So maybe it's the Sun who is killing the Ice Caps?

[kerplunk]

Guybrush said:

nonegreen said:

Mondeohdear said:

Guybrush said:

I'd disagree with one thing in the article, it's not a "small group of mavericks", it's a large body of scientists.

No it's not. The majority of climate scientists are pro, the small group of mavericks ( I love that term, it makes them sound sexy and rebellious instead of just wrong ) are agin.

A lot of the climate scientists are civil servants with non science degrees. Or even no degree, which these days makes you pretty thick. Bear in mind a lot of earth science graduates work for oil companies and their views are therefore seen as biased. It would be nice to see a proper breakdown but the politcoes just keep banging out the same stuff about the majority of climate scientists. I bet if we broke that down into scientists and sciuntistsright!!! who have been to collige. We might see a hard core of a handful of scientists and lot of manipulative civil service grades writing the IPCC exec summaries.

This website may interest you. Contains various lists of climate scientists and also 'sceptic' signatory lists etc

Table of all 619 IPCC AR4 Working Group 1 ("The scientific basis") contributing authors, their PhD years, area of expertise, number of works, citations, affiliations etc:

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/AR4wg1_...

(my careful evaluation - bunch o' flippin' show offs!)


You may have heard of the "NIPCC" sceptic report? Below list of the 40 authors for that with profile details as above list:

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/NIPCC_a...

(my careful evaluation - bunch o'... well you tell me )

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 19th November 15:41

[turbobloke]

That looks incomplete to me.

Why doesn't it also list all agw related grant funding totals: past, present and future bids?

Or a risk register relating to reputation longevity?

Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 19th November 16:19

[kerplunk]

The data was there but it was spirited away in a black helicopter and hidden under a pile of grant cheques at the IPCC's secret HQ inside a dormant Margaret Thatcher from which they orchestrate world affairs...

Obviously.

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 19th November 16:31

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

The data was there but it was spirited away in a black helicopter and hidden under a pile of grant cheques at the IPCC's secret HQ inside a dormant Margaret Thatcher from which they orchestrate world affairs...

Obviously.

I wish that were true

Or that it was published by mistake then spirited away under some clandestime secrecy agreement when nobody was looking, only to find that a motoring organisation and a couple of other outfits had already got hold of the data and used it.

Nah too far-fetched

[ludo]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

The data was there but it was spirited away in a black helicopter and hidden under a pile of grant cheques at the IPCC's secret HQ inside a dormant Margaret Thatcher from which they orchestrate world affairs...

Obviously.

I wish that were true

Or that it was published by mistake then spirited away under some clandestime secrecy agreement when nobody was looking, only to find that a motoring organisation and a couple of other outfits had already got hold of the data and used it.

Nah too far-fetched

very clandestine, this hiding dangerous graphs away in the pages of the International Journal of Climatology, where skeptics will never find them!

[turbobloke]

ludo said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

The data was there but it was spirited away in a black helicopter and hidden under a pile of grant cheques at the IPCC's secret HQ inside a dormant Margaret Thatcher from which they orchestrate world affairs...

Obviously.

I wish that were true

Or that it was published by mistake then spirited away under some clandestime secrecy agreement when nobody was looking, only to find that a motoring organisation and a couple of other outfits had already got hold of the data and used it.

Nah too far-fetched

very clandestine, this hiding dangerous graphs away in the pages of the International Journal of Climatology, where skeptics will never find them!

Sloppy again.

The posts you responded to (badly) mentioned DATA not a representation.

It's in bold above for you to notice this time.

Amazing you can see an invisible human signal in global climate data with established cause and effect to anthropogenic carbon dioxide when it's not there, but fail to see visible post content from people who don't agree with you - and now, those that do.

[ludo]

turbobloke said:

ludo said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

The data was there but it was spirited away in a black helicopter and hidden under a pile of grant cheques at the IPCC's secret HQ inside a dormant Margaret Thatcher from which they orchestrate world affairs...

Obviously.

I wish that were true

Or that it was published by mistake then spirited away under some clandestime secrecy agreement when nobody was looking, only to find that a motoring organisation and a couple of other outfits had already got hold of the data and used it.

Nah too far-fetched

very clandestine, this hiding dangerous graphs away in the pages of the International Journal of Climatology, where skeptics will never find them!

Sloppy again.

The post you responded to (badly) mentioned DATA not a representation.

Poor turbs can't take a joke at his expense? Surely not!

The paper explains exactly how the "representation" is produced from the raw data. Any academic can get free access to the data, surely the skeptic camp has a few of those? You could probably get them as a private citizen from the MetOffice if you asked nicely. So since you have no sense of humour, then mine will fail as well and I'll point out that the data are available and any competent scientist would be able to reproduce the plot. So why didn't you?

Note Guam says that it is handbags at midnight if you complain about a sentence with a " " at the end (or words to that effect_, it will be interesting to see if that works the other way round

[turbobloke]

ludo said:

turbobloke said:

ludo said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

The data was there but it was spirited away in a black helicopter and hidden under a pile of grant cheques at the IPCC's secret HQ inside a dormant Margaret Thatcher from which they orchestrate world affairs...

Obviously.

I wish that were true

Or that it was published by mistake then spirited away under some clandestime secrecy agreement when nobody was looking, only to find that a motoring organisation and a couple of other outfits had already got hold of the data and used it.

