Author Topic: Climate Warming a hoax?  (Read 199657 times)

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

Stan

  • Guest
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #391 on: February 11, 2010, 10:11:11 PM »
On an almost exactly the same scenario.....

Ok Bob....you win...I officially give up.  I have now seen data that proves NY is plunging into an ice age.  It is irrefutable and not subject to opinion or politics.  The graph in question shows the average monthly temperature in New York city from August to December 2009 as steadily plunging downward.  The perfect polar (no pun intended) opposite of the famous hockey stick graph that shows world temperatures rising. There's no doubt that you and fox news are totally correct.
Stan  ;)

Stan

  • Guest
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #392 on: February 11, 2010, 10:24:48 PM »
Todays  AGW tidbit:

 Facing record snowfalls, Time is reporting: "Snowstorm: East Coast Blizzard Tied to Climate Change." But do not confuse this headline with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s column from two years ago claiming that global warming was causing "anemic winters" in the Washington region.

No snow, too much snow. It does not matter to the enviroleft crowd. For them, global warming always is to blame.   :D


Mike....Here's a perfect analogy of the earth's climate system(s).  Take a glass pot of water and put a high temp thermometer in it.  Bring it slowly up to a mild simmer and read the temp.  At sea level it should read 211 or 212 deg F.  Observe the action of the water.  You should see some currents slowly spinning around, and some upward and downward trends.  Use a flashlight to see it better.

Now, turn up the heat!  Bring it up to a good boil.  Read the temp.  It shouldn't be any higher than before on your thermometer, unless you have an electronic temp that is extremely sensitive and then it should be one or two hundredths of a degree higher.  Now, here's the lesson.  Observe the action of the water.  You will see comparatively violent currents, bubbles and action all over the place.

That's what a tiny bit more heat will do to a fluid system (the earths atmosphere acts just like a fluid, don't forget).  You will get hotter hots, lower lows, more freakish activity all over the globe, not just in Washington DC.
Stan

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #393 on: February 11, 2010, 11:38:48 PM »
Stan:

i am so pleased you have finally come to see the light!!!   :)

from your example, the only flaw i see with it is you are working with a substance at the phase change junction
where additional heat input changes things in a non linear manner.

the point i have always made is simply this,
man has effect on his surroundings to a certain extent, usually very local in nature
man is in competition with our sun, which has the ability to outrun us by several orders of magnitude.

you mention the thermal circulation of the water in your pan, with heat input
the jet stream is an example of a large scale circulation on our planet, or rather about it.

the suns solar flairs have dramatic effect on the jet stream among other things,

what fascinates me is the idea that nasa admits "we don't quite understand how the sun affects our climate..."

but we understand beyond any doubt how man is responsible for climatic change???

we can directly measure in real time what our sun is putting out in our direction, and we can measure its effects
to a very high degree of accuracy, something we cannot do with man's input into the system in real time and at any level
of accuracy.

here is a final take on your book recommenation

the author loses all credibility with me when he has to preface  nearly every chapter with verbiage such as
"the science is proven and any credible scientist will agree..." 

that is both arrogant and a tool of a propogandist,

he suggests that anyone that would argue against or provide another plausible explanation for his hypothesis as being not credible??

i would allow him one such reference in the preface or in the conclusion of his book, but i have ran across such verbiage frequently in
the text, enough so that i find him to be nothing more than a sad old man, a has been that is no longer relevant to the discussion
trying as he might to provide support for his theory so that it does not get swept away  into the dustbin of time and him back into
obscurity.

its kind of sad really, because i do think he is an intelligent fellow, but
he of all people should know there is no need for rhetoric with solid science.

anyone that wants my copy of the book, just pm me and i will send it to you for the cost of postage
perhaps someone will get something out of his words that i have clearly missed?

btw, the "pyrolysis oil" book is

"pyrolysis oil from biomass"

it does not deal with cracking oil shales which i would agree seem a bit uneconomical at this time, where it takes
about 85 barrels of oil in energy to process 100 barrels and get a net of 15 barrels from shale,
perhaps that will change when some forward thinking government or industry puts a nuclear reactor above the shale
bed and uses the waste heat of the reactor to drive the oil from the shale.

