It's global cooling, not warming!

No, what i did was extracted fact from a statement and left the opinion alone. Something i know you struggle to distinguish between.

So, apart from spelling and who quoted what, no one able to give me an opinion on the data loss, manipulation yet again from our trusted folk at the IPCC?

This is the 4th time now, spot a trend? 😉

but as the next paragraph in the article stated, the facts which you presented actually make virtually no difference to the actual science.

your clinging on to little bits and pieces where some debate lies, while ignoring the big picture (because it totally contradicts what you believe)

thats a trend i've spotted through the past 30 pages…

the facts which you presented actually make virtually no difference to the actual science.

according to the IPCC.

Edit:

In fact really what they are saying is that although we have made up data, hidden other data we don't like, manipulated some more, based a lot on non peer reviewed sources and then based our science on that, it actually makes no difference to the actual science!! 😯 😯 😯

No-one, not even me knows why the IPCC people are such klutzes. I'm no more interested in the IPCC's contribution than Shell's. They both have an agenda and are both going to be biased.

I'm interested in all the bits of work that have been done over the years that were never intended to be a part of the global warming debate and the data made freely avaibable by organisations that are there simply to do just that. I'm also interested in the use other scientists make of that information, particularly if it's gone through peer review before being published.

When I ignore the obvious propaganda from both sides the convincing argument remains:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and this can be demonstrated by simple experimentation. Venus is an example of a planet with a dense atmosphere full of greenhouse gases that is thoroughly geenhoused.

The quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 30% since 1860. And this despite the fact analysis of historic natural cycles in CO2 levels would suggest levels should have remained much lower than currently measured.

Emissions of CO2 along with the destruction of CO2 sinks suffice to quantatively explain the increase in CO2 observed.

A link between atmopsheric CO2 levels and paleoclimate in the geological record can be demonstrated. If we reach 500ppm (which we will before oil runs out at the current rate of increase) we can expect a much higher atmosphric energy regime and a climate that will be very different to that man has enjoyed for his two million years on this planet.

hainey; you've let yourself down, i honestly thought more of you than that, i'm dissapointed.

Co2ugh! Co2ugh!

lol

Hainey, just how stupid are you?

So you put up an ad showing a "free energy" oven, where presumably we're supposed to say "ooh that couldn't happen, how can something warm up just by radiating it's own heat energy, those IPCC guys must be idiots"

I show you that actually, it's not like that, because there is an external heat source involved, and that actually, we are not making the heat, but trapping the incoming heat.

Then you join in with another example that helps make MY POINT!

You really are a berk.

RPRT – It was some light humour on a friday. Get over yourself.

Trouble is hainey, you spout such cr@p most of the time it's no longer possible to tell when you are joking.

And your contribution has been? Oh, thats right, a steaming pile of no one gives a damn.

I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant.

BTW, if I missed the "point" completely, what was it?

if I missed the "point" completely

Don't worry, a common theme with your postings.

You're just insignificant.

Compared to?

Insignificance is relative.

Hainey. If I were you I would invoke Hatterslys rule
"when in a hole stop digging"

You are making yourself look a right plonker and the childish insults don't help one little bit.

Whereas the common theme with your postings is not answering difficult questions.

You are making yourself look a right plonker

A skill I have to say you have mastered so well yourself TJ.

Whereas the common theme with your postings is not answering difficult questions.

I have to say i find that unfair, I have answered everything i have been asked.

Whereas every question i try to explore on here which involves hard questions for the church of climatology ends up being diverted sound some random path of proving the moon is made of cheese, gravity doesn't exist or, like most people when they struggle with debate, either indicating daily mail tendancies or conspiracy theories.

And when questioned about the lies and misleading data coming from the UEA and IPCC i never get a response.

Edit: Hence why we go round in circles.

hainey – Member

You are making yourself look a right plonker

A skill I have to say you have mastered so well yourself TJ.

Indeed – and a lesson I am trying to learn.

Except this one:

BTW, if I missed the "point" completely, what was it?

hainey – Member

Whereas the common theme with your postings is not answering difficult questions.

I have to say i find that unfair, I have answered everything i have been asked.

What utter utter drivel. You have consistently refused to answer questions and consistently tried to divert attention as you do in that post.

