OT Global warming

[harryagain]

[Nightjar]

From a link on that page:

Colin Bignell

[Terry Fields]

"?The scientific delusion, the religion behind the climate crusade, is crumbling,? he wrote in The Australian. ?Global temperatures have gone nowhere for 17 years... If the IPCC were your financial adviser, you would have sacked it long ago.?"

[Brian Gaff]

Well, the increasingly dynamic weather will downgrade the extra energy stored fine I'm sure. I think the term climate change is definitely better than global warming as the latter suggests everyone will be warmer, which is not what the models show, they show more violent weather and more cold and hot places and the in between is where the energy gets expended. Brian

[dennis]

How do you equate that with the fact that warming is slower than predicted as DECC have said.

It proves you can't believe anything a climate scientist says. They will tell you anything that alarms you and will get them more funding.

[Martin Brown]

That is another misleading piece Delingpole a well known paranoid righttard nutter blog and pathological liar about climate change.

[Tim Streater]

These are mere assertions on your part (although they may be true). However I would expect you to justify that:

1) the piece is misleading 2) Delingpole habitually lies

Note that I have not read the piece and don't intend to. However I would draw your attention to one of the opinion pieces in the Times today.

[newshound]

Also, the (older) IEA paper linked by Delingpole seems quite sensible and, as Delingpole says, selecting unreasonable discount rates (Stern) severely skews the predicted best policy.

[Huge]

Oh, Ghod, another 2 hours wasted.

[dennis]

The climate change models don't show any such thing. You are talking about weather not climate and the predictions that

*increased* temperatures will produce worse weather are what the alarmists use to get the uneducated to panic.

The real facts are that the weather isn't particularly bad and most of the storms and such like have been happening for centuries, only the effects are worse due to the larger number of people being affected and the poor decisions on where to live.

What people forget is that flood plains are natures way of controlling floods and if you build on them you will get flooded. What's needed is some sanity and to stop building where you shouldn't and pull the houses down that do flood frequently rather than *moving* the floods to somewhere else by building flood defences.

[Capitol]

We are the UK, we get weather change not climate change. We knew a century ago that weather cycles exist and had even charted them. The romans described the UK as having permanent winter, I don't see any difference.

[Capitol]

You can't do that. Planning departments are infamous for lack of common sense. A relative was plagued by a damp patch on his dining room wall. In desperation, he lifted the floor boards and found that he was looking at his reflection in the water under the floor. By chance, I talked to someone who lived in the area and he said that he wondered what would happen when they built that group of houses on the local duck pond! Relative moved quickly.

[harryagain]

You get your info from Delingpole? Well known nutter. Also believes smoking is harmless and asbestos is the as harmless as talcum powder.

[whisky-dave]

Actually talcum poweder isn't that harmelss. I was told that my grandmother likely death in the ealy 70s could have been due the talcum powder which she used for much of her life, it'd gotten into her lungs which caused her slow death. Of course modern talc might be OK how else would mone get into ones PCV and leather shorts ;-)

[Nightjar]

If you consider one of two articles in the same newspaper to be unreliable, why should the other be any more reliable?

Colin Bignell

[Nightjar]

Both are articles in the same newspaper, which suggests they should be treated as equally believable, or unbelievable, as the case may be.

Colin Bignell

[The Natural Philosopher]

well that's what the acolytes of warmisms call him.

Actually I'd say he was a bright bloke with a lot of style who spotted long ago that people don't normally do ad hominem attacks on other people if they have facts logic and reason behind their propositions.

As you have done.

[The Natural Philosopher]

never caught him at it yet.

Geoffrey lean on the other hand...

But you will dismiss it anyway.

However I

why?

[Tim Streater]

Matt Ridley talking about so-called scientists cherry-picking data to suit themselves and hiding the data that doesn't suit. He was talking about Tamiflu and a number of other pharma incidents but then went on to how the hockey stick graph was based (on two separate occasions) on poor data and if you added other, larger, data sets the hockey-stick effect disappeared.

I quote from The Times of 6/1/2014 P.25:

"Imbued as we are with an instinctive tendency to read meaning into nature, we find it counter-intuitive that many experiments get significant results by chance and that the way to check if this has happened is to repeat the experiment and publish the results.

"To illustrate how far this problem reaches, a few years ago there was a scientific scandal with remarkable similarities, in respect of the non-publishing of negative data, to the Tamiflu scandal. A relentless, independent scientific auditor in Canada named Stephen McIntyre grew suspicious of a graph being promoted by governments to portray today's global temperatures as warming far faster than any in the past 1400 years - the famous hockey stick graph. When he dug into the data behind the graph, to the fury of its authors, especially Michael Mann, he found not only problems with the data and the analysis of it, but a whole directory of results label "CENSORED".

"This proved to contain five calculations of what the graph would have looked like without any tree ring samples from bristlecone pine trees. None of the five grass showed a hockey-stick upturn in the late 20th century. The bristle-cone pine was well known to have grown larger tree rings in recent years for non-climates reasons: goats tearing the bark which regrew rapidly and extra carbon dioxide making trees grow faster.

"Mr McIntyre later unearthed the same problem when the hockey stick graph was relaunched to overcome his critique, with Siberian Larch trees instead of bristlecone. This time, the lead author, Keith Briffra, of the University of East Anglia, had used only a small sample of 12 larch trees for recent years, ignoring a much larger data set of the same age from the same region. If the analysis was repeated with all the larch trees there was no hockey-stick shape to the graph."

[dennis]

From a link on that page:

Colin Bignell

Talcum powder is dangerous, its also probably carcinogenic.