we both know that is never going to happen, not in our life times.

in conclusion Stan, and other AGW supporters:

i give you props for your passion, and your beliefs, and also allow you your hero's, as we all have all three in some capacity
without which life becomes a rather unbearable plodding day after day.

i don't suppose either side is going to fundamentally change the minds or hearts of the opposing side, and that is ok!

best wishes to you and your side

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

Stan

  • Guest
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #394 on: February 12, 2010, 03:23:42 AM »
Don't worry Bob...I'll keep on reading the www.Dailybayonet.com, and "www.Globalwarminghoax.com" just to see how Glenn Beck and Howard Stern feel about the subject.
Stan

t19

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Tanks and Lister... Heavy Metal
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #395 on: February 15, 2010, 12:53:14 AM »
Well Stan, since you called Mr Goldstien's credibility into account, I thought it was only right that we allowed him to tell your sources they are full of hot air... nice list of reading material there too

=====================

Today, I want to answer the warmist lies spread about me for the past three-plus years I’ve been writing about climate change.

I also suggest that whenever Canada’s warmist media lamely defend increasingly discredited anthropogenic global warming orthodoxy, you should ask them — directly — how much they know about the subject.

Contrary to the smears of the “everything I needed to know about global warming I learned from Al Gore” crowd, I’ve never been paid a cent by the fossil fuel industry to write about climate change. Anyone who says I have is a liar.

Everything I’ve written has been as part of my normal duties as a Sun columnist.

No one from Quebecor, the Sun’s owners, has ever told me what to write. Anyone who says they have is a liar.

I began researching climate change in late 2006 for a couple of reasons.

First, a reader told me she’d heard Europe’s cap-and-trade market was forcing hospitals and universities to buy carbon credits, instead of hiring nurses and teachers, while energy companies were making huge profits. She wanted to know if this was true.

Second, I was curious about news reports Canada could theoretically comply with the Kyoto accord by buying billions of dollars of “hot air” emission credits from Russia. How could Russia, I wondered, possibly be “greener” than Canada?

I found out Europe’s cap-and-trade market had not only done what my reader said, it also wasn’t cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Russia, I learned, had billions of dollars of hot air credits not because of any environmental initiatives it took, but because its economy collapsed after the Berlin Wall fell in late 1989. That’s why Kyoto’s main drivers — the U.K. and European Union — retroactively chose 1990 as the base year for cutting emissions.

This meant they could credit to themselves the reduced emissions following the economic collapse of the Soviet Union post-1990, as Soviet satellites were absorbed by Europe. (There are fewer emissions in a recession because people buy fewer things and thus it takes less fossil fuel energy to make and transport them.)

Basically, Kyoto was an accounting trick that did nothing for the environment, aimed largely at hobbling the U.S. economy, and, in the process, ours as well. So I kept on researching.

Below I’ve listed the 23 books I’ve read on global warming, so far. The first 14 would pass muster with David Suzuki. Trust me. I’ve also spent many hours reading government and environmental reports. Not press releases — reports.

That’s why, unlike so many in the warmist media, I actually know what I’m talking about.

(1) The Rough Guide to Climate Change by Robert Henson.

(2) Heat, How to Stop the Planet from Burning by George Monbiot.

(3) Hell and High Water by Joseph Romm

(4) The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery

(5) The Revenge of Gaia, by James Lovelock

(6) The Heat is On, by Ross Gelbspan

(7) The Suicidal Planet by Mayer Hillman, Tina Fawcett and Sudir Chella Rajan

(8) Stupid to the Last Drop by William Marsden

(9) Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent by Andrew Nikiforuk

(10) Under a Green Sky by Peter Ward

(11) Stormy Weather by Guy Dauncey with Patrick Mazza

(12) Climate Cover-up by James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore

(13) Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Mike Hulme

(14) Carbon Shift, edited by Thomas Homer-Dixon

(15) The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon

(16) Heaven and Earth by Ian Plimer

(17) A Moment on the Earth by Greg Easterbrook

(18) Taken by Storm by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick

(19) The Emperor’s New Climate by Bruno Wiskel

(20) Climate of Extremes by Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling Jr.

