It's global cooling, not warming!

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!

The only cause to which I am “devoted “ is that the best way of finding truth is to follow the evidence and use a scientific methodology – you know one you struggled to understand for about 6 pages. It is a shame that you choose not to use it when forming your opinion but that is your choice, your act of faith. You are entitled to believe what you want but it would be better if you could evidence your view with data.

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

.WTF are you on about ? Do religious people really accuse people of being insane for questioning their science ? It is odd rants like this and the IPCC one that led me to sarcastically question your understanding of reality. It is not my science I think the approach belongs to us all you can choose to use it or ignore it as you wish

You couldn't fit into the mould better if you tried! [/Quote]
What rational and data led?
Convince me with evidence that is all you need to do
Shall we leave it there? Or bicker like small children for a bit?

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 🙄

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

EDIT:I see little point in continuing this it is futile if you actually believe that religous people call people insane 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 science 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.

RPRT – I'm afraid it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to say told you so on this one:

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

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.

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

The important point is still we chose 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?

climate change? What climate change?

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:

""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."

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, in other words the study of historical earthquake activity.
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 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.”

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 peer reviewed 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

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, such a value of future sea level rise poses no major threat to the coastal regions or low-lying countries (e.g.Bangladesh, The Maldives, Tuwalu) of the world at present or in the foreseeable future.