Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[keithlucky]

More evidence of some European Glaciers are growing http://www.thegwpf.org/evidence-european-glaciers-growing/

 

Edited October 29, 2013 by keithlucky

[4wd]

 â€œresistance†– movements of “people or groups of people†who “adopt a certain set of dynamics that does not fit within the capitalist cultureâ€. According to the abstract for his presentation, this includes “environmental direct action, resistance taken from outside the dominant culture, as in protests, blockades and sabotage by indigenous peoples, workers, anarchists and other activist groupsâ€.

I'm struggling with how this relates to:
Few things with leading scientists and especially things that make sense are...
And as  for oil-funding of a blog allegation, no evidence for that exists so far as I know.
I would have expected better than repeating sound bytes - and tittle-tattle designed to discredit - from someone in further education.

[Methuselah]

And how are we all getting on the the Chicago Uni's GW science course, then?

[UV-RAY]

And how are we all getting on the the Chicago Uni's GW science course, then?

What would be the point of studying for something that imo is plain wrong in how it handles climate sensitivity and still continues to bury it's head in the sand regarding the pause, besides all that I know enough on the basics of physics and the rest of the course is built on unreliable climate modelling, assumptions and a ton load of conjecture. I did email them regarding the pause and why they think climate models cannot get to grips with feedbacks, strangely enough I never received a reply.

[Methuselah]

What would be the point of studying for something that imo is plain wrong in how it handles climate sensitivity and still continues to bury it's head in the sand regarding the pause, besides all that I know enough on the basics of physics and the rest of the course is built on unreliable climate modelling, assumptions and a ton load of conjecture. I did email them regarding the pause and why they think climate models cannot get to grips with feedbacks, strangely enough I never received a reply.

I would have thought you'd have lapped it up. There's no' a more effective sceptic than a knowledgeable one?

[stewfox]

BornFromTheVoid, on 30 Oct 2013 - 13:07, said:

Nothing wrong with calling out WUWT for what it is. It's not a science site, but a pro-fossil fuel, free market propaganda provider, that dishes out "sound bytes" and repeats long debunked myths for climate change deniers to spread throughout the internet. Watts ties with the Heartland Institute are well known.

Odd that you expect others to act in such a more timid and respectful way than yourself 4?

--------------------------------------------

 

I love this on the other thread ‘climate change deniers’ almost sounds like the ‘Witch craft deniers’

 

WUWT is the world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change for a reason.

 

Its looking to give a balance view

 

e.g

 

---------------------------------------

 

Temperatures on Earth’s surface—i.e. where people live—are widely believed to provide evidence for global warming.  Demonstrating that those temperatures actually provide evidence, though, requires doing statistical analysis.

All such statistical analyses of the temperatures that have been done so far are fatally flawed.  Astoundingly, those flaws are effectively acknowledged in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).

The flaws imply that there is no demonstrated observational evidence that global temperatures have significantly increased (i.e. increased more than would be expected from natural climatic variation alone).

Despite this, one of the main conclusions of AR5 is that global temperatures have increased very significantly.  That conclusion is based on analysis that AR5 itself acknowledges is fatally flawed.  The correct conclusion is that there is no demonstrated observational evidence for global warming.

--------------------------------------------------------

 

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/statistical-analyses-of-surface-temperatures-in-the-ipcc-fifth-assessment-report/#more-96505

Edited October 31, 2013 by stewfox

[4wd]

That's one of the drawbacks of dual threads, increased polarisation and they feel able to include far more previously suppressed name-calling such as you get on the extremist hate blogs.It's all about 'good' science of course.

[4wd]

He didn't produce any evidence of all this oil-funding they like to trot out, because there isn't any - how much 'funding' would be needed to run a blog anyway - a few $100s?They build up Watts into a high priest of denialist evil - reveals more how scared they are of anyone prepared to publish contrary material than anything.

[UV-RAY]

He didn't produce any evidence of all this oil-funding they like to trot out, because there isn't any - how much 'funding' would be needed to run a blog anyway - a few $100s?They build up Watts into a high priest of denialist evil - reveals more how scared they are of anyone prepared to publish contrary material than anything.

Indeed 4, I've yet to come across any evidence linking Watts with oil money or the heartland institute, yet surprisingly you can google and find tons of evidence linking extremist groups such as Greenpeace and the IPCC.

[UV-RAY]

@BFTV. With regards to the pause and your insistence climate models showed this, poppycock that's a case of shutting the stable door once the horse as bolted. Nearly 17 years of no warming with the CET having only risen 0.85c since the LIA.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/how-long-before-we-reach-the-catastrophic-2c-warming/

Edited October 31, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[UV-RAY]

As we can see from the above graph it's not much of an increase and with the pause in global temps on top of this the future looks bleak for the science misleaders. 

[UV-RAY]

 

 

 

 

More (false) assumptions SI? I though you disliked those?

 

 

On the low side currently? Yes

Completely beyond the range of projections? No

 

Where are the much more accurate "climate sceptic" predictions btw?

 

No amount of jiggery pokery alters the fact that not one climate scientist came out and state there would be a pause in global temps, which in another 13 years will give us enough climatic data to reevaluate the alleged consensus as we will have entered another chapter in the globes climate.

[UV-RAY]

Another unbiased article by Bob Tisdale.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/september-2013-global-surface-landocean-temperature-anomaly-update/

[UV-RAY]

Who remembers this little gem from the alleged scientific consensus, regarding catastrophic warming and it's effects on el nino.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/claim-el-nino-events-get-more-extreme-as-globe-warms/

Edited October 31, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[UV-RAY]

@BFTV. In another 13 years a number of climate scientist are predicting a downward trend in global temps, now these scientist may not be on the payroll of the corrupt IPCC but their credentials are as good as any.

