[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by JIbbo

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...ts-plants.html

In July, temperatures in Buenos Aires were, on average, 1 degree Celsius below the usual low and high of 8 and 14 degrees (46 and 57 degrees Farenheit), with temperatures plummeting to about 2 degrees Celsius on July 15.

Argentina is bracing for a renewed polar front this month. On Aug. 1, almost half of the country’s 23 provinces registered temperatures below zero, while the northern city of La Quiaca on the border with Bolivia fell to minus 10 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit.) The average low predicated through Aug. 5 is 1 degree, according to the National Weather service.

But cold temperatures are weather and warmer temperatures are 'climate change' and global warming right ?

Err yes...... that global temperatures are rising does not stop there being cold days, months even years in cherry picked locations.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by JIbbo

Oh and

http://www.berlingske.dk/viden/berli...-end-politiken

26 July 10 - Berlingske Glacier is (supposedly) the only glacier in northwest Greenland that steadily grew over the past 100 years, says this article by Lars Henrik Aagaard.

But why would Berlingske Glacier have grown? What about global warming? And why haven't we heard about this growing glacier?

"Berlingske Glacier is not counted in the total inventory because it has not been studied by glaciologists," explains geologist Peter R. Dawes.

So as the glacier is growing, it just isn't counted or measured.

and people wounder why were cynical about this global warming.

He says it isn't being researched not that it isn't counted. The stats we have on ice sheet loss come from satellite measurements and other records. The fact the cause of this one glacier expanding whilst all the others contract is a clear demonstration of climate change. He conjectures that the cause of this one expanding maybe to do with changed climate and precipitation levels on the ice cap feeding it and an increased velocity of the ice flow.

[Streamline]

Originally Posted by spinac

You know, any bit of data can be taken out of the overall context and made to look like conclusive proof that all the other data doesn't add up to a trend.

You know, I'd seriously love the cynics to be right. The problem for me is that I've been watching the accumulation of research and statistics for a number of years and unfortunately for me I believe that the scientists are right.

That's a big problem, because either I ignore it and don't act upon something I believe, or it means making big changes.

At the moment I choose to ignore it because that's what the majority are doing (baaaaaa baaaaa). I feel like the comedian who recently said when it comes to global warming that he feels like he's turned up to an earthquake with a dustpan and brush (can I help? no not really).

So c'mon all you climate change deniers, please do much better. In my eyes the scientists have won the debate ... and one off stats about this glacier here growing or that isolated temperature there falling prove nothing.

You know when sea levels rise there will still be tides. You'll still be able to see the sea retreating every day. It's averages and trends that matter ... and the scientists who deny man-made climate change are in a very tiny minority.

So being a minority makes one wrong does it and these scientists you speak of are these the same ones from Anglia University who were fudging the figures and hiding the data?

Kind of an odd thing to do if you are telling the truth don't you think?

Anyway keeping it on a more practical level, the Met Office has some of most powerful computers in the world and still can't predict the weather in this country with any great accuracy on a day to day basis. How then can they predict there is something "wrong" with the climate and the cause of this "catastrophe" is man-made?

Perhaps the programmes they use are written by the same developers. LOL

Garbage in garbage out...

Finally as you have no changes in your lifestyle I conclude that you really don't give a toss.

Neither do I mate and the reason is simple, the planet has changed in so many ways over it’s lifetime and so has the universe, so get used to it.

[Streamline]

oh ****e sheep:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

[bikerman]

end of the last ice age was global warming. it is a natural cycle mankind is just adding a little to it.

[spinac]

Originally Posted by Streamline

So being a minority makes one wrong does it

??? One stat isn't wrong ... it doesn't prove anything though.

Originally Posted by Streamline

and these scientists you speak of are these the same ones from Anglia University who were fudging the figures and hiding the data?

... the shortcomings of the scientists from one University doesn't discredit the work of all the others.

Originally Posted by Streamline

Anyway keeping it on a more practical level, the Met Office has some of most powerful computers in the world and still can't predict the weather in this country with any great accuracy on a day to day basis. How then can they predict there is something "wrong" with the climate and the cause of this "catastrophe" is man-made?

Perhaps the programmes they use are written by the same developers. LOL

Garbage in garbage out...

You really don't understand science do you? Nobody can predict who will and won't get cancer either. It doesn't mean that certain risk factors haven't been absolutely positively identified. Or do you carry on smoking because your uncle lived until he was 90?

Originally Posted by Streamline

Finally as you have no changes in your lifestyle I conclude that you really don't give a toss.

I'm trying hard not to give a toss because just like everyone else, I don't want to give up life's luxuries. Can I make a difference? Hmm not sure about that. It may already be too late.

Originally Posted by Streamline

Neither do I mate and the reason is simple, the planet has changed in so many ways over it’s lifetime and so has the universe, so get used to it.

Change will always happen. There are certain things beyond our control and certain things within our control.

Your confidence is about as convincing as the captain of the Titanic. Full steam ahead. Nothing to worry about ...

