NOTICE!

The Weatherzone forum has now closed and is in read-only mode until the 1st of November when it will close permanently. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed over the past 18 years.

If you would like to continue the discussion you can follow us on Facebook and Twitter or participate in discussions at AusWeather or Ski.com.au forums.

Page 321 of 323 < 1 2 ... 319 320 321 322 323 >
Topic Options
#1134684 - 22/10/2012 12:01 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Locke]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
The UK Mail on Line' David Rose created quite a stir with his article on the UKMet Offices data that now shows that the global temperatures have plateaued over the last 16 years.
A period of time only some 2 or 3 years less than a similar length period as set by the IPCC that 1980 was the start of anthropogenic global warming which ran through until about 1997, a period where the global temperatures appeared to rise in lockstep, ie; correlated with the rise in atmospheric CO2 thereby apparently giving credence to the claims of the alarmists that increasing CO2 was responsible for the increase in global temperatures.

Since then from around 1997 as the Met Office data has shown and David Rose has published in the Mail, the global temperature rises are almost at a standstill.

Prof of Earth Sciences . Judith Curry, a former totally committed believer in CAGW but now a luke warmer at best and trending towards being a full skeptic, was quoted extensively in the Mail article and as a consequence Curry was berated by the alarmists with every obnoxious form of criticsm that could be leveled at the Mail, David Rose and herself by the zealot believers of the global warming cult.
[ Even a radical left wing French philosopher is now calling the global warming cult a Gaian and totalitarian type religion! ]

The "Mail" now has further article in which Judith Curry is quoted extensively on the Met Office data and it's importance as to what is happening with global temperatures at present.

Judith Curry on her blog, Climate Etc, so there is no misquoting by the alarmists of hers or David Rose's intentions in this Mail article Sunday Mail . . . again says in her comments;

[ I have quoted in full from both Curry's own personal blog comments and the Mail on Line but for easier reading I would suggest going to the original articles as in the links.]

Quote:
JC comments: I think that David Rose’s 2nd article is well done. He lays out the arguments that the other ‘side’ is making, and provides his response. It is a reasonable portrayal of the debate surrounding this issue. (no gripes about my picture this time )

This whole situation is a very interesting example of the interplay betweeen the MSM, the blogosphere and twitter. The MSM goes with a provocative headline. There is more detailed analysis and broader discussion in the blogs. And there is a cacophony of barking tweets from both sides.

The ‘facts’, such as they exist, are the data; in this case the latest release of HADCRUT4. This is new data, so people haven’t yet had much time to analyze and interpret it. However these data end up being analyzed, the trend since 1997 is very small, much smaller than the decadal trend of 0.2C that we have been led to expect by the IPCC for the early part of the 21st century. The whole issue of cherry picking start and end dates is a red herring, as I’ve argued in my previous post Trends, change points and hypotheses. It depends on what hypothesis you are trying to test. If you are using data to evaluate the IPCC’s projection of 0.2C/decade warming in the first two decades of the 21st century, with plateaus or pauses at most of 15-17 yrs duration, well then you can pick whatever start date you want. It will be very interesting to see what Press Complaints Commission comes up with regarding Rose’s article.

The Guardian makes the point that they don’t want scientists to go back into the ivory tower if their views are misrepresented. In fact, that is exactly what I did after the infamous brain fossilization incident. Which scientists do reporters choose to talk to, and why? The answers to this are probably all over the map, varying with the story and with the reporter. For better or worse, I’ve put myself out there as being willing to talk to reporters (after brain fossilization and heretic, I now have the hide of an armadillo). I’m prepared to work with reporters on their articles. This time, David Rose sent me my quotes in advance, along with the content surrounding them; I made a few minor changes to make the message more clear and more accurate and he incorporated these changes verbatim in the article.

The bottom line for me is that David Rose’s article has stimulated an interesting debate on an important and controversial topic. These exchanges in the MSM, blogosphere and twitosphere have hopefully enlightened and provoked critical thinking amongst the group that pays most attention to these things. Of course both sides are using this exchange in the MSM to ‘keep score’ in the climate wars, where the casualty tends to be honest debate.


The REALLY inconvenient truths about global warming.
Last week we explosively revealed a 16-year 'pause' in rising temperatures - triggering a bitter debate. You decide what the real facts are...

