Sheffield Forum

Am I still allowed to question climate change?

Home > General > General Discussions

Reply To Topic
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
20-11-2009, 17:26   #41
Grandad.Malky
Registered User
Grandad.Malky's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Total Posts: 18,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingmaker2 View Post
.
Many here including yourself claim to know what's happening, and are taking a smug "I told you so" attitude, but the reality is you could still be wrong.
I have never made any smug statement and I don’t claim to know what is going on, I do object to being accused for the downfall of the planet for putting my rubbish in the wrong bin.
  Reply With Quote
20-11-2009, 17:29   #42
f0rd
Registered User
f0rd's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: Millhouses
Total Posts: 1,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsy Hack View Post
"Science" in this case being "blog science", presumably. Since there's nothing in the real, peer-reviewed literature to support that statement you just made.
About that...

Quote:
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
_______
Men are equal; it is not birth but virtue that makes the difference - Voltaire
  Reply With Quote
20-11-2009, 17:35   #43
bladesufc1
Registered User
bladesufc1's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Location: Chapletown
Total Posts: 4,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pidgeon View Post
Global warming "Nutters" make my blood boil.

Global Warming theory has been put about becaue we cant keep using the worlds oils & Gases, they've brought this in to ensure we use alternative fuels and stop the reliance with RUSSIA & ASIA
  Reply With Quote
20-11-2009, 17:36   #44
Kingmaker2
Registered User
Kingmaker2's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Total Posts: 5,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malky View Post
No Evidence for Global Warming !

You don’t say:-

Apologies greatly received from all those that have shot me down on this subject in the past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malky View Post
I was saying that 2 years ago, all we have to do now is convert the gullible.
No evidence of being smug!
  Reply With Quote
20-11-2009, 18:21   #45
LibertyBell
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: The Valley
Total Posts: 4,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pidgeon View Post
Global warming "Nutters" make my blood boil.
Same here. Climate change due to co2 levels is more or less proved.
  Reply With Quote
20-11-2009, 18:24   #46
f0rd
Registered User
f0rd's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: Millhouses
Total Posts: 1,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyBell View Post
Same here. Climate change due to co2 levels is more or less proved.
No, as nothing is ever proven in science, nor does it belong in the realm of science.
_______
Men are equal; it is not birth but virtue that makes the difference - Voltaire
  Reply With Quote
20-11-2009, 18:27   #47
auto98uk
Lost the Game
auto98uk's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: Under the boardwalk
Total Posts: 10,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by convert View Post
<snip>
You forgot to mention that warming has only been observed in urban areas, but that gets hidden as the raw statistics are rarely released. So, it might be mad-made warming, but it could be due to the amount of concrete we put down, rather than emissions.
  Reply With Quote
20-11-2009, 18:31   #48
Grandad.Malky
Registered User
Grandad.Malky's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Total Posts: 18,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingmaker2 View Post
No evidence of being smug!
Your point being exactly.
  Reply With Quote
20-11-2009, 22:01   #49
Gypsy Hack
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: Gangway F, Sheffield.
Total Posts: 1,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by f0rd View Post
About that...
About what? Seeing as they didn't have the power of god over what went in or was left out of the IPCC report, it's clearly an argument that they're going to make rather than an action they're going to take. It's not for them to "redefine" anything, but peer-review is the first BS filter, not the only one. Stuff slips through, and tends to be weeded out by other means.

Absolutely no underhand practice has been exposed here. All that has been shown is that a few scientists at ONE institution are - shock, horror - human, and get a little narked off at people deliberately trying to muddy the waters and obfuscate the science.

This will die down like the last "final nail in the coffin of AGW", and the one before that, and the one before that. Any wonder why all but a small number of dedicated people have ceased to bother debunking this stuff? I used to visit Anthony Watts site, for example, because I like giving people a chance, but there is only so much spectacular scientific illiteracy you can take before you give up.

Meanwhile, we are still in the middle of a warming trend, we are still in the hottest decade on record and carbon dioxide is still well established as the cause. If the context-free publishing of illegally hacked emails from a SINGLE institution is the best evidence against this, then it's pretty damn robust.
  Reply With Quote
20-11-2009, 22:18   #50
LibertyBell
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: The Valley
Total Posts: 4,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by f0rd View Post
No, as nothing is ever proven in science, nor does it belong in the realm of science.
True but the evidence for CO2 driven climate change is overwhelming.
  Reply With Quote
20-11-2009, 22:20   #51
f0rd
Registered User
f0rd's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: Millhouses
Total Posts: 1,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsy Hack View Post
About what? Seeing as they didn't have the power of god over what went in or was left out of the IPCC report, it's clearly an argument that they're going to make rather than an action they're going to take.
And you know this how?

