Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[stewfox]

Oh I agree any weather related stories should be knocker, but how many stories regarding storms, heatwaves and droughts get the "it's down to AGW" treatment. Remember some were trying to pass St Jude's storm on just that , but luckily the MetO came out and squashed that.

 

In need there wasn't a single comment on the BBC web site or on the BBC news re how unusual it is for Syria to get heavy snow/ bitterly cold weather (away from the mountains) at any time of the year let alone at the start of Winter.

 

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-13/un-concerned-for-syrian-refugees-enduring-first-snow-storm-of-w/5153992

 

During the winters, it might snow for a day or so but its unusual to get such cold.

 

Imagine if they had excessive heat that would be the  'front line story not the refugees'

Edited December 13, 2013 by stewfox

[UV-RAY]

Indeed I am but I have done everything in my power to have folks understand the group of folk that such a term refers to. In reality it is just a descriptor of the actions of this group of people and ,as such, there is no need to look further than Ms Francis' astute observation of them? They actively seek to mislead the general public about all matters pertaining to climate science and the data it provides us. There is no debate about them and their activities nor about the support ( and direction?) they receive from the folk who fund them. There is no doubt that they have sought to delay global action on mitigating climate change nor that they appear content to continue in this endeavour. The 'Alpine' 20yr cooldown is a perfect example of the type of activity they engage in and the fact it made it to 'posting' here shows just how successful they are in fooling some into believing their stories.

To infer that my thoughts are somehow indoctrinated is  no better,  what your views are should stay as your views and not one of trying to change the world to fit into your own ideas of what it should be. Just because others are sceptical doesn't make them on par to mass murders ( though this is how you view them ), I've never once seen you post with an open mind to anything regarding our climate which I find totally alien as many proponents of AGW are open to new ideas when the evidence presents itself. I think your at the extreme end of the argument and are the equivalent of a sceptic who denies that any warming has even taken place. 

[keithlucky]

G W have now change  there title to climate change whatever they decide to call themselves(they need to justify there massive funding). The leaders of Global lies and pathetic Global predictions the IPPC predicted less snow and warmer winters,So despite latest evidence shows stalling of world temperatures(in fact a lot of reports showing cooling taking place) they still continue. With the rapid growth of Arctic ice,and with the USA cold records continue to fall and brutal cold will hit the USA over xmas period with more blizzards,so i will continue to show snow reports around the globe because mother nature will do what it wants to do, and will not listen to IPPC farcical predictions.  

Edited December 13, 2013 by keithlucky

[keithlucky]

Pretty impressive world wide cold http://t.co/oG8SMQ1eTw

[keithlucky]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-45#entry2861431

 

Very impressive indeed. Does seem to confirm that  global warming is disrupting atmospheric patterns causing regional weather extremes both warm and cold.

 

 

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/02/arctic-sea-ice-loss-linked-to-cold-european-winters/

 

And

 

Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/17/1114910109.short?rss=1

Or the same weather pattern that is happening now occur in a mini ice age?

[UV-RAY]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76585-manmade-climate-change-discussion/?p=2862348

 

 

Well for starters GW the PDO went negative in September 2007 as I've posted countless times ( with evidence ) and secondly it's well documented that each cycle lasts around the 30 year mark, so by my estimations we'll be looking at around 2037, possibly a few years earlier before a switch. Now within these cycles we still get nino's and nina's  annually but the nina's are far more prominent in the cool cycle and vice versa. 

