http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i68737 ]IPCC Admits Man Made Global Warming a Hoax![/url]

😉

Despite out lovely warm summer, global temperatures are falling and we are forecast a very long period of cooler temperatures (years)[url= http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather ]AccuWeather[/url]

Great! Can't wait for the ski season!

The zombie global warming thread rises again!

Now, do I trust Joe Bastardi with his cooling or NOAA and their warming?

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats.htmlwith

It's all so difficult 🙄

Your link above does not work BTW midgebait

ok some simple points spongebob
1. If you cannot tell the difference between weather and climate it is probably best to leave it to someone who does understand the difference between Meterology and Climatology . Your source is a weather forecaster isn’t he?

2. From the blog

For the first time this year, the global temps have retreated below last year's level

warmer, colder, it still avoids the biggest issue. the world changes, ice ages come and go. the world will one day no longer be habitable for humans.

we may be able to influence this date by a small fraction but it will still come about.

to think we can save the world is egotistical. the world does not need saving. (but mankind may)

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats.html

Try again and my last post on this thread for another six-months 🙂

WHY ? will we have a really cold winter and have to explain again about the difference between weather and climate 😆

we may be able to influence this date by a small fraction

Sources for that? Other than your arse?

Oh my lord, I just found this from Bastardi:

The coming drop of global temperatures over the next year, to levels not seen since the 1990s, should put to an end to the AGW argument for good

Wtf? How could any intelligent person think that?

Seems like half of America is just vying for airtime or blog hits, so they jump on anything that'll make them stand out. Christ on a stick.

Sources for that? Other than your arse?

Wasn't implying I believed we could or couldn't. I was trying to suggest it would be nothing but a blip in the history of the world.

yes as was the extinction period for the dinosaurs but it was pretty tough on them iirc *
Phil yes the world will die , the sun will run out etc but really what has that got to do with this debate?

* no I am not saying global warming wil have as large an effect as this.

The sun running out & the world dying have nothing to do with this debate. Which is why I didn't bring them up.

I brought up fact the world has previously been un-inhabitable for man and that nature works in cycles. I think this is often not mentioned in the AGW debate but probable should be.

If nature dictates the world will be un-inhabitable for man do we really think we can stop it?

Right so you think we have had no effect on the planet and it is all natural change,
What is you view on the Ozone hole and CFC’s – natural or us?
Clearly climate scientist are aware of previous climate patterns and EVERYONE accepts we have had climate change in the past – Ice ages etc. You should read the thread as we have covered all of this a number of times but why do you see nature rather than mans activity in the digging up of oil burning it and releasing C02 and other chemicals. Do you really think this will have no effect on the system*? Clearly the natural cycles are still there but it is highly likely that the activities of man have had an effect on these.
You have heard of cause and effect

* C02 is a greenhouse gas more of it equals a greater forcing effect as more stored heat and therefore the planet warms up - do you have an alternative explanation rather than saying that we have had climate change in the past and claiming that the pollution created by the internal combustion engine is somehow a "natural " change?

does it really matter its all going one way anyhow?

Right so you think we have had no effect on the planet

again, this is not what i said.

I'm not sure how you are reading what I posted and have changed that into "I think we have no effect on the planet".

I'm saying the planet will exist for longer than man, as it will become un-inhabitable whether by our own doing or natures.

Therefore we are not trying to "save the planet" it is actually a case of prolonging the inevitable.

I'm happy to do everything possible to prolong the inevitable..

I was trying to suggest it would be nothing but a blip in the history of the world.

This is a line trotted out by people who either want to show how clever they are or want to not have to improve their carbon footprint. We all know that there've been ice ages and stuff, but that doesn't make it ok.

We are changing the climate, and people will suffer. Those folk flooded out in the Philippines or Bangladesh won't care if this has already happened 30m years ago, will they?

Even the return of Fred and Smee Mark? 😉

If nature dictates the world will be un-inhabitable for man do we really think we can stop it

PS we may escape the planet and inhabit another world first - who knows?It is impossible to predict what will happen to mankind in the next 3-4 billion years with any degre eof certaintity