[spinac]

Originally Posted by Streamline

oh ****e sheep:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Good one. Frightening. What chance do real scientists have when the general public know so very little?

... you don't think that theories on man-made climate change are just a huge prank do you? Some time soon somebody's gonna come clean and say "Haha, gotcha!" ????

Do you?

[Streamline]

Originally Posted by spinac

??? One stat isn't wrong ... it doesn't prove anything though.

What do you mean one stat? I am saying just because people's views are in the minority does not make then wrong

Originally Posted by spinac

... the shortcomings of the scientists from one University doesn't discredit the work of all the others.

What others mate or do you refer to the various lobby groups who pass themselves off as climate experts?

Originally Posted by spinac

You really don't understand science do you? Nobody can predict who will and won't get cancer either. It doesn't mean that certain risk factors haven't been absolutely positively identified. Or do you carry on smoking because your uncle lived until he was 90?

Not really, I'm an engineer. So with that in mind how therefore can nobody predict who gets cancer, yet your people can predict catastrophic climate change?

Furthermore switch on the tele of a morning or pick up a paper and I guarantee there will be a least one "researchers have shown" type article.

You need to understand how the media works or operates before you even begin to consider the science.

Originally Posted by spinac

I'm trying hard not to give a toss because just like everyone else, I don't want to give up life's luxuries. Can I make a difference? Hmm not sure about that. It may already be too late.

Do what Sting does, make money from it. Do what Al Gores does, make money from it.

Originally Posted by spinac

Change will always happen. There are certain things beyond our control and certain things within our control.

Such as?

Originally Posted by spinac

Your confidence is about as convincing as the captain of the Titanic. Full steam ahead. Nothing to worry about ...

I don't give a toss mate at least if I believe in something strongly enough I will alter my lifestyle to suit.

[spinac]

Originally Posted by Streamline

... I am saying just because people's views are in the minority does not make then wrong

No argument there.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." (BTW not claiming to be a genius haha)

Originally Posted by Streamline

Not really, I'm an engineer. So with that in mind how therefore can nobody predict who gets cancer, yet your people can predict catastrophic climate change?

... and you can confidently say it's all media hype and that there's no scientific truth in the observations, and no basis for predicting that, on present trends, things are going to get worse, much worse ... within the blinking of an eye relative to our time on the planet?

Originally Posted by Streamline

Furthermore switch on the tele of a morning or pick up a paper and I guarantee there will be a least one "researchers have shown" type article.

You need to understand how the media works or operates before you even begin to consider the science.

Oh, I know we all like a good scare story. Nothing sells newspapers like bad news. You know Bird Flu, SARS, Swine Flu, Mad Cow Disease all seem like stupid little scare stories now. Someone once said the media can't distinguish between the collapse of civilastion and a bicycle accident - they'll hype up one to be the other on a poor news day.

But don't you sense that the climate change story is different? Aren't we messing around with the planet on an industrial scale? Shouldn't we be concerned with the growing world population and the industrialisation of the BRIC countries (?)

You know we can't go live on Venus or Mars if we break this planet don't you?

Originally Posted by Streamline

Do what Sting does, make money from it. Do what Al Gores does, make money from it.

Ah, bless 'em.

Originally Posted by Streamline

I don't give a toss mate at least if I believe in something strongly enough I will alter my lifestyle to suit.

You don't give a toss but you keep contributing to the discussion. Who are you trying to persuade? Me? Others? Or maybe yourself? Keep repeating the conspiracy theory mantra and the big ugly truth will go away???

C'mon, c'mon, c'mon. You're still not reassuring me. My son's talking of joining Friend of the Earth and wants me to join and change my lifestyle. Damn it, he may be right.

I really don't buy the "it's all a conspiracy" line ... and that comes from someone who used to believe that man didn't land on the moon ... of course we(?) did. Just as the media loves a good disaster story, the internet loves a good conspiracy theory.

So you're an engineer Streamline? Civil, Electrical, Mechanical, Computer? It doesn't really matter which, does it? You understand a bit about physics don't you?

So, tell me how a greenhouse works ...

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by convert

More good news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10725394

UK government axes its sustainability watchdog.

Not such good news. A couple of articles of relevance:

http://climatesafety.org/sustainable...lash-and-burn/

Saving money can cost a fortune. The government's decision to scrap the Sustainable Development Commission will save £3m a year. It is likely to cost the taxpayer many times more.

The environment department's announcement that it would stop funding the SDC coincided this morning with the publication of the commission's latest (and last) report on the government's green progress. This report shows that even the modest measures the previous government introduced to save energy and water and reduce waste have cut the state's annual bills by £60m to £70m.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ste?intcmp=239

So cutting the SDC is likely to cost the Taxpayer dearly... The Govt is metaphorically cutting off its nose to spite its face.

[convert]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Not such good news. A couple of articles of relevance:

http://climatesafety.org/sustainable...lash-and-burn/



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ste?intcmp=239

So cutting the SDC is likely to cost the Taxpayer dearly... The Govt is metaphorically cutting off its nose to spite its face.