Edited December 15, 2013 by Paul

[UV-RAY]

And now they post error ridden charts from an open sourced alleged science thread. For those interested in the PDO may I suggest looking into this for yourselves at independent studies and not agenda ridden ones. The cycle lasts from around 25-30 years and this turned negative in September 2007' see previous link for that.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[stewfox]

Key climate change committe is in the pay of green business (interesting read)

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523726/Web-green-politicians-tycoons-power-brokers-help-benefit-billions-raised-bills.html

[Snowyowl9]

Wheres all this cold and snow coming from in the middle east...Found this today about the record cold antarctica...

http://guardianlv.com/2013/12/antarctica-record-cold-and-growing-ice-chills-global-warming-theories/

[keithlucky]

Wheres all this cold and snow coming from in the middle east...Found this today about the record cold antarctica...http://guardianlv.com/2013/12/antarctica-record-cold-and-growing-ice-chills-global-warming-theories/

Been spouting on for months about record ice growth it"s due to global warming lol.

[4wd]

Since when

[mikeworst]

In reply to Knockers rant on the other thread. Do all of us a favour and stop with the "denier" thing. It is not becoming.

Anyhow watch this and come and join the dark side.

[jonboy]

So there you go Paul! A cure to this 'disruptive' threads conundrum? Just follow what reddit done did and it will all clear itself up nicely? no more 'duel threads' just reasoned, scientifically supported, threads?

 

Anyone care to guess who we'd lose??? (LOL)

 

So back to the dark ages when if you dared to disagree with so called consensus death was a real possibility.

Some of those deamonised at the time who have been proven right over time: Copernicus 1473-1543, Brahe 1546-1601, Bruno 1548-1600, Galilei 1564-1642

So simple because we don't agree with you please don't treat us as someone to be removed!!!!!

[jonboy]

So back to the dark ages when if you dared to disagree with so called consensus death was a real possibility.

Some of those deamonised at the time who have been proven right over time: Copernicus 1473-1543, Brahe 1546-1601, Bruno 1548-1600, Galilei 1564-1642

So simple because we don't agree with you please don't treat us as someone to be removed!!!!!

 

Intresting that I make this post in the other thread about a censureship post in that thread and it gets moved here!!!! Strikes me unless you are part of the gang then don't go there.

[Methuselah]

A quick reminder to everyone:

 

 

As part of a slightly different approach in the climate area, we're starting this plus 2 other threads with the explicit aim of the threads that members take part in the discussions that best match their own views, and not in the discussions which don't. 

 

The other two threads are:

Man Made Climate Change Discussion

Natural Climate Cycles Discussion

 

Please keep to the thread (or threads) which best suit your views. This should allow for a more reasonable debate for all sides without the need for anyone to be defending their view, or attacking other views. As ever the forum guidelines apply in terms of not disrupting the forum with your posts, so please ensure that doesn't happen. 

 

This is an opportunity for people with similar views to get together, discuss views and related news, refine ideas and opinions and hopefully learn more about the subject at hand. It's also a chance for people who would like to learn more about the subject to read the differing views and  information, which may help them to form opinions and get involved in these or the more general discussions. So please treat these threads with respect.

 

Examples for this thread may include discussing research and information from the various sources which don't subscribe to the IPCC type view on climate change and mans influence on it, sharing views about those, and so on.

 

[jonboy]

Nope, simply insist that in a science debate that you utilise science and not hyperbolic, emotive, political conspiracies and personal attacks.

If someone can't back up their post with scientific evidence in a scientific debate, then they shouldn't be posting in that area.

 

All of which is very different to scientists, utilising scientific evidenced having their discoveries quashed by religious institutions.

It's an unfortunate truth that debates based on scientific evidence are too much for some.

 

Where was the personal attack. Now the above is personal and derogatory talk about pram's and toy's

[jonboy]

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, nor did I make any personal remarks, so how could anything I said be personal and derogatory?

 

My post was general. It's rather simple, if people cannot use scientific evidence in a scientific debate/discussion, then they should be posting elsewhere. If people can use evidence based reasoning and debate in a rational manner, then there'd far less problems.

 

When you quote a particular post it is fair to assume the comments are related to that post. If your post was truely intended to be general then don't use individual quotes.

Back to my original point in that using the examples I did in there time they were extolling new theories without the scientific evidence you so crave which went against the understood believes of their times and they were castigated by those in charge.