Quote:
Last week The Mail on Sunday provoked an international storm by publishing a new official world temperature graph showing there has been no global warming since 1997.
The figures came from a database called Hadcrut 4 and were issued by the Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University.
We received hundreds of responses from readers, who were overwhelmingly critical of those climate change experts who believe that global warming is inevitable.
But the Met Office, whose lead was then followed by climate change campaigners, accused The Mail on Sunday of cherry-picking data in order to mislead readers. It even claimed it had not released a ‘report’, as we had stated, although it put out the figures from which we drew our graph ten days ago.

Another critic said that climate expert Professor Judith Curry had protested at the way she was represented in our report.

However, Professor Curry, a former US National Research Council Climate Research Committee member and the author of more than 190 peer-reviewed papers, responded: ‘A note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16 years. Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office’s statement .  .  . effectively refutes Mr Rose’s argument that there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years.
‘Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from other scientists who acknowledge the “pause”.’
The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently: ‘We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.’

Here, we answer some of the key questions on climate change – and invite readers to make their own choice .  .  .

Q Is the world warming or not?

Expert Judith Curry
A The Hadcrut 4 figures that show a ‘pause’ in warming lasting nearly 16 years are drawn from more than 3,000 measuring stations on land and at sea. Hadcrut 4 is one of several similar global databases that reveal the same thing: that since January 1997 there has been no statistically significant warming of the Earth’s surface.
Between 1980 and the end of 1996, the planet warmed at a rate close to 0.2 degrees per decade. Since then, says the Met Office, the trend has been a much lower 0.03 degrees per decade.
However, world average temperature measurements are subject to an error of plus or minus 0.1 degrees, while any attempt to calculate a trend for the period 1997-2012 has an in-built statistical error of plus or minus 0.4 degrees. The claim that there has been any statistically significant warming for the past 16 years is therefore unsustainable.

Q Why does it matter if the world is warming or not?

A For years, the Government’s energy and climate policy has been dominated by the belief that we need swift, drastic and expensive reductions in carbon dioxide emissions to avert imminent catastrophe. In September, The Guardian claimed there were ‘less than 50 months to avoid climate disaster’.
These fears are based on computer models that show temperatures continuing to rise in step with levels of CO2.
The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said: ‘For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade is projected for a range of emission scenarios’ – a prediction it said was solid because this rate of increase was already being observed.
But while CO2 levels have continued to rise since 1997, warming has paused. This leads Prof Curry to say the IPCC’s models are ‘incomplete’, because they do not adequately account for natural factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and a decline in solar output, which have suppressed the warming effects of CO2.
The Met Office and the CRU’s Professor Phil Jones say a ‘plateau’ of between 15 and 17 years is to be expected. But if the warming does not start again soon, the models will be open to challenge.

Q Did The Mail on Sunday ‘cherry-pick’ data to disguise an underlying warming trend?

A Some critics claim this newspaper misled readers by choosing start and end dates that hide the continued warming.
In fact, we looked at the period since 1997 because that’s when the previous warming trend stopped, and our graph ended in August 2012 because that is the last month for which Hadcrut 4 figures were available.
In April, the Met Office released figures up to the end of 2010 – an extremely warm year – which meant it was able to say there had been a statistically significant warming trend after 1997, albeit a very small one. However, 2011 and 2012 so far have been much cooler, meaning the trend has disappeared. This may explain why the updated figures were issued last week without a media fanfare.

Q But isn’t it true that the science is ‘settled’?

A Some scientists say the pause is illusory – if you strip out the effects of El Nino (when the South Pacific gets unpredictably warmer by several degrees), and La Nina (its cold counterpart), the underlying warming trend remains. Both phenomena have a huge impact on world weather.
Other experts point out one of the biggest natural factors behind the plateau is the fact that in 2008 the temperature cycle in the Pacific flipped from ‘warm mode’, in which it had been locked for the previous 40 years, to ‘cold mode’, meaning surface water temperatures fell. A cold Pacific cycle causes fewer and weaker El Ninos, and more, stronger La Ninas.
Prof Curry said that stripping out these phenomena made ‘no physical sense’. She added that natural phenomena and the CO2 greenhouse effect interact with each other, and cannot meaningfully be separated. It’s not just that the ‘cold mode’ has partly caused the plateau.
According to Prof Curry and others, the previous warm Pacific cycle and other natural factors, such as a high solar output, accounted for some of the warming seen before 1997 – some say at least half of it.
Other scientists say that heat has somehow been absorbed by the waters deep in the oceans. However, the evidence for this is contested, and there are no historical records with which to compare recent deepwater readings.
In the wake of the pause, the scientific ‘consensus’ looks much less settled than it did a few years ago.