Quote:
It's not for them to "redefine" anything, but peer-review is the first BS filter, not the only one. Stuff slips through, and tends to be weeded out by other means.
Right...? Thus if stuff slips through then your earlier claim "Since there's nothing in the real, peer-reviewed literature", is evidently false.

Quote:
Absolutely no underhand practice has been exposed here. All that has been shown is that a few scientists at ONE institution are - shock, horror - human, and get a little narked off at people deliberately trying to muddy the waters and obfuscate the science.
What one institution? Since when is the University of East Anglia the same institution of University of Massachusetts Amherst (Raymond Bradley), Pennsylvania State (Michael Mann) I could carry on, but they are not AT the same institution, you may actually want to do some fact checking.

Quote:
This will die down like the last "final nail in the coffin of AGW", and the one before that, and the one before that. Any wonder why all but a small number of dedicated people have ceased to bother debunking this stuff? I used to visit Anthony Watts site, for example, because I like giving people a chance, but there is only so much spectacular scientific illiteracy you can take before you give up.
Right and?

Quote:
Meanwhile, we are still in the middle of a warming trend, we are still in the hottest decade on record and carbon dioxide is still well established as the cause. If the context-free publishing of illegally hacked emails from a SINGLE institution is the best evidence against this, then it's pretty damn robust.
So no comment on the emails asking to delete emails to prevent them being made public due to the FOIA?
_______
Men are equal; it is not birth but virtue that makes the difference - Voltaire
  Reply With Quote
20-11-2009, 22:22   #52
Gormenghast
Earl of Groan
Gormenghast's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: With the Bright Carvings.
Total Posts: 2,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyBell View Post
True but the evidence for CO2 driven climate change is overwhelming.
Bolleaux. Climate change is an ongoing natural phenomenon. It's cyclical. It's happened before and it will happen again. Like the many ice ages.

And the amount of CO2 contributed by man is minute compared to the natural CO2 emissions.
  Reply With Quote
20-11-2009, 22:32   #53
convert
Registered User
convert's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Total Posts: 2,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsy Hack View Post
"Science" in this case being "blog science", presumably. Since there's nothing in the real, peer-reviewed literature to support that statement you just made.

At the moment, I personally am doing "science". Can't speak for the rest, but I'm guessing like me they're just tired of repeating the same old basic physics and statistics lessons to the same old idiots over and over again.

You guys are an irrelevence. Who am I to spoil your little fun?
Ahh, Do you mean real peer review, or modified peer review as obviously loved by true believers?

You'e doing science are you, well good look with the GCSE.

Basic physics you say, a little like the fact that solar erruptivity is currently at a minimum, hence the current period of global cooling.

Statistics; don't get me started on those.

There's lies, damn lies and statistics. You do know the definition of a statastician don't you?

Ask them what 2 add 2 is, if they say "4" they're not a statastician; if they say "what do you want it to be?" then they're a statastician.

Humour me and point me at some evidence of a man made signal in climate temperature change, I'd be pleased to look at it.
  Reply With Quote
20-11-2009, 22:39   #54
Berberis
Registered User
Berberis's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Total Posts: 11,302
Vindicaton!!!!
_______
"There is, in a free society, no requirement for us to change our opinions just because a current majority disagrees with them. Mine remain the same and I will continue to argue for what I believe is right and in our best interests.” - former Attorney General Dominic Grieve.
  Reply With Quote
20-11-2009, 22:50   #55
Gypsy Hack
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: Gangway F, Sheffield.
Total Posts: 1,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by f0rd View Post
And you know this how?
I'm trying really hard to find an alternative explanation for this, but one doesn't come to mind.


Quote:
Right...? Thus if stuff slips through then your earlier claim "Since there's nothing in the real, peer-reviewed literature", is evidently false.
"Evidently false"? The original claim was that global warming about politics, not science. There is nothing in the peer-reviewed literature to support that claim. Certain papers sneak through which purport to challenge a single facet of the evidence (which is then inevitably blown out of all proportion). My claim stands, and it's a massive stretch to try and argue otherwise.