I was trying to make the point that simply because a point does not yet have scientific evidence does not automatically make it invalid. Science sometimes needs to catch up with thinking. Without open minds and thought processes then breakthrough's would not occur. So banning. blacklisting people simply because they dare think outside the box is plainly wrong.

[keithlucky]

Greenpeace ESA satelite shows 50 percent ice growth this year http://t.co/ImlnC6g3BO

Edited December 17, 2013 by keithlucky

[jonboy]

Greenpeace ESA satelite shows 50 percent ice growth this year http://t.co/ImlnC6g3BO

 

This is why I have my jar of salt handy. Headline grabbing twaddle and it isn't until you read the finer print do you get to what that 50% really means

[keithlucky]

Global sea ice 2nd highest highest ever recorded highest for 25yrs http://t.co/JYxFKrvxyd

Edited December 19, 2013 by keithlucky

[keithlucky]

Tropics turn wintry http://www.pattayamail.com/news/cold-snap-looms-in-north-northeastern-thailand-33112#sthash.ajG4FPFS.dpuf.Plus North Viethnam goes wintry http://asiancorrespondent.com/117399/cold-snap-brings-an-almost-white-christmas-to-vietnam-thailand/.Noth Africa goes blue And Syria is struggling to cope with the blizzards http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-15/syria-rebel-commander-freezes-to-death-monitor/5157364.Funny how NASA is on about Siberia and inflates the  temperatures data and forgets the rest of the world.

Turkey also has been gripped by severe cold – for weeks. The rocketnews24.com reports: “Turkish cold snap literally freezes animals where they stand.†- See more at: http:/2013/12/19/tropics-go-wintery-northern-thailand-declared-cold-disaster-zone-in-turkey-animals-literally-freeze-where-they-stand-middle-east-shivers/#sthash.RyFnflqw.nF9tXMOp.dpuf

Edited December 19, 2013 by keithlucky

[Interitus]

 

Tropics turn wintry http://www.pattayamail.com/news/cold-snap-looms-in-north-northeastern-thailand-33112#sthash.ajG4FPFS.dpuf.Plus

 

If temperatures are recorded below 15 degrees Celsius for three consecutive days, the province will be declared a disaster zone. 

Extreme winter cold in that part of Thailand is like a spell of our typical summer weather.

[keithlucky]

Tinkering with November so called USA warm November data http://www.weatherbell.com/videos/encoded/1387630105_2.ogg

[jonboy]

So we haven't , over the past 6 months, had numerous posts threatening of another 'mini ice age' driven by a new 'maunder type minimum' Sparks???

 

I know you are sporadic in your appearances on the forum but some here are a little more consistent  in their attendance and, as such , have had to respond to such 'wishcasting' from the 'other place'.

 

The other thing the study highlights is the ability of sulphates and particulates to impact climate in a meaningful way. So  how much does the' Asian impact' currently cool our planet by and will their current bent for cleaner production /use of alternative energy sources make our next warming spurt even greater?

 

NASA put the impacts of pollution at 50% reduction of energy reaching the surface. Combine that with an ice free Arctic and much higher GHG levels and how do you see the resumption in warming panning out???

 

So what has the first got to do with someone's ability to make a post?

So now if we clean up the planet and go green we are going to warm the world so whichever way we look at it we are doomed might as well accept our fate and get the barbie polished

[UV-RAY]

Nowt, just (I suspect) GW meant some posts belong in the 'sceptic' thread.

 

If faced by a serious pandemic humanity wouldn't simply accept our fate, faced by a serious war likewise, but for some reason if, at some point, we're faced by serious man made climate change I've seen many sceptics suggest we should just, pathetically, await our fate. They have surprisingly little 'can do'.

But we are not faced with serious climate change as that is an assumption made only by a few hardcore proponents of AGW. So it's kind of an invalid point really, more so when global surface temps haven't risen for 17 years.