(21, 22) Red Hot Lies and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism by Christopher C. Horner

(23) Green Hell by Stephen Milloy

Now reading: The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg

Up next: The Vanishing Face of Gaia by James Lovelock
There is plenty of room for all of Gods creatures... right next to the mashed potatoes...

t19

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Tanks and Lister... Heavy Metal
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #396 on: February 15, 2010, 12:54:51 AM »
he idea that these clowns would "lose" their life's work, particularly when it's the basis for their grandiose claims for disaster, and their making a call to change the entire world's way of life is clearly insane. I would put forward a far simpler explanation: Fraud. On a scale to boggle the mind. I want this entire crew investigated, and prosecuted if it turns out they were set to profit personally, as Pachauri was. Follow the money.



_____________________
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...-organised.html

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010

* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Professor Phil Jones

Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.

That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.

Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...l#ixzz0fXP5zMef
There is plenty of room for all of Gods creatures... right next to the mashed potatoes...

t19

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Tanks and Lister... Heavy Metal
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #397 on: February 15, 2010, 12:58:47 AM »
Now here is an interesting report.  Looking at Caves off Spain, it appears that 81,000 years ago, the Mediterranean was 1 m higher, when it should have been lower because of the advancing Glaciers.  ummm
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,677613,00.html

Oh and this is a good one, seems there has been no warming since 95. Jones spills his beens
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490
There is plenty of room for all of Gods creatures... right next to the mashed potatoes...

Tugger

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #398 on: February 15, 2010, 01:03:02 AM »
Best scientific proof of global warming i have found online.....

cheers
Tug

Doug

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3386
  • Why don't pictures ever work for me?
    • View Profile
    • Doug's Petteroid Stuff
It's a Good Life, If You Don't Weaken

t19

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Tanks and Lister... Heavy Metal
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #400 on: February 15, 2010, 02:59:47 AM »
Best scientific proof of global warming i have found online.....

cheers
Tug


Well it is a hockey stick of sorts.. I suspect this is one of the best posts so far
There is plenty of room for all of Gods creatures... right next to the mashed potatoes...

Stan

  • Guest
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #401 on: February 15, 2010, 05:25:04 AM »
Andrew, if you read the whole text of Jone's little speech on "what I did wrong" he also states that he stands by his data and virtually all studies since then have backed up his original, however disorganized, data.

He also, in the same article challenged the bought scientific community (my label not his) that they should quit trying to discredit legitimate scientists, and simply do what every scientist should be doing and that is "gather their own data, publish it, get it peer reviewed" and use that to prove that global warming is a hoax.

To date, no one has done that.  The hoax people only rely on trying to fix on faults from "the other side" instead of offering their own proof, published properly.
Stan

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #402 on: February 15, 2010, 01:23:45 PM »
Stan:

something you don't seem to understand or are conveniently forgetting

it is not incumbent on anyone to prove AGW wrong!

it is however incumbent on those who promote AGW to prove it!

that is how science works!

anyone can propose a hypothesis, or an opinion, but it is just that and not a fact, theory or law!

all the other side of the arguement has to do is call in to question part of all of the assertion and it is up to
he who made the assertion to prove it, or simply shut up and go away.

and we are supposed to take the suggestion of some goofball that can't find his data?

i suppose the dog ate it??

good lord what a world we live in.

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

mike90045

  • Mendocino Metro
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1594
  • Mmmm BBQ
    • View Profile
    • Mikes Solar PV page
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #403 on: February 15, 2010, 03:15:27 PM »
Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.

 http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214

**  this has not been peer reviewed

The world is freezing, light the smudge pots !

Stan

  • Guest
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #404 on: February 15, 2010, 03:41:05 PM »

that is how science works!

anyone can propose a hypothesis, or an opinion, but it is just that and not a fact, theory or law!


bob g

EXACTLY Bob....Those who say the earth is not warming up and it is not due to man's actions should prove it is cooling off, and it is the sun or the stars or something else causing it!  That's how science works.....As Phil Jones said it much more politely, the Glen Becks of the world should put up or shut up!
Stan