Q When will warming start again?

A. The truth is no one knows. It is likely that in the 2020s, the Atlantic cycle – currently in warm mode – will also flip to cold, so that for some years both the Pacific and Atlantic cycles will be cold at the same time. When this happens, world temperatures may decline, as they did in the Forties.
Prof Curry said: ‘If we are currently in a plateau and possibly headed for cooling, then sometime in the middle of the century we would likely see another period with a large warming trend.’
She added: ‘Because of natural variability, it is impossible to pinpoint what 2100 would look like. The climate sensitivity to greenhouse warming is still pretty uncertain, and it is not clear whether or to what extent man-made factors will dominate the climate of this period.’
For the world to be two degrees warmer in 2100 than it is now – as the IPCC has predicted – warming would not only have to restart but also proceed much faster than it has before.
Since 1880, temperatures have risen by around 0.75 degrees.

Q But isn’t the world still much warmer than at any time in recorded history?

A Ever since it was published on the cover of the IPCC’s Third Assessment report in 2001, the ‘hockey stick’ graph showing stable or declining temperatures since the year 1000, followed by a steep rise in the 20th Century, has been controversial. There were no thermometers in 1000, so scientists use ‘proxy’ data from items such as tree rings, lake sediments and ice cores.
The hockey stick authors have also been accused of eliminating the ‘medieval warm period’ (MWP) at the end of the first millennium.
Two new separate peer-reviewed studies, published in prestigious academic journals last week, reinstated it. The first study, led by Bo Christiansen of the Danish Meteorological Institute, concluded: ‘The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP in the second half of the 10th Century, equalled or slightly exceeded the mid-20th Century warming.’
There was also a pronounced warming period in Roman times.

Q So where does that leave us?

A Despite The Guardian’s bold claim that we have ‘50 months to save the world’, other evidence suggests that there are still decades left in which to plan an energy strategy driven by something other than panic.
In Britain, in the short to medium term, that would mean building modern ‘dual cycle’ gas power stations, which produce very clean energy and, unlike inefficient wind turbines, do not require subsidies to be economic.
In the longer term, we could be investing heavily in research into new forms of zero-carbon power, such as nuclear fusion, which are much closer to reality than most people realise.

Q Surely we can leave it to our elected representatives to research all the arguments thoroughly and then act accordingly with our taxes?

A Tim Yeo is the chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, which advises the Government on energy policy. Lord Deben is chairman of the Government Climate Change Committee, which also gives direct advice on emissions targets.
Both Mr Yeo and Lord Deben have significant personal stakes in the ‘renewable’ energy industry, which benefits to the tune of billions of pounds a year from wind subsidies.

Top
#1134693 - 22/10/2012 12:15 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: ROM]
Anthony Violi Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 06/11/2001
Posts: 2336
Loc: Mt Barker - SA
Judith Curry is a lot more knowledgeable in this debate that most realise ROM.

Its obvious reading her papaer and blog, she is no fool, and knows a mistake when she sees one.

An she is telling these people to accept the fact it has gone horribly wrong, instead of saying that the warming is causing the cooling, and other such rubbish.
_________________________
https://avweather.net/

Top
#1134696 - 22/10/2012 12:26 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Anthony Violi]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
Climate of dissent being punished
Andrew Bolt
From: Herald Sun
October 22, 2012 12:00AM

LAST year, Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones said something about global warming that wasn't accurate - and for which he's now viciously punished.
No, he didn't falsely claim "even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems".
No, he didn’t say “it may be time to stop describing southeastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent”.

That was the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones, in 2008, just before this “permanent” drought broke and dams filled.

Nor was it Alan Jones who said “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic”.

That was Gaia guru James Lovelock in 2006, in a prediction he only this year retracted.

Jones also didn’t wrongly claim the seas could rise 100 metres this century (ABC science presenter Robyn Williams), we’ve “seen an increase in the number of cyclones” (Flannery again), the Himalaya glaciers could melt away by 2035 (IPCC), carbon dioxide is actually “carbon” (every government MP) or a thousand other false claims or wild exaggerations peddled in the media without a blush.

