@ Spongbob – brilliant link 😀

Blasphemy for the loonies who treat this like a religion though..

LOL.

Remember its weather though! 😉

And remember its the 4th warmest january in 1/3rd of the world in the last 35 years measured in one particular way. i.e conclusive proof we're all doomed! 😉

The ones who treat this like a religion are the deniers. They deny that the world is warming despite overwhelming proof because it suits their world view. Manmade – debatable. World warming – totally proven

Just when the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change thought it could put mistakes of the fourth assessment report behind it and
carry on with its work, fresh instances of alleged manipulations have emerged. The UN climate change panel has admitted that its 2007 report wrongly stated that 55% of the Netherlands lies below the sea level.
This is the second time that IPCC has had to admit to an error in the 2007 assessment report. Even as IPCC is dealing with its admission of a second error, allegations have been made that IPCC’s claim of unequivocal rise in temperature may have been manipulated.

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.
It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

🙄

Hainey, just background info – apparently the data was taken from the Netherlands government:

Sea level in the Netherlands: The WG2 report states that The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level. This sentence was provided by a Dutch government agency the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which has now published a correction stating that the sentence should have read 55 per cent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below sea level, and 29 per cent is susceptible to river flooding. It surely will go down as one of the more ironic episodes in its history when the Dutch parliament last Monday derided the IPCC, in a heated debate, for printing information provided by the Dutch government. In addition, the IPCC notes that there are several definitions of the area below sea level. The Dutch Ministry of Transport uses the figure 60% (below high water level during storms), while others use 30% (below mean sea level). Needless to say, the actual number mentioned in the report has no bearing on any IPCC conclusions and has nothing to do with climate science, and it is questionable whether it should even be counted as an IPCC error.

Indeed, it highlights great sloppieness (spl) in the IPCCs reports, something which as "highly peer reviewed scientific papers" should not happen, especially as they are the main guide for governments.

Hainey from your quote
"Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all."

So clearly not saying that the earth is not warming. T no doubt the erth is warming. How much and what the causes are can be debated but it is a clear and proven fact that the earth is warming.

to deny this shows how wedded you are to your point of view and how you do what you accuse others of doing – manipulaing the data and ignoring the data that doenst go along with your preconceived notions.

TJ,

Where have i EVER stated that the earth hasn't been warming?

I'll save you the time, i haven't.

I am actually semi with you on this one regarding the world has been warming, just as it has many times over the last 500000 years, manmade? – debateable.

Edit: A lot of the data i have presented have shown that the data can be interpreted in many ways. I, like many others think that we are at a peak at the moment.

A lot of the data i have presented have shown that the data can be interpreted in many ways.

And one of the ways, the one that you choose, is "wrongly"

The trouble with you hainey is that you are prepared to cut and past almost anything by anyone, so long as they don't support AGW – "my enemy's enemy is my friend"

That is why it is so difficult to debate with you. Not because you have a defensible POV, but because you can't hold one line of thought for more than the time it takes you to write a post.

Don't you see that a discussion about how much of the Netherlands might be below sea level is a completely different sort of problem to melting glaciers?

One is regarding a physical property that can be measured right now. Then people can argue over "interpretation", which isn't really interpretation anyway, but definition – whether we mean sea level at high tide, low tide, average tide etc. The fact that the IPCC say 55% and someone else says 26% doesn't really matter, so long as everyone knows what the measurement conditions are, which they do. ONLY AN ARSE would suggest that one measurement was right and one was wrong, because they can both be right, or both wrong as the answer depends entirely on the frame of reference.

The other one is about a forecast, which we all know IS to do with "interpretation" of data.

Interestingly, you say that you, like many others, think that we are "at a peak"

I know there are plenty of people who say that climate change is not caused by man made CO2 , but I can't say that I've heard many of them with the confidence (unlike yourself) to forecast that we are "at a peak"

Maybe you could tell us who else thinks we are "at a peak"?

Spot the difference.

And one of the ways, the one that you choose RPRT, is "wrongly"

The trouble with you RPRT is that you are prepared to cut and paste almost anything by anyone, so long as they support AGW – "my enemy's enemy is my friend"

That is why it is so difficult to debate with you. Not because you have a defensible POV, but because you can't hold one line of thought for more than the time it takes you to write a post.

We could go round and round in circles, OR, you could accept that other people have different point of views from yourself? Or is that too hard to do? You're not THAT arrogant are you?

Don't you see that a discussion about how much of the Netherlands might be below sea level is a completely different sort of problem to melting glaciers?

Yes, totally, the point i am highlighting is that the only consistent thing about the IPCC at the moment seems to be their mistakes and flaws. You and Junkyard harped on for pages and pages about the wonderful IPCC and how they are gods, when in fact it is 10 underpaid scientists sitting in a room making a sh*t load of errors. My issue with this is that our governments are using this data to base extremely important decisions on.

ONLY AN ARSE would suggest that one measurement was right and one was wrong, because they can both be right, or both wrong as the answer depends entirely on the frame of reference.

And one of the ways, the one that you choose, is "wrongly"

Are you an arse?

See, you can't even follow the logic through one post. No wonder you can't make any sense of climate change.

LOL.

You didn't answer my question!!?

Hi i'm kettle, are you calling me black? 🙄

Climate change is a complete red herring, and debating whether its happening or not is sadly missing the real issue. Which is that there are too many people, and we are using the worlds resources up in a wasteful way, faster than they can be replenished. Our entire agricultural and economic system is based upon the availability of cheap oil, which will start to run out in our lifetime. So forget climate change, we'll just have to adapt to that. The real issue is living more frugally, and in harmony with the ecosystems on which we depend, not in conflict with them.

But it won't happen of course, and we are probably all doomed. In 50 years time people will look back and say now was the golden age of mankind. IMHO 😀

Rprt,Hainey,Junkyard,Zulu; Did you guys get lots of wedgies from the sporty kids at school?

You don't seem to have understood my point about the difference between "definition" and "interpretation"

duckman,

Want a bike race?

Sure,having your pants up your back will slow you down.

As will not being a lard arse, sporty kid.

BBC:

Q – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Professor Phil Jones, CRU

A – Yes…

😀

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm

Ha Ha! So you did get wedgies at school from the "tough" kids!

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 no significant warming since 1995, 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 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.

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?

Well no, it is a public forum.
3) So is not just Hainey you will not give a straight answer to.
4)You referred to me as both "sporty" and "tough" the terms I used to describe the kids who dished out wedgies,thus inferring I was one of the kids with a handfulL of y-front.
5)No,or this thread would be much shorter.
6)I am afraid you are wrong,ask the average person if they would put up with a ban on chocolate if it would reduce co2 emissions by 10% (that is if there is ever agreement about what causes it)and see what the answer is.

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.