[UV-RAY]

Could someone please switch the light off when the warming resumes, as all these arguments and counter arguments are irrelevant due to the fact there is no global warming anymore. The CET has barely risen since the LIA, global temps have not risen for 17 years and Antarctic sea ice is at record levels, a warming world surely not sir!

[Tamara]

Someone is surely going to come along very soon and shut these threads down . I posted this here in compliance with the rules, but the ridiculous slanging match going on in the other thread is a prime illustration of the problem that will never go away 

[stewfox]

I do fear picking up comments in this thread and discussing it in the other thread within a vacuum is a bit self defeating.

 

Perhaps the word ‘balance’ for WUWT is  wrong , it has its own agenda but if it is (I am happy to be corrected) the world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change then rather then just rubbishing the comments wouldn’t some balance response to the comments be better ?

 

It really is up to the Man Made climate Camp to try and stop the increasing numbers that are switching off re ‘global warming’. At the moment their arguments are not working.

 

We need to see sustained hard evidence of Global warming to switch people back on

 

Comments on the CET published in  2005 (Big Hitters here) and what’s going to happen

------------------------------

The Tyndal Centre was established in 2000. It comprises nine UK research institutions and is core fundedby NERC, ESRC & EPSRC, with additional support from the DTI. Executive Director is Professor Mike Hulme, from University of East Anglia. He is a senior advisor to the government on climate matters.The Tyndal Council has 20 members, with an eleven member research management team. Its advisory board has 22 members comprising:

----------------------------------

 

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Spinning%20temperature%20out%20of%20control.pdf

 

Oops hasn’t worked out that way.

 

Now I appreciate its local (UK) but we all remember years of snowless winters mild temperatures and reason being given as global warming see below (the bold isn’t my doing)

----------------------

23 December 2005

Early figures coming into the Met Office for December are pointing to 2005 being a very warm, quite dry and sunny year, although there are regional variations. One thing is clear, this year will go down as another very warm one, both for the UK and for the whole planet

------------------------

 

8 years later all we have seen is global warming flat lining and some of the coldest months (CET) on record.

 

• [*]

Averages so far this year:

• [*]

Average CET to September: 9.97 [*]Normal CET to September: 10.21 [*]Anomaly to September: -0.24 [*]Provisional CET anomaly (up to 30th October): -0.01

-0.01 Not enough for me to run to the hills I want to see +3c

Edited October 31, 2013 by stewfox

[UV-RAY]

Someone is surely going to come along very soon and shut these threads down . I posted this here in compliance with the rules, but the ridiculous slanging match going on in the other thread is a prime illustration of the problem that will never go away 

Agree, you can't post anything with or without evidence against AGW without it causing world war III. I think I now remember why I rarely posted in these threads prior, better to let them rule the roost as it makes no difference to whats actually happening at the surface.

[4wd]

Remarkably relevant.

[UV-RAY]

Remarkably relevant.

Lol, I'm nicking that one.

[keithlucky]

What we already new Carbon emissions to earth surface from deep sea volcanism.... made made co2 is insignicant http://t.co/BezN9as6jv

[john pike]

http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

 

and heres something that isnt old

[stewfox]

 

I think some have said all along that this was an approach doomed to failure for just those reasons?

 

The misleaders 'brief' is to disrupt any serious discussion of the science lest 'the lurkers' become engaged and form opinions on the information and science to which they are exposed. A 'single thread' exploring the issues may lead to misleaders employing disruption techniques ( mainly baiting and then reporting any person who 'bites' to board admin so swamping mods with increased workloads and effectively leading to ownership closing areas that are 'unsustainable').

 

'Free for all' ( un-moderated) threads lead to board management threatened with legal action from misleaders once they have 'baited' folk into extreme behaviours/words (the extremes can be seen in Fours outburst linked above).

 

The misleaders have basically fulfilled their masters remit of stifling discussion on the findings of science and given the impression, to the all important lurkers, that the science is far from settled.

 

In a time that we observers should be discussing impacts we are left wasting time dancing to the misleaders tune in a desperate attempt to keep current findings accessible to the lurkers.

 

What are you suggesting close the 'Scepticism of Man Made climate change' down , because it may miss lead ??

 

There is no ‘free for all’ as you mention, no one has said the Earth has cooled by 3c in the last year, in that thread.

 

The reason there is two thread is because if you start with

 

“â€â€â€The misleaders have basically fulfilled their masters remit of stifling discussionâ€â€

“â€â€left wasting time dancing to the misleadersâ€â€

 

How is that a good  basis for  â€˜discussion’  ???

 

Lets face it there are probably 10 regular posters in both threads with a forum membership of 16.000  . What does that tell you ?

Edited November 1, 2013 by stewfox

[UV-RAY]

 

 

 

What are you suggesting close the 'Scepticism of Man Made climate change' down , because it may miss leads ??

 

There is no ‘free for all’ as you mention, no one has said the Earth has cooled by 3c in the last year, in that thread.

 

The reason there is two thread is because if you start with

 

“â€â€â€The misleaders have basically fulfilled their masters remit of stifling discussionâ€â€

“â€â€left wasting time dancing to the misleadersâ€â€

 

How is that a good  basis for  â€˜discussion’  ???

 

Lets face it there are probably 10 regular posters in both threads with a forum membership of 16.000  . What does that tell you ?

 

Indeed Stew, it speaks volumes when a suggestion to shut down debate is considered a viable option by some.