What he said was this: Australians produced just “1 per cent of .001 per cent of carbon dioxide in the air.”

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/climate-of-dissent-being-punished/story-e6frfifx-1226500249819

Top
#1134697 - 22/10/2012 12:27 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Anthony Violi]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654
Originally Posted By: Anthony Violi
Locke send an email to SkS....if they dont send CeeBee the link it doesnt get posted.


As long as Anthony persists with this lie I will persist in defending myself.

Quit your lies about me Anthony and stick to the topics of the forums.
_________________________

Top
#1134698 - 22/10/2012 12:29 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Simmosturf]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
Trust the science!

Retraction Watch is kept very busy tracking the scientific papers pulled for being wrong or fraudulent.

The New York Times reports:

Last year the journal Nature reported an alarming increase in the number of retractions of scientific papers — a tenfold rise in the previous decade, to more than 300 a year across the scientific literature…

In the new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, two scientists and a medical communications consultant analyzed 2,047 retracted papers in the biomedical and life sciences. They found that misconduct was the reason for three-quarters of the retractions for which they could determine the cause…

Dr. Arturo Casadevall of Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx ... and another author, Dr. Ferric C. Fang of the University of Washington, have been outspoken critics of the current culture of science. To them, the rising rate of retractions reflects perverse incentives that drive scientists to make sloppy mistakes or even knowingly publish false data....

While the fraudulent papers may be relatively few, [Casadevall] went on, their rapid increase is a sign of a winner-take-all culture in which getting a paper published in a major journal can be the difference between heading a lab and facing unemployment. “Some fraction of people are starting to cheat,” he said.

I wonder which branch of science offers the most incentives to scientists making the wildest claims? Which offers the biggest grants, the greatest government support, the most lavish media coverage....

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/trust_the_science/


Edited by Simmosturf (22/10/2012 12:30)
Edit Reason: Being bold

Top
#1134700 - 22/10/2012 12:31 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: CeeBee]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6050
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
Some posters have lost their sense of humour it seems!
What you dish out you should be able to take!
cheers


Edited by bd bucketingdown (22/10/2012 12:39)

Top
#1134702 - 22/10/2012 12:39 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: CeeBee]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654

This week’s top six rebuttals to David Rose’s “warming has stopped” claim

It's been a busy week for climate skeptics and myth debunkers alike. David Rose's Mail on Sunday article, in which he rehashed an old and widely discredited claim that "global warming stopped 16 years ago", very quickly went viral. Many media outlets worldwide chose to accept Rose's version of events unquestioningly. But science hit back and this week has seen a plethora of rebuttals of Rose's claims, including one we published on Monday. Here's our pick of the best of the rest.

Number 1. On the same day that The Mail on Sunday published Rose's article, The Met Office released a public statement on its blog, correcting claims in Rose's article about what the Hadcrut4 dataset does or doesn't show about climate change. The post included the Met Office's full response to Rose's direct - and in some cases leading - questions, exposing Rose's misrepresentation of the science.

Number 2. Rose picked part of a graph that appeared to support his argument, so ThinkProgress published an article on Monday with ten charts that clearly show that global warming didn't stop 16 years ago, including how much global warming is going into other components of the climate system, notably the oceans.

Number 3. On Tuesday, the Guardian re-published a deconstruction of Rose's argument by Dana Nuccitelli, an environmental scientist and contributor to Australian fact checking website Skeptical Science. Nuccetelli published a scientific paper with colleagues a few days before the Mail on Sunday's article, which pre-bunked Rose's claims. The Guardian article also criticises Rose's other interviewee, Professor Judith Curry, for her interpretation of the role of natural climate variability and her attack on climate models.

Number 4. Also on Tuesday this week, Media Matters, a not-for-profit organisation which corrects misinformation in the US media, issued a no-holds-barred criticism of Fox Nation for accepting Rose's story uncritically, after the Met Office had already branded it misleading.

Number 5. An article yesterday by Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, dug deeper into the Met Office's Hadcrut4 dataset and suggests Rose manipulated it to create a false graph. The article also describes Rose's track record for producing similar pieces for the Mail on Sunday.

Number 6. Earlier today, Potholer, a Youtube channel which reports on scientific research and fact checks mainstream media coverage of science, released a video highlighting how quickly media outlets around the world accepted Rose's story without checking the source.

link
_________________________

Top
#1134704 - 22/10/2012 12:42 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: bd bucketingdown]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6050
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
I put this graph up a few times now it is vindicted!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/21/up...ago/#more-72734
A true graph, no one can deny!