Cutting more none jobs and getting rid of a department that tells everyone what they could already work out by using a bit of common sense. Sounds like a win win to me. Of course those who work in none jobs will always rush to defend their 'comrades'.

[retep]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

"The data indicate that solar activity may have been one of the major driving factors of summer temperatures, but this has been overlaid by other factors since 1990”.... warming since then... therefore the sun is not currently driving temperatures.

What happens when the water pump on your car packs in.

[convert]

Originally Posted by retep

What happens when the water pump on your car packs in.

Some very localised warming

[retep]

Originally Posted by convert

Some very localised warming

And a lot of "experts" all giving their oppinion as to why it's overheating usually followed by a big bill.

[retep]

And one from the local weather man just to annoy some

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudso...-changes.shtml

[Streamline]

Originally Posted by spinac

No argument there.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." (BTW not claiming to be a genius haha)

There you go.

Originally Posted by spinac

... and you can confidently say it's all media hype and that there's no scientific truth in the observations, and no basis for predicting that, on present trends, things are going to get worse, much worse ... within the blinking of an eye relative to our time on the planet?

I can confidently say there is a hell of a lot of media hype and there may well be scientific evidence to show that the planet is changing which we know anyway but there no evidence to show there is going to a catastrophe of biblical proportions.

Originally Posted by spinac

Oh, I know we all like a good scare story. Nothing sells newspapers like bad news. You know Bird Flu, SARS, Swine Flu, Mad Cow Disease all seem like stupid little scare stories now. Someone once said the media can't distinguish between the collapse of civilastion and a bicycle accident - they'll hype up one to be the other on a poor news day.

But don't you sense that the climate change story is different? Aren't we messing around with the planet on an industrial scale? Shouldn't we be concerned with the growing world population and the industrialisation of the BRIC countries (?)

No I don't sense anything different about it. It has all the same hallmarks of any other scare story.

And with regard world population and industrialisation, you keep shelling out the wonga what do you expect?

Originally Posted by spinac

You know we can't go live on Venus or Mars if we break this planet don't you?

So when are you going to sell up a live in a wooden hut?

Originally Posted by spinac

Ah, bless 'em.

You don't care that much do you?

Originally Posted by spinac

You don't give a toss but you keep contributing to the discussion. Who are you trying to persuade? Me? Others? Or maybe yourself? Keep repeating the conspiracy theory mantra and the big ugly truth will go away???

I couldn't persuade you if I tried because even with all this mountain of evidence you see, you have still done nothing about it.

Originally Posted by spinac

C'mon, c'mon, c'mon. You're still not reassuring me. My son's talking of joining Friend of the Earth and wants me to join and change my lifestyle. Damn it, he may be right.

I suspect you do a lot of talking in your household and little else.

Originally Posted by spinac

I really don't buy the "it's all a conspiracy" line ... and that comes from someone who used to believe that man didn't land on the moon ... of course we(?) did. Just as the media loves a good disaster story, the internet loves a good conspiracy theory.

Correction, you do.

Originally Posted by spinac

So you're an engineer Streamline? Civil, Electrical, Mechanical, Computer? It doesn't really matter which, does it? You understand a bit about physics don't you?

So, tell me how a greenhouse works ...

With regard to which discipline?

[Streamline]

Originally Posted by retep

And one from the local weather man just to annoy some

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudso...-changes.shtml

"This may, at least in part, be down to the fact that forecasts these days are heavily reliant on powerful supercomputers that can't incorporate the influence of the sun, simply because the precise mechanism of how the sun impacts our weather is either not understood, or impossible to model."

So from that are we led to believe that the giver of life which is the Sun is completely ignored?

What else do these programmes ignore?

Like I said in an earlier post garbage in garbage out.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by retep

And one from the local weather man just to annoy some

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudso...-changes.shtml

Did you miss his update?

UPDATE at 1200 Fri 9th July

The last paragraph of my latest blog seems to have aroused interest so for clarification this may be of interest.

I spoke to various people in climate science when I put together my article 'global temperature predictions for 2010'. One prominent climate sceptic told me that there was no chance of 2010 being warmer globally than 1998 because of solar considerations. 1998, from a solar point of view, 'was a coming together of many things' he said, that would not be replicated possibly 'for another 100 years'. He went on to admit that if 2010 was hotter than 1998, he may have to re-examine his theory that it was the sun that was the main driver of global temperatures.

ENDS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudso...se-to-re.shtml

It looks like our Paul's Solar theories were wrong and the answer to his question in June is no.

[Streamline]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Did you miss his update?



http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudso...se-to-re.shtml

It looks like our Paul's Solar theories were wrong and the answer to his question in June is no.

Haven't you got anything better to do on a Friday night than post boring links?

Do you get paid for this and if so how much?

[retep]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Did you miss his update?



http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudso...se-to-re.shtml

It looks like our Paul's Solar theories were wrong and the answer to his question in June is no.

A bit of shuffling the deck to suit there wiki, nice try, not.