Look at the words you use

have answered everything i have been asked

I call Bullsh1t – I answered your questions and then you refused to answer mine

when questioned about the lies and misleading data coming from the UEA and IPCC i never get a response

Your own source gave an opinion – you know the bit you deleted because you wanted it free from opinon and then asked for an opinion on

what i did was extracted fact from a statement and left the opinion alone. Something i know you struggle to distinguish between.

So, apart from spelling and who quoted what, no one able to give me an opinion on the data loss, manipulation yet again from our trusted folk at the IPCC?

silly stuff

Its humour, something you seem to have bypassed?

Like this

Junkyard,

I have asked you the following questions:

What is your view on the UEA and them manipulating data
What is your view on the UEA and them withholding data
What is your view on the IPCC glacier data farce
What is your view on the IPCC and Amazon data farce?

There seems to be a sorry trend here with the data they are using and you won't comment on it.

Silence!

Here – a bit more friday humour whilst your thinking…

Hainey, so, remind us, what was the "point" of the free energy oven positing? You know, the "point" that I missed. The one I already asked you about just before you said:

I have answered everything i have been asked.

I am genuinely curious as to what "point" you were making, as I can't see any.

Is someone who disagree with themselves over how many years there are from 1998-2008 [inclusive] 10 , then 11 then back to 10 criticising someone elses ability with maths…
Surely you want to give up you have made yourself look very foolish indeed on this thread…it is starting to feel like picking on the stupid kid at the back of the class can you not just stop?
Hainey , surprisingly you missed the point about questions …I know imagine.
Trying answering questions when someone says you dont rather than asking some more questions…it will look far more convincing.
will this do? It is the bit you ommitted or do you want to disagree with your own source again?
My bold

The new evidence does not invalidate the almost universally acknowledged fact that the world has warmed up over recent decades. This is supported by widespread measurements from around the world, including from the oceans far from any urban effect. Like previous revelations over the past weeks – most notably an erroneous claim in the latest IPCC report that Himalayan glaciers will melt away by 2035 – it does not affect the basic science underpinning global warming. But it does raise queries about how thoroughly and scrupulously some of the research has been carried out, and places an even greater question mark over the future of Prof Jones

Junkyard, you're a first class fool

Is someone who disagree with themselves over how many years there are from 1998-2008 [inclusive] 10 , then 11 then back to 10 criticising someone elses ability with maths…

You're the one who got it wrong in the first place! I had to physically spell it out for you, i thought it would have been easy unless you had lost a finger or toe so you could only count to 9.

And a first class example of the diversionary techniques i keep referring too when the questions get too hard for you.

Edit: – You still have not provided an answer to that question either as to why the trend shows temperatures decreasing from 1998-2008!

RPRT, i have answered your question, it was some friday humour. Please go and buy a sense of humour from somewhere.

So basically what you are saying is the wording in bold you agree with? , and please correct me if I am wrong, and try and stay to the point at hand,I know it is hard for you.

Edit: You know what forget it, reading through your response you haven't actually answered the questions at all, pointless.

A point well put:

The British government's chief scientific adviser was among the first to admit that the impact of global warming had been exaggerated by some scientists and he has called for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions.

On the whole, scientists who are convinced of the reality of man-made global warming and its time scales ought to be less hostile to sceptics, for scepticism is an important part of the scientific process. Hypothesise, if you will, but prove your case before presenting your hypothesis as fact.

Public confidence in climate science would be greatly improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties and if hysterical predictions were backed by clear, scientific evidence.

Hainey, yet again you've edited the post I responded to to try to make yourself look less of an idiot.

Is that a case of destroying data?

Hainey, yet again you've edited the post I responded to to try to make yourself look less of an idiot.

What the hell are you on about? 😯

After your free energy oven posting you said that I had "completely missed the point"

Hence my later question:

BTW, if I missed the "point" completely, what was it?

But looking back I see you edited the "completely missed the point" comment out of your posting.

I mean I could wait 15 minutes before I answer any of your posts, but that might well take some of the spontaneity out of our razor sharp banter.

Do you think the IPCC are using this thread as a source of data?

So, back to the OP!

Does anyone know if the 'whole world' experienced a colder January?

Did in Yorkshire an that's all that matters.

Folk were seen wearing jackets in Newcastle.

RPRT, i have no idea what you are talking about, assuming you mean the post of over 3 hours ago.

As i said, dig deep and find a sense of humour. Lifes too short! Or in your case, the worlds too short!! 😉