Interesting read re. Global warming
- Thread starter Moraff
- Start date
Junk.
Read the rebuttal from the Met.
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
Read the rebuttal from the Met.
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
0.05°C increase is not statistically significant, they might as well say zero global warming since 1997.
Looking at this graph there is nothing that looks out of the ordinary over the last 16 years. They look like regular peaks and valleys temperature fluctuations to me
But the Met is right in that you cant use that as overall proof that GW isnt happening, because you have to go back much earlier in time for that. And even then it still doesnt prove anything, unless the warming over the last 100 years proved to be statistically significant.
But that graph sure doesnt help the global warming fanatics either
off with the heads of the catastrophists. May they stop churning out faulty bullshit science with only one aim in mind; lining their pockets with tons of government grant $$$$$'s to perpetuate their myths, so they can get yet more government grants
No way, environmentalists would never do that. They are good, honest people who only care about the environment:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/12/11/eu-carbon-credit-trading-fraud.html
and in their place hoist up those willing to accept envelopes of cash from those who remove fossil fuels from the ground in exchange for promoting dubious theories and pretending to understand science.
Seriously, 94% of the people who actually work in the field of climatology support the work of the IPCC.
The rest are cranks, non-scientists, non-specialists or just shady characters.
He also said the scientist were doing it for the money. We've been over fraudulent claim once before and blew it out of the water. WWG has been caught under too many sweepers or hydrolics too long and it has cause him some difficulty.
Thanks. Actually, I was the one who started that thread.
And the person in my original post -- environmental guru James Lovelock -- said that research money clearly is an influence.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...lock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
So the once termed Guru of climate change, who now says it's a hoax, making him one of the 6% who don't believed in it, should be taken serious in his opinion on research funding? Riight!
I guess James Lovelock is silly to think that he knows as much about environmental issues as Blackrock13.
Never made that claim. Just used his own words and opinions to point out facts.
I see. Whatever you think of Lovelock, the fact still remains that your assertion that the influence-of-money argument has been blown out of the water is clearly wrong.
If you don't want to believe that huge research dollars are a factor in shaping opinions, that's your right. But it is legitimate for people to disagree with you.
I've not ever said it wasn't a factor, but it isn't not a major factor as you want us to believe.
It is rather silly to try to show that global warming isn't happening. It's just too easy to show that it is.
The trouble is that, because they see the warming-denier shot down in flames, people think the whole of the mankind is responsible for global warming case has been reinforced.
The real question is not Is global warming happening? but Is global warming caused by humans burning too much carbon fuel? And the related question, Even if we were to put all the fires out now (and thereby destroy nearly all economic activity) how long will it take for the glaciers to freeze up again?
It's interesting also that, when climate scientists are interviewed, they all seem to say: I'm convinced that mankind is causing global warming. However, in my own particular area, the official line put out by the government is really not supported by my data. But I am totally committed to the consensus view.
The trouble is that, because they see the warming-denier shot down in flames, people think the whole of the mankind is responsible for global warming case has been reinforced.
The real question is not Is global warming happening? but Is global warming caused by humans burning too much carbon fuel? And the related question, Even if we were to put all the fires out now (and thereby destroy nearly all economic activity) how long will it take for the glaciers to freeze up again?
It's interesting also that, when climate scientists are interviewed, they all seem to say: I'm convinced that mankind is causing global warming. However, in my own particular area, the official line put out by the government is really not supported by my data. But I am totally committed to the consensus view.