Top
#1134705 - 22/10/2012 12:44 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: bd bucketingdown]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6050
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
Another critic said that climate expert Professor Judith Curry had protested at the way she was represented in our report. However, Professor Curry, a former US National Research Council Climate Research Committee member and the author of more than 190 peer-reviewed papers, responded:


‘A note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16 years. Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office’s statement .  .  . effectively refutes Mr Rose’s argument that there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years.

‘Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from other scientists who acknowledge the “pause”.’



The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently: ‘We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.’

That is the end of the story mate...you lose, it is all correct I afraid! No number of Sks posts will help here!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/21/up...ago/#more-72734
smile

Top
#1134710 - 22/10/2012 12:59 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: bd bucketingdown]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654
Originally Posted By: bd bucketingdown
Some posters have lost their sense of humour it seems!
What you dish out you should be able to take!
cheers


Says BD, who by the way does no actual weather forecasting as the BOM sends it all to him. grin
_________________________

Top
#1134715 - 22/10/2012 13:04 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: CeeBee]
Anthony Violi Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 06/11/2001
Posts: 2336
Loc: Mt Barker - SA
Yes BD Curry knows it and so does everyone else...and its only going to get worse, another decade of no warming, and the emperor will be dead from hypothermia.
_________________________
https://avweather.net/

Top
#1134716 - 22/10/2012 13:08 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: bd bucketingdown]
Locke Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/12/2007
Posts: 4553
Loc: Brisbane
Quote:
Number 2. Rose picked part of a graph that appeared to support his argument, so ThinkProgress published an article on Monday with ten charts that clearly show that global warming didn't stop 16 years ago, including how much global warming is going into other components of the climate system, notably the oceans.


This links to an article at ThinkProgress titled.

"Ten Charts That Make Clear The Planet Just Keeps Warming"

Perhaps Ceebee, you can tell me which of the charts in the article debunks the "no warming in the past 16 years" position cause I can't see a single chart in there that does. All the charts show is that it is still warm not THAT ITS WARMING FURTHER.

I see plenty of stuff showing that the past decade was the warmest but that fails to recognise that the 2 arguments can co exist. I doubt you'd find anyone that disagrees that the first decade of the 21st century wasnt the warmest of the satellite era.

Let me ask you a question then. If the 80's and 90's had a warming trend but the trend since 1997 is flat how exactly does that PROVE that global warming hasn't? The context is whether global warming theory allows for a flat trend of a period of 15 years or more.

Plenty of examples have been previously provided where it scientists were quoted as saying we need to see a flat trend of at least 15 years before we can say its significant. And now we get to 16 years and the goalposts move as they always seem to do when we talk AGW theory.
_________________________
This post and any other post by Locke is NOT an official forecast & should not be used as such. It's just my opinion & may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. For official information, refer to Australian Bureau of Meteorology products.

Top
#1134717 - 22/10/2012 13:10 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: CeeBee]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654


The surface warming did not stop, nor did it go down. The warming continued.



These data define a warming trend of 0.047°C per decade. Applying simple linear regression using ordinary least squares to the data shows that this trend is statistically significant at the 95 per cent level. It should be noted simple linear regression using ordinary least squares is not really the best method for assessing these data as it depends on assumptions which are violated by global temperature measurements.

Nevertheless, it can be used to show that Rose’s claim that “from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures” is entirely false.

link
_________________________

Top
#1134719 - 22/10/2012 13:19 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: CeeBee]
refstar Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 15/10/2012
Posts: 310
Originally Posted By: CeeBee
Originally Posted By: bd bucketingdown
Some posters have lost their sense of humour it seems!
What you dish out you should be able to take!
cheers


Says BD, who by the way does no actual weather forecasting as the BOM sends it all to him. grin



You really are an insipid little troll aren't you?

At least BD has the gumption and a pair to share what he does - we don't even know if you're a man or woman, what you do or where you come from.

Troll, troll, troll your boat gently down the stream of ignorance or stupidity......

Top
#1134721 - 22/10/2012 13:19 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: CeeBee]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6050
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
You are very wrong there CB I do all my own forecasting and have my own models both short and long range, but U know that anyway really!