Nah too far-fetched

very clandestine, this hiding dangerous graphs away in the pages of the International Journal of Climatology, where skeptics will never find them!

Sloppy again.

The post you responded to (badly) mentioned DATA not a representation.

Blah

No complaint - just an observation with accurate description, based on evidence and redolent of a significant trend.

[ludo]

turbobloke said:

ludo said:

turbobloke said:

ludo said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

The data was there but it was spirited away in a black helicopter and hidden under a pile of grant cheques at the IPCC's secret HQ inside a dormant Margaret Thatcher from which they orchestrate world affairs...

Obviously.

I wish that were true

Or that it was published by mistake then spirited away under some clandestime secrecy agreement when nobody was looking, only to find that a motoring organisation and a couple of other outfits had already got hold of the data and used it.

Nah too far-fetched

very clandestine, this hiding dangerous graphs away in the pages of the International Journal of Climatology, where skeptics will never find them!

Sloppy again.

The post you responded to (badly) mentioned DATA not a representation.

Blah

No complaint - just an observation with accurate description, based on evidence and redolent of a significant trend.

Translation:

turbobloke said:

st, he's right, the raw data was available all along, the plot was published secretively in the International Journal of Climatology, with full instructions, and if I had been a competent scientist, I would have been able to reproduce it. At the very least I would have been able to say exactly what was shown on the plot I was using to make a point on the ABD website. I know, I'll just edit his comment out and bluster a bit, nobody will ever notice!

[turbobloke]

ludo said:

turbobloke said:

ludo said:

turbobloke said:

ludo said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

The data was there but it was spirited away in a black helicopter and hidden under a pile of grant cheques at the IPCC's secret HQ inside a dormant Margaret Thatcher from which they orchestrate world affairs...

Obviously.

I wish that were true

Or that it was published by mistake then spirited away under some clandestime secrecy agreement when nobody was looking, only to find that a motoring organisation and a couple of other outfits had already got hold of the data and used it.

Nah too far-fetched

very clandestine, this hiding dangerous graphs away in the pages of the International Journal of Climatology, where skeptics will never find them!

Sloppy again.

The post you responded to (badly) mentioned DATA not a representation.

Blah

No complaint - just an observation with accurate description, based on evidence and redolent of a significant trend.

Translation: I really must read posts more carefully.

EFA

[ludo]

turbobloke said:

ludo said:

turbobloke said:

ludo said:

turbobloke said:

ludo said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

The data was there but it was spirited away in a black helicopter and hidden under a pile of grant cheques at the IPCC's secret HQ inside a dormant Margaret Thatcher from which they orchestrate world affairs...

Obviously.

I wish that were true

Or that it was published by mistake then spirited away under some clandestime secrecy agreement when nobody was looking, only to find that a motoring organisation and a couple of other outfits had already got hold of the data and used it.

Nah too far-fetched

very clandestine, this hiding dangerous graphs away in the pages of the International Journal of Climatology, where skeptics will never find them!

Sloppy again.

The post you responded to (badly) mentioned DATA not a representation.

Blah

No complaint - just an observation with accurate description, based on evidence and redolent of a significant trend.

Translation: I really must read posts more carefully.

EFA

Shame I was expecting you to edit out what I had written and bluster some more to hide the fact that the data is actually available and the graph was so secret that it had been published in the IJC. I never expected you to go for the old EFA trick instead to try and cover up some inconvenient truths!

[turbobloke]

Bearing in mind the location and timing (now) this is an interesting piece to find.

Climate Change Hysteria

There's even something about ice in it.

[odyssey2200]

Guam said:

turbobloke said:

Bearing in mind the location and timing (now) this is an interesting piece to find.

Climate Change Hysteria

There's even something about ice in it.

There you go Ludo, its the Royal Horticultural society wot done it.

Those inconsiderate bds screwing up the planet using carbon pressure greenhouses to facilitate plant growth, I sincerely hope someone will send the "boys" round to Physic Gardens to set them straight how very dare they

"As a horticulturist I am quite happy working in propagating facilities using 2,400 ppm – 3,000 ppm CO2, which is a common practice in nurseries and propagating facilities worldwide, as plants respond quicker, make faster growth, and require less water at those levels."

Edited by Guam on Thursday 19th November 18:26

Could those be the same plants that feed people?

[Mondeohdear]

Guam said:

turbobloke said:

Bearing in mind the location and timing (now) this is an interesting piece to find.

Climate Change Hysteria

There's even something about ice in it.

There you go Ludo, its the Royal Horticultural society wot done it.

Those inconsiderate bds screwing up the planet using carbon pressure greenhouses to facilitate plant growth, I sincerely hope someone will send the "boys" round to Physic Gardens to set them straight how very dare they

"As a horticulturist I am quite happy working in propagating facilities using 2,400 ppm – 3,000 ppm CO2, which is a common practice in nurseries and propagating facilities worldwide, as plants respond quicker, make faster growth, and require less water at those levels."

Edited by Guam on Thursday 19th November 18:26

Is that why it's called the greenhouse effect then?

[JacksHereR]

soz i cldnt be *** to read the thread, is anyone here mentioning the earths seasons? like 4 seasons in a year the earths rotations on a 25000 year cycle, until theres 25k years of weather recording we dont know whats normal climate.
Noahs ark anyone?
Poles changing positions etc

[odyssey2200]

JacksHereR said:

Noahs ark anyone?
Poles changing positions etc

All your fault for having a car!

HTH