It's Bloody Cold Here - Is Global Warming All Over?

andykn

FantomX wrote: »

Anyone spot the typical attack here? If you don't agree with Climate Change or whatever then you are a denier?

Er, that's because they mostly deny that the earth is warming, or deny that CO2 can warm at all, or deny that man is causing the increase in CO2...

And lets not forget the masses of data that this knob refers too...i.e. data that has been manipulated and has never been released for peer review?

That's a lie. All the raw data is available.

Also, what of the CRU and the now descredited hockey stick graph?

"Discredited" as in reproduced by at least 11 other independent hockey sticks.

ILW

andykn wrote: »

Er, that's because they mostly deny that the earth is warming, or deny that CO2 can warm at all, or deny that man is causing the increase in CO2...

That's a lie. All the raw data is available.
"Discredited" as in reproduced by at least 11 other independent hockey sticks.

Please can you address the issue regarding the disregarding of data that did not support the theory, this was documented and to my mind it makes any conclusions totally worthless as well as calling into question the motivation of these so called experts.

andykn

FantomX wrote: »

No the only scam going on is the Global Cooling...erm I mean...Global Warming...err no hang on...err...ah yes, Climate Change scam! The fact that the scam continues to alter it's name just goes to show that it is indeed a huge SCAM!

But didn't we cleverly hide the prior existence of the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming. It's like it never existed and your post is rubbish.

andykn

ILW wrote: »

So what exactly are the dire consequences if it is all true. I seem to remember being told we would have Med temperatures in the south of England by now and be growing grapes and all getting malaria. What went wrong?

You got your science from The Sun, not scientists, that's what went wrong.

Linton

ILW wrote: »

So what exactly are the dire consequences if it is all true. I seem to remember being told we would have Med temperatures in the south of England by now and be growing grapes and all getting malaria. What went wrong?

Please give a reference to this prediction you quote. On the mosquito front I can supply a reference http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/Misreprestn_Views/IPCC/MalariaAndProcesses.htm to very cautious scientific views on malaria.

The actual published predictions tend to be for the next 50-100 years. You need that sort of timescale to differentiate between long term trends and the wildy random fluctuations in the weather.

As to the consequences - apart from the calculable physical one of sea level rising I dont believe anyone can really say. This is seriously worrying the low lying countries such as the Maldives (max 50ft above sea level). But the biological consequences are much more difficult to predict - you need a spare world on which to carry out experiments.

andykn

ILW wrote: »

Do any of the supporters have any comment on that?

Yes, he wasn't discredited, the Oxburgh enquiry cleared him.

andykn

ILW wrote: »

Please can you address the issue regarding the disregarding of data that did not support the theory, this was documented and to my mind it makes any conclusions totally worthless as well as calling into question the motivation of these so called experts.

An email taken out of context is not "documented"

ILW

Linton wrote: »

Please give a reference to this prediction you quote. On the mosquito front I can supply a reference http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/Misreprestn_Views/IPCC/MalariaAndProcesses.htm to very cautious scientific views on malaria.

The actual published predictions tend to be for the next 50-100 years. You need that sort of timescale to differentiate between long term trends and the wildy random fluctuations in the weather.

As to the consequences - apart from the calculable physical one of sea level rising I dont believe anyone can really say. This is seriously worrying the low lying countries such as the Maldives (max 50ft above sea level). But the biological consequences are much more difficult to predict - you need a spare world on which to carry out experiments.

So it is just as likely that it would be for the good as for the bad? Just different.

ILW

andykn wrote: »

An email taken out of context is not "documented"

Are you saying that the email did not advise to disregard what was considered "negative" data?

FantomX

Linton wrote: »

Oh dear, you clearly have never programmed a computer in your life.

Blah

Come on now...you're writing total nonsense! It's a scam and you're part of the scam...expect you do it all for free! Well done!