Top
#1134723 - 22/10/2012 13:22 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: bd bucketingdown]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6050
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
He knew that I do my own weather forecasts refstar, you are correct trolling is all it is!
If I was following the Bureau I would have nothing different and would not last long in business,
as why would you join up with my service if what U can get from the Bureau is free!
Just his usual form ...trolling!


Edited by bd bucketingdown (22/10/2012 13:23)

Top
#1134724 - 22/10/2012 13:25 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: bd bucketingdown]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6050
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
Nonsense Cb ,any sane person can see it has been flat for 16 years, even AGW must admit that, or do U deny facts also!

Top
#1134735 - 22/10/2012 14:04 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: bd bucketingdown]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14286
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
Lol CB is spinning out of control, again.

He can't believe that his dogma is being destroyed daily and like any zealot he will fight to his last breath defending the undefendable.

I would say that having CB post in these forums is like having at least an extra 12 skeptics posting here.

Your doing a sterling job CB - of making your side look like complete numpties - keep it up son.
_________________________
785mm Jan
799mm Feb
130 March
2019 Total 1714mm
2018 Total 822mm






Top
#1134739 - 22/10/2012 14:14 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: SBT]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
1885 - 1940 = 55yrs; ~1.1°C (global) - (Iceland ~5x higher than global) ~0.2°C/decade

1970 - 2012 = 42yrs; 0.688°C @ 0.164°C/decade.

1997 - 2012 = 15yrs; 0.047°C/decade.

_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1134750 - 22/10/2012 14:51 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: snafu]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
This is the type of mentality that is now appearing amongst the frighteningly fanatical, utterly loony side of the so called climate warming science.
And some scientists and even ordinary folk are wondering why public respect for science is now starting to fall in a quite frightening manner.
Of course the image of the mad scientist has always been part of hollywood film culture but to see it in real life is a truly frightening prospect.

From the NoTricksZone blog;

Insane NYU Professor Proposes Medical Experiments On Children To Make Humans Suitable For The Planet


COMMENTARY
Many of you by now are aware of the notorious, creepy 3.5-minute video of NYU modern-eugenics-nutjob S. Matthew Liao made by a Huffington Post correspondent,

Video

In the video, the psychopathic professor resurrects the darkest science of our past and proposes a series of methods for altering humans so that they fulfil the green master standards and plan. This “human engineering” is all about an elite group of humans viewing the rest as inferior, and eliminating the inferior by fundamentally altering them.

This modern eugenicist claims “people are not thinking correctly” and that we should consider giving the inferior ones oxytocin “to make them more willing to cooperate” and to “get them to act collectively”. He says we also should give people Ritalin “to better control the population” and to “screen for embryos using a genetic diagnosis” so that only small humans get selected. Liao proposes hormone treatments for children in order to stunt their growth and keep them small. He also suggests drugging people to make them allergic to meat.

At the end he says it’s no big deal - we already have the technology to do this, so “it’s not far-fetched”.

He constantly uses phrases like: “we could” or ”one possibility is…” or “we can try to…” or “another thing we could do is…”. This is the language of experimentation, used by mad scientists getting set to conduct ghoulish experiments.

Liao insists that all of this is innocent, and of course would be voluntary – God forbid it has anything to do with Nazi-type practices.

What a complete menace. This twisted, five-and-dime professor obviously has never picked up a history book in his life. Ideas to rescue the planet always begin with good intentions. But what happens if people don’t volunteer enough? I guess we could just double the dose of oxytocin until the population does “cooperate”.

Which kid is going to volunteer to be the class shorty? Liao is a borderline psychopath, I fear.

Just watching Liao makes me sick and disgusted. But that’s just me. Liao probably has the full support of his university and I’m sure a good number of “climate scientists” agree with him. They’re probably already getting ready to claim there’s a consensus that this “science” would work and that it’s for our own good.

Should it surprise us that green nutjobs are losing it and are now spending more and more time, it seems, contemplating “final solutions”? A little background information on the roots of the green movement tells us where they lie. Read here, here and here to start.

I can only hope that Prof Liao is not running the local water utility.

Top
Page 321 of 323 < 1 2 ... 319 320 321 322 323 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 44 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
bradmac, Eager2beastormchaser, Go The Cows, Roland
Forum Stats
29947 Members
32 Forums
24194 Topics
1529247 Posts

Max Online: 2985 @ 26/01/2019 12:05
Satellite Image