Quote:
What one institution? Since when is the University of East Anglia the same institution of University of Massachusetts Amherst (Raymond Bradley), Pennsylvania State (Michael Mann) I could carry on, but they are not AT the same institution, you may actually want to do some fact checking.
Fair point, it was a reference to where the emails were hacked from.

Quote:
Right and?
And, the thread title said "No Evidence for Global Warming", which had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the OP (the hacking and release of emails of a small group of scientists). Sorry if it wasn't clear, but my post wasn't all directed as a response to you specifically.

Quote:
So no comment on the emails asking to delete emails to prevent them being made public due to the FOIA?
Not until I know more about the context, sorry. Refusing to release what you are required to do so under an FoI request is wrong and unethical, that's as far as I'll go.

Now, provide evidence that scientists colluded to "modify" data, please? I mean beyond what is standard, open and well accepted practice.
  Reply With Quote
20-11-2009, 23:08   #56
Gypsy Hack
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: Gangway F, Sheffield.
Total Posts: 1,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by convert View Post
Ahh, Do you mean real peer review, or modified peer review as obviously loved by true believers?

You'e doing science are you, well good look with the GCSE.

Basic physics you say, a little like the fact that solar erruptivity is currently at a minimum, hence the current period of global cooling.

Statistics; don't get me started on those.

There's lies, damn lies and statistics. You do know the definition of a statastician don't you?

Ask them what 2 add 2 is, if they say "4" they're not a statastician; if they say "what do you want it to be?" then they're a statastician.

Humour me and point me at some evidence of a man made signal in climate temperature change, I'd be pleased to look at it.
All the evidence from that post - from your reference to global cooling to your spouting about sunspots to your dismissal of statistics suggests doing so would be a complete waste of time. But what the hell.

Read it, peruse the references, get back to me with what you've learnt.

And please stop with that ridiculous nonsense about sunspots.

Love to chat a bit more, but I must get back to my GCSE coursework!
  Reply With Quote
20-11-2009, 23:35   #57
Berberis
Registered User
Berberis's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Total Posts: 11,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsy Hack View Post
And please stop with that ridiculous nonsense about sunspots.

Love to chat a bit more, but I must get back to my GCSE coursework!
covert was probably alluding to this:
'Quiet Sun' baffling astronomers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8008473.stm)
The Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century.

There are no sunspots, very few solar flares - and our nearest star is the quietest it has been for a very long time.

The observations are baffling astronomers, who are due to study new pictures of the Sun, taken from space, at the UK National Astronomy Meeting.

The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity. At its peak, it has a tumultuous boiling atmosphere that spits out flares and planet-sized chunks of super-hot gas. This is followed by a calmer period.

Last year, it was expected that it would have been hotting up after a quiet spell. But instead it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity.
In relation to this:
What happened to global warming? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm)

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
_______
"There is, in a free society, no requirement for us to change our opinions just because a current majority disagrees with them. Mine remain the same and I will continue to argue for what I believe is right and in our best interests.” - former Attorney General Dominic Grieve.
  Reply With Quote
20-11-2009, 23:55   #58
Greybeard
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Total Posts: 10,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsy Hack View Post
And please stop with that ridiculous nonsense about sunspots.

Just a small query - that graph only goes to 2000; what about 2000-20009 ?
_______
The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs, is to be ruled by evil men. Plato - (429 to 347 BC)
  Reply With Quote
21-11-2009, 02:19   #59
Kingmaker2
Registered User
Kingmaker2's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Total Posts: 5,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by serapis View Post

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.[/INDENT]
So Serapis, I take it that you are not aware of the phenomena known as Global Dimming then

Google it if you are not familiar with the term.
  Reply With Quote
21-11-2009, 02:41   #60
Kingmaker2
Registered User
Kingmaker2's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Total Posts: 5,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gormenghast View Post
Bolleaux. Climate change is an ongoing natural phenomenon. It's cyclical. It's happened before and it will happen again. Like the many ice ages.

And the amount of CO2 contributed by man is minute compared to the natural CO2 emissions.
Facts and figures please if you have them.
  Reply With Quote
Reply To Topic

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:14.
POSTS ON THIS FORUM ARE NOT ACTIVELY MONITORED
Click "Report Post" under any post which may breach our terms of use.
©2002-2014 Sheffield Forum | Powered by